World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Kansas–Nebraska Act

This 1856 map shows slave states (gray), free states (pink), U.S. territories (green), and Kansas in center (white).

The Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 (10 Stat. 277) created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, opening new lands for settlement, and had the effect of repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820 by allowing white male settlers in those territories to determine through popular sovereignty whether they would allow slavery within each territory. The act was designed by Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. The initial purpose of the Kansas–Nebraska Act was to open up many thousands of new farms and make feasible a Midwestern Transcontinental Railroad. It became a problem when popular sovereignty was written into the proposal so that the voters of the moment would decide whether slavery would be allowed or not. The result was that pro- and anti-slavery elements flooded into Kansas with the goal of voting slavery up or down, leading to Bleeding Kansas.[1]

Douglas hoped that the formula of "popular sovereignty" would ease national tensions over the issue of human bondage and that he would not have to take a side on the issue. However, a wave of indignation erupted across the North as anti-slavery elements cried betrayal, for Kansas had been officially closed to slavery since the Missouri Compromise of 1820, now repealed. Opponents denounced the law as a triumph of the hated slave power—that is the political power of the rich slave owners, who would buy up the best lands in Kansas, leaving ordinary men with the leftovers. The new Republican Party, which was created in opposition to the act, aimed to stop the expansion of slavery and soon emerged as the dominant political party in the North, electing its first president, Abraham Lincoln, in 1860.


  • Background 1
  • Congressional action 2
    • Introduction of the Nebraska bill 2.1
    • Meeting with President Pierce 2.2
    • Debate in the Senate 2.3
    • Debate in the House of Representatives 2.4
  • Bleeding Kansas 3
  • Results 4
  • Notes 5
  • Further reading 6
  • External links 7


The availability of tens of millions of acres of excellent farmland in the area made it necessary to create a territorial infrastructure to allow settlement. Railroad interests were especially eager to start operations since they needed farmers as customers. Four previous attempts to pass legislation had failed. The solution was a bill proposed in January 1854 by Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. He was the Democratic party leader in the United States Senate, the chairman of the Committee on Territories, an avid promoter of railroads, an aspirant to the presidency, and, above all, a fervent believer in popular sovereignty: the policy of letting the residents of a territory decide whether or not they would permit slavery to exist.[2]

Since early in the 1840s the topic of a Chicago, St. Louis, Quincy, Memphis and New Orleans competing to be the jumping-off point for the construction.[3]

Several proposals in late 1852 and early 1853 had strong support, but in the end they failed because of disputes over whether the railroad would follow a northern or a southern route. In early 1853 the House of Representatives passed a bill by a 107-to-49 vote that organized the Nebraska Territory in land west of Iowa and Missouri. In March the bill moved to the Senate Committee on Territories, which was then headed by Sen. Douglas. Missouri Sen. David Atchison announced that he would support the Nebraska proposal only if slaveholders were not banned from the new territory. While the bill was silent on this issue, slavery would have been prohibited under the terms of the Missouri Compromise. Other Southern senators were not as flexible as Atchison. By a vote of 23 to 17, the senate voted to kill the motion by laying it on the table with every senator from states south of Missouri voting for the tabling.[4]

During the senate adjournment, the issues of the railroad and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise became entangled in Missouri politics as Atchison campaigned for re-election against the forces of Thomas Hart Benton. Atchison was maneuvered into choosing between antagonizing the state railroad interests and antagonizing the state slaveholders. Finally Atchison took the position that he would rather see Nebraska "sink in hell" before he would allow it to be overrun by free soilers.[5]

In this era, congressmen generally found lodging in boarding houses when they were in the nation’s capital performing their legislative duties. Atchison shared lodgings in an F Street house shared by the leading Southerners in Congress. Atchison himself was the senate’s president pro tempore. His housemates included Robert T. Hunter (from Virginia, chairman of the Finance Committee), James Mason (from Virginia, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee) and Andrew P. Butler (from South Carolina, chairman of the Judiciary Committee). When Congress reconvened on December 5, 1853, this group, termed the "F Street Mess[6]", along with Virginian William O. Goode, formed the nucleus that would insist on slaveholder equality in Nebraska. Douglas was aware of their opinions and power, and knew that he needed to address their concerns.[7]

Iowa Sen.

