Introduction

Civil rights violations continue to be a problem in America, and a recent case involving a former New Mexico corrections officer highlights this issue. In October 2012, Demetrio Juan Gonzales was found to have violated the civil rights of inmates at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center. The case is a reminder of the importance of upholding the rights of all individuals, regardless of their circumstances.

The Case

Demetrio Juan Gonzales worked as a corrections officer at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In 2012, he was accused of physically assaulting inmates and violating their civil rights by using excessive force.

Gonzales was indicted on five charges, including violating the civil rights of inmates and falsifying reports to cover up his actions. He was found guilty on four of these charges and was sentenced to 41 months in prison.

The Implications

The case against Demetrio Juan Gonzales highlights the ongoing problem of civil rights violations within the criminal justice system. Individuals who have been incarcerated are some of the most vulnerable members of society, and it is essential that their rights are protected.

The case also highlights the importance of holding law enforcement officers accountable for their actions. Police brutality and other forms of abuse of power are all too common, and it is only through holding accountable those who commit these acts that we can hope to prevent them from happening in the future.

The Importance of Civil Rights

The case against Gonzales is a reminder of the importance of civil rights in America. Every individual is entitled to certain fundamental rights, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or any other factor.

The criminal justice system has a responsibility to uphold these rights, even for individuals who have been incarcerated. Failing to do so not only violates the rights of individuals but also erodes trust in the system as a whole.

Conclusion

The case against Demetrio Juan Gonzales is a stark reminder of the ongoing problem of civil rights violations within the criminal justice system. It highlights the importance of holding law enforcement officers accountable for their actions and protecting the rights of all individuals, regardless of their circumstances.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of our justice system, it is essential that we remain vigilant in our efforts to uphold civil rights and promote justice for all. Only by working together can we hope to create a more just and equitable society for everyone.

On October 3, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that a former corrections officer, Demetrio Juan Gonzales, at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center pleaded guilty to violating the civil rights of a person in his custody.  Gonzales pleaded to sticking then choking a victim in the shower room and dress-out of the Metropolitan Detention Center.  

According to court documents, Gonzales was assigned to the Receiving Discharge Transfer (RDT) Unit at the MDC during the morning hours of December 21, 2011.  This is the area where inmates are booked after they are arrested.  Gonzales was in charge of photographic and fingerprinting.  

The victim was arrested for a DUI, and during the booking process, he was not cooperating—although he never made a physical threat to anyone.  The court documents show that Gonzales become angry and escorted the victim over to the shower room and dress-out area where he knew there were no surveillance cameras.  

The victim had marks on his neck the next day that indicated Gonzalez beat and choked him.  Because of his action, Gonzalez faces a maximum penalty of 10 year in prison.  He is currently on supervised release until his hearing.  

Other MDC correction officers were also indicted for charged that related to the same incident.  The defendants are Kevin Casaus and Matthew Pendley.  Causas was accused of violating the civil rights of the victim after he shoved and struck the victim.  He then proceeded to make false statements to the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office.  Matthew Pendley is charged with obstruction of justice for making false statements and tampering with evidence after he cleaned up the blood from the shower room and dress-out area. 

The case was investigated by the FBI’s Albuquerque Division.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark T. Baker and Trial Attorney Fara Gold prosecuted the case.  

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Introduction

On March 28, 2014, former Secretary of State and First Lady Hillary Clinton gave a speech at the 15th annual Emily’s List Gala Dinner in Washington, D.C. In her speech, Clinton discussed the importance of work-life balance and policies that support women and families in the workforce.

The Importance of Work-Life Balance

Clinton emphasized the need for work-life balance, noting that it is essential for individuals to have the flexibility they need to balance their personal and professional lives. She cited research showing that work-life balance is associated with better physical and mental health, higher job satisfaction, and more productive work.

Addressing Workplace Challenges

Clinton also addressed the challenges that many women face in the workforce, such as unequal pay, lack of access to child care, and discrimination. She argued that employers need to do more to address these issues and create a more supportive work environment for women and families.

