Introduction

When one considers the quiddity of a compromise, concepts of peace, social restoration, and mutual agreement often come to mind. It is true that in the history of mankind, compromises have been instituted among nations and citizens to heal old wounds, revitalize relationships, and solve seemingly transcendental animosities. However, while many of these concessions have undoubtedly succeeded in the world’s quest for unity, the façade of the utopian compromise is not without its flaws, and the outcomes of its misled applications have been anything but restorative in their manifestation in history.

The American Civil War, in which an estimated 620,000 lives were lost, emblematizes the stark reality of how failed compromises can sway the societal pendulum in disastrous ways. It is indeed ominously ironic to consider how a century’s old debate over slavery escalated so quickly into a rampant war during the same era in which compromises were instituted to prevent such violence. In fact, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, though conceived to resolve slavery territory disputes via popular sovereignty, inadvertently escalated societal conflicts, further disunited political parties, and acted as a primary catalyst for the Civil War.

Compromise Precedents

By 1854, Americans had grown “…tired of demagogical clamor -- tired of scheming politicians, who would recklessly venture upon any project, no matter what consequences might follow in its train" [1]. In essence, Americans recognized the government’s inability to formulate coherent slavery laws and thus took it upon themselves to rival for ideological dominance.

 Governmental strife became apparent with the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Prior to this era, Americans had been living in an epoch of “good feelings” under a unified Jeffersonian democracy [2], where the Senate and House were balanced in slave and free-state representation. However, with the Louisiana Purchase and Missouri’s appeal for statehood, the government faced the unsettling issue of offsetting its representative balance. In subsequent deliberation, politicians debated over whether to align with the utilitarian Constitutional ideology, which left the decision of slavery to individual states, or to follow the Declaration of Independence’s egalitarian outlook of working towards an equalized nation. Though social animosities  surfaced during the Compromise’s conception, most notably expressed through Howell Cobb’s fear that the Missouri Compromise had “…kindled a fire that only seas of blood can extinguish” [3], a sectional concession where slavery was prohibited above but permitted below a 36’’ 30’ latitude line succeeded in postponing civil conflicts. Furthermore, through preserving the free and slave state balance in Congress,  the Missouri Compromise remained without contention for a quarter of a century and became “canonized in the hearts of the American people, as a sacred thing which no hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb.” [4]

In 1840s, with the onset of the Mexican-American War and its prospects of western expansion, Americans were re-confronted with the issue of slavery dictation, since the land acquired between Texas and California fell outside the Missouri Line’s domain. In 1846, Northern Democrat David Wilmot advocated for Congress to “exclude slavery from any territory that in the future might be acquired from Mexico" [5] Though the Wilmot Proviso failed, it set a precedent for anti-slavery sentiments that would be emulated by abolitionists in confrontations incited by the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

The Compromise of 1850, developed by Southern Senator Henry Clay, transformed the process of state admittance by introducing the concept of popular sovereignty, which would foreshadow the Kansas-Nebraska Act premises. Through numerous concessions on both sides of the slavery dispute, the Act admitted California as a free state, while Utah and New Mexico were acquired “without the adoption of any stipulation on the subject of slavery" [4]. Working in tandem with this Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Act was enacted to protect Southern interests by imposing penalties on Northerners who failed to return fugitive slaves to their owners. Though embodying a mutual agreement, the Compromise of 1850 faced widespread opposition largely driven by the Fugitive Slave Act, demonstrated by Northern Reverend Loguen’s famous defiance, “I don't respect this law—I don't fear it—I won't obey it! It outlaws me, and I outlaw it…” [6] It became clear that social and political tensions would soon strain beyond recuperation.

Stephen Douglas: The Architect

            “… If there is any one principle dearer and more sacred than all others in free governments, it is that which asserts the exclusive right of a free people to form and adopt their own fundamental law, and to manage and regulate their own internal affairs and domestic institutions" [7] This call for a “true democracy” by Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas in 1858 reflected his role as the architect of popular sovereignty in the Union.

