What Was A Result Of The Kansas-Nebraska Act Weegy? 2023

What Was A Result Of The Kansas-Nebraska Act Weegy?

What Was A Result Of The Kansas-Nebraska Act Weegy
What kind of consequences did the Kansas-Nebraska Act have? Originally Posted 284 days ago | Currently Online at 12:16:58 AM Last modified: 284 days ago|Today’s date and time: 12:42:21 AM 1 Answer/Comment User: can you tell me about the consequences of the Kansas-Nebraska Act? The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a contributing factor in the disintegration of the Whig Party, according to Weegy.

One point for the user who correctly identified the advantage the south held over the north during the Civil War. Weegy: During the Civil War, the South had an edge over the North since they were mostly defending terrain that was already familiar to them. What was one of President Lincoln’s primary sources of annoyance during the early stages of the American Civil War? Weegy: One of President Lincoln’s primary sources of discontent in the early stages of the Civil War was the lack of robust military leadership.1 User: According to what statute were Northerners obligated to aid in the recapture of fugitives from slavery? Weegy: The Fugitive Slave Law mandated that Northerners help in the capture and return of slaves who had escaped from their owners.1 User’s Score: What was the outcome of the attack on Harpers Ferry? Weegy: On October 16, 1859, Score.986 User: what was the outcome of the attack on harpers ferry in 1859 Weegy: The result of the raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859 was a win for the Confederacy.

Score.986 One user wants to know how President Polk felt about the concept of manifest destiny. The following is President Polk’s stance on the concept of Manifest Destiny, Weegy: He advocated for the further geographical expansion of the United States.

Weegy: “Bleeding Kansas” was the name given to the fight over slavery in the Kansas territory in the mid-1800s.
Score 1 User: what name was given to the fight over slavery in the Kansas territory in the mid-1800s Weegy: “Bleeding Kansas” was the name given to the fight over slavery in the Kansas territory in the mid-1800s.

Score 1 User: What state was the first to declare its independence from the union following the election of Abraham Lincoln as president? Originally Posted 284 days ago | Currently Online at 12:16:58 AM Last modified: 284 days ago|Today’s date and time: 12:42:21 AM 1 Rating for Answer and Comment 3 Following Abraham Lincoln’s election to the presidency, South Carolina was the first state to declare its independence from the nation.

What was a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act?

In the year 1854, Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois introduced a piece of legislation that would go on to become one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of our country. The “Nebraska bill” was ostensibly a law “to incorporate the Territory of Nebraska,” which encompassed the land that is now the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, and the Dakotas.

At the time, however, its name referred to the whole region.
It was passed in 1854 and is now referred to as the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
By the 1850s, there was a growing chorus of voices calling for the western regions to be formally organized.
Farmers, ranchers, and prospectors were driven toward the Pacific by a combination of factors, including the acquisition of land from Mexico in 1848, the gold rush in California in 1849, and the persistent trend toward westward expansion.

The Mississippi River had long been used as a thoroughfare for north-south travel, but the western territories required a river of steel, not of water — a transcontinental railroad — in order to connect the eastern states to the Pacific Ocean. But what path would that railroad follow across the wilderness? Stephen Douglas, one of the primary promoters of the railroad, favored a northern route that passed through Chicago.

However, this would have required the rail lines to pass through the unorganized territory of Nebraska, which was located north of the 1820 Missouri Compromise line. North of this line, slavery was illegal. Others, notably slaveholders and their supporters, favored a southern route, maybe one that passed through the territory that would later become the state of Texas.

Douglas recognized the necessity for a compromise in order to have his “Nebraska bill” passed. On January 4, 1854, Douglas proposed a measure with the intention of striking a balance between the two extremes. His proposal called for the organization of the enormous region “with or without slavery, as their constitutions may mandate.” This strategy, which was known as “popular sovereignty,” was in direct opposition to the Missouri Compromise and left the matter of slavery unanswered; yet, this was not sufficient to satisfy a group of influential southern senators led by David Atchison of Missouri.