Supporting Family-Friendly Policies

Clinton called for policies and programs that support women and families in the workforce, including paid family and medical leave, affordable child care, and flexible work arrangements. She noted that these policies not only support women, but also benefit families and businesses.

The Role of Government and the Private Sector

Clinton argued that achieving work-life balance and supporting women and families in the workforce requires collaboration between the government and the private sector. She called for policies that promote these values at the national level, as well as initiatives led by businesses and employers to create more family-friendly workplaces.

Conclusion

In her speech on work-life balance, Hillary Clinton spoke to the challenges that many women face in the workforce and the importance of policies and programs that support women and families. She emphasized that work-life balance is essential for physical and mental well-being, job satisfaction, and productivity, and called for collaboration between the government and private sector to achieve these goals.

When Hillary Clinton became pregnant with her daughter Chelsea, she had no idea that one day they would live in the White House.  At that time, Hillary was the only female partner working for her law firm—in fact, the first female partner the firm had ever had.

At a recent State Department event to celebrate National Work-Life Balance and Family Month, Hillary talked about her experiences trying to seek out work life balance as a powerful woman working in the legal field.

“Before I had my daughter, it was theoretical, you know?” she said.  “After I had my daughter, it was urgent.”  Clinton said that her pregnancy alone seemed difficult for her fellow law firm partners to accept in 1980, and that they would look away from her when she walked down the hallway in her third trimester.

No one, Clinton said, even tried to talk to her about the pregnancy or even when she’d be coming back to work.  Her firm’s maternity leave policy was decided when, in a post-birth discussion with a partner, she was finally asked when she’d return to work.  “Oh, I don’t know, maybe in four months,” she said—and the firm had a four month maternity leave policy after that.

National Work-Life and Family Month was declared for the first time in October of 2003 by Senate Resolution 533, and work-life balance has made some significant strides since Clinton’s law firm partnership.  Today, most law firms, as well as other employers, are more clear about their maternity leave policies.

However, the United States remains the only developed nation without mandatory paid maternity leave for employees.  The only required leave employers must provide to an employee who has given birth is FMLA leave, which is unpaid and lasts just six weeks.  This is in contrast to policies in nations like Canada, Sweden, and Norway, which give months or even years of paid parental leave to both mothers and fathers.

Schedule flexibility is also something that is difficult for most employees to obtain in America.  Because United States employers are not required to provide these benefits, many employees experience a great deal of difficulty trying to negotiate work-life balance.  Clinton noted in her speech that current research shows a 20 percent increase in employee loyalty at offices that allow more flexibility.

Employers who want to ensure that they’re able to get top employees and keep those employees need to consider implementing flexible programs, and not just for women of childbearing age, according to Clinton.  Flexibility may also be useful to employees in other situations—for example, those with aging parents with health problems, or who are having serious illnesses themselves.

The State Department’s response to the challenges of creating a work-life balance for employees was to create a Work-Life division that is responsible for helping employees with important decisions involving their work-life balance.  The Work-Life division provides childcare and childcare subsidies for State Department employees, as well as assisting employees with referrals to services that can help them solve personal or professional problems.

Source: State.gov

Introduction

Mississippi may soon become the only U.S. state without any abortion clinics. This is due to the state’s most recent abortion restrictions, which are set to be argued in court this week. The restrictions, known as TRAP regulations, have been criticized by many as a thinly veiled attempt to limit women’s access to abortion.

Background on Abortion Regulations in Mississippi

Mississippi is just one of several U.S. states that have sought to regulate abortion providers more strictly in recent years. In many cases, these regulations have been challenged in court by abortion providers and pro-choice advocates who argue that they place an undue burden on women seeking abortion services.

In Mississippi, the state’s most recent abortion regulations require that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a local hospital. This requirement, supporters argue, is necessary to ensure that women who experience complications during the procedure can receive appropriate medical care.

The Last Abortion Clinic in Mississippi

The last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi is the Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The clinic has provided abortion services in the state since 1996 and has been the subject of numerous legal challenges in recent years.

