How did the idea of popular sovereignty influence the Compromise of 1850?

In 1854 Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois presented a bill destined to be one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in our national history. Ostensibly a bill “to organize the Territory of Nebraska,” an area covering the present-day states of Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, and the Dakotas, contemporaries called it “the Nebraska bill.” Today, we know it as the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

By the 1850s there were urgent demands to organize the western territories. Land acquired from Mexico in 1848, the California gold rush of 1849, and the relentless trend toward westward expansion pushed farmers, ranchers, and prospectors toward the Pacific. The Mississippi River had long served as a highway to north-south traffic, but western lands needed a river of steel, not of water—a transcontinental railroad to link the eastern states to the Pacific. But what route would that railroad take?

Stephen Douglas, one of the railway’s chief promoters, wanted a northern route via Chicago, but that would take the rail lines through the unorganized Nebraska territory, which lay north of the 1820 Missouri Compromise line where slavery was prohibited. Others, particularly slaveholders and their allies, preferred a southern route, perhaps through the new state of Texas. To pass his “Nebraska bill,” Douglas needed a compromise.

On January 4, 1854, Douglas introduced a bill designed to tread middle ground. He proposed organizing the vast territory “with or without slavery, as their constitutions may prescribe.” Known as “popular sovereignty,” this policy contradicted the Missouri Compromise and left open the question of slavery, but that was not enough to satisfy a group of powerful southern senators led by Missouri’s David Atchison. They wanted to explicitly repeal the 1820 line. Douglas viewed the railroad as the “onward march of civilization,” and so he agreed to their demands. “I will incorporate it into my bill,” he told Atchison, “though I know it will raise a hell of a storm.” From that moment on, the debate over the Nebraska bill was no longer a discussion of railway lines. It was all about slavery.

Douglas introduced his revised bill—and the storm began. Ohio senator Salmon Chase denounced the bill as “a gross violation of a sacred pledge.” In a published broadside, Charles Sumner’s antislavery coalition attacked Douglas, arguing that his bill would make the new territories “a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves.” The fierce drama climaxed in the early morning hours of March 4. “You must provide for continuous lines of settlement from the Mississippi Valley to the Pacific Ocean,” Douglas pleaded in a final address. Do not “fetter the limbs of [this] young giant.” At 5:00 in the morning, the Senate voted 37-14 to pass the Nebraska bill. It became law on May 30, 1854.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise, created two new territories, and allowed for popular sovereignty. It also produced a violent uprising known as “Bleeding Kansas,” as proslavery and antislavery activists flooded into the territories to sway the vote. Political turmoil followed, destroying the remnants of the old Whig coalition and leading to the creation of the new Republican Party. Stephen Douglas had touted his bill as a peaceful settlement of national issues, but what it produced was a prelude to civil war.

In the heat of the Wilmot Proviso debate, many southern lawmakers began to question the right of Congress to determine the status of slavery in any territory. According to John Calhoun, the territories belonged to all the states. Why should a citizen of one state be denied the right to take his property, including slaves, into territory owned by all? This line of reasoning began to dominate the southern argument. The Congress had a precedent for outlawing slavery in territories. It had done so in the Old Northwest with the passing of the Northwest Ordinance in 1787. The Missouri Compromise also had banned slavery above the 36º30' latitude lines. But times were different.

As the Mexican War drew to a close and no compromise could be reached in the Wilmot argument, the campaign for President became heated. The Democratic standard bearer, Lewis Cass of Michigan, coined the term "popular sovereignty" for a new solution that had begun to emerge. The premise was simple. Let the people of the territories themselves decide whether slavery would be permitted. The solution seemed perfect. In a country that has championed democracy, letting the people decide seemed right, if not obvious.

Although Taylor didn't advocate any position regarding slavery during his campaign, after his election he stated that California and New Mexico should be admitted to the union and should decide their status by means of popular sovereignty. Taylor's cabinet, shown here, had members of different sections of the nation with differing opinions on slavery.

However simple popular sovereignty seemed, it was difficult to put into practice. By what means would the people decide? Directly or indirectly? If a popular vote were scheduled, what guarantees could be made against voter fraud? If slavery were voted down, would the individuals who already owned slaves be allowed to keep them? Cass and the Democrats did not say. His opponent, Zachary Taylor, ignored the issue of slavery altogether in his campaign, and won the election of 1848.

As the 1840s melted into the 1850s, Stephen Douglas became the loudest proponent of popular sovereignty. As long as the issue was discussed theoretically, he had many supporters. In fact, to many, popular sovereignty was the perfect means to avoid the problem. But problems do not tend to disappear when they are evaded — they often become worse.

How was popular sovereignty used in the Compromise of 1850?

In what ways was the idea of popular sovereignty a compromise?

Did the Compromise of 1850 include popular sovereignty?

What did popular sovereignty mean in 1850?