Editing Kansas–Nebraska Act (section)

==Congressional action==
{{see also|Presidency of Franklin Pierce}}
===Introduction of Nebraska bill===
The bill was reported to the main body of the Senate on January 4, 1854. It had been modified by Douglas, who had also authored the [[New Mexico Territory]] and [[Utah Territory]] Acts, to mirror the language from the [[Compromise of 1850]]. In the bill, a vast new [[Nebraska Territory]] was created to extend from Kansas north to the [[49th parallel north# Canada – United States border|49th]] [[Circle of latitude|parallel]], the [[Canada–United States border|US–Canada border]]. A large portion of Nebraska Territory would soon be split off into [[Dakota Territory]] (1861), and smaller portions transferred to [[Colorado Territory]] (1861) and [[Idaho Territory]] (1863) before the balance of the land became the [[State of Nebraska]] in 1867.{{cn|date=May 2022}}

Furthermore, any decisions on slavery in the new lands were to be made "when admitted as a state or states, the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."<ref>Johanssen p. 405</ref> In a report accompanying the bill, Douglas's committee wrote that the Utah and New Mexico Acts: {{Blockquote|... were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all times to come, avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the question of slavery from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and committing it to the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible for its consequences.<ref name="Johanssen p. 406">Johanssen p. 406</ref>}}

The report compared the situation in New Mexico and Utah with the situation in Nebraska. In the first instance, many had argued that slavery had previously been prohibited under [[Mexican law]], just as it was prohibited in Nebraska under the Missouri Compromise. Just as the creation of New Mexico and Utah territories had not ruled on the validity of Mexican law on the acquired territory, the Nebraska bill was neither "affirming nor repealing ... the Missouri act". In other words, popular sovereignty was being established by ignoring, rather than addressing, the problem presented by the Missouri Compromise.<ref name="Johanssen p. 406"/>

[[File: Stephen Arnold Douglas.jpg|thumb|Stephen A. Douglas – "The great principle of self-government is at stake, and surely the people of this country are never going to decide that the principle upon which our whole republican system rests is vicious and wrong."<ref>Holt (1978) p. 145</ref>]]
Douglas's attempt to finesse his way around the Missouri Compromise did not work. Kentucky [[Whig Party (United States)|Whig]] [[Archibald Dixon]] believed that unless the Missouri Compromise was explicitly repealed, slaveholders would be reluctant to move to the new territory until slavery was approved by the settlers, who would most likely oppose slavery. On January 16 Dixon surprised Douglas by introducing an amendment that would repeal the section of the Missouri Compromise that prohibited slavery north of the 36°30' parallel. Douglas met privately with Dixon and in the end, despite his misgivings on Northern reaction, agreed to accept Dixon's arguments.<ref>Nevins pp. 95–96</ref>

A similar amendment was offered in the House by [[Philip Phillips (lawyer)|Philip Phillips]] of Alabama. With the encouragement of the "F Street Mess", Douglas met with them and Phillips to ensure that the momentum for passing the bill remained with the Democratic Party. They arranged to meet with President [[Franklin Pierce]] to ensure that the issue would be declared a test of party loyalty within the Democratic Party.<ref>Johanssen pp. 412–413. Cooper pp. 350–351</ref>

===Meeting with Pierce===
Pierce was not enthusiastic about the implications of repealing the Missouri Compromise and had barely referred to Nebraska in his [[State of the Union]] message delivered December 5, 1853, just a month before. Close advisors Senator [[Lewis Cass]] of Michigan, a proponent of popular sovereignty as far back as 1848 as an alternative to the [[Wilmot Proviso]], and Secretary of State [[William L. Marcy]] both told Pierce that repeal would create serious political problems. The full cabinet met and only Secretary of War [[Jefferson Davis]] and Secretary of Navy [[James C. Dobbin]] supported repeal. Instead, the president and cabinet submitted to Douglas an alternative plan that would have sought out a judicial ruling on the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. Both Pierce and Attorney General [[Caleb Cushing]] believed that the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional.<ref>Potter p. 161. Johanssen pp. 413–414</ref>

