Why couldn't more people settle for Douglas's brand of popular sovereignty?

[Anarchist420]

Why did democracy have to become so damn nationalized? What was wrong with decentralized popular sovereignty as outlined by Stephen A Douglas?

Why do people in one state have the urge to tell other people in all the other states what they can and can't do?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Did you just make a thread basically saying the same thing, but with a different author. It had to become so nationalized because it was a huge failure having it decentralized.

 

[Anarchist420]

How was it a huge failured having it decentralized? I don't know that there is any evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that decentralism was a failure.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

How was it a huge failured having it decentralized? I don't know that there is any evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that decentralism was a failure.

This isn't a court of law. You don't need to be beyond a reasonable doubt to determine something isn't optimal for the rule of a country.

 

[MayorOfAmerica]

How was it a huge failured having it decentralized? I don't know that there is any evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that decentralism was a failure.

Anyone know of any good tv series available on netflix instant?

 

[Vette73]

 

[Linflas]

You do realize the when Douglas was speaking of popular sovereignty it was in reference to the process of territories becoming states and how they would decide whether or not slavery would be permitted? It has nothing to do with Federalism and the relationship between the states and the central government.

 

[piasabird]

Why do you make all these idiot postings?

 

[Texashiker]

democracy = mob rules

</thread>

 

[Lemon law]

I know we should not feed the trolls, but still this forum should explain to anarchist420 why he is wrong.

Its all well and fine for Anarchist420 to view Douglas with twenty first century glasses, but Douglas was a 19'th century politicians and dealing with 19'th century problems. And at the time Douglas made a bid for decider of the nation, it was apparent, that further compromise over the slavery issue was no longer tenable. Now if Douglas had been born 30 years earlier, he would have been more mainstream, but Douglas was born when he was, and the era of State rights compromise was over, and his message no longer sold with the voters.

So Anarchits420, please learn to think and evaluate, because we are tired of wasting time with your plethora of really stupid ill thought out what if questions. Maybe you would do better to read American history to understand why past history is as it is.

 

[Anarchist420]

No, actually Stephen A Douglas believed the will of the people at the state level should remain decisive, slavery notwithstanding.

Some accuse me of being a troll and other things, while evading the question I asked:

Why do people in one state feel it necessary to tell the people in another state what they may or may not do?

 

[MayorOfAmerica]

Why do people in one state feel it necessary to tell the people in another state what they may or may not do?

Sometimes its the right thing to do, slavery not withstanding. I'm generally for handling things at a smaller level but sometimes it just doesn't work, look at your beloved articles of confederation. The articles failed in part because congress didnt give themselves enough centralized power to collect to pay their debts and fund the union's defense (among other things). They quickly became powerless. They printed money that became worhtless because they lacked the power to collect the wealth needed to back it.

The fact that congress printed money is a testament that even the Jeffersonians understood the need for a centralized economy in the United States. Could you imagine a United States economy that was state based? It would be a mess to say the least encouraging things like state tariffs and protectionism preventing the national economy as a whole to grow. We'd certainly be worse off now by orders of magnitude than we already are. Given the fact that some things are better off nationalized like the economy, a central authority (our federal government) must dictate certain conditions which benefit the whole. When that happens, what benefits the whole might not be in the immediate best interest of one or two parts.

The debate rages on as to what is better off at the national level versus state or local, but you didnt ask that so I'm going to leave it there.

 

[xj0hnx]

sometimes its the right thing to do, slavery not withstanding. I'm generally for handling things at a smaller level but sometimes it just doesn't work, look at your beloved articles of confederation. The articles failed in part because congress didnt give themselves enough centralized power to collect to pay their debts and fund the union's defense (among other things). They quickly became powerless. They printed money that became worhtless because they lacked the power to collect the wealth needed to back it.

The fact that congress printed money is a testament that even the jeffersonians understood the need for a centralized economy in the united states. Could you imagine a united states economy that was state based? It would be a mess to say the least encouraging things like state tariffs and protectionism preventing the national economy as a whole to grow. We'd certainly be worse off now by orders of magnitude than we already are. Given the fact that some things are better off nationalized like the economy, a central authority (our federal government) must dictate certain conditions which benefit the whole. When that happens, what benefits the whole might not be in the immediate best interest of one or two parts.

The debate rages on as to what is better off at the national level versus state or local, but you didnt ask that so i'm going to leave it there.

wwybywb?