Sam Houston: Speech Opposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

Authored by Senator Stephen Douglas, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was designed to move the issue of slavery from the federal arena to the individual territories, to thereby ease tensions between the North and South because the South would be able to expand slavery while states in the North could still abolish the institution. The act originated with Douglas's desire to see a transcontinental railroad built through his home state of Illinois. But the proposed railroad could follow such a route, and thereby benefit the people of Illinois, only if it could continue westward into what would become Nebraska Territory. This territory, however, would lie north of the dividing line between free and slave states established by the Missouri Compromise. Accordingly, senators from the southern states opposed its inception. Douglas's bill was intended to be a new compromise; it would divide the territory into two potential states, Nebraska and Kansas, while at the same time repealing the Missouri Compromise line. It was expected that Nebraska, the more northerly territory, would be free territory and that Kansas, the more southerly, would elect to be a slave territory.

In February 1854, Houston delivered a passionate and dramatic speech to the U.S. Senate opposing the Kansas-Nebraska bill that took almost two complete days. He focused on two main issues that he had with the legislation. The first issue centered on the Native Americans living in the territories in question. Houston begins by acknowledging that as a supporter of the Indians and their rights, he is alone but remains duty bound to advocate for them. At this point he begins referring to and quoting from a series of agreements between the government and various Indian nations starting as far back as 1785. Houston skillfully points out each broken promise made by the U.S. government. He then encourages the Senate to civilize and Christianize the Indians, stating, “They seem not be regarded in the light of human beings, and are driven like wild beasts; and when their habitation is made in one place, they are considered as temporary residents.” He adds that by civilizing the Indians, the federal government could abandon its forts along the Rio Grande and in Texas and New Mexico, saving money and men for other purposes.

At the point in the speech marking the beginning of the second day, Houston resumes his plea for the Native Americans within the Kansas-Nebraska territory by outlining the advantages he sees gained “when they [the Indians] are justly treated.” As an example, he points to the Cherokee in Tennessee. As a boy, he lived with the Cherokee before they had adopted modes of white American civilization; in time, they learned to work as farmers and mechanics and gained education. Houston does not advocate for the preservation of native cultures, but he believes that the country and the Indian nations would be better off working together. He believes that by honoring its treaties, the government could establish meaningful and permanent relationships with native nations.

With his plea on behalf of Native Americans finished, Houston turns his attention to his second issue with the bill, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. By declaring that the people of the new territories would decide whether to allow slavery by popular sovereignty, the Kansas-Nebraska bill was in direct violation of the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which outlawed slavery north of latitude 36°30′; indeed, the bill included a clause that would repeal the Missouri Compromise. Calling the compromise their “wall of fire,” Houston argues that it remained a binding agreement between North and South that had kept peace for more than thirty years and was “essential to the preservation of this Union.” He emphasizes that the repeal of that compromise would certainly bring about disunion.

Only one other southerner, John Bell of Tennessee, stood with Houston in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. On March 4, just over two weeks after Houston's two-day speech and despite his passionate effort in opposition, the Senate voted thirty-seven to fourteen in favor of the bill. On May 22, 1854, the bill passed the House narrowly, by a vote of 113 to 100. Houston's predictions proved accurate. In undoing the Missouri Compromise, the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act further divided the nation and split political parties, giving rise to the Republican Party. Meanwhile, Houston's strong Unionism and opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories drove a wedge between him and both the Texas legislature and the southern states. For Houston, the events would reach a painful climax in March 1861, when he refused to take an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy.