Talk:Popular sovereignty in the United States

Text from main article on popular sovereignty
I'm copying the following text that was the second paragraph in the main article on popular sovereignty here, because it applies exclusively to the American case, and it may be useful to incorporate it into this article. Please note that the extensive additional information in the footnotes, if kept, should be incorporated into the main text. – SJL 04:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In my recent major edit, I attempted to resolve this by simply relying on John JAY's Opinion in Chisholm vs Georgia rather then quote the founders.
 * John Jay would have known first hand what the "original intent" had been since he knew all the founders first hand and would have been privy to their debates and discussions
 * Since the purpose of the Court is to settle controversies, (like, for example, if "Republic" means a "Democratic Republic" or "Aristocratic Republics" - the only 2 kinds of Republics at the time the Constitution was ratified), any conflicting opinions of the founders about this are settled
 * Chisholm vs Georgia is the first MAJOR case of the supreme Court
 * All of the other Justices also knew the founders and the congressmen at the time, and the only dissenting Opinion of that case doesn't dissent on the point that it is the People and NOT the STATE[s] that are the sovereigns.
 * Further, I considered quoting the Declaration of Independence, when it was Declared that "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal (to the King)", and I believe Tom meant mankind not just males, but there is still so much controversy over it. I haven't been able to smoothly articulate this following point without distracting from the main topic of the article: I (the man posting this to the talk page) think most of the founders secretly believed that "people" meant "all people," but it would have been too many radical ideas for the majority of the population to unite upon in the beginning, and it would have caused the revolution to fail. So they just set the stage, and then allowed the ideal to be cultivated over time.Christopher Theodore (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Copied text
James Wilson discussed this concept as a delegate in Pennsylvania's ratifying convention for the Federal Constitution in 1787. He noted that in America sovereignty "resides in the PEOPLE, as the fountain of government" and that "the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people." Six years later Chief Justice John Jay referred to the same idea in Chisholm v.Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 at 471 (1793) when he observed that after the revolution in America, "sovereignty devolved on the people," who "truly" became "the sovereigns of the country." One source suggests that Benjamin Franklin also expressed the concept of popular sovereignty in "writing" that "In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." "Thomas Jefferson Digital Archive" Except for this reference, however, no other source refers to the Franklin statement as 1) something that he wrote and 2) as his view of popular sovereignty. The exact quote of Franklin's statement does not come from something he "wrote." Rather it was a paraphrase by James Madison of something Franklin said during the Federal Constitutional Convention on July 26, 1787. In James Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention the entry for July 26, 1787 at page 436 reports George Mason of Virginia summarizing the various ways in which the delegates had considered the tenure of the office of a U.S. President. Mason argued that the President's term of office should "be ... for seven years, and [the President would] be ineligible a second time.” Franklin then spoke in favor of term limits as follows: "'It seems to have been imagined by some, that in returning to the mass of the people was degrading to the magistrate. This he thought was contrary to republican principles. In free governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return among the latter, was not to degrade, but to promote, them. And it would be imposing an unreasonable burden on them to keep them always in a state of servitude, and not allow them to become again one of the masters.'"(emphasis added)

The only authority tying the Franklin statement to his view of popular sovereignty is a website focusing on the writings of Thomas Jefferson (not Franklin). It is clear that Franklin did not "write" the statement, but that it was a paraphrase by James Madison during the federal constitutional convention. Franklin's statement expressed support for term limits in the office of U.S. President. The sentiments in the statement are consistent with popular sovereignty, but it hardly establishes Franklin's view of the doctrine of popular sovereignty. Actually, the Franklin statement may owe more to James Madison than Franklin. Madison, who paraphrased Franklin in his convention notes, was a strong proponent of popular sovereignty.

The reference to James Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention linked to above presents the web-accessible version of Journal of the Federal Convention Kept By James Madison: Reprinted from the edition of 1840, which was published under the direction of the United States Government from the Original Manuscripts (Volume II, Edited by E.H. Scott, Chicago: Albert, Scott & Co. 1893. The more authoritative account of Madison's Journal is found in Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison (Ed. and with introduction by Adrienne Koch, W.W. Norton & Co., 1969), at p. 372. While the account of Franklin's statement is slightly different than in the 1893 Scott version, the differences are minor and do not effect the interpretation that the quoted statement falls short of establishing Franklin's view of the doctrine of popular sovereignty.  According to the Koch version, published in 1969 (and not available online), Madison recorded Franklin as saying: "'It seems to have been imagined by some that the returning to the mass of the people was degrading the magistrate. This he thought was contrary to republican principles. In free Governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors & sovereigns. For the former therefore to return among the latter was not to degrade but to promote them. And it would be imposing an unreasonable burden on them, to keep them always in a State of servitude, and not allow them to become again one of the Masters.'"

Notes in copied text
rvv from 2008. Why put up with it. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Change made 10-18-2008
SJL noted that material in the footnotes to this entry might be added into the text of the main article. I will see how this can be done, but with the current edit simply wanted to place subsection headings in the previous text. I also restored the explanation of the 18th century concept of the people's sovereignty by deleting substitution of "citizen" for the term people. However, the conclusion of the editor who inserted the word "citizen" in an earlier edit had merit and I think I accommodated the editor's concern by adding a new sentence to explain that in the theory of people's sovereignty in the 18th century, only certain groups of individuals were considered to be part of the "people." Rushlite (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wall of Text
Considering that this is a fairly unedited article, it may be advisable to divide the main points so that researchers can quickly find what they need. 98.170.234.249 (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Issue with definition (US application of popular sovereignty)
This article is linked to by several texts dealing with pre-American Civil War events. At present, they tend to gloss over the fundamental fact that "Popular sovereignty" did not in fact refer to rule by the whole people. In the 1840s and 1850s, the term was applied to a proposal that white, male settlers in a given Territory or citizens of a US State should determine whether persons of African origin should be held in perpetual, hereditary bondage. Their sovereign power here asserted over the status of women and of the original inhabitants of the land likewise deserves mention, particularly if this article is linked to by other texts dealing with the history of a Nation, as opposed to that of a particular race or gender.

It is therefore of great importance that this article more adequately describe the evolving term "Popular sovereignty" in historical context. At present, it assures us that the term always means rule by the whole people, leaving the honest reader with some puzzlement over why there was trouble in Kansas or Nebraska in the first place!


 * woman suffrage was not popular at the time. the article makes clear that slavery was the biggest issue in 1850s. Rjensen (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think (and hope ;-) my recent edits resolved these issues to some degree, please re-read and review the current article, especially the new "History of the concept," section (which had been the old opening section), the goal was to show the ideal of "We, the People" took time to evolve to include everyone even if this was not the majority view at the beginning. Tho I hold the belief that it was the true intentions of the framers regardless of appearances that when they said people, they secretly intended to include everyone regardless of religion, race, sex, material wealth, or age. - Rome wasn't built in a day, and you can only cram so many radical changes into people's minds at a time, it had to be done in stages and even then it wasn't easy. Christopher Theodore (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed the "tone" tag
After doing quite a bit of work, I have removed the "tone" tag from the article. I'm currently in the process of providing references to numerous statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherTheodore (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Conceptual History
There is a tag dated May 2016 regarding the style of this section (apparently that of a personal reflection). I have read the section and changed the expression and scope of some arguments/claims to be more in keeping with the spirit of the page yet also still respecting pre-existing contributions. Does more need to be done? Pyzqpm (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)