Talk:Kansas–Nebraska Act

message: This article looks grotesquely biased towards the Confederacy to me.  Even the existing WP article on the State of Kansas mentions the border ruffians who are conspicuously absent (at least by name) here.  -- Alan Peakall 14:55, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made substantial edits to correct this.  Apologies for the error whereby I enrolled Amos Lawrence in the Lowell clan - the close approach of Mars had left me with Lowells on the brain.  The thoroughness of the bots made a dangling link to an American town a warning signal. -- Alan Peakall 07:41, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: I have added material on the demand for the bill and how it was passed, as well as a scholarly bibliography.  Rjensen 15:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected it -- the problem is caused when a paragraph is started with a space. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased towards Confederacy?

message: Didnt the US Supreme Ct case of Dred Scott v. Sandford overturn the Missouri Compromise?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.214.100 (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  repeal? 

message: The motives of why Douglas decided to push the bill through his committee have been something of a controversial or speculative point among historians.  Certainly any benefits towards any of Douglas' stated goals (such as preparing the way for a central route for the trans-continental railroad) were completely overwhelmed by the political storm the bill raised.  Douglas seemed to have a curious blind spot, in that he was completely and utterly unable to understand how a reasonable person of good-will who was not a "fanatical" immediatist abolitionist could have legitimate moral and other concerns about the existence and (especially) the spread of slavery... AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the northern free-soil point of view, Kansas-Nebraska seemed to inaugurate an era of unilateralism (also including Dred Scott etc.) in which the North gave up previously-won gains while getting absolutely nothing in return... AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Motives of Douglas

message: The absence of any legislative history from this article is awful.  That the only named opponent of the bill is "private citizen" Lincoln, when Chase, Sumner, Seward, Houston, Benton, and tons of others were strongly opposing it in Congress, is pretty inexcusable.  As usual, terrible coverage of US history on Wikipedia. (And, yes, I know that I can improve it, if I so desire.  That doesn't make it any less disheartening that most major historical events have worse coverage than we give to any given Doctor Who serial. john k (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, not to mention the fact that Lincoln was in no way a "private citizen" in those debates, but was a former Representative and was running for Senator when he debated Douglas, as he was during the more famous debates of 1858.
Theseeker4 (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lincoln?  Really? 

message: The first paragraph cannot be edited, but someone inserted "gay" in the first sentence to be funny, I assume.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.47.73.6 (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  first section 

message: 76.102.31.185 (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was part of the original Louisiana purchase area... AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  from which territory(s) were the kansas and nebraska territories carved? 

message: Shouldn't Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Lincoln-Douglas Debate written with a dash? --Dami (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dash 

message: I expanded the first part of the article to provide further details and sourcing on the events through the passage of the Act.  I intend to follow through and expand the latter sections of the article also. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Revision on September 11, 2008

message: If the Missouri compromise said "no slavery above the 36paralell", then how can the Kansas-Nebraska Act nullify it as a direct cause? Kansas was anyhow above the 36paralell, so that does'nt make sense to me... Since Kansas turned out to be a free-satte, no Missouri compromise seem to be directly violated as a result of the implementation of Kansas in the Union in 1861. I'm not a historian, just a college student reading about this stuff right now. Delete this note if I'm wrong! I would suggest re-write the last section of this article, though, to formulate it more clearely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.128.42 (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Missouri Compromise was not part of the Constitution, and could be overturned by a law passed by Congress at any time.  Kansas didn't eventually become a free state without a great deal of conflict, political and otherwise (see Bleeding Kansas).  In 1854, declaring the territory open to slavery was considered by a large number of northerners to be a perfidious breach of faith... AnonMoos (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nullified the Missouri Compromise? 

message: Not sure that this article really explains the medium-term impact of the passing of the Act on northern public opinion.  Many in the north considered it to be a unilateral pro-Southern revision to the supposedly final compromise of 1850 -- whereby the north gave up previous gains, while receiving absolutely nothing in return -- followed later by other such revisions (Dred Scott) or demands for such revisions (Congressional slave code for the territories). By 1860, many northern whites who had little concern for the well-being of blacks were sick and fed up with effective Southern political domination in Washington... AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern political repercussions

message: I can't see a source for this quoted opinion:  The Democrats held large majorities in each house, and Douglas, "a ferocious fighter, the fiercest, most ruthless, and most unscrupulous that Congress had perhaps ever known", led a tightly disciplined party. Kdammers (talk) 02:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  source?