Douglas's committee met later that night. Douglas was agreeable to the proposal, but the Atchison group was not. Determined to offer the repeal to Congress on January 23 but reluctant to act without Pierce's commitment, Douglas arranged through Davis to meet with Pierce on January 22 even though it was a Sunday when Pierce generally refrained from conducting any business. Douglas was accompanied at the meeting by Atchison, Hunter, Phillips, and [[John C. Breckinridge]] of Kentucky.<ref>Potter p. 161. Johanssen p. 414</ref>

Douglas and Atchison first met alone with Pierce before the whole group convened. Pierce was persuaded to support repeal, and at Douglas' insistence, Pierce provided a written draft, asserting that the Missouri Compromise had been made inoperative by the principles of the Compromise of 1850. Pierce later informed his cabinet, which concurred with the change of direction.<ref>Johanssen pp. 414–415</ref> The ''Washington Union'', the communications organ for the administration, wrote on January 24 that support for the bill would be "a test of Democratic orthodoxy".<ref>Foner p. 156</ref>

===Debate in Senate===
On January 23, a revised bill was introduced in the Senate that repealed the Missouri Compromise and split the unorganized land into two new territories: Kansas and Nebraska. The division was the result of concerns expressed by settlers already in Nebraska as well as the senators from Iowa, who were concerned with the location of the territory's seat of government if such a large territory were created. Existing language to affirm the application of all other laws of the United States in the new territory was supplemented by the language agreed on with Pierce: "except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820 [the [[Missouri Compromise]]], which was superseded by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures [the [[Compromise of 1850]]], and is declared inoperative." Identical legislation was soon introduced in the House.<ref>Johanssen pp. 415–417</ref>

[[File:Forcing slavery down the throat of a freesoiler (1856) (cropped).tif|thumb|'' Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Freesoiler''. An 1854 cartoon depicts a giant [[Free Soil Party|free soiler]] being held down by [[James Buchanan]] and [[Lewis Cass]], standing on the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] platform of making slave states out of "[[Kansas]]", "[[Cuba]]", and "[[Central America]]". [[Franklin Pierce]] also holds down the giant's beard, as [[Stephen A. Douglas]] shoves a black man down his throat.]]
Historian [[Allan Nevins]] wrote that the country then became convulsed with two interconnected battles over [[slavery in the United States|slavery]]. A political battle was being fought in Congress over the question of slavery in the new states that were coming. At the same time, there was a moral debate. Southerners claimed that [[pro-slavery|slavery was beneficent]], endorsed by the Bible, and generally good policy, whose expansion must be supported. The publications and speeches of [[abolitionism in the United States|abolitionists]], some of them former slaves themselves, were telling Northerners that the supposed beneficence of slavery was a Southern lie, and that enslaving another person was un-Christian, a horrible sin that must be fought. Both battles were "fought with a pertinacity, bitterness, and rancor unknown even in [[Wilmot Proviso]] days". The [[freesoilers]] were at a distinct disadvantage in Congress. The Democrats held large majorities in each house, and Douglas, "a ferocious fighter, the fiercest, most ruthless, and most unscrupulous that Congress had perhaps ever known", led a tightly disciplined party. In the nation at large, the opponents of Nebraska hoped to achieve a moral victory. The ''[[New York Times]]'', which had earlier supported Pierce, predicted that this would be the last straw for Northern supporters of the slavery forces and would "create a deep-seated, intense, and ineradicable hatred of the institution which will crush its political power, at all hazards, and at any cost".<ref>Nevins p. 111</ref>

The day after the bill was reintroduced, two Ohioans, Representative [[Joshua Reed Giddings|Joshua Giddings]] and Senator [[Salmon P. Chase]], published a free-soil response, "[[Appeal of the Independent Democrats]] in Congress to the People of the United States":  {{quote|We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from vast unoccupied region immigrants from the Old World and free laborers from our States, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves.<ref>Nevins pp. 111–112. Johanssen p. 418</ref>}}