They advocated for a categorical departure from the 1820 line.
Douglas saw the construction of the railroad as an important step in the “onward march of civilisation,” which is why he complied with their requests.
He told Atchison, “I will put it into my bill, even though I know it would cause a heck of a fuss.” “I will incorporate it into my measure.” After that point, the argument on the measure in Nebraska ceased to be about railway lines and became about something else entirely.

Slavery was at the center of the debate. Douglas presented the altered version of the bill, and then the uproar began. Salmon Chase, a senator from Ohio, criticized the bill on the grounds that it “grossly violates a sacred commitment.” In a broadside that was published, the anti-slavery alliance led by Charles Sumner launched an assault against Douglas, alleging that the latter’s plan would turn the new lands into “a gloomy realm of dictatorship, occupied by masters and slaves.” The intense drama reached its pinnacle in the wee hours of the morning of March 4th.

In his closing presentation, Douglas pleaded with the audience, “You must arrange for continuous lines of settlement from the Mississippi Valley all the way out to the Pacific Ocean.” Do not restrict the movement of the limbs of a juvenile giant.
The law pertaining to Nebraska was approved by a vote of 37 to 14 in the Senate at 5:00 in the morning.

On May 30, 1854, it was signed into law. The Missouri Compromise was overturned by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which also established two additional territories and authorized the exercise of popular sovereignty. It also resulted in a violent revolt that came to be known as “Bleeding Kansas,” which occurred when advocates of slavery and opponents of slavery surged into the territory in an attempt to swing the vote.

What was a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act Weggy?

1 Answer. Because of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Whig Party was able to disintegrate into its component parts.

What was a result of the Kansas?

Bleeding Kansas

Date	1854–1861
Location	Kansas Territory
Result	Anti-slavery settler victory Kansas admitted to the Union as a free state Fighting continues into the American Civil War

What was the Kansas-Nebraska Act quizlet?

The Kansas Nebraska Act refers to what exactly. The Kansas Nebraska Act was a measure that was passed in 1854 that imposed popular sovereignty and gave the inhabitants of a territory the ability to select whether or not slavery would be permitted inside the borders of a new state.

What was an important result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act quizlet?

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was enacted by Congress in 1854. This act was responsible for organizing the remaining territory that had been acquired as a result of the Louisiana Purchase. As a result of this act, such territories were able to be brought into the Union as states.

What was the Kansas-Nebraska Act in simple terms?

In the year 1854, Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois put up a bill that would form the Nebraska Territory, a huge region of territory that would later be split up into the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, and the Dakotas. The contentious piece of legislation was given the name the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and it was intended to open the door for the institution of slavery in new territories that had previously outlawed the practice.

Who created Kansas-Nebraska Act?

In January of 1854, Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois submitted a measure that would have created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska out of the area that was located immediately to the west of Missouri. He argued in support of popular sovereignty, which is the concept that the people who settled the new regions should be the ones to decide whether or not slavery would be lawful there.

Anti-slavery advocates were outraged because, according to the terms of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slavery would have been illegal in both territories because they were both located north of the dividing line between “slave” and “free” states at 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude. However, the Missouri Compromise did not go into effect.

On May 30, 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was finally enacted into law after months of heated discussion. Both pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers flocked to Kansas almost as soon as the legislation was passed, with the latter group expecting to influence the outcome of the first election to be conducted in the territory after it became law.

After the disagreement escalated into violence, people began to refer to the area as “Bleeding Kansas.” The act deepened the rift that already existed between the North and the South on the subject of slavery to the point that reconciliation appeared to be nearly impossible.
The Republican Party was established in part by opponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, who were against the expansion of slavery into the newly acquired territory.

The likelihood of a civil war breaking out within the United States increased as a direct consequence of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Why did the federal government remove American Indians from the Kansas and Nebraska territories?

Why did the federal government decide to relocate American Indians away from the territory that is now Kansas and Nebraska? They desired to shield the American Indians from the violence perpetrated by the settlers. They planned on extending the railroad and making the land available to settlers at the same time. The Missouri Compromise mandated that they must be eliminated from the system.