 Ambition, expansionism, and peace drove Douglas’ political initiatives and made him the face of the Democratic cause. Utilizing his gregarious and authoritative nature, Douglas gained trust and popularity among elite politicians and served two terms in the House of Representatives before rising to prominence in the Senate.

In his political tenure, Douglas witnessed firsthand the malignancies emerging in America’s legislature and in the nation’s dividing society. Serving as the head of the Committees on Territories and drafting integral clauses of the Compromise of 1850, Douglas gained experience in managing mounting sectional conflicts and applied the lessons learned from preceding Congressional settlements to his forthcoming Kansas-Nebraska Bill.

Kansas-Nebraska Act Justification

       The Kansas-Nebraska act arguably embodied the most liberal interpretation of democracy by allowing “the right of the citizens of a territory to permit or prohibit slavery" [7]. As the Act’s architect, Douglas not only legitimized his party’s platform, but also established his neutrality towards slavery, which would aid in appealing to large populations in his future aspirational Presidency.

      Furthermore, Douglas desired to prorogue what he ruminated as “…a war of the free States against the slave States -- a war of extermination to be continued relentlessly until one or the other shall be subdued" [7]. In doing so, he conceptualized popular sovereignty to “… achieve the great object of removing from Congressional interference in the slavery question -- and leave its settlement in the territories to those who are directly involved…” [9]

       Finally, and most controversially, Douglas was an avid businessman and investor in the lucrative Transcontinental Railroad construction and its real-estate ventures, and thus sought to quickly organize the Kansas and Nebraska territories in order to continue the railroad development through these new lands [8].

Act Implications

            In proposing popular sovereignty, Douglas’s progressive concession superseded past legislative actions, exchanging slavery determination via geographical location for state voting processes.

            Primary contention over the Act arose through its declaration that The Missouri Compromise was “… inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery... hereby declared inoperative and void" [10] Instead, Douglas firmly believed that, “Whenever you put a limitation upon the right of any people to decide what laws they want, you have destroyed the fundamental principle of self-government" [8] The act thereby revoked what was considered a fundamental law of compromise between the North and the South.

                 After five months of contentious deliberation, the Kansas-Nebraska Act became law on May 30th, 1854, and almost instantly began blazing the nation’s path to civil demise. As Douglas himself predicted about the Act: “… I know it will raise a hell of a storm" [3]

A Race for Dominance

The addition of new territories via westward migration incited social strife because of its potential to sway the political representation of free versus slave states. The Kansas-Nebraska Bill revivified this anxiety since its institution of popular sovereignty left uncertainty over the slavery status of the two states until admission into the Union.

 While Nebraska saw little repercussion of the Act due to economic weakness, Kansas possessed fertile and promising provinces, and thus attracted primary strife. “Attention from all sides was directed upon Kansas, which at once became the favorite goal of emigration" [11]. While this statement delivered by anti-slavery proponent Charles Sumner is true, it was more specifically Kansas’s first state legislature election in the fall of 1854 that opened the floodgate of emigration and ushered rivaling forces into the new territory in a race for dominance.

In the words of pro-slavery Senator David Atchison, "The prosperity or the ruin of the whole South depends on the Kansas struggle" [12] Using his vociferous influence, Atchison set the stage for aggression by leading over 1700 Missourians to Kansas to vote illegally in the territory’s 1854 legislature election and establish a pro-slavery council. Earning the infamous “Border Ruffians” title, these Missourians aimed for prepotence "with the bayonet and with blood…” and by killing “… every God-damned abolitionist in the district" [12] With Congress divided, the national government turned a blind eye to these unconstitutional actions, thereby dooming all potential of the Act’s success.

 At the time of the Border Ruffians crusade, Kansas possessed a predominantly anti-slavery population who lived under the liberal motto, "We want no slaves and we want no Negroes" [13] By allowing the Ruffians’ illegitimate vote to stand, Kansas established a 36-3 pro-slavery “Bogus Legislature” whose first acts were to impose stringent slave codes, going against the grain of the humanistic population. As the slave codes’ architect John Stringfellow wrote, “Every person bond or free who shall be connected of actually raising a rebellion or insurrection of slaves free Negroes or mulattos in this Territory shall suffer death" [12] While these harsh laws attempted to subdue Kansans into embracing slavery, their injustices would not go undisputed.