Douglas took the appeal personally and responded in Congress, when the debate was opened on January 30 before a full House and packed gallery. Douglas biographer Robert W. Johanssen described part of the speech:  {{quote|Douglas charged the authors of the "Appeal", whom he referred to throughout as the "Abolitionist confederates", with having perpetrated a "base falsehood" in their protest. He expressed his sense of betrayal, recalling that Chase, "with a smiling face and the appearance of friendship", had appealed for a postponement of debate on the ground that he had not yet familiarized himself with the bill. "Little did I suppose at the time that I granted that act of courtesy", Douglas remarked, that Chase and his compatriots had published a document "in which they arraigned me as having been guilty of a criminal betrayal of my trust", of bad faith, and of plotting against the cause of free government. While other Senators were attending divine worship, they had been "assembled in a secret conclave", devoting the Sabbath to their own conspiratorial and deceitful purposes.<ref>Johanssen p. 420</ref>}}

The debate would continue for four months, as many [[Anti-Nebraska movement|Anti-Nebraska]] political rallies were held across the north. Douglas remained the main advocate for the bill while Chase, [[William H. Seward|William Seward]], of New York, and [[Charles Sumner]], of Massachusetts, led the opposition. The ''[[New-York Tribune]]'' wrote on March 2:  {{quote|The unanimous sentiment of the North is indignant resistance. ... The whole population is full of it. The feeling in 1848 was far inferior to this in strength and universality.<ref>Nevins p. 121</ref>}}

[[File:Samuel houston.jpg|thumb|[[Sam Houston]] from Texas was one of the few southern opponents of the Kansas–Nebraska Act. In the debate, he urged, "''Maintain the Missouri Compromise!'' Stir not up agitation! Give us peace!"<ref>Nevins p. 144</ref>]]
[[File:AlexStephens.jpg|thumb|left|Alexander Stephens from Georgia – "Nebraska is through the House. I took the reins in my hand, applied the whip and spur, and brought the 'wagon' out at eleven o'clock P.M. Glory enough for one day."<ref name="Nevins p. 156">Nevins p. 156</ref>]]
The debate in the Senate concluded on March 4, 1854, when Douglas, beginning near midnight on March 3, made a five-and-a-half-hour speech. The final vote in favor of passage was 37 to 14.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/33-1/s52|title=To Pass S. 22. – Senate Vote No. 52 – Mar 3, 1854|website=GovTrack.us|access-date=May 3, 2019|archive-date=May 3, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190503033614/https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/33-1/s52|url-status=live}}</ref> Free-state senators voted 14 to 12 in favor, and slave-state senators supported the bill 23 to 2.<ref>Potter p. 165. The vote occurred at 3:30 a.m. and many senators, including Houston, had retired for the night. Estimates on what the vote might have been with all still in attendance vary from 40–20 to 42–18. Nevins p. 145</ref>

===Debate in House of Representatives===
On March 21, 1854, as a delaying tactic in the House of Representatives, the legislation was referred by a vote of 110 to 95 to the [[Committee of the Whole (United States House of Representatives)|Committee of the Whole]], where it was the last item on the calendar. Realizing from the vote to stall that the act faced an uphill struggle, the [[Pierce administration]] made it clear to all Democrats that passage of the bill was essential to the party and would dictate how federal [[Patronage#Politics|patronage]] would be handled. Davis and Cushing, from Massachusetts, along with Douglas, spearheaded the partisan efforts.<ref>Nevins p. 154</ref> By the end of April, Douglas believed that there were enough votes to pass the bill. The House leadership then began a series of roll call votes in which legislation ahead of the Kansas–Nebraska Act was called to the floor and tabled without debate.<ref>Potter p. 166</ref>

[[Thomas Hart Benton (senator)|Thomas Hart Benton]] was among those speaking forcefully against the measure. On April 25, in a House speech that biographer William Nisbet Chambers called "long, passionate, historical, [and] polemical", Benton attacked the repeal of the [[Missouri Compromise]], which he "had stood upon ... above thirty years, and intended to stand upon it to the end—solitary and alone, if need be; but preferring company". The speech was distributed afterward as a pamphlet when opposition to the action moved outside the walls of Congress.<ref>Chambers p. 401</ref>

