To What Extent Was The Kansas-Nebraska Act Of 1854

1383 Words6 Pages

Gracie Evans
Ms. Stader
APUSH
14 November 2017 In the early years of the Antebellum era, or pre-war period, compromise was essential. Despite tensions between the North and South caused by things like Uncle Tom’s Cabin of 1852 (Robbins), arguments over states rights, and rumours of southern secession, it seemed like compromise was always possible. The main turning point for this was in 1854. Although some say the Civil War was avoidable, an impasse was most certainly reached in 1854, due to the fall of the Great Triumvirate, the implications of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the abolitionists of the North becoming increasingly frustrated with southern manipulation.
The Great Triumvirate inarguably played a large role in keeping the Union together before the Civil War. The Great Triumvirate was made up of 3 congressional leaders: Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Daniel Webster (Powell). These 3 men had different political positions, which was what made their compromising skills so beneficial. Henry Clay represented western views, Daniel Webster represented northern goals, and John C. Calhoun fought for …show more content…

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a bill that essentially disregarded and relinquished the Missouri Compromise. The Kansas-Nebraska Act stated that any westward expansion of the United States was to have the decision on slavery made via popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty, in regards to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, was the idea that the decision on slavery in a region should be decided by the people who live there. This seemed fair, but the issue with instating popular sovereignty was that the parameters of the Missouri Compromise stated that slavery could not exist anywhere above the 36°30° line (History.com). Therefore, popular sovereignty would entirely disregard important factors of the Missouri Compromise, which was regarded by many as a strong force in holding the Union