The most recent challenge to the clinic’s existence stems from the state’s TRAP regulations. According to the Mississippi State Department of Health, none of the physicians at the Jackson Women’s Health Organization have admitting privileges at local hospitals, meaning that the clinic would be forced to close if the regulations are enforced.

Impact on Women’s Access to Abortion

If the last abortion clinic in Mississippi is shut down, women in the state who wish to have an abortion will be forced to travel to other states in order to access the procedure. This will likely be particularly difficult for low-income women and those living in rural areas, who may not have the resources or transportation necessary to travel long distances.

In addition to limiting women’s access to abortion services, the TRAP regulations in Mississippi highlight the ongoing debate over abortion rights in the United States. Supporters argue that these regulations are necessary to protect the health of women seeking abortions, while opponents argue that they are a thinly veiled attempt to restrict women’s access to abortion.

Conclusion

The last abortion clinic in Mississippi may soon be forced to close due to the state’s most recent abortion regulations. This would make Mississippi the only U.S. state without any abortion clinics, severely limiting women’s access to abortion services in the state. The ongoing debate over abortion rights and restrictions in the United States highlights the need for continued advocacy and activism in support of women’s reproductive rights.

Mississippi, one of several U.S. states with only one remaining abortion clinic, goes to court this week to argue in favor of its most recent abortion restrictions.  If enacted, the restrictions (commonly referred to by supporters as TRAP, or Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) would almost certainly shut down the last abortion clinic in the state, making Mississippi the only U.S. state without any abortion clinics whatsoever.

According to the new state law, all people performing an abortion must be board certified obstetricians and gynecologists.  In some other states, nurse practitioners and general practice doctors are allowed to perform abortion procedures, which are generally considered to be safe and very simple surgery in the first trimester.

While the clinic could comply with this regulation, the second part of the law makes compliance all but impossible.  The regulations call for all doctors working in abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a hospital near to their clinic.

In Mississippi, as in North Dakota and other states with few clinics left and politically hostile environments, abortion providers prefer flying in from out of state.  This allows them to live in an area where residents are less likely to harass them or their families.  However, it also prevents them from obtaining admitting privileges.

The continuing restrictions against abortion providers were challenged by the abortion clinic, and a federal court will hear an appeal in the case this week.  According to the clinic’s owners, no abortion clinic in the state would be able to meet the onerous new requirements.  Because of this, the laws essentially ban first trimester abortions in the state of Mississippi, a state of affairs forbidden by the United States Supreme Court since its decision in Roe v. Wade.

Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers have also been used in several other states.  One of the biggest recent cases has involved new Virginia legislation that created new building standards for abortion clinics.  None of the state’s ten abortion clinics are likely to be able to meet the standards in time, and many of the standards are not related in any way to patient care or medical outcomes.

The appeals court decision in this case may lead to a Supreme Court case regarding TRAP regulations.  It is likely that the Supreme Court will have to draw a line somewhere in order to maintain the precedent on abortion set by previous Supreme Court rulings.

Introduction

Parental notification laws have been a contentious issue in the United States for many years. In Florida, a recent case has brought the issue to the forefront once again. This article will provide an overview of the recent appeals court ruling regarding a parental notification waiver for a teenage girl seeking an abortion.

Background on Florida’s Parental Notification Law

In Florida, a state law requires that parents be notified when their underage daughter seeks an abortion, with some exceptions for cases of medical emergency or judicial waiver. The law has faced legal challenges in the past, with opponents arguing that it places an unfair burden on underage girls seeking abortions.

The Recent Appeals Court Ruling

The most recent challenge to Florida’s parental notification law came in the form of a teenage girl seeking an abortion. The girl requested a waiver of the notification requirement, citing concerns about her safety and well-being if her parents were notified.

After a lower court denied the waiver request, the case went to the appeals court. The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to reverse the lower court’s decision, granting the teenage girl the waiver she requested.