When did the Kansas-Nebraska Act end?

External connections –

On Wikimedia Commons, you’ll find files connected to the Kansas–Nebraska Act.
A bibliography that includes annotations.
Original Letter from Millard Fillmore to the Shapell Manuscript Foundation Regarding the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas–Nebraska Act
Popular Sovereignty and the Political Polarization over Slavery in the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854
Act of Kansas and Nebraska, as well as other relevant resources, may be found in the Library of Congress.
The President’s Private Correspondence Concerning the Kansas–Nebraska Act is Preserved in the Shapell Manuscript Collection.
A printable version of the act’s transcript is available here.

What was the result of Bleeding Kansas?

John Brown Gives a Speech in Response to the Violence in Lawrence – In the latter half of 1855 and the beginning of 1856, there were sporadic outbreaks of violence between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions. On May 21, 1856, a pro-slavery gang assaulted the Free State bastion of Lawrence, burning printing presses, plundering houses and businesses, and setting fire to a hotel.

This marked a major increase in the violence that had been taking place. Abolitionist John Brown led a group of seven people, including four of his sons, on a march through Pottawatomie Valley in Kansas territory on May 24 in retaliation for what became known as the “Sack of Lawrence.” Brown was accompanied on this journey by four of his sons.

In their determination to confront pro-slavery settlers, the gang near Pottawatomie Creek took five men from their houses and then brutally murdered them. In spite of the fact that the war over slavery played out in plain view in Kansas, only a small percentage of the people who settled in the new area were emotionally committed in the struggle.

Which of the following was a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 Quizizz?

Which of the following was NOT a consequence of the Kansas-Nebraska Act that was passed in 1854? In Kansas, people who supported slavery and those who did not engaged in violent conflict with each other.

What were the causes and consequences of the Kansas-Nebraska Act quizlet?

What was the motivation behind the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and what was its end result? Cause: Overturned Missouri Compromise. Slavery was authorized under the people’s sovereignty in the Kansas and Nebraska region. The result was that Kansas became a bloodbath.

What did the Kansas-Nebraska Act say about slavery quizlet?

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a measure that was passed in 1854 that enforced ‘popular sovereignty,’ which gave the inhabitants of a territory the ability to decide whether or not slavery would be allowed inside the limits of a new state.

How did Kansas-Nebraska Act affect political parties?

First and foremost, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was responsible for the establishment of the Republican Party. This was a brand new political party that drew northern Whigs, Democrats who opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, members of the Free-Soil Party, and other abolitionists.

What are the three parts of the Kansas-Nebraska Act?

The answer, along with an explanation: The Kansas-Nebraska Act consisted of three components: the establishment of the territories of Nebraska and Kansas, the abolition of the Missouri Compromise, and the establishment of popular sovereignty. First, the Kansas-Nebraska Act regulated the establishment of two vast territories out of sections of the Louisiana Purchase lands that were supposed to be settled by European and American colonists.

These lands had been acquired as part of the Louisiana Purchase.
Second, in 1820, the United States government passed a legislation known as the Missouri Compromise.
This law’s purpose was to restrict the spread of slavery into newly acquired territory.
It was stipulated in that statute that the territories of Kansas and Nebraska would be free territories; but, as a result of its repeal, that law is no longer in effect.

At long last, the Missouri Compromise was abandoned in favor of popular sovereignty being implemented to the territories by Congress. The citizens of the newly formed territories were given the right to vote on whether or not they wanted to be part of the slave or free regions.

Why was Bleeding Kansas so important?

Bleeding Kansas was an event that occurred in Kansas roughly between the years 1855 and 1859. It was a violent guerrilla war that was fought between pro-slavery and anti-slavery groups. This event had a huge impact on American politics and contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War.

The Wikimedia Commons website.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was approved by the United States Congress in May of 1854.
This act legally organized the land west of Missouri and Iowa into the states of Kansas and Nebraska and made this region available for settlement.
In contrast to earlier territorial and state organization legislation, Congress did not officially designate these regions as being either free or enslaved.

