Kansas-Nebraska act- Nafis Washim

Main Points:
• Revoked the Missouri Compromise.
• Created two new territories.
• Act to organize the territories of Kansas and
Nebraska.
• Introduced concept of popular sovereignty.
• The act was proposed by Senator Stephen A. Douglas
of Illinois.
• The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act led to
increased tensions between pro-slavery and anti-
slavery advocates.
• Lead to bleeding Kansas.
• Shattered the compromise that held the balance
between free and slave states.

Why was the role of Stephen Douglas in the Kansas-

Nebraska Act important?
- Stephen Douglas was the man to made it a law. His
role was important because his action led to the
consequential Civil War.
What was "Bleeding Kansas" and what effect did it have
on the nation?
-Period of violent conflict between both sides, free and
slave.
-It affected the nation in a way that it divided it even
more by increasing the tension between the North and
the South.
-It was the initiation for the Civil War, something that
changed America’s society.

Prompt: "The Civil War began in the Kansas-Nebraska

territory."
For:
• The event of Bleeding Kansas is quite a strong
argument because it had a very huge conflict with
the ending being violent.
• The Kansas-Nebraska Act revoked the compromise
which ruined the balance of power between the
slave and free states.
• The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act attracted
both pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers to the
Kansas Territory.
 • The passage was strategically placed between the
North and the South, so a conflict was pretty much
bound to happen.
Against:
• There were already conflicts between the pro-
slavery and anti-slavery advocates in the US, in
places other than Kansas-Nebraska territory or even
before the territory even became a territory.
• The secession of Southern states and the formation
of the Confederacy may have had a connection that
led to civil war.
• The compromise of 1820 (Missouri) and 1850 never
properly satisfied the issues, this would mean it is
something that happened outside Kansas-Nebraska's
border.

For ‘For,’ I think the strongest argument is the second

one because we already know that once the balance
breaks, the game is over for whatever side that is on the
lesser side. For ‘Against,’ I think the strongest argument
is the third one because if something does not fully
resolve a situation but replaces it with a temporary
solution then it is bound for a conflict/breakthrough to
open since in the end, it did not satisfy the side/s.