![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Popular sovereignty in the United States be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
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." [1] 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." [2]
(emphasis added)"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."
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."
rvv from 2008. Why put up with it. -- Ancheta Wis ( talk) 21:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Popular sovereignty in the United States be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
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." [1] 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." [2]
(emphasis added)"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."
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."
rvv from 2008. Why put up with it. -- Ancheta Wis ( talk) 21:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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!
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)
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)