(3) The Kansas – Nebraska Act was a piece of legislation and Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois was their spokesperson, this was partly because he supported the construction of a transcontinental railroad which linked Chicago to California. (4) But, for this act to be effective it was necessary to repeal the Missouri Compromise. As well as the boundary restrictions on the territorial extension of slavery that was in place with the Missouri Compromise. This act wasn’t effective and because it was ineffective. This act did not lead to the peaceful settlement of issues that it was intended to. There was violence in Kansas because the antislavery and proslavery proponents disagreed and they were violent in their disagreements. And it undermined the effectiveness of this sovereignty doctrine. Two opposing acts of government was established during this time and the violence and destruction still occurred. There was even an attack on the town of Lawrence which was an antislavery town. John Brown who was an abolitionist as well as his followers ended up killing five settlers who advocated slavery. This is where the phrase Bleeding Kansas derived from. The war in Kansas took almost two hundred lives. So I would have to believe that this act was ineffective.
1.www.vectorsite.com, 1.4 The Compromise Of 1850
3. Henretta, Brody, Dumenil, America’s History, 2008
4.www.encyclopedia.com Kansas-Nebraska Act