  • An annotated bibliography
  • Millard Fillmore on the Fugitive Slave and Kansas-Nebraska Acts: Original Letter Shapell Manuscript Foundation
  • Kansas-Nebraska Act and related resources at the Library of Congress
  • President Pierce's Private Correspondence on the Kansas-Nebraska Act Shapell Manuscript Foundation
  • Printer-friendly transcript of the act

External links

  • Chambers, William Nisbet. Old Bullion Benton: Senator From the New West (1956)
  • Childers, Christopher. "Interpreting Popular Sovereignty: A Historiographical Essay", Civil War History Volume 57, Number 1, March 2011 pp. 48–70 in Project MUSE
  • Etcheson, Nicole. Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era (2006)
  • Foner, Eric. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War. (1970) ISBN 0-19-509497-2
  • Freehling, William W. The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776–1854. (1990) ISBN 0-19-505814-3
  • Holt, Michael. The Political Crisis of the 1850s (1978)
  • Huston, James L. Stephen A. Douglas and the dilemmas of democratic equality (2007)
  • Johannsen. Robert W. Stephen A. Douglas (1973) ISBN 0-19-501620-3
  • Morrison, Michael. Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War (1997) online edition
  • Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing 1852–1857. (1947) SBN 684-10424-5
  • Nichols, Roy F. "The Kansas-Nebraska Act: A Century of Historiography." Mississippi Valley Historical Review 43 (September 1956): 187–212. Online at JSTOR
  • Potter, David M. The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861 (1976), Pulitzer prize winning scholarly history.
  • SenGupta, Gunja. "Bleeding Kansas: A Review Essay." Kansas History 24 (Winter 2001/2002): 318–341. online
  • Wolff, Gerald W., The Kansas-Nebraska Bill: Party, Section, and the Coming of the Civil War, (Revisionist Press, 1977), 385 pp.
  • Wunder, John R. and Joann M Ross, eds. The Nebraska-Kansas Act of 1854 (2008), essays by scholars

Further reading

  1. ^ Nicole Etcheson, Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era (2006) ch 1
  2. ^ Robert W. Johansson, Stephen A. Douglas (Oxford UP, 1973) pp. 374–400
  3. ^ Potter pp. 146–149
  4. ^ Potter pp. 150–152
  5. ^ Potter p. 154-155
  6. ^ "Mess" in the sense of taking meals together
  7. ^ Freehling pp. 550–551. Johanssen p. 407
  8. ^ Johannsen p. 402-403
  9. ^ Holt p. 145
  10. ^ Johanssen pp. 405
  11. ^ a b Johanssen p. 406
  12. ^ Nevins pp. 95–96
  13. ^ Cooper p. 350
  14. ^ Nevins p. 139
  15. ^ Johanssen pp. 412–413. Cooper pp. 350–351
  16. ^ Potter p. 161. Johanssen pp. 413–414
  17. ^ Potter p. 161. Johanssen p. 414
  18. ^ Johanssen pp. 414–415
  19. ^ Foner p. 156
  20. ^ Johanssen pp. 415–417
  21. ^ Nevins p. 111
  22. ^ Nevins pp. 111–112. Johanssen p. 418
  23. ^ Johanssen p. 420
  24. ^ Nevins p. 121
  25. ^ Nevins p. 144
  26. ^ a b Nevins p. 156
  27. ^
  28. ^ Potter p. 165. The vote occurred at 3:30 a.m. and many senators, including Houston, had retired for the night. Estimates on what the vote might have been with all still in attendance vary from 40–20 to 42–18. Nevins p. 145
  29. ^ Nevins p. 154
  30. ^ Potter p. 166
  31. ^ Chambers p. 401
  32. ^ Nevins pp. 154–155
  33. ^ Morrison p. 154
  34. ^ Nevins p. 155
  35. ^
  36. ^ Nevins pp. 156–157
  37. ^ Nicole Etcheson, Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era (2006)
  38. ^ Thomas Goodrich, War to the Knife: Bleeding Kansas, 1854–1861 (2004)
  39. ^ James C. Malin, John Brown and the legend of fifty-six (1942)
  40. ^ Sara Paretsky, Bleeding Kansas (2008)
  41. ^ Tom Huntington "Civil War Chronicles: Abolitionist John Doy", American Heritage, Spring 2009.
  42. ^ The Lincoln Institute (2002–2008). "1854 – Abraham Lincoln and Freedom". Retrieved 2008-08-25. 
  43. ^ Lehrman, Lewis E. "Abraham Lincoln at Peoria: The Turning Point". Retrieved 2008-08-25. 
  44. ^ The Lincoln Institute; Lewis E. Lehrman (2002–2008). "Preface by Lewis Lehrman, Abraham Lincoln and Freedom". Retrieved 2008-08-25. 


