5fish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 10,619
- Reaction score
- 4,544
Popular Sovereignty defied:
1. government's subjection to people: the doctrine that the people are sovereign and a government is subject to the will of the people
2. doctrine permitting choice on slavery: a pre-Civil War political doctrine that held that individual states should decide whether to permit slavery or not. It was espoused mainly by opponents of the abolition of slavery.
Popular Sovereignty is written into our Constitution. It is the bases of our government and of all democratic governments. It became a buzz term doing the 1850's as a solution in resolving the issue of slavery and the Western territories.
Popular Sovereignty was the proper democratic solution to the issue of slavery expanding into the Western territories. We are flip towards Presidents Pierce and Douglas for their belief in this concept but all they were doing was believing in the basic democratic concept that the will of the people should decide. They were believing there was a democratic solution to the issue if slavery should be allowed to expand westward and history berates them for it.
We know popular sovereignty was not the solution to the issue if slavery should expand westward or not. We know that it led to a bloody Kansas and the border wars. In the end the state chose to a non-slave state so we can say it worked. No one ever said the democratic process is easy so why did the pro-slavery people give up on this democratic ideal. One must admit even the anti-slavery people did not like the use of popular sovereignty to solve the issue.
Is not the concept of "States Rights" based on the concept of popular sovereignty?
I argue "Popular sovereignty" would have resolved the issue of slavery moving westward. If the people would have just stayed true to this basic idea of democratic government. Yes, there may have been more Bloody Kansas's but in the end, the people would have still chosen their own path, most likely the non-slavery path.
I argue that a "Bleeding Kansas, the Civil War, and later Civil Rights" has changed the relationship of the governed. Our current relationship is now the Government as the sovereign despite what our written laws hold that it's within the people.
Popular Sovereignty was the democratic solution to the issue of slavery moving westward if only the American people just believed in the democratic values, no civil war just a few more Bleeding Kansas's...
a notion...
1. government's subjection to people: the doctrine that the people are sovereign and a government is subject to the will of the people
2. doctrine permitting choice on slavery: a pre-Civil War political doctrine that held that individual states should decide whether to permit slavery or not. It was espoused mainly by opponents of the abolition of slavery.
Popular Sovereignty is written into our Constitution. It is the bases of our government and of all democratic governments. It became a buzz term doing the 1850's as a solution in resolving the issue of slavery and the Western territories.
Popular Sovereignty was the proper democratic solution to the issue of slavery expanding into the Western territories. We are flip towards Presidents Pierce and Douglas for their belief in this concept but all they were doing was believing in the basic democratic concept that the will of the people should decide. They were believing there was a democratic solution to the issue if slavery should be allowed to expand westward and history berates them for it.
We know popular sovereignty was not the solution to the issue if slavery should expand westward or not. We know that it led to a bloody Kansas and the border wars. In the end the state chose to a non-slave state so we can say it worked. No one ever said the democratic process is easy so why did the pro-slavery people give up on this democratic ideal. One must admit even the anti-slavery people did not like the use of popular sovereignty to solve the issue.
Is not the concept of "States Rights" based on the concept of popular sovereignty?
I argue "Popular sovereignty" would have resolved the issue of slavery moving westward. If the people would have just stayed true to this basic idea of democratic government. Yes, there may have been more Bloody Kansas's but in the end, the people would have still chosen their own path, most likely the non-slavery path.
I argue that a "Bleeding Kansas, the Civil War, and later Civil Rights" has changed the relationship of the governed. Our current relationship is now the Government as the sovereign despite what our written laws hold that it's within the people.
Popular Sovereignty was the democratic solution to the issue of slavery moving westward if only the American people just believed in the democratic values, no civil war just a few more Bleeding Kansas's...
a notion...