Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Scalogram analysis of the Kansas-Nebraska bill of 1854 and related roll-calls in the house of representatives

  • Published:
Computers and the Humanities Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Allan Nevins,Ordeal of the Union (New York and London: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947), II, 86–96; George F. Milton,The Eve of Conflict (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1934), pp. 107–111, 120–143; Henry Wilson,History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1874), I, 378–398; James F. Rhodes,History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the Final Restoration of Home Rule in 1877 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1913), I, 424–444; Robert Russel, “The Issues in the Congressional Struggle Over the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, 1854,”Journal of Southern History 29 (May 1963), 187–210.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gerald W. Wolff, “Party and Section: The Senate and the Kansas-Nebraska Bill,”Civil War History 18 (December 1972), 293–311; Russel, “Congressional Struggle Over the Kansas-Nebraska Bill,” 187–210; Roy F. Nichols, “The Kansas-Nebraska Act: A Century of Historiography,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 43 (September 1956), 187–212.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Nichols, “The Kansas-Nebraska Act,” 208–209.

  4. Ibid., 209.

  5. Ibid., 209–210; U.S.Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, 1854, XXIII, Pt. 1, 700–703; Joshua Giddings to his son, February 12, 1854, in Joshua Giddings Papers (Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.);Pittsburgh Gazette, March 9, 1854, Washington Correspondent, March 6, 1854;Pittsburgh Gazette, March 24, 1854, Washington Correspondent, March 21, 1854;Detroit Free Press, March 25, 1854.

  6. Nichols, “The Kansas-Nebraska Act,” 210.

  7. For example, the anti-Nebraska Representatives held caucuses the night before the votes were taken and agreed not to participate. This decision, if carried through, would have left the House without a quorum. In the end, however, the tactic failed as most of the Democrats, both for and against the Nebraska Bill, showed up and voted. See theNew Orleans Times Picayune, May 10, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 8, 1854. The opposition also raised petty points of order and demanded a vote count on each motion to set aside the bills, even though they knew the situation was hopeless. U.S.Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, 1854, XXIII, Pt. 2, 1130–1133, andRichmond Enquirer, May 10, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 8, 1854. Also see Roy F. Nichols,American Leviathan (New York: Harper and Row Publishers 1963), pp. 110–111.

  8. U.S.Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, 1854, XXIII, Pt. 2, 1132.

  9. Ibid., 1160–1186;Charleston Courier, May 15, 16, and 17, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 11, 12, and 13, 1854;Cincinnati Enquirer, May 17, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 13, 1854;Detroit Free Press, May 17, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 11 and 12, 1854;Richmond Enquirer, May 13 and 17, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 11 and 13, 1854; Israel Washburn to James S. Pike, May 13, 1854, quoted in James S. Pike,First Blows of the Civil War (New York: The American News Company, 1879), p. 226.

  10. U.S.Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, 1854, XXIII, Pt. 2, 1187–1193;Charleston Courier, May 18, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 14, 1854;Detroit Free Press, May 18, 19, and 23, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 15 and 16, 1854;Philadelphia Public Ledger, May 15, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 13, 1854; Nichols,Leviathan, 116; Rhodes,History of the United States (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920–1928), I, 487.

  11. U.S.Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, 1854, XXIII, Pt. 2, 1196–1197, 1209–1210, 1222–1223, 1228–1255, 1300–1311, and 1320–1321;Baltimore Sun, May 22, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 21, 1854;Charleston Courier, May 24, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 20, 1854; Fred H. Harrington,Fighting Politician, Major General Nathaniel P. Banks (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1948), p. 21; G. Bailey to James S. Pike, May 21, 1854, quoted in Pike,First Blows of the Civil War, 233–234; Alexander H. Stephens to —, May 11, 1854, quoted in R. M. Johnston and W. H. Broune,Life of Alexander H. Stephens (Philadelphia: Lippincott Publisher, 1878);Baltimore Sun, May 23, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 22, 1854;Charleston Courier, May 25, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 22, 1854;Cincinnati Enquirer, May 27, 1854, Washington Correspondent May 23, 1854;Detroit Free Press, May 26, 1854, Washington Correspondent, May 22, 1854; Joshua R. Giddings,History of the Rebellion, Its Authors and Causes (New York: Follett Publishers, 1864), pp. 370–371; Horace Greeley,The American Conflict (Hartford: O. O. Case and Company, 1867), I, 234.

