Submitted by James, Feb 12, 2008 15:29

For many people of the era, perhaps "moral indifference to slavery grounded the idea of popular sovereignty." But my read of the era see other elements of support for popular sovereignty. One is a popular revulsion against the "preachiness" of those who pushed abolition. Some people could accept an anti-slavery message, but they could not abide the morally smug messangers. Another factor was the genuine belief that distant politicans were taking the country down the road to destruction and that republican sentiment taught that the People had a virtue and a wisdom not always found in national politicians. Related to that was the idea that if the issue of slavery could be settled at the territorial level, then fights over it might not erupt at the national level in ways that could threaten the country. Some sincere federalists also worried about such issues being solved at the national level, worrying that the power to solve such issues might also address such issues as the tariff, a national bank, etc. Finally, people like Douglas believed and stated that slavery could not thrive in new lands without reinforcing laws and institutions, making it highly unlikely that slavery would take root in new lands if the people there simply did nothing, thereby obviating the problem. Thoughts?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.