popular sovereignty?

Question

what did the northerners (aka the free states) think of popular sovereignty and was there a reason (if there was) the southerners (aka the slave states) opposed the north's ideas?
thanks

Answer 1

Hi Worm,

The first answerer can sure cut and paste a Wikipedia article well; but I doubt she has a clue as to how actually to answer your question. The idea of popular sovereignty is that the "People" are sovereign; and therefore, they have a right to define and redefine the limits of government whenever, and however they choose.

The big difference in the northern and southern views was in getting a grip on who "The People" were. The southerners viewed the people as the states, while the northerners viewed it as the citizens of the United States.

Let me be very clear on this... The southern argument was that the United States (as a singular entity) was merely a contract made up of states that were already soverign entities before the USA came into existence. And the Southern states argued that the states never surrendered that soveriegnty.

The Northern view was that the Constitution of the US changed all of that. The opening of the Preamble to the Constitution says "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES," they argued. It does not say, "WE THE STATES." Therefore, the Constitution is an organic creation embodying the original sovereignty of the people as individuals, who gather to create government, not in the name of the states, but in the name of the people.

And in the document of "WE THE PEOPLE," the states are clearly not considered sovereign. Therefore, say the Northerners, Soveriegnty rests with the People of the United States, as expressed in the Constitution, and the states are bound by it.

Hope this answer helps. Cheers, mate.

Answer 2

Popular sovereignty means that the people living in that area should choose wither they were a free or slave state. Southerners were afraid of this mostly because only those owning plantations really had any need for slaves.

Answer 3

This term, when applied to the North-South struggle of the 1840s-50s has a specialized meaning related to WHO should decide whether or not slavery would be allowed in U.S. TERRITORIES that had not yet been organized as states. (Contra Jack it has NOTHING to do with differing definitions of who "the people" are.)

In this special usage the notion is also (and perhaps more precisely) called "squatter sovereignty". The struggle over it especially concerned the territory of Kansas. You may find the following Kansas-history link a useful overview:
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/archives/1912/s/squatter_sovereignty.html

Of course, we can't ever say ALL Northerners or ALL Southerners reacted to the idea in the same way. But there were certainly tendencies... and it's very important to note them AND note how they CHANGED!! (esp. the views in the South)

The term was first used by Democratic Presidential candidate Lewis Cass during the 1848 campaign. At the time the Northern "Free Soilers" favored the Wilmot Proviso --a Congressional BAN on slavery in the territories (other than Texas which was already a state) gained in the Mexican War. This would have been much like the ban on slavery included in the old Northwest Ordinance.

The South very much disagreed Northern Democrat Cass advocated a "compromise" position, arguing that CONGRESSS should not legislate, but that the inhabitants of the territories should make up their own mind on the matter.

In popular thought the term tends to be associated with Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas (Democrat), many even thinking he coined the term, because he led the argument for this position in Congress, beginning in 1850, and especially in pushing for Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)

Since this view made it possible for Southerners to establish slavery in the territories, there was much Southern support for the idea and, conversely, much opposition in the North.

BUT all this quickly began to change. Southerners were concluding (partly from struggle by then going on in Kansas) that this would make it too easy for slavery to end up being excluded in the territories. Then the Dred Scott Decision (1857) essentially held that slavery could NOT be excluded from the territories.

Douglass disagreed with Dred Scott in this respect (and very much with President Buchanan, who supported the decision). Pressed by Lincoln in their 1858 debates (while running for Senate), espoused the "Freeport Doctrine". which asserted that inhabitants of a territory COULD ban slavery from the territory if they chose. This, essentially another application of popular sovereignty, and AGAINST the Dred Scott decision. But it no longer enough to satisfy pro-slavery Southerners, who had now obtained MORE via Dred Scot. . .

In the end, this was a major factor in their withdrawing support for Douglas in his presidential bit (he had been the prohibitive favorite for the 1860 Dem nomination). When he was unable to obtain the 2/3 of delegates necessary for nomination, the Northern and Southern wings ending up splitting (Douglas as Northern nominee, Breckenridge the nominee for Souther Democrats).. and ultimately handing the election to the Republicans. So in one sense disagreement over "popular sovereignty" was one of the last political issues that led to the Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_A._Douglas#Kansas-Nebraska_1854
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeport_Doctrine

Answer 4

Popular sovereignty is the doctrine that the state is created by and therefore subject to the will of its people, who are the source of all political power. It is closely associated to the social contract philosophers, among whom are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Popular sovereignty is an idea that dates to the social contract school (mid-1600s to mid 1700s), represented by Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), author of The Social Contract, a prominent literary work that clearly highlighted the ideals of "general will" and further matured the idea of popular sovereignty. The central tenet is that legitimacy of rule or of law is based on the consent of the governed. Popular sovereignty is thus a basic tenet of most democracies. Hobbes and Rousseau were the most influential thinkers of this school, all postulating that individuals choose to enter into a social contract with one another, thus voluntarily giving up some rights in return for protection from the dangers and hazards of a state of nature.

A parallel development of a theory of popular sovereignty can be found among the School of Salamanca (see e.g. Francisco de Vitoria (1483–1546) or Francisco Suárez (1548–1617)), who (like the theorists of the divine right of kings) saw sovereignty as emanating originally from God, but (unlike those theorists) passing from God to all people equally, not only to monarchs.

Most republics and many constitutional monarchies are theoretically based on popular sovereignty. However, a legalistic notion of popular sovereignty does not necessarily imply an effective, functioning democracy: a party or even an individual dictator may claim to represent the will of the people, and rule in its name, pretending to detain auctoritas.

In U.S. history, the terms popular sovereignty and the equivalent but more disparaging squatter sovereignty refer generally to the right claimed by the squatters, or actual residents, of a territory of the United States to make their own laws. The most controversial aspect of sovereignty was the choice of residents to accept or reject slavery. The idea was championed by Stephen A. Douglas and provided a means to delay dealing with the larger issue. It was first proposed by Vice President George Dallas in 1847 and was popularized by Lewis Cass in his 1848 presidential campaign. The doctrine was incorporated into the Compromise of 1850 and four years later was an important feature of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.