Impact of the Ruling on Florida’s Parental Notification Law

The recent appeals court ruling has drawn attention to the issue of parental notification laws in Florida and beyond. Pro-choice advocates argue that these laws place undue burdens on underage girls seeking abortions and can be detrimental to their health and well-being.

On the other hand, supporters of parental notification laws argue that parents have a right to be involved in their child’s decision to have an abortion and that these laws are necessary to protect underage girls from potential harm.

Conclusion

The recent appeals court ruling on a parental notification waiver for a teenage girl seeking an abortion in Florida brings attention to the ongoing debate over parental notification laws in the United States. While these laws are designed to protect minors, they also have the potential to cause harm and limit access to necessary healthcare services. As the debate over reproductive rights continues, it is important to consider the impact that these laws have on the lives of underage girls and their families.

Florida’s statute requiring parental notification in most situations where a girl under 18 is seeking an abortion was put to the test earlier this week.  According to Florida 10th Judicial Circuit documents, appeals court judges ruled 2-1 to reverse a lower court’s decision denying a waiver of parental notification requirements to a teenage girl.

Initially, a judge in Polk County told the girl that she would not be allowed to obtain a parental notification waiver.  The girl had expressed fear over talking to her mother about the procedure and worried that she would be unwelcome in her home.  She had no meaningful contact with her father.

The teen is identified as Jane Doe in court documents to protect her privacy in this sensitive case.  The 2nd District Court of Appeal’s ruling indicated that two of the three judge panel believed that the girl had exercised reasonable judgment when asking for a parental notification waiver and permission to seek an abortion.

According to the majority, made up of Judge Douglas Wallace and Judge Stevan Northcutt, the girl’s fears about her mother seemed grounded in facts, and the girl had also expressed fears about an inability to continue academically if she were to have her child.  Rather than a “frivolous schoolgirl,” they said that the girl had acted maturely and with regard for her academic and economic future.

The 17 year old Jane Doe says she became pregnant after a night of heavy drinking at a party and has only vague recollections of the events in question.  This caused the dissenting judge to question her level of judgment and ability to make a decision concerning her pregnancy.

Florida laws allow judges a great deal of discretion in allowing or forbidding a parental notification waiver.  Judges are asked to consider several factors in their determinations, including the age of the minor involved, their level of maturity, intelligence, credibility, and whether they are capable of understanding and consenting to the medical risks involved with the abortion procedure.

Judge Anthony Black, in his dissent, said that too much attention had been paid to the words in the girl’s testimony.  However, he said, the trial judge in the case had observed what he considered to be troubling demeanor, including what he claimed was a “cavalier” attitude toward the abortion procedure.

Cases involving parental notification waivers can often involve judicial back and forth that delays abortions by weeks or even months—which can mean that by the time the issue is finally decided, a girl is prohibited from having an abortion either by statute or because of the higher price of late term abortions.

Source: flcourts.org

Introduction

A new law passed by Iran’s Parliament has dealt a significant blow to women’s rights in the country. Under the new law, women under the age of 40 will need permission from a male guardian in order to obtain a passport or travel outside the country. The passage of this law has sparked outrage and concern among women’s rights advocates and human rights groups around the world.

History of Women’s Rights in Iran

Women’s rights have long been a contentious issue in Iran. Despite making strides in recent years, women in Iran still face significant challenges and restrictions. For example, women are required to wear headscarves in public, and are subject to discrimination in areas such as education and employment.

New Law Restricts Women’s Freedom of Movement

The new law passed by Iran’s Parliament is a significant setback for women’s rights. Under the law, women under the age of 40 will not be allowed to obtain a passport or travel outside the country without the permission of a male guardian, such as a father or husband. This restriction not only limits women’s freedom of movement, but also reinforces patriarchal structures that prioritize male authority and control over women’s lives.

Impact on Women’s Lives

The passage of this law has significant implications for women’s lives in Iran. It limits their ability to travel for work, education, or leisure, and reinforces gender inequality in the country. The law also perpetuates a cycle of discrimination and oppression that affects not only women, but also the broader society.

