Boundary Conflicts In Texas

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and opened new lands for settlement. Because there was millions of acres of arable farmland, it was necessary to create a territorial infrastructure that would allow settlement. The people living in the Kansas-Nebraska area also wanted a railroad system for transportation. The railroad workers wanted to expand their railroad there as well, because they needed farmers for customers.

In 1854 another problem arose which resulted in Congress passing the Kansas-Nebraska Act which repealed the Missouri Compromise, this act was introduced by Stephen A. Douglas a chairman of Committee on Territories, this act allowed the people of Kansas and Nebraska to choose rather they wanted slavery in their boundary or not through the power of popular sovereignty, the Pro-slavery settlers won the election but were charged with accusations that they cheated, in order to make sure that the vote was right they ordered a re-election but the Pro-slavery refused and the refusal resulted into a battle. John Brown an Anti-slavery leader who believed that he was sent here by god to kill anyone who was pro-slavery. He led the anti-slavery force which gained the nickname “Bleeding Kansas”. The fight was soon stopped, and a final election was held, this time the anti-slavery settlers won the vote and was announced that Kansas would become a free state in 1861. In conclusion the Compromises and Acts may have had their flaws but it they some how manage to solve the slavery issues.

A leading example of the struggles of slavery in the western states was the struggle over slavery in Kansas. Document F depicts a political cartoon basically stating that Stephen Douglas, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan all attempted intentionally or unintentionally to spread slavery to the West. Stephen Douglas proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act in which the Midwest Nebraska territory would be divided into two states Kansas and Nebraska and the issue of slavery would be determined by in state vote known as "popular sovereignty". Franklin Pierce aided with the signing of the bill. The results upon this bill was harsh fighting between pro-slavery supporters and non-slavery supporters in Kansas over this issue. It also led to the non-reelection of Pierce and the end to the Whig party, along with the introduction of the sectional Republican party, who opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. An attempt at forcing slavery into

battled in the “Bleeding Kansas” conflict over whether the territory would be a free state or slave state. After the debate

According to Henretta 2011 and U.S History, the Kansas-Nebraska act was a great political disaster for the political system of America, and was a strong, if not the leading, cause of the Civil War. Senator Stephen A. Douglas was behind said compromise. He wanted the territory known as Nebraska to decide whether or not it wanted to be a slave state, but, like mentioned before, the Missouri Act would be violated by such decision. Knowing this, Senator Douglas revised his bill and added that the Missouri Compromised should be repealed, and that popular sovereignty should decide the fate of the new territory, which would be formed as Nebraska and Kansas. When the Act was finally enacted, the disaster began. Northern Whigs and “anti-Nebraska” Democrats were enraged and opposed with passion to the act, denouncing it

Firstly, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 established popular sovereignty which allowed the states to choose whether they were free or slave-holding (Doc 3). This led to a period of time known as Bleeding Kansas when tensions between antislavery Republicans and pro-slavery Democrats increased as border ruffians tipped the votes and violence ensued. Also, the Caning of Charles Sumner, when Northern Congressman Sumner was beat by Southern Congressman Preston Brooks, further intensified tensions (Doc 4). The event led Northerners to view Southerners as uncivilized and violent, further increasing the gap between the North and the South. Thirdly, the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision ruled that slaves were not citizens and it allowed slavery virtually everywhere (Doc 5). This angered Northerners extremely because slavery was banned in the North and most Northerners supported antislavery. It also effectively repealed the Kansas-Nebraska Act that allowed states to choose being slave-holding or free, further angering the North. Altogether these events were the reason sectionalism became such a large issue; they significantly increased mutual dislike between the North and the South and fragmented the

“In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act overturned the Missouri Compromise’s use of latitude as the boundary between slave and free territory and instead, using the principle of popular sovereignty, decreed that the residents would determine whether the area became a free state or a slave state” (Foner & Garraty, 1991). The people that

Bleeding Kansas was a period in time filled with violence during the settling of the Kansas territory. It was a small war fought between proslavery and antislavery for control of the Kansas territory. “In 1854 the Kansas-Nebraska Act overturned the Missouri Compromise’s use of latitude as the boundary between slave and free territory and instead, using the principle of popular sovereignty, decreed that the residents would determine whether the area became a free state or a slave state.” (Bleeding Kansas, A&E Television Networks, 2009) People all around came together to try to influence the decision on whether the state should be proslavery or a free state. Unfortunately, it took the turn for the worst with brutal violence. Blood was being shed all across Kansas. It contributed to the political storm that occurred throughout the United States before the Civil War came in to play.

Another important event that lead to the civil war was The Kansas-Nebraska Act which undone parts of the Missouri Compromise because it allowed the settlers in both the territories to determine if they should consent slavery by a popular vote. Both pro- and anti-slavery advocates flocked to Kansas because they hoped to shift the outcome because of the numbers. Even though both territories ratified the anti-slavery constitutions, the brutality shocked and worried the nation.

Many Northerners were infuriated when Congress eliminated the Missouri Compromise and passed on the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The act allowed each territory to settle the issue of slavery based on popular sovereignty (The Kansas-Nebraska). In other words, people were allowed to decide for themselves to determine what was best for their state. By repealing the Missouri Compromise, the North fear that it will enable slavery into areas that have been free for years. However, once Congress passed the law, numerous of pro-slavery and antislavery groups began rushing into Kansas(Chapter 15, 443). Their primary goal was to get in as many votes as possible which will determine if Kansas legislature support or ban slavery. In the final results, Kansas laws

The events which caused the "cauldron of controversy" over slavery to continue to boil was morality rose and a peaceful solution to slavery disappeared and a more violent emerged. The Kansas territory split slavery and antislavery.

As a result, Northerners protested. This caused even more tension before the Civil War would begin. The Kansas-Nebraska Act would allow slavery into

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was made by the U.S. Congress on May 30, 1854. This act let Kansas and Nebraska decide if they would slavery in their territory or not. People against and for slavery went to Kansas to change their opinion, to have it their way. People were fighting each other because they were against slavery or for slavery. This territory earned the nickname "Bleeding Kansas" President Franklin Pierce sent troops to stop the violence. After all of this on January 29, 1861 Kansas became part of the Union and became a free

Because Texas owned the public lands of New Mexico, the compromise of 1850 was to deal with Texas's claim on New Mexico. It negotiated new boundaries, the ones it has today, in exchange for a $10 million government bond for Texas to pay off its debts.

The 1800’s were a time of growth and expansion in the United States. However, during the century following the civil war not everyone shared the same views. Throughout the country, people had different thoughts on Texas, and what should be done with the new found territory. Whether it was people of the north looking to prevent another slave state from acquiring statehood, or slave owning people of the south trying to gain leverage in the House of Representatives, people had differing opinions on the topic of Texas. The debate over Texas acquiring statehood was representative of the divide between North and South that led to Civil War in the U.S.