Editing Kansas–Nebraska Act (section)

===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>