Introduction

On September 25, 2012, a federal court issued a superseding indictment against three East Haven police officers. The indictment accuses the officers of violating the civil rights of community members in the East Haven area. This article will provide an overview of the indictment and its implications.

Background on the East Haven Police Officers

The three East Haven police officers—David Cari, Dennis Spaulding, and Jason Zullo—had previously been indicted in January 2012 on charges of conspiracy to commit police misconduct, false arrest, and excessive force. The new superseding indictment expands on those charges, including accusations of racial profiling and conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights.

Accusations of Civil Rights Violations

The indictment accuses the East Haven police officers of engaging in a pattern of discriminatory behavior, including targeting Latinos and using excessive force against them. The officers allegedly made false arrests, used racial slurs, and engaged in other forms of misconduct.

Consequences for the Officers and Community

If found guilty, the East Haven police officers could face significant legal consequences, including fines and imprisonment. The indictment also has implications for the East Haven community, particularly for Latino residents who have been subject to alleged discriminatory behavior by the police.

Response to the Indictment

The indictment has sparked a range of responses, including protests and calls for accountability. Community members, civil rights advocates, and politicians have spoken out against the alleged misconduct, calling for reform and greater police accountability.

Moving Forward

The East Haven police officers’ indictment highlights larger issues of police misconduct and systemic discrimination in law enforcement. It underscores the need for transparency, accountability, and reform in police departments across the country to ensure that civil rights are protected and respected for all members of the community.

Conclusion

The court’s indictment of the three East Haven police officers on civil rights violations is a significant development in the ongoing struggle for police accountability and the protection of civil rights. While the officers are innocent until proven guilty, the charges raise important questions about the role of law enforcement in ensuring equal justice under the law.

On September 25, 2012, the US Attorney for the District of Connecticut and the FBI’s New York Office announced a superseding indictment against David Cari, Dennis Spaulding, and Jason Zullo—all East Haven Police Officers.  The men are accused of violating civil rights of members in the East Haven area.

According to the superseding indictment, the police officers committed 35 acts that violated civil rights.  The three officers conducted unreasonable searches and seizures, used unreasonable force during arrests, and wrote false reports about the arrests.  Many of these arrests were directed toward Latino community members, and many of the unreasonable searches and seizures were directed toward Latino-owned businesses.

Particularly, the new charges against Zullo add onto an incident that occurred in October of 2008.  Officer Zullo was charged after he repeatedly hit a traveling motorcycle with two passengers with his squad car.  The motorcycle crashed and the two victims were thrown to the ground.  Zullo then proceeded to punch one of the victims, who was already injured and pinned to the ground, and then wrote a false police report.

Each of the defendants is charged with one count of conspiracy against rights.  Officer Zullo is charged with three counts of using unreasonable force by a law enforcement officer, and Officer Spalding received one similar charge.  Officer Spalding is also charged with two counts of deprivation of rights for making arrests with enough probably cause, and Cari is facing one similar charge.

The men still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Each count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000.  Spaulding, Zullo, and Cari all face one charge of obstruction of a federal investigation as well.  Each count carries of maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Introduction

The East Orange School District in New Jersey has recently resolved a civil rights violation case with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The case involved allegations of racial discrimination in discipline practices within the district. The agreement reached marks an important step towards addressing issues of systemic racism in schools.

Background on the Case

The East Orange School District was under investigation by the Office for Civil Rights for alleged discrimination against African American students in the administration of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions. The investigation uncovered evidence of racial disparities in discipline, with black students being disproportionately affected by disciplinary actions compared to their white peers.

Resolution Agreement

The resolution agreement between the Department of Education and the East Orange School District outlines a plan for addressing the issues of racial discrimination in disciplinary practices. The district has agreed to implement a series of measures to address the disparities in discipline, including training for staff on issues of cultural competency and implicit bias, as well as implementing restorative justice practices in lieu of traditional disciplinary practices.

Implications for Education and Civil Rights

The resolution of this case has significant implications for both education and civil rights. It highlights the importance of addressing systemic issues of racism within schools that continue to disproportionately impact students of color. The agreement reached between the Department of Education and the East Orange School District serves as a model for other districts to follow in addressing similar issues of racial discrimination.

Moving Forward

Going forward, it is crucial that efforts to address systemic racism in schools continue. This includes examining disciplinary practices, hiring practices, and curriculum to ensure that all students are receiving an education that is free from discrimination. Additionally, efforts must be made to ensure that students who have been affected by discriminatory practices receive adequate support and resources.

Conclusion

The resolution of the case between the East Orange School District and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights marks an important step towards addressing issues of systemic racism within schools. It highlights the importance of addressing issues of discrimination in disciplinary practices and serves as a model for other districts to follow. It is crucial that efforts to address systemic racism in education continue moving forward.

The Department of Education has been involved in an ongoing case with the East Orange School District in New Jersey after the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) found the school was in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.  The OCR announced they reached an agreement with the school district on October 1, 2012.

The OCR initially started the investigation to see if the school district was inappropriately placing qualified students with a disability in separate classrooms instead of a regular class which is required by Section 504 and Title II.  The investigation concluded that the school district was placing other qualified disabled students in “self-contained classrooms.”  The OCR revealed that between 2010 and 2011, the district had a total of 1,462 disabled students and 64 percent were placed in “self-contained placements.” Furthermore, 535 of the students with learning disabilities were placed in “self-contained settings.”

The district worked alongside OCR during the investigation, and a resolution agreement was reached.  The district agreed to create new procedures for placing qualified disabled students in regular classroom settings unless the district concludes in writing that the student cannot reach satisfactory results even with the help of aids or additional services.

The district will also train staff with new teaching practices, and the district will also launch a review of all disabled students who are currently in self-contained settings.  If parents or guardians are still displeased with the placement, the district announces they will respect their right to a due process hearing.

Russlynn Ali, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, states, “Whenever possible, students with disabilities should be education in regular educational programs in our nation’s public schools.  I applaud the steps the East Orange School District has agreed to take to address immediate concerns and to put systems in place to help ensure its compliance with Section 504 and Title II.”

Source: U.S. Department of Education

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

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.