The Kansas-Nebraska Bill During The Revolutionary War

The main issues of the Kansas-Nebraska bill go back to the beginning of the Revolutionary War and the idea that Americans have for self-government and self-reliance. The ideals they established from 1607-1776 were all based on their independent rights to govern themselves. England’s salutary neglect allowed each colony to create a mini country based on their own best ideas of government, religion, and social standards. The Articles of Confederation and the subsequent creation of a stronger constitution bound the individual states together in a new way. The leaders were trying to create a Union that could withstand the threat of foreign invasion and that could deal with the domestic conflicts arising from the independent states over paying

The now 200 year-old issue of self-government and independent economic freedom on one side and a strong anti-slavery view on the other, were finally at a breaking point. Stephen Douglas felt that by falling back on the American idea of self-government, he could satisfy both sides. He argues in 1854 that letting new states choose for themselves was more politically correct than using some “arbitrary or geographical line.” And, he believed that the recent actions by the Congress over the Compromise of 1850 created a precedent in Congress that allowed for presumption that popular sovereignty was the direction the government was headed in deciding slavery in the new territories. (Stephen Douglas, Speech on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, Course Packet)

The issue of popular sovereignty, rights of self-government, moral justification of slavery and economic freedom led to the emergence of Abraham Lincoln as an outspoken leader in the Republican Party. He began to be a larger voice to the spread of slavery in the West and other new territories. His skeptical belief in the Democrat’s justification of the spread of slavery led to his renewed interest in national

I found that while I tried to answer this, I found myself clearly able to see both sides of the issue. On one hand I feel that, yes, they were justified. The precedent set by the founding of the United States and the very strong belief in self-government and maintaining a life that one defines as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” could take one along a path toward secession. Isn’t that principle on which the constitution and our fundamental belief system had been established? I believe I could write an entire paper on that justification alone. However, on the other hand, I also strongly believe in the preservation of the Union. I do not think just because a state or region does not get their way they are somehow justified in secession. The Southern leaders had the same, and, as you pointed out in the second class, often greater, representation in the federal government. Their ultimate secession reason was fundamentally wrong and immoral, in my opinion. But secession can always be viewed that way: some see the justification as righteous and some as ridiculous. Otherwise, there would be no argument to cause the