Question 1: 1. In what way did the Kansas–Nebraska Act repeal the Missouri Compromise?

            To begin with, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was originally established and implemented by the United States’ congress to give the citizens of Nebraska and Kansas the authority to choose for themselves whether to allow slavery to continue within their borders or not. Ideally, the reason for that is to assist in repealing the Missouri Compromise of the late 1820 that was noted to prohibit slavery. In return, it ended up infuriating the majority in the northern parts who had already considered the Missouri Compromise as being a long-standing agreement that united them.  In the southern part, people had greatly supported the pro-slavery agreement (Roy, 1953). 

            On the other hand, there was an urgent demand to organize the western territories in an effect way. The relentless trend towards the need of expanding the western territory had ultimately ended up pushing ranchers, farmers, and prospects towards the pacific. Regardless of the means that were used to access the north and the south, there was the need of ensuring that a railroad has been developed to link the pacific and the eastern states.  Despite that, it was impossible to pass rail lines through the unstructured Nebraska territory that lied north of the Missouri Compromise in which slavery was greatly prohibited.

            Additionally, the reason as to why this act was passed was to aid in reorganizing these two territories with or without slavery something that was termed as popular sovereignty. Although it ended up contracting the Missouri Compromise, it left an open question concerning slavery. The reason for that is because there was the need of ensuring that it has satisfied a group of the powerful southern senators who were approved the Missouri Compromise. As a means of repealing the 1820 Missouri Compromise lines, there was the need of uniting both the Nebraska bill and the Kansas bill because each had a different agenda (Roy, 1953). 

            It should be understood that although the Missouri Compromise ended up drawing an imaginary line that in return considered the northern part to be a free territory.  To counter the effect of this, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed so as to aid in intruding the idea of the popular sovereignty. The popular sovereignty was to give the residents of the newly formed states the potential of deciding whether to allow slavery within their borders or not. Ideally, this is to imply that the intention was to allow slave trade to be carried on in these two territories (Roy, 1953). Last, but not least, it was important to repeal the Missouri Compromise because in the process of advocating for slavery, it had in return devastated the life of the people. It has also deprived the republican the potential to influence the world as well as enabled the establishment of free institutions.

Question 2: Why did Lincoln consider the act the result of “covert real zeal for the spread of slavery?

            The position Abraham Lincoln had on slavery was one of the means he used to express his moral ideas about the dangers of slave trade.  Although he had initially tried to come up with the idea of fostering the eventual extermination of slavery through stopping it from expanding any further in the Unites States’ territory, there was the need of ensuring that he had also proposed the idea of compensated emancipation. One of the issues behind that was the fact that the expansion of slavery into the newly formed western lands could end up blocking free labor. He also believed that it was wise to administer a controlled extinction of slavery through voluntary colonization rather than following the ideas of the abolitionists who demanded compensation to the owners (Good, 2009). 

            On the other hand, the idea Abraham Lincoln had was that even if it was difficult to end the institution that was already introduced to manage slavery, it provided no concrete reason or reasons as to why it was important to own slaves.  Considering his views, it was absolutely unjust as well as it has the likelihood of making Americans to be hypocrites.  As much as he was against slavery, he did not believe that it was important to emancipate compensation to the slave owners. The reason for that is because since the extent of the time it was to take was also unpredictable, there was the need of ensuring that the slaves were free and sent back to the motherland (Good, 2009).  Although that a strategy was not monetary or timely possible, it was important to free them, guarantee them equality and freedom, and let them stay among themselves.

            Nonetheless, inaction to it was perceived to foster the spread of slavery. According to his opinions, despite the fact that their nation was established on fundamental doctrines of freedom, slavery could have offered others the right to brand them hypocrites because of fostering a system of slavery. In addition to that, this system also had the potential of depriving America the just influence it had on the rest of the world as well as opposing the founding principles that were established during the Declaration of Independence. The correlation that existed between racial equality and abolition should be regarded as being the graphic organizer.

 

                       

 

                                                            References

Good, T. S. (2009). Lincoln for president: An underdog's path to the 1860 Republican nomination. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland.

Roy, P. B. (1953). The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press