  12. Gerald W. Wolff, “The Kansas-Nebraska Bill and Congressional Voting Behavior in the Thirty-Third Congress” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, University of Iowa, 1969), Chapter V; Russel, “Congressional Struggle Over the Kansas-Nebraska Bill,” 187–210; Nichols, “The Kansas-Nebraska Act,” 208–212.

  13. William O. Aydelotte, “Voting Patterns in the British House of Commons in the 1840's,”Comparative Studies in Society and History 5 (January 1963), 134–135; Joel H. Silbey,The Shrine of Party (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967), pp. 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. There was one exception to this. Although most of the some one hundred and fifty roll-calls whose content was directly related to the Kansas-Nebraska Bill did scale with the final vote taken on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, it was decided that it would be more productive, in this analysis, to exclude them. Instead, we have used only those issues that were not directly related to the Nebraska Bill in their content, and yet still revealed a strong scale relationship with the last vote taken on that measure.

  15. Aydelotte, “Voting Patterns in the British House of Commons in the 1840's,” 141.

  16. The problem was to find some general variable or variables reflected by the scale that were significant enough to have determined the votes of the Representatives on each separate roll-call. The most common use and value of Guttman scaling is based, to a great extent, upon the idea that each scale contains a “universe of attributes,” or a collection of characteristics whose content combines to form one general, overall concept. The existence or absence of such a concept must be established before anything else can be done with a scale. See Louis Guttman, “The Basis of Scalogram Analysis,” in Samuel Stouffer et. al.,Measurement and Prediction, Vol. IV:Studies in Social Psychology in World War II (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950), pp. 80 and 83.

    Google Scholar 

  17. The North-South sectional division of the Whigs on the other two issues was as follows:

  18. See Wolff, “The Kansas-Nebraska Bill and Congressional Voting Behavior,” 174–222.

  19. The Democrats who did reject the measure and entered into the debates on the question were Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri and Rufus Peckham and Bishop Perkins of New York, both of whom were “barn-burners.” Benton, it would seem, was mainly concerned with the boost the Gadsden Purchase would give to the southern route for a Pacific railroad. All three men, however, were bitter foes of the Pierce administration, and appear to have been motivated in their negative attitude by this factor. See U.S.Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, 1854, XXIII, Pt. 2, 1541, 1563, 1565, 1545–1546, 1548; Ibid., Appendix, 1028–1037; Robert Russel,The Improvement of Communication with the Pacific Coast as an Issue in American Politics, 1783–1884 (Cedar Rapids, IA: Torch Press, 1948), pp. 148–149.

  20. Ibid.; Madison A. Kuhn, “Economic Issues and the Rise of the Republican Party in the Northwest” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, University of Chicago, 1940), 114–115; Elizabeth Cutting,Life of Jefferson Davis (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1930), p. 102; Hudson Strode,Jefferson Davis, American Patriot, 1808–1861 (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1955), pp. 262–263. See also Roy F. Nichols,Franklin Pierce (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968), pp. 216ff. and Roy F. Nichols,The Democratic Machine, 1850–1854, Vol. III ofStudies in History, Economics, and Public Law, The Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University, ed., 124 vols. (New York: Columbia University, Longmans, Green, and Company, Agents; and London: P. S. King and Son, Ltd.), pp. 170ff.