Eventually, a new anti-slavery state constitution was drawn up, called the Wyandotte Constitution. On January 29, 1861, Kansas was admitted to the Union as a free state. On March 1, 1867, Nebraska was admitted to the Union. By then, the 1861–1865 Civil War had been fought, and slavery itself had been outlawed throughout by United States by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Sen. Stephen A. Douglas and former Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln aired their disagreement over the Kansas–Nebraska Act in seven public speeches during September and October 1854.[42] Lincoln gave his most comprehensive argument against slavery and the provisions of the act in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, the Peoria Speech.[43] He and Douglas both spoke to the large audience, Douglas first and Lincoln in response two hours later. Lincoln's three-hour speech presented thorough moral, legal and economic arguments against slavery, and raised Lincoln’s political profile for the first time. These speeches set the stage for the Lincoln-Douglas debates four years later, when Lincoln was running for Douglas's senate seat.[44]

The Kansas–Nebraska Act divided the nation and pointed it toward civil war.[41] The act itself virtually nullified the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The turmoil over the act split both the Democratic and Whig parties and gave rise to the Republican Party, which split the United States into two major political camps, North (Republican) and South (Democratic).


Hostilities between the factions reached a state of low-intensity civil war, which was damaging to President Pierce. The nascent Republican Party sought to capitalize on the scandal of "Bleeding Kansas". Routine ballot-rigging and intimidation practiced by both pro- and anti-slavery settlers failed to deter the immigration of anti-slavery settlers, who won a demographic victory in the race to populate the state.[40]

John Brown and his sons gained notoriety in the fight against slavery by murdering five pro-slavery farmers in the Pottawatomie Massacre with a broadsword. Brown also helped defend a few dozen Free-State supporters from several hundred angry pro-slavery supporters at the town of Osawatomie.[39]

Successive territorial governors, usually sympathetic to slavery, attempted unsuccessfully to maintain the peace. The territorial capital of Lecompton, Kansas, the target of much agitation, became such a hostile environment for Free-Staters that they set up their own unofficial legislature at Topeka.[38]

Pro-slavery settlers came to Kansas mainly from neighboring Missouri. Their influence in territorial elections was often bolstered by resident Missourians who crossed into Kansas solely for the purpose of voting in such ballots. They formed groups such as the Blue Lodges and were dubbed border ruffians, a term coined by opponent and abolitionist Horace Greeley. Abolitionist settlers, known as "Jayhawkers" moved from the East with express purpose of making Kansas a free state. A clash between the opposing sides was inevitable.[37]

1855 first edition of Colton's map of Nebraska and Kansas Territories

Bleeding Kansas

The final vote in favor of the bill was 113 to 100.[35] Northern Democrats split in favor of the bill by a narrow 44 to 42 vote, while all 45 northern Whigs opposed it. In the South, Democrats voted in favor by 57 to 2 and Whigs by a closer 12 to 7.[36] President Pierce signed the bill into law on May 30.

The floor debate was handled by South. He argued that the issue was whether republican principles—"that the citizens of every distinct community or State should have the right to govern themselves in their domestic matters as they please"—would be honored.[34]

A filibuster led by Lewis D. Campbell, an Ohio free-soiler, nearly provoked the House into a war of more than words. Campbell, joined by other antislavery northerners, exchanged insults and invectives with southerners, neither side giving quarter. Weapons were brandished on the floor of the House. Finally, bumptiousness gave way to violence. Henry A. Edmundson, a Virginia Democrat, well oiled and well armed, had to be restrained from making a violent attack on Campbell. Only after the sergeant at arms arrested him, debate was cut off, and the House adjourned did the melee subside.[33]
Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri – "What is the excuse for all this turmoil and mischief? We are told it is to keep the question of slavery out of Congress! Great God! It was out of Congress, completely, entirely, and forever out of Congress, unless Congress dragged it in by breaking down the sacred laws which settled it!"[26]

It was not until May 8 that the debate began in the house. The debate was even more intense than in the senate. While it seemed to be a foregone conclusion that the bill would pass, the opponents went all out to fight it.[32] Historian Michael Morrison wrote:

Thomas Hart Benton was among those speaking forcibly against the measure. On April 25 in a house speech that biographer William Nisbet Chambers called "long, passionate, historical, [and] polemical," Benton attacked the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which he "had stood upon ... above thirty years, and intended to stand upon it to the end—solitary and alone, if need be; but preferring company." The speech was distributed afterwards as a pamphlet when opposition to the act moved outside the walls of congress.[31]