It was not until May 8 that the debate began in the House. The debate was even more intense than in the Senate. While it seemed to be a foregone conclusion that the bill would pass, the opponents went all out to fight it.<ref>Nevins pp. 154–155</ref> Historian Michael Morrison wrote:

[[File: Thomas Hart Benton (senator) 2.jpg|thumb|Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri – "What is the excuse for all this turmoil and mischief? We are told it is to keep the question of slavery out of Congress! Great God! It was out of Congress, completely, entirely, and forever out of Congress, unless Congress dragged it in by breaking down the sacred laws which settled it!"<ref name="Nevins p. 156"/>]]

{{quote|A filibuster led by [[Lewis D. Campbell]], an Ohio [[Free Soil|free-soiler]], nearly provoked the House into a war of more than words. Campbell, joined by other antislavery northerners, exchanged insults and invectives with southerners, neither side giving quarter. Weapons were brandished on the floor of the House. Finally, bumptiousness gave way to violence. [[Henry A. Edmundson]], a Virginia [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrat]], [[drunk|well oiled]] and well-armed, had to be restrained from making a violent attack on Campbell. Only after the sergeant at arms arrested him, the debate was cut off, and the House adjourned did the melee subside.<ref>Morrison p. 154</ref>}}

The floor debate was handled by [[Alexander Stephens]], of Georgia, who insisted that the Missouri Compromise had never been a true compromise but had been imposed on the South. He argued that the issue was whether republican principles, "that the citizens of every distinct community or State should have the right to govern themselves in their domestic matters as they please", would be honored.<ref>Nevins p. 155</ref>

The final House vote in favor of the bill was 113 to 100.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/33-1/h309 |title=To Pass H.R. 236. (P. 1254). – House Vote No. 309 – May 22, 1854 |website=GovTrack.us |access-date=May 3, 2019 |archive-date=May 3, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190503033613/https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/33-1/h309 |url-status=live }}</ref> Northern Democrats supported the bill 44 to 42, but all 45 northern Whigs opposed it. Southern Democrats voted in favor by 57 to 2, and Southern Whigs supported it by 12 to 7.<ref>Nevins pp. 156–157</ref>

===Enactment===
President [[Franklin Pierce]] signed the Kansas–Nebraska Act into law on May 30, 1854.<ref name="auto"/><ref name="senate.gov">{{cite web |url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Kansas_Nebraska_Act.htm |title=U.S. Senate: The Kansas–Nebraska Act |website=www.senate.gov |access-date=2019-03-12 |archive-date=2019-03-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190329002617/https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Kansas_Nebraska_Act.htm |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.americanheritage.com/content/pierce-signs-kansas-nebraska-act |title=Pierce signs the Kansas–Nebraska Act |first=Lee |last=Sutton |website=American Heritage |access-date=2019-03-12 |archive-date=2019-03-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190331183237/https://www.americanheritage.com/content/pierce-signs-kansas-nebraska-act |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=Alexander2023>{{cite web |url=https://www.legendsofamerica.com/ks-bleedingkansas/ |first=Kathy |last=Alexander |title=Bleeding Kansas and the Missouri Border War |work=Legends of America |date=January 2023 |access-date=March 5, 2024 |quote=The Kansas-Nebraska Act also repealed the Missouri Compromise and reopened the issue of extending slavery north, allowing the two territories to decide the matter. As a result, settlement of the state was spurred, not so much by westward expansion as by the determination of both pro-slavery and abolitionist factions to achieve a majority population in the territory.}}</ref> This act repealed the [[Missouri Compromise]], "substituting for the ban on slavery what Douglas called 'popular sovereignty' ... arous[ing] a storm of protest throughout the North".<ref>[[Eric Foner|Foner, Eric]]. ''[[The Fiery Trial]]: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery''. W. W. Norton & Company, 2010, p. 63.</ref>