            With federal government stability in question, anti-slavery Kansans took it upon themselves to defy their corrupt delegation and establish an autonomous legislature. Giving birth to the Free Soil Party, whose mission was to "...inscribe on our banner, 'Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men,' and fight on, and fight forever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions…” [13], these Americans further polarized social and political relations. With two assemblies located so close and yet so far on the ideological spectrum, Kansas would soon become a battlefield where “The tumult of battle will rage, where bleeding Kansas will wage warfare over Slavery!” [14]

Bleeding Kansas: The War’s Precursor  

 As Abraham Lincoln expressed, the Kansas-Nebraska Bill had “forced so many good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty" [15]. While the epoch coined in history as “Bleeding Kansas” encompassed several violent confrontations, key episodes evidence escalating societal tensions that would culminate in open warfare in less than a decade.

With violence waiting to happen, The Wakarusa War of 1855 marked the first large-scale confrontation in Kansas, and though casualty counts were low, it sparked the genesis of pro-slavery aggression that would be met by anti-slavery resistance. Driven by land disputes, pro and anti-slavery militias organized near the city of Lawrence. While both parties eventually avoided conflict out of fear of legitimizing a painful war, the skirmish nonetheless promoted what Frederick Douglass described as "an open invitation to a fierce and bitter strife" [13].

Recalling the pro-slavery legislature’s goal to nip anti-slavery movements in the bud, Kansas Judge Samuel Lecompte sought to indict the state’s Free Soil government for treason by sending over 800 Kansans and Missourians to the Free Soil hub in Lawrence to arrest its prominent leaders [12].  Violating legal authority, Lecompte’s opprobrious men, who became known as the nation’s “Fire-Eaters”, were given instructions to “disarm its citizens, and destroy its antislavery institutions” [13]  in an event that became known as the Sack on Lawrence. Though Lawrence citizens decided against fighting back, abolitionist leaders, most prominently John Brown, sought vengeance for the atrocities committed.  

Brown became resolved in the belief that, “… the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood" [16].Fighting fire with fire" and “striking terror in the hearts of the pro-slavery people” [16], Brown led an attack on Pottawamie Creek, slaughtering five pro-slavery civilians. By the end of 1856, over 200 civilians had died in Bleeding Kansas confrontations [12].

A House Dividing

“A House divided cannot stand.” [11] This statement could not be truer than in its reference to Congress’ division over the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, where 44 Democrats voted for the Act and 44 against it [8]. The Whig party also fissured, as evidenced by the Whig Tribune article excerpt, “…but why Northern Whigs who have steadily sustained the doctrine of the Wilmot Proviso should now abandon it, is past our art to discover.” [17] Though initial tensions remained passive, aggressive political reform that paralleled the collapse of civil restraint in the states would soon ensue.  

Prompted by the Fire-Eaters’ actions, anti-slavery Senator Charles Sumner delivered a compelling speech regarding the abominations committed by pro-slavery forces, in which he proclaimed the Sack on Lawrence "a rape of a virgin territory…compelling it to the hateful embrace of slavery.” [11]

Amidst a diverging Senate, Sumner trekked on dangerous territory and, as Douglas predicted, “That damn fool will get himself killed by some other damn fool.” [12] Indeed, following his speech, Sumner was nearly beaten to death with a cane by Senator Preston Brooks who claimed, "You've libeled my state… and I've come to punish you for it." [12] Becoming one of the only acts of legislative assault in US history, the “Canefight” demonstrated that violence could permeate even the most intellectual circles.

In the wake of political fragmentation, Douglas took the stage against Senatorial candidate Lincoln during seven famous debates on slavery and popular sovereignty. In the captivating rebuttals that ensued, Douglas voiced his opinion that while Lincoln “…looks forward to a time when slavery shall be abolished everywhere, I look forward to a time when each state shall be allowed to do as it pleases.” [18] In response, Lincoln expressed, “I object to it [The Act] because it assumes that there can be moral right in the enslaving of one man by another.” [15] As a result, Lincoln kindled a new political fire, which united minority factions into the re-envisioned Republican Party.