On March 21, 1854, as a delaying tactic in the House of Representatives, the legislation was referred by a vote of 110 to 95 to the Committee of the Whole, where it was the last item on the calendar. Realizing from the vote to stall that the act faced an uphill struggle, the Pierce administration made it clear to all Democrats that passage of the bill was essential to the party and would dictate how federal patronage would be handled. Jefferson Davis and Attorney General Caleb Cushing from Massachusetts, along with Douglas, spearheaded the partisan efforts.[29] By the end of April Douglas believed that there were enough votes to pass the bill. The house leadership then began a series of roll call votes in which legislation ahead of the Kansas–Nebraska Act was called to the floor and tabled without debate.[30]

Debate in the House of Representatives

The debate in the senate concluded on March 4, 1854, when Stephen Douglas, beginning near midnight on March 3, made a five-and-a-half-hour speech. The final vote in favor of passage was 37 to 14.[27] Free state senators voted 14 to 12 in favor while slave state senators overwhelmingly supported the bill 23 to 2.[28]

Alexander Stephens from Georgia – "Nebraska is through the House. I took the reins in my hand, applied the whip and spur, and brought the 'wagon' out at eleven o'clock P.M. Glory enough for one day."[26]
Sam Houston from Texas was one of the few southern opponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. In the debate he urged, "Maintain the Missouri Compromise! Stir not up agitation! Give us peace!"[25]
"The unanimous sentiment of the North is indignant resistance. ... The whole population are full of it. The feeling in 1848 was far inferior to this in strength and universality."[24]

The debate would continue for four months, as many "Anti-Nebraska" political rallies were held across the north. Douglas remained the main advocate for the bill while Chase, William Seward of New York and Charles Sumner of Massachusetts led the opposition. The New York Tribune wrote on March 2 that,

Douglas charged the authors of the "Appeal", whom he referred to throughout as the "Abolitionist confederates", with having perpetrated a "base falsehood" in their protest. He expressed his own sense of betrayal, recalling that Chase, "with a smiling face and the appearance of friendship", had appealed for a postponement of debate on the ground that he had not yet familiarized himself with the bill. "Little did I suppose at the time that I granted that act of courtesy," Douglas remarked, that Chase and his compatriots had published a document "in which they arraigned me as having been guilty of a criminal betrayal of my trust," of bad faith, and of plotting against the cause of free government. While other Senators were attending divine worship, they had been "assembled in a secret conclave", devoting the Sabbath to their own conspiratorial and deceitful purposes.[23]

Douglas took the appeal personally and responded in congress when the debate was opened on January 30 before a full house and packed gallery. Douglas biographer Robert W. Johanssen described part of the speech:

We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region immigrants from the Old World and free laborers from our own States, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves.[22]

The day after the bill was reintroduced two Ohioans, Rep. Joshua Giddings and Sen. Salmon P. Chase, published a free soil response titled, "Appeal of the Independent Democrats in congress to the People of the United States." The appeal stated:

Historian Allan Nevins wrote that "two interconnected battles began to rage, one in Congress and one in the country at large: each fought with a pertinacity, bitterness, and rancor unknown even in Wilmot Proviso days." In congress, the freesoilers were at a distinct disadvantage. The Democrats held large majorities in each house, and Stephen Douglas, "a ferocious fighter, the fiercest, most ruthless, and most unscrupulous that Congress had perhaps ever known" led a tightly disciplined party. It was in the nation at large that the opponents of Nebraska hoped to achieve a moral victory. The New York Times, which had earlier supported Pres. Pierce, predicted that this would be the final straw for Northern supporters of the slavery forces and would "create a deep-seated, intense, and ineradicable hatred of the institution which will crush its political power, at all hazards, and at any cost."[21]

Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Freesoiler
An 1854 cartoon depicts a giant free soiler being held down by James Buchanan and Lewis Cass standing on the Democratic platform marked "Kansas", "Cuba" and "Central America" (referring to accusations that southerners wanted to annex areas in Latin America to expand slavery). Franklin Pierce also holds down the giant's beard as Stephen A. Douglas shoves a black man down his throat.

