The refusal of the House to accept the Clayton amendment brought the Kansas-Nebraska measure again before the Senate.  Knowing that a refusal to concur would probably defeat the measure for the session, Southern senators were disposed to waive their objections to allowing aliens to vote in the new Territories.  Even Atchison was now disposed to think the matter of little consequence.  Foreigners were not the pioneers in the Territories; they followed the pioneers.  He did not complete his thought, but it is unmistakable:  therefore, native citizens as first-comers, rather than foreigners, would probably decide the question of slavery in the Territories forever.  And so, after two days of debate, Douglas again had his way:  the Senate voted to recede from the Clayton amendment.  On May 30th, the President signed the Kansas-Nebraska bill and it became law.[496]

The outburst of wrath at the North which accompanied the repeal of the Missouri Compromise did not augur well for the future repose of the country.  Douglas had anticipated angry demonstrations; but even he was disturbed by the vehemence of the protestations which penetrated to the Senate chamber.  Had he failed to gauge the depth of Northern public opinion?  Senator Everett disturbed the momentary quiet of Congress by presenting a memorial signed by over three thousand New England clergymen, who, “in the name of Almighty God,” protested against the Kansas-Nebraska Act as a great moral wrong and as a breach of faith.  This brought Douglas to his feet.  With fierce invective he declared this whole movement was instigated by the circulars sent out by the Abolition confederates in the Senate.  These preachers had been led by an atrocious falsehood “to desecrate the pulpit, and prostitute the sacred desk to the miserable and corrupting influence of party politics.”  What right had these misguided men to speak in the name of Almighty God upon a political question?  It was an attempt to establish in this country the doctrine that clergymen have a peculiar right to determine the will of God in legislative matters.  This was theocracy.[497]

Some weeks later, Douglas himself presented another protest, signed by over five hundred clergymen of the Northwest and accompanied by resolutions which denounced the Senator from Illinois for his “want of courtesy and reverence toward man and God."[498] His comments upon this protest were not calculated to restore him to favor among these “divinely appointed ministers for the declaration and enforcement of God’s will.”  His public letter to them, however, was much more creditable, for in it he avoided abusive language and appealed frankly to the sober sense of the clergy.[499] Of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, he said again that it was necessary, “in order to recognize the great principle of self-government and State equality.  It does not vary the question in any degree, that human slavery, in your opinion, is a great moral wrong.  If so, it is not the only wrong upon which the people of each of the States and Territories of this Union are called upon to act....  You think you are abundantly competent to decide this question now and forever.  If you should remove to Nebraska, with a view of making it your permanent home, would you be any less competent to decide it when you should have arrived in the country?"[500]