This was a significant break from the norm. In its place, the Kansas-Nebraska Act upheld the concept of popular sovereignty, which stipulated that the inhabitants of Kansas and Nebraska would decide whether or not the territory should be free or enslaved.

This decision could be made in the form of a popular referendum, or it could be made through the election of pro-slavery and anti-slavery representatives to draft a constitution.
As a result of this, advocates for free states and slave states went to Kansas in an effort to establish a foothold for their respective causes, which sought to either legalize or outlaw the practice of slavery in that state.

Nebraska did not see the same level of commotion as Kansas did since it was widely believed that it would become a free state without any dispute. On the other hand, Kansas was a whole different story. However, the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act opened up the possibility for slavery to exist in this territory, and many southerners remained committed to take advantage of this opportunity and make Kansas a slave state.

The Kansas territory is located directly west of Missouri, and under the Missouri Compromise, slavery would be prohibited there. However, the Kansas-Nebraska Act opened up the possibility for slavery to exist in this territory. Two lawless border residents Congress’s Library and Archives The majority of the immigrants who initially arrived to Kansas when the property went on sale were non-slave holders from the Upper South and small farmers from the surrounding midwestern states.

Neither of these groups was particularly interested in the expansion of slavery. Despite the fact that there were very few people who had slaves, supporters of slavery were certain that it should be legalized in Kansas. On March 30, 1855, hundreds of heavily armed Missourians flooded across the border into Kansas.

They took advantage of a gap in the definition of what constituted “residence” in Kansas in order to cast their ballots in the inaugural territory election.
Not only did these border thugs vote for themselves illegally, but they also packed the ballot box with hundreds of fictitious votes.
This is a serious violation of the law.

As a direct result of this, the territory legislature was comprised almost entirely of male supporters of the institution of slavery. This territory assembly swiftly approved harsh pro-slavery regulations, including one that made it a criminal penalty to possess abolitionist literature.

These laws were promptly put into effect.
In retaliation, the individuals who opposed the institution of slavery established their own government in Lawrence, Kansas.
The Pierce administration condemned this government as an illegal and unlawful authority figure.
It was just a matter of time until violent fights broke out after it became clear that the government was divided between those who supported slavery and those who did not support it.

On May 21, 1856, hundreds of border thugs once again crossed the boundary between Missouri and Kansas and invaded Lawrence, Kansas with the intention of wreaking havoc there. Among other things, they set fire to buildings and destroyed the printing press of an abolitionist newspaper.

The Republican press dubbed this incident the “Sack of Lawrence,” despite the fact that no one was murdered in it.
This episode was the official spark that launched a guerrilla war between pro-slavery settlers assisted by border ruffians and anti-slavery settlers.
It is essential to keep in mind that the area had seen irregular outbreaks of violence as far back as 1855.

This phase of guerilla warfare, which lasted until the violence finally subsided in the year 1859, is known as the Bleeding Kansas conflict because of the blood that was shed by both pro-slavery and anti-slavery organizations during its duration. Even though the majority of the violence was rather unstructured and took place on a limited scale, it nonetheless caused widespread emotions of panic throughout the region.

The most heinous crime was committed in late May of 1856 by abolitionist zealot John Brown and his boys, who lured five residents of the south away from their houses near Pottawatomie Creek during the night and then slaughtered them in cold blood. Despite the fact that their victims were people from the South, they did not own any slaves but nevertheless advocated for the expansion of slavery into Kansas.

In the election of 1856, Republicans made effective use of the event known as “Bleeding Kansas” as a potent rhetorical weapon to win support from northern voters by stating that the Democrats were obviously on the side of the pro-slavery elements that were responsible for the violence.