    Google Scholar 

  21. The three Whigs who spoke during the debates were John L. Taylor of Ohio, Solomon Haven of New York, and Israel Washburn of Maine. See U.S.Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, 1854, XXIII, Pt. 2, 1520, 1523–1524, 1537–1543, 1546–1547, 1549: Russel,Improvement of Communication with the Pacific Coast, 147–149.

  22. Washington Union, June 8, 1854.

  23. U.S.Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, 1854, XXIII, Pt. 2, 1360–1363, 1382.

  24. See Ibid. The only Northern Whigs who spoke during the debates were Solomon Haven of New York, Samuel Parker of Indiana, and Lewis Campbell of Ohio. None of these gentlemen revealed anything meaningful about why they took the position they did, and no other evidence, as far as we know, is available.

  25. Ibid.

  26. U.S.Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 2nd Session, 1855, XXIII, 837.

  27. The French Spoliation claims were against the United States government, although they had originally been against France. The claims involved illegal seizures and condemnations of American vessels by the French prior to the treaty that the United States had signed with France in September of 1800. In that treaty of 1800, the United States assumed those claims in exchange for a release from the 1778 Franco-American treaties of alliance. Before the treaty of 1800 was negotiated, the United States set the spoliation claims at approximately twenty million francs. As the years went by, however, the claimants continued to go unpaid. Since the claims were legitimate and the pressure to satisfy the claimants was great, the issue could not be avoided forever. By 1855, Congress was ready to pass such a bill. Pierce, however, decided to veto the measure, and Congress could not override it. See U.S.Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 2nd Session, 1855, XXIII, 372–432, 648, 796, 801–818; Ibid., App., 116–128, 141–148, 262–266;Detroit Free Press, February 13, 1855; Thomas Bailey,A Diplomatic History of the American People (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1858), p. 98.

  28. For a list of the other seventeen bills that were tabled on this occasion, see U.S.Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, 1854, XXIII, Pt. 2, 1130–1133. Because of a lack of evidence, it is not possible to know whether there were political maneuverings involved in tabling these other seventeen bills. Perhaps other types of arrangements were made with the supporters of these other measures. However, the French Spoliations Bill is the only one of these issues where there is any evidence that a political deal might have been or needed to be worked out in order to postpone its consideration. For that reason, we must be content, for now, to deal with only this bill.

  29. Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 25, 1854, Washington Correspondent, Arpil 23, 1854. Francis P. Blair, even as early as February 1854, also saw a relationship between the French Spoliations Bill and the Kansas-Nebraska legislation. F. P. Blair to William Allen, February 10, 1854, quoted in Reginald McGrane,William Allen, A Study in Western Democracy (Columbus, OH: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1925), pp. 136–137.

  30. Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 25, 1854, Washington Correspondent, April 23, 1854.

  31. Ibid.

  32. U.S.Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 1st Session, 1854, XXIII, Pt. 2, 1131.

  33. Elihu Washburne to James S. Pike, May 8, 1854, quoted in Pike,First Blows of the Civil War, 224.

  34. U.S.Congressional Globe, 33rd Congress, 2nd Session, 1855, XXIII, 374.

  35. Philadelphia Public Ledger, June 29, 1854, Washington Correspondent, June 27, 1854.

  36. Ibid., February 19, 1855, Washington Correspondent, February 16, 1855.

  37. Perhaps the Southern Whigs were part of the arrangement to which we have already alluded. More than likely, however, the Whig solidarity on this issue was a reflection of their hostility to the Democrats. However, the debates on the French Spoliations question reveal little with respect to the Whig motivation, since those debates mainly involved the struggle over what form the bill was to take and whether the claims were legitimate. Even then, few Whigs participated in this discussion. There seems to be little or no information available in other sources regarding this problem.

Download references

Authors
  1. Gerald W. Wolff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Gerald W. Wolff is an associate professor of history at the University of South Dakota.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wolff, G.W. A Scalogram analysis of the Kansas-Nebraska bill of 1854 and related roll-calls in the house of representatives. Comput Hum 8, 71–83 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02530740

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02530740

Keywords

Search

Navigation