Download Popular Sovereignty - MissDWorldofSocialStudies

Popular Sovereignty
Popular sovereignty, in U.S. history, doctrine under which the status of slavery in the territories was to
be determined by the settlers themselves. Although the doctrine won wide support as a means of avoiding
sectional conflict over the slavery issue, its meaning remained ambiguous, since proponents disagreed as to
the stage of territorial development at which the decision should be made. Stephen A. Douglas, principal
promoter of the doctrine, wanted the choice made at an early stage of settlement; others felt that it should
be made just before each territory achieved statehood. First proposed in 1847 by Vice President George
Dallas and popularized by Lewis Cass in his 1848 presidential campaign, the doctrine was incorporated in
the Compromise of 1850 and four years later was an important feature of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
Douglas called it “popular sovereignty,” but proslavery Southerners, who wanted slavery extended into the
territories, contemptuously called it “squatter sovereignty.”
Compromise of 1850.
Compromise of 1850. The annexation of Texas to the United States and the gain of new territory by the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the close of the Mexican War (1848) aggravated the hostility between North
and South concerning the question of the extension of slavery into the territories. The antislavery forces
favored the proposal made in the Wilmot Proviso to exclude slavery from all the lands acquired from
Mexico. This, naturally, met with violent Southern opposition. When California sought (1849) admittance to
the Union as a free state, a grave crisis threatened. Also causing friction was the conflict over the boundary
claims of Texas, which extended far westward into territory claimed by the United States. In addition, the
questions of the slave trade and the fugitive slave laws had long been vexing. There was some fear that, in
the event of strong antislavery legislation, the Southern states might withdraw from the Union altogether.
The possibility of the disintegration of the Union was deprecated by many but was alarming to some,
among them Henry Clay, who emerged from retirement to enter the Senate again. President Taylor was
among those who felt that the Union was not threatened; he favored admission of California as a free state
and encouragement of New Mexico to enter as a free state. These sentiments were voiced in Congress by
William H. Seward. John C. Calhoun and other Southerners, particularly Jefferson Davis, maintained that
the South should be given guarantees of equal position in the territories, of the execution of fugitive slave
laws, and of protection against the abolitionists.
Clay proposed that a series of measures be passed as an omnibus compromise bill. Support for this plan
was largely organized by Stephen A. Douglas. The measures were the admission of California as a free
state; the organization of New Mexico and Utah territories without mention of slavery, the status of that
institution to be determined by the territories themselves when they were ready to be admitted as states
(this formula came to be known as popular sovereignty); the prohibition of the slave trade in the District of
Columbia; a more stringent fugitive slave law; and the settlement of Texas boundary claims by federal
payment of $10 million on the debt contracted by the Republic of Texas.
These proposals faced great opposition, but Daniel Webster greatly enhanced the chances for their
acceptance by his famous speech on Mar. 7, 1850. Taylor's death and the accession of conservative Millard
Fillmore to the presidency made the compromise more feasible. After long debates and failure to pass the
omnibus bill, Congress passed the measures as separate bills in Sept., 1850. Many people, North and
South, hailed the compromise as a final solution to the question of slavery in the territories. However, the
issue reemerged in 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and seven years later the factions were fighting
the Civil War.
Kansas-Nebraska Act
Kansas-Nebraska Act, bill that became law on May 30, 1854, by which the U.S. Congress established the
territories of Kansas and Nebraska. By 1854 the organization of the vast Platte and Kansas river countries
W of Iowa and Missouri was overdue. As an isolated issue territorial organization of this area was no
problem. It was, however, irrevocably bound to the bitter sectional controversy over the extension of
slavery into the territories and was further complicated by conflict over the location of the projected
transcontinental railroad. Under no circumstances did proslavery Congressmen want a free territory
(Kansas) W of Missouri. Because the West was expanding rapidly, territorial organization, despite these
difficulties, could no longer be postponed. Four attempts to organize a single territory for this area had
already been defeated in Congress, largely because of Southern opposition to the Missouri Compromise.
Although the last of these attempts to organize the area had nearly been successful, Stephen A. Douglas,
chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, decided to offer territorial legislation making concessions
to the South. Douglas's motives have remained largely a matter of speculation. Various historians have
emphasized Douglas's desire for the Presidency, his wish to cement the bonds of the Democratic party, his
interest in expansion and railroad building, or his desire to activate the unimpressive Pierce administration.
The bill he reported in Jan., 1854, contained the provision that the question of slavery should be left to the
decision of the territorial settlers themselves. This was the famous principle that Douglas now called
popular sovereignty, though actually it had been enunciated four years earlier in the Compromise of 1850.
In its final form Douglas's bill provided for the creation of two new territories—Kansas and Nebraska—
instead of one. The obvious inference—at least to Missourians—was that the first would be slave, the
second free. The Kansas-Nebraska Act flatly contradicted the provisions of the Missouri Compromise (under
which slavery would have been barred from both territories); indeed, an amendment was added specifically
repealing that compromise. This aspect of the bill in particular enraged the antislavery forces, but after
three months of bitter debate in Congress, Douglas, backed by President Pierce and the Southerners, saw it
adopted. Its effects were anything but reassuring to those who had hoped for a peaceful solution. The
popular sovereignty provision caused both proslavery and antislavery forces to marshal strength and exert
full pressure to determine the “popular” decision in Kansas in their own favor, using groups such as the
Emigrant Aid Company. The result was the tragedy of “bleeding” Kansas. Northerners and Southerners
were aroused to such passions that sectional division reached a point that precluded reconciliation. A new
political organization, the Republican party, was founded by opponents of the bill, and the United States
was propelled toward the Civil War.
Questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
What is popular sovereignty?
Who popularized the doctrine of popular sovereignty?
Who was a proponent (who wanted it) of popular sovereignty?
When was the doctrine of popular sovereignty first proposed?
What were some consequences of popular sovereignty?
What were the drawbacks of popular sovereignty?
What were the benefits of popular sovereignty?
What political party was born as an anti-slavery party because of Bleeding Kansas?