International Response and Advocacy Efforts

The passage of this law has sparked outrage and concern among human rights groups and women’s rights advocates around the world. Many have demanded that the Iranian government repeal the law and take steps to promote gender equality and women’s rights in the country. International pressure and advocacy efforts may be necessary to effect change and protect the rights of women in Iran.

Conclusion

The passage of the new law in Iran restricting women’s freedom of movement is a significant setback for women’s rights in the country. It reinforces patriarchal structures and perpetuates discrimination against women. Advocacy efforts and international pressure may be necessary to promote gender equality and protect the rights of women in Iran.

The precarious status of women in Iran has taken another step backwards with the passage of a new law in Iranian Parliament.  According to the text of the new law, which was passed by Iran’s 290 seat Parliament this week, women under the age of 40 will be required to obtain permission from their father or other male guardian before being permitted to obtain a passport or travel outside the country.

Prior to the passage of the new law by parliament, the nation required all people under 18 to receive permission from their father or other male guardian at the time of obtaining a passport.  Women who had attained the age of majority were required to obtain permission from their husbands if they were married, but single women over 18 did not have any requirements that limited their ability to obtain a passport.  Now, even single women would be required to have parental permission to travel—Iranian women already required permission to marry, regardless of their age.

Iranian women’s rights activists are furious over the move, which they say is another in a series of escalating political backlashes to women trying to assert their rights in the Islamic republic.  They note that Iran’s government still allows girls to marry at age 13, and will even allow this age to drop lower if they believe that Islamic law allows it in a particular circumstance.

The rights of women in Iran have varied substantially over the nation’s history.  Historically, while Persia (the older name for Iran) was a male-dominated society, it allowed a substantial amount of room for women’s contributions.  Mid-20th century reforms made it so women were permitted to receive an education and even become part of government.

However, when the current Islamic Republic of Iran government started after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, that government immediately ordered a number of traditionalist reforms that restricted the freedoms of women.  For example, while many Iranian women had chosen to go about their day in public before the revolution without a hijab, or headscarf, new rules required headscarves to be worn at all times when women were in public.

Some positive reforms for women have stuck in the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the high rates of education for women and girls.  However, a recent change to the educational laws of Iran also means that there will be fewer college age women attending school there.  Government forces recently moved to restrict women from studying any course of study that was deemed too masculine, including everything from engineering to foreign languages.

Critics of Iran’s new policies say that they are transparent attempts to try to reverse the progress that Iranian women have made over the last decade in overturning oppressive laws and making steps toward equality.  Protests are expected in the capital of Tehran over the new travel restrictions for single women, as well as over other recent policy changes that have affected women negatively.

Sources: awid.org, state.gov

Introduction

Proposed changes to a parental leave program used by hundreds of attorneys in Ontario may leave pregnant attorneys with limited options for continuing their legal practice. The changes are being proposed as a cost-saving measure by the Ontario Law Society and have caused concern among many lawyers who rely on the program. Here’s what you need to know about the issue.

Background

The Law Society of Ontario introduced a parental leave assistance program for lawyers in 2017. The program, which provides financial assistance to lawyers going on parental leave, has been used by hundreds of attorneys, particularly women, to help them maintain their legal practice while caring for a new child. The proposed changes would see the funding for the program cut significantly, leaving many lawyers without the support they need.

Impact on Women Lawyers

Critics of the proposed changes argue that they will disproportionately impact women lawyers, who are more likely to take parental leave than their male counterparts. They assert that the changes will make it difficult for women to maintain their legal practice and return to work after having a child. Lawyers who have relied on the program in the past are concerned about how they will continue to practice law without the support provided by the program.

Cost-Saving Measures

The Law Society of Ontario has proposed the changes as a cost-saving measure to address a projected budget shortfall. The organization has stated that it will explore other options to support lawyers on parental leave, but critics argue that the proposed cuts will have a significant impact on the legal profession, particularly for women lawyers.