On January 23 a revised bill was introduced in the Senate that repealed the Missouri Compromise and divided the territory into two territories, Kansas and Nebraska. The division was the result of concerns expressed by settlers already in Nebraska as well as the senators from Iowa who were concerned with the location of the territory's seat of government if such a large territory was created. Existing language which affirmed the application of all other laws of the U.S. in the new territory was supplemented by the language agreed on with Pres. Pierce that read, "except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which was superseded by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is declared inoperative." Identical legislation was soon introduced in the house.[20]

Debate in the Senate

Douglas and Atchison first met alone with Pierce before the whole group convened. Pierce was persuaded to support repeal, and, at Douglas’ insistence, Pierce provided a written draft asserting that the Missouri Compromise had been made inoperative by the principles of the Compromise of 1850. Pierce later informed his cabinet, which concurred in the change of direction.[18] The Washington Union, the communications organ for the administration, wrote on January 24 that support for the bill would be "a test of Democratic orthodoxy".[19]

Douglas's committee met later that night. Douglas was agreeable to the proposal, but the Atchison group was not. Determined to offer the repeal to congress that Monday but reluctant to act without Pierce's commitment, Douglas arranged through Secretary of War Davis to meet with President Pierce on Sunday even though Pierce generally refrained from conducting any business on a Sunday. Douglas was accompanied at the meeting by Atchison, Hunter, Phillips and John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky.[17]

Pierce had barely mentioned Nebraska in his State of the Union message the previous month and was not enthusiastic about the implications of repealing the Missouri Compromise. Close advisors Sen. Lewis Cass, a proponent of popular sovereignty as far back as 1848 as an alternative to the Wilmot Proviso, and Secretary of State William L. Marcy both told Pierce that repeal would create serious political problems. On Saturday, January 22, the full cabinet met and only Secretary of War Jefferson Davis and Secretary of Navy James C. Dobbin supported repeal. Instead the president and cabinet submitted to Douglas an alternative plan that would have sought out a judicial ruling on the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. Both Pierce and Attorney General Caleb Cushing believed that the Supreme Court would find it unconstitutional.[16]

Meeting with President Pierce

A similar amendment was offered in the house by Philip Phillips of Alabama. With the encouragement of the "F Street Mess", Douglas met with them and Phillips to ensure that the momentum for passing the bill remained with the Democratic Party. Toward this end, they arranged to meet with President Franklin Pierce to ensure that the issue would be declared a test of party loyalty within the Democratic Party.[15]

Charles Sumner on Douglas – "Alas! too often those principles which give consistency, individuality, and form to the Northern character, which render it staunch, strong, and seaworthy, which bind it together as with iron, are drawn out, one by one, like the bolts of the ill-fitted vessel, and from the miserable, loosened fragments is formed that human anomaly—a Northern man with Southern principles. Sir, no such man can speak for the North."[14]

Douglas's attempt to finesse his way around the Missouri Compromise did not work. Kentucky Whig Archibald Dixon believed that unless the Missouri Compromise was explicitly repealed, slaveholders would be reluctant to move to the new territory until slavery was actually approved by the settlers, settlers who would most likely hold free-soil views. On January 16 Dixon surprised Douglas by introducing an amendment that would repeal the section of the Missouri Compromise prohibiting slavery above the 36°30' parallel. Douglas met privately with Dixon and in the end, despite his misgivings on Northern reaction, agreed to accept Dixon's arguments.[12] From a political standpoint, the Whig Party had been in decline in the South because of the effectiveness with which the Democrats had hammered Whigs over slavery issues. The Southern Whigs hoped that by seizing the initiative on this issue that they would be identified as strong defenders of slavery. Many northern Whigs broke with Southern Whigs on this legislation, which eventually caused the death of the Whig Party.[13]

The report compared the situation in New Mexico and Utah with the situation in Nebraska. In the first instance, many had argued that slavery had previously been prohibited under Mexican law just as it was prohibited in Nebraska under the Missouri Compromise. Just as the creation of New Mexico and Utah territories had not ruled on the validity of Mexican law on the acquired territory, the Nebraska bill was neither "affirming or repealing ... the Missouri act". In other words, popular sovereignty was being established by ignoring, rather than addressing, the problem presented by the Missouri Compromise.[11]

...were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the question of slavery from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and committing it to the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible for its consequences.[11]

The bill was reported to the main body of the senate on January 4, 1854. The bill had been significantly modified by Douglas, who had also authored the New Mexico and Utah territorial acts, to mirror the language from the Compromise of 1850. In the new bill the territory of Nebraska was extended north all the way to the 49th parallel, and any decisions on slavery were to be made "when admitted as a state or states, the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."[10] In a report accompanying the bill, Douglas's committee wrote that the Utah and New Mexico acts:

Stephen A. Douglas – "The great principle of self government is at stake, and surely the people of this country are never going to decide that the principle upon which our whole republican system rests is vicious and wrong."[9]

Introduction of the Nebraska bill

Congressional action

and had never been subject to the Missouri Compromise. Louisiana Purchase These territories, however, unlike Nebraska, had not been part of the [8]

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.