The Success of Popular Sovereignty in the United States

Success cannot be measured using a simple scale, success in most all forms is "cloudy"; the party that was successful, the level or degree of success, and the definition of success, are all important points to take into consideration. Popular sovereignty was a political theory that enabled the settlers of the United States federal territories to decide amongst themselves, whether to be admitted into the Union as a free or slave state. Popular sovereignty was effective in areas which it was expected to be (i.e. territories with a large pro-slavery population), however the application of popular sovereignty lacked the element of surprise. While it was intended to be innovative and radical in its settlement of the dispute between anti-slavery and pro-slavery advocates, with minimal exception, the idea of popular sovereignty did not impact the slavery issue in the territories.

Territories in the Midwest (especially Kansas and Nebraska) are prime examples of how popular sovereignty failed miserably. The region lacked political order, with both the anti-slavery and pro-slavery advocates attempting to avoid failure by seeking out loopholes around popular sovereignty. The North and South realized that Kansas was essential in their campaign to end/spread slavery (respectively), thus there were numerous disputes and accusations of "foul-play". The North, however, realized that demographically speaking, they were at a disadvantage, as the area was predominantly pro-slavery. Thus the Emigrant Aid Company was born, encouraging Northerners to move towards these newly-founded territories in the hope that they would, in good conscience, vote against slavery in the territory and hence giving the North the "upper-hand". As a result of this influx of northern settlers, the pro-slavery advocates in Kansas and neighboring territories, decided that the only way they would be able to compete with these northerners, is to rig the election in such a way, that they would ultimately win. A scandal broke loose soon after, as 6000 votes had been cast however this number had been incomprehensible, as there were only 2000 eligible voters in the territory. Needless to say, the abolitionists were outraged at this southern manipulation of the election, and political turmoil soon broke out. While there were multiple attempts to reconcile with one another, both parties were unwilling to compromise on the key issue: slavery in their territory. This led to the establishment of two separate governments: the free government was headquartered in Topeka and the pro-slavery government in Lawrence. The pro-slavery government in Lawrence was officially recognized by the U.S. Congress as the "official government". President James Buchanan made multiple requests to admit Kansas as a state under what was known as the "Lecompton Constitution" (a constitution written by, and approved by the pro-slavery government), however he was unsuccessful in his endeavor. Kansas was eventually admitted as a free state in 1861.

On a broader scope, the popular sovereignty theory proposed by Stephen Douglas (U.S. Senator from Illinois), was widely accepted in the Deep South. This was due to the vast number of people who were pro-slavery in this region. The North deemed that it would be very difficult, perhaps even impossible, for those anti-slavery people to manipulate this region, in order to have an anti-slavery election outcome. Thus, their efforts were directed towards the western territories instead.

In 1857, a case came before the United States Supreme Court that would forever change the idea of popular sovereignty. This case was known as Dred Scott vs. Sanford, and dealt with two primary concepts: free and enslaved blacks citizenship (or lack thereof), and the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. Dred Scott was an enslaved black man, whose slave owner was in the United States military, and routinely traveled through free states, despite originating in a slave state. Eventually, Scott's slave owner passed away, and Sanford was the heir to his estate. Abolitionists argued on behalf of Dred Scott, that he should be freed, as he had crossed into a free territory; however, the opposition legal team stated that Scott had lost his opportunity to be freed, the moment that he passed through the free territory into another slave territory. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing this case, came to the conclusion that blacks, free or slave, were not to be considered United States citizens. Additionally, Congress does not have the right to deprive a person of their property, without proper due process of the law (as per the 5^th amendment of the Constitution), ergo the Missouri Compromise reached in 1820, was deemed unconstitutional. Congress did not have the power to deny slavery in the territories. The North was outraged, as they lost their ability to limit slavery in the newly introduced territories, and they began to see the Supreme Court as a "slavocracy". This Supreme Court ruling essentially "nullified" the idea of popular sovereignty.