1860 saw the rise of Lincoln’s party through his election to Presidency, the consequences of which were magnanimous. Only weeks after his ascension to office, seven states seceded from the Union. Hopes of stabilizing society became elusive, and instead of negotiating for inconceivable peace, America began preparing for War. And at the root of it all, the igniting force behind the cascade of civil demise was none other than the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Conclusion

“If we will only live up to this great fundamental principle, there will be peace between the North and the South.” [7] While Douglas was shockingly far from predicting the repercussions of his progressive Bill, it would have been nearly impossible for anyone to foresee the atrocities and reform that followed in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. In many ways, Douglas’s Bill can be thought of as a malignant tumor. While its primary affliction was concentrated, its influence on the entire nation spread quickly and painfully, culminating in complete deterioration of social order. The truth is that the Kansas-Nebraska Act sought an idealistic solution to a transcendental issue, failing in its execution to promote its intended change.

In a world where history is notorious for repeating itself, humanity must understand that even the most brilliantly conceived compromises are not without flaws, and that utopic concepts cannot succeed without careful consideration and watchful implementation. If zealously executed, however, these worthy concessions truly have potential to shift paradigms in the quest for equality and peace. 

[1] Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Bill." Bee [New Orleans], 31 May 1854. Secession Era Editorials Project.

2 The Missouri Compromise Explained: US History Review." YouTube, uploaded by Keith Hughes, 3 Sept. 2017.

3 Blight, David. "A Hell of a Storm: The Civil War and Reconstruction Era, 1845-1877." 2008. Open Yale Courses, Yale   University, 2008. Lecture. David Blight

4 "Opposition and Resolutions of the Kansas-Nebraska Act." A House Dividing, Encylopedia Britannica, 1976, pp. 360-425. 22 vols.

5 Goldfield, David. "The Politics of Sectionalism." Chapter 14. The American Journey, Upper Saddle River, Pearson Education, 2005.

6 Loguen, Jermain Wesley, Rev. "I Won't Obey the Fugitive Slave Law." 4 Oct. 1850. Blackpast, 2007, Speech.

7 Douglas, Stephen. "Homecoming Speech." 9 July 1858. TeachAmericanHistory, Ashbrook Center, teachingamericanhistory. Speech.

8 Capers, Gerald Mortimer. The Kansas-Nebraska Bill. Stephen Douglas: Defender of the Union, Boston, Little, Brown, 1972, p. 20, 47, 87-113. Print.

9 "Passage of the Nebraska Bill in the House." The Mississippian [Jackson], 2 June 1854, pp. 1-3. Secession Era Editorials Project.

10 Douglas, Stephen. “An Act to Organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas”, 1854; Record Group 11; General Records of the United States Government; National Archives.

11 Baumann, Mark D. "Excerpt from 'The Crime Against Kansas' Speech (1861, by Charles Sumner)." Dictionary of American History, edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 3rd ed., vol. 9, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003, pp. 288-292. U.S. History in Context.

12 "Border Ruffians, The Sack of Lawrence, Canefight, The Pottawatomie Creek Massacre." USHistory, Independence Hall Association, 2008.

13 "Opposition and Resolutions of the Kansas-Nebraska Act." A House Dividing, Encylopedia Britannica, 1976, pp. 122-135. 22 vols.

14 Rues, Tim. “‘Bleeding Kansas,’ Who Said That? .” Lecompton Kansas, 2016.

15 Lincoln, Abraham. "Peoria Speech." 16 Oct. 1854. National Park Service, edited by Roy P. Basler, U.S. Department of Interior, 10 Apr. 2015. Speech.

16 "The Kansas-Nebraska Act Explained: US History Review." YouTube, uploaded by Keith Hughes, 6 May 2014.

17 "Nebraska: Not a Slave State?" New York Tribune, 10 Jan. 1854, pp. 2-4. Secession Era Editorials Project.

18 Douglas, Stephen A., and Abraham Lincoln. "Lincoln Douglas Debates Transcript: 1858." Primary Source     Documents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Library of Congress, 2007.