Call for Action

As lawyers and advocates voice their concerns about the proposed changes, the Law Society of Ontario is expected to hold a debate on the issue this week. Lawyers are calling for the organization to reconsider the changes and to maintain the support provided by the parental leave program. They argue that the changes will not only have a negative impact on individual lawyers but will also harm the legal profession as a whole.

Conclusion

The proposed changes to the parental leave assistance program in Ontario have caused concern among lawyers, particularly women, who rely on the support provided by the program. Critics argue that the changes will limit the options available to lawyers on parental leave and will have a negative impact on the legal profession. As the Law Society of Ontario debates the proposed changes, many are calling for the organization to maintain the support provided by the program and to explore other options to address budget concerns.

A cut to a parental leave program that hundreds of attorneys—most of them women—have depended on for three years may leave some pregnant attorneys without options for continuing their legal practice.  The changes, proposed as a cost savings measure by the Ontario Law Society, will be debated later this week.

The Ontario Law Society licenses attorneys and provides services to attorneys in the Canadian province of Ontario the same way that state bar associations do in the United States.  Three years ago, it began a pilot program to give parental leave to new parents who were trying to juggle their parental responsibilities with their professional ones.

The program, which cost about half a million dollars per year, was designed to supplement the income of attorneys taking parental leave as solo practitioners or while working for small firms.  Larger firms often have ad hoc maternity leave policies or relatively new policies that allow attorneys to continue being paid for several months after giving birth.  However, smaller firms generally cannot afford to give this kind of maternity benefit, and solo practitioners may lack the funds to simply not take clients for a few months while they recover from labor.

The province of Ontario does have special benefits that can pay up to $450 per week during parental leave, this is often not enough for attorneys to continue to pay office rents.  If the $750 a week program through the Ontario Law Society is discontinued, the unemployment insurance $450 per week maximum may be the best that many solo practitioners and small firm attorneys can do.

Ontario’s law society chose to implement the parental leave program after noticing that while women made up 50 percent of the graduating class of Ontario’s law schools, after 8 years in the profession they were only 35 percent.  Women at small firms, according to the law society, are likely to stop working when they are unable to go back to work for several months after giving birth, because they are unable to continue billing clients and lack family friendly flexibility.

Currently, people who are deriving benefits from the policy typically take about 12 weeks total of paid leave.  While men are allowed to receive parental leave benefits, women have been far more likely to use the program and constitute the vast majority of its recipients to date.

In order to use the program, attorneys must demonstrate that they work at a firm with five lawyers or fewer, that they are becoming a birth or adoptive parent, and that they are unable to obtain any other type of paid leave.  They must also stop doing any legal work during the time that they are receiving the parental leave benefit, in order to prevent attorneys from simply having the benefit paid out in addition to salary for several weeks.

Sources: lsuc.on.ca, theglobeandmail.com

KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT TEXT

What was the the Kansas-Nebraska Act ?

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a bill, originally proposed in 1854 by Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas that split the American territories west of Missouri into two factions, the Nebraska territory and the Kansas territory.  In the Kansas-Nebraska Act the two territories were to decide for themselves, through poplar sovereignty whether to permit slavery or not.  

The territory of Kansas comprised the land west of the Missouri border to the summit of the Rocky Mountains in what are now the States of Kansas and most of Colorado.  The territory of Nebraska consisted of the area north of Kansas to the Canadian border and west to the great divide. 

Background

Since the 1840’s the idea of a transcontinental railroad were becoming more and more prosperous to the United States.  Senator Stephen Douglas, partly to aid his constituents in Illinois and partly to garner support for a presidential run, wished to have the transcontinental railroad travel through Illinois; having its hub in Chicago. 

In order to make this happen the transcontinental railroad would have to take a northern route, putting it through, what was then, the Nebraska Territory.  His proposal was to organize the territory of Nebraska to bring it under civil control and populate the area which was, at this point in time, frontier land subject to attacks by Native Americans.  In Douglas’s view, manifest destiny required the removal of those members of the population who were deemed to be deviant and violent, meaning Native Americans.  The way to accomplish this goal was to create an incentive for individuals to establish communities and drive out the former inhabitants.

