Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854

The year is 1854 and the U.S, government is debating expansion. This current debate is being driven by a need to open up thousands and thousands of acres for new farms and make possible the building of  a Midwestern transcontinental railroad. So far so good. Even better is that everyone agrees they want the United States to have more farm land and more railroads. But then popular sovereignty is written into proposed legislation making this expansion possible and suddenly a seemingly easy piece of governmental action becomes a lot more complicated. Proponents of slavery and  those who are against it rise up in protest with equal fury. Their conflict, of course, is something that has been going on since the still-young nation's beginning days nearly 70 years ago.

As the legislator behind this expansion, Congressman Stephen Douglas believes letting people of those territories decide for themselves whether they want to allow slavery is the best way to go. His perspective sets off a firestorm of criticism. Anti-slavery proponents accuse Douglas of betraying their cause and pro-slavery advocates erupt with indignation over what they interpret as actions that reduce the right to own slaves. Many prominent politicians weigh in on this debate, including Charles Sumner, Sam Houston, Franklin Pierce, Thomas Hart Benton, and a very young Abraham Lincoln. The result is the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, legislation that many feel paved the way to the War Between the States. At the very least, it did contribute to violence.

The point of this brief history lesson is it represents a vivid example of ineffective communication. Parties representing both sides of the slavery issue tried to co-author a plan in which neither side would make any meaningful compromise.  Neither side wanted to sacrifice any part of their position on the slavery issue. As a result, they failed to address the real issue of the debate and ended up making matters worse for themselves and for the nation. This shows how tough communication can be, particularly when two sides place their own needs above those of the greater good. Both sides talked at - not with - each other. The price they paid was terrible.