Why was there a "Bleeding Kansas" but not a "Bleeding Nebraska"? Weren't both territories supposed to determine whether they would be free or slave based on a "popular sovereignty" referendum of voters under the terms of the Kansas-Nebraska Act? So why did only Kansas have violence between abolitionists and pro-slavery forces?
Please respond.
>>574058
Nebraska had no abolitionists or pro-slavery forces.
Just cows. Some corn, maybe. Lotta grass.
>>574655
Current Nebraskan here
Lots of corn and cows, definitely some grass. No slaves tho
In all actuality, Omaha had a pretty interesting history. Was a pretty violent town in its day.
Wasn't it because Nebraska was north of the Missouri compromise line? I think it was just more northern, less suitable for slave agriculture.
>>574832
>Wasn't it because Nebraska was north of the Missouri compromise line?
So was Kansas, though.