The proposal did not fare well among the southern population.  The southern States argued that The Missouri Compromise of 1820 outlawed slavery above the 36th latitude and therefore the Nebraska Territory would become a free territory.  

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 came about over the admission of Maine and Missouri as States in the Union.  After debate in Congress it was decided that Maine would be admitted as a Free State and Missouri a slave State.  In addition it was ruled that the slavery issue in all other territories west of Missouri would be decided on a geographic level.  All those lands north of the 36th parallel would be Free States and that south of that line would be slaves States.  The Missouri Compromise was amended in 1850 with the annexation of Texas.  The revised version, The Missouri Compromise of 1850 would make California a free State, Texas a slave State and the slaver issue in Utah and New Mexico territories would be decided by popular sovereignty.  

For fear that the territories would eventually become States and ultimately create an imbalance in Congress over the slavery issue, the south argued against the Act.  In order to quell southern dissent, and garner support for the bill, Douglas proposed a compromise.  

The compromise entailed the division of the Nebraska Territory into two distinct territories, the Nebraska Territory and the Kansas Territory.  In both territories the settlers were to vote on whether they would allow slavery in the territory.  Although it was never repealed, the Act ignored parameters of The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and helped bring the Civil War closer than ever.

Results of the Kansas-Nebraska Act

Immediate Results

Upon the Kansas-Nebraska Act’s enactment in May of 1854 it was already highly controversial and condemned by the Northern States.  It was considered a complete affront to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and was considered a betrayal by their own Senator.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act was also condemned by northerners because there was never a question as to whether the Nebraska Territory, before the Kansas-Nebraska Act, would become a free or slave territory.  Most of the territory was situated so far north that even the need for slaves was lacking.  Aside from the part of the territory that now comprises Nebraska and Kansas, there was little thought that the area would become a highly intense agricultural area demanding the use of slave labor.

The response to the Kansas-Nebraska act was nothing more than a rush to settle the Kansas Territory.  Where the decision on slavery was going to come to a popular vote, it was important for both the North and the South to settle the territory as much as possible to insure favorable results.  

First election in Kansas

In a rush to settle the Kansas Territory, northerners from New England and other anti-slavery areas began to rush into the territory to settle the region.  A group of anti-slavery activists estimated at 1200 individuals entered Kansas in July of 1854 and established the city of Lawrence which was to be the focal point of the anti-slavery movement in Kansas.  

Upon hearing of the influx of up to 20,000 northern ant-slavery supporters into Kansas a surge of individuals from the southern States began to converge on the territory.  In November of 1854 thousands of southerners, mostly from the Missouri border just to the east, converged on Kansas, armed with firearms in an attempt to vote on slavery’s behalf.  This resulted in almost half of the votes that were cast in the territorial election of 1854 being cast by those who were actual resident.  The vote resulted in pro-slavery advocates having won the election.  However, because of the blatant and obvious voter fraud associated with the election, the results were nullified and another election was held.

A second election was held in March of 1855; again pro slavery forces from Missouri and other southern states infiltrated the territory.  Some estimates have stated that between 3000 to 6000 individuals stormed the Kansas Territory to vote for the pro-slavery agenda.  The pro-slavery vote won the second election as well and the territory began to establish itself as pro-slavery.

Upon the victory of the pro-slavery faction in the election of 1855 the First Kansas Territorial Legislature enacted a number of laws, commonly known as the bogus laws.  These laws were highly discriminatory towards anti-slavery persons living within the Kansas Territory.  

The “bogus laws”, as they were called because northerners felt that they had; and rightly so, stolen the election, adopted the statutes of Missouri as the law in Kansas.  The Kansas Territorial Legislature also adopted what are known as the “black laws.” The black laws were enacted in order to “punish offenses against slave property.” The “offenses” included: aiding or assisting decoying a slave punishable, by death; raising or insurrection among slaves, punishable by death; printing or publishing any document calculated to produce “dangerous disaffection” among slaves, punishable by 5 years of hard labor; and even speaking or writing about the condemnation of slavery, punishable by 2 years of hard labor.