In point of fact, acts of violence were committed on both sides of the conflict; no side could be considered blameless. Sumner’s Causing of Trouble The Wikimedia Commons website. The violence that occurred around the time of Bleeding Kansas spread all the way to Washington, D.C. On May 19 and 20, 1856, Senator Charles Sumner (Republican of Massachusetts) delivered a speech on the Senate floor titled “the Crime Against Kansas.” The speech was emotional, but it had been meticulously planned.

During this address, Sumner railed against the concept of popular sovereignty and referred to the events of Bleeding Kansas as “the rape of a virgin land, driving it to the hideous embrace of slavery.” Sumner accused Senators Stephen Douglas (Democrat-Illinois) and Andrew Pickens Butler (Democrat-South Carolina) of this crime and claimed that they were personally responsible for the heinous crimes that were committed in Kansas as a result of their involvement in the drafting of the Kansas Nebraska Act.

Douglas and Butler were both Democrats. In addition, Sumner insulted personally both Senators, making personal remarks about each of them. Butler was not present for Sumner’s address; however, his relative Representative Preston Brooks (Democrat-South Carolina) was there to hear these remarks. Butler’s absence was noted.

On May 22, 1856, in retaliation for the degrading remarks that were made against Brooks’ cousin, Sumner, Brooks entered the Senate chambers and attacked Sumner at his desk, beating him with a cane until Sumner was a bloody unconscious pulp. Brooks did this in order to avenge the degrading remarks that had been made against his cousin.

The decision to terminate Sumner elicited strong opinions that were sharply divided. In general, southerners were overjoyed that someone finally stood up and defended southern honor against the perceived encroaching abolitionist sentiment that increasingly threatened their societal foundation, which was slavery.

Specifically, southerners were overjoyed that someone finally stood up and defended southern honor against the perceived encroaching abolitionist sentiment that On the other hand, northerners were absolutely horrified by what they saw as an outrageous and violent expression of the slave power against northerners, which they believed would only continue unless the slave power was stopped.

Northerners believed that this expression of the slave power would only continue if the slave power was stopped. This dread was compounded by the fact that Brooks retook his place in the House of Representatives in July 1856, and he did so with practically no adverse consequences. Sumner, on the other hand, had injuries that were so severe that he was unable to resume his place in the Senate until three years after the incident.

Because they saw the Republican Party as the only political party that was actively battling the slave power, many northern Know Nothings were driven to join the Republican Party after the canning of Sumner and the Bleeding Kansas campaign. The Republicans needed evidence of the slave power’s persistent persecution of northerners in order to explain the creation of their party, and Bleeding Kansas offered this evidence in an easy to understand manner.

The Democratic Party continued to fall apart along sectional lines as the Republicans acquired control, a trend that was only exacerbated by the controversy that surrounded the Lecompton Constitution.
Bleeding Kansas demonstrated to southern Democrats the threat that free soilers (whom they grouped together with abolitionists) posed to southern society.

Despite this, many southern Democrats believed that the northern wing of the party remained sympathetic to free soilers and were unwilling to denounce them. Bleeding Kansas took place in 1857. Many northern Democrats who wanted their politicians to work in the best interest of northerners were alienated by these growing demands to bow to the wishes of the southern wing of the party.

This further split northern and southern Democrats.
Cartoon illustrating the bloodshed in Bleeding Kansas that was published in a political magazine.
The Wikimedia Commons website.
In the years leading up to the Civil War, acts of escalating violence involving slavery and abolition were on the rise.
Bleeding Kansas is only one example of this trend.

This event was the catalyst for the crisis that ensued regarding the Lecompton Constitution. The violence that was taking place in and around Kansas put pressure on national politicians to accept a constitution that either unequivocally legalized or prohibited slavery in an effort to put an end to the bloodshed that was taking place.

The events that took place in Kansas were utilized by Republicans as a political opportunity to expand their supporter base, despite the fact that they were appalled by the violence that took place there.
On the other hand, the events only served to deepen the gap between northern and southern Democrats.

The political repercussions show the developing tensions between different groups, as well as the violence that resulted from those tensions. Bleeding Kansas was a significant turning point in the lead-up to the American Civil War, despite the fact that it did not directly cause the war to begin.