Bleeding Kansas

The result of the establishment of the Kansas Territory as a pro-slavery territory combined with the enactment of the “bogus laws” resulted in a powder keg of violence.  In May of 1856 a group of 800 men attacked the pro-slavery capitol of Lawrence, Kansas.  The mob burned buildings, destroyed the newspaper offices and In May 1856, an 800-man “posse” made up of border ruffians from Missouri sacked Lawrence, wrecking the newspaper offices and the Governor’s residence.  In response the abolitionist, John Brown; who would be immortalized in the Harpers Ferry massacre, and four of his sons abducted five pro-slavery settlers and murdered them within the view of their families.  Overall, the ongoing skirmishes associated with “bleeding Kansas” resulted in the deaths of 200 individuals.  

In Congress there was the same amount of civility.  The Kansas problem had caused anger between the representatives of both sides and after one speech given by Senator Charles Sumner, where he ridiculed southern congressmen of cavorting with “the harlot, slavery”, was bludgeoned with a cane by Congressman Preston Brooks.

Lincoln Douglas Debates of 1858

In the infamous Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858, which propelled Lincoln to the presidency, the issue of slavery was the main topic at hand.  Lincoln used the example of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the resulting “bleeding Kansas” as stepping stone to stress the point about the spread of slavery.  Where Lincoln did not condemn slavery, at least not vocally at this point, he did take not to mention, with “bleeding Kansas” as an example, that the idea of slavery is so strong in the ideals of those who want it that they will go to far reaches to insure it dominion.  Lincoln noted that slavery must be checked because otherwise it would encompass the entire country.

Kansas as a Free State

Due to the overwhelming violence and obvious voter fraud associated with the Kansas-Nebraska Act the decision was finally made to admit Kansas as Free State in the Union.  The pro-slavery faction of Congress condemned the decision claiming, among other things, that it went against the elections that were held to decide the matter.  Congress stalled and Kansas was not admitted to the Union until 1861 when the southern States began to secede from the Union.

To read the Kansas-Nebraska Act please go to https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=28&page=transcript

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854: A Controversial Piece of Legislation

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was a piece of legislation that allowed for the creation of two new territories, Kansas and Nebraska, by dividing the land of the Louisiana Purchase into two parts. While this may have seemed like a simple and straightforward action, it ended up being one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in American history. In this article, we will take a closer look at the Kansas-Nebraska Act and its impact on American history.

The Need for New Territories

At the time, the United States was expanding westward. The Louisiana Purchase, made in 1803, had vastly expanded America’s territory, but as more and more people moved west, it became clear that new territories were needed. This need was especially urgent after the discovery of gold in California in 1848, which led to a rush of settlers heading west in search of riches.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was introduced by Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois in January 1854. Douglas was a strong advocate of popular sovereignty, the idea that the settlers of a new territory should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow slavery within their borders. The act proposed that the issue of slavery in the new territories be decided by popular sovereignty.

The act was not without controversy. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 had prohibited slavery in any new territories north of latitude 36°30′, but the Kansas-Nebraska Act would repeal this compromise. This was seen as a betrayal by many in the North, who felt that their interests were being ignored in favor of the interests of the South.

Bleeding Kansas

The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act led to a rush of settlers heading west to stake their claim to the new territory. However, things quickly turned violent in Kansas, with pro- and anti-slavery settlers clashing in what became known as “Bleeding Kansas.” The violence included raids, arson, and even outright fighting between the two factions.

The impact of the Kansas-Nebraska Act was far-reaching. It helped to further inflame tensions between the North and South over the issue of slavery, ultimately leading to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861. The act also effectively destroyed the Democratic Party, which had been the dominant political force in the country up to that point.

Conclusion

While the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 may have seemed like a simple piece of legislation at the time, its impact on American history cannot be overstated. It helped to bring the issue of slavery to the forefront of national politics, ultimately leading to the outbreak of the Civil War. It is a reminder of the power of legislation and how even seemingly small actions can have far-reaching consequences.