icans attempted to apply the doctrine of popular sovereignty prior to the territorial struggle over slavery which is attributed to the emergence of the Civil War. Political scientist Donald S. Lutz observed that in the American notion, popular sovereignty meant placing ultimate and unyielding authority in the people given that there are varied ways to which sovereignty can be expressed covering multiple institutional possibilities be they passing of laws, elections, and recalls (Constitution Society, n.d.).
The American Revolution marked a departure in the concept of popular sovereignty as it had been known and used in the European historical context (Constitution Society, n.d.). Thus, with the revolution, the Americans were able to substitute the sovereignty that had existed in the King George III personage. Goldstone (2014) concurs that prior to this, however, the power of declaring war, levying general taxes, making peace were vested on the Federal government with the government of the Union drawing similarities with the King’s Government in the old French monarchy. The spirit of popularity and conciliation would have the Federal legislature of the Union composed of a Senate and a House of representatives.
Another parallel can be drawn in the executive powers. The executive powers in the Northern States were limited and partial while the English represented supremacy. Thus, pursuant to popular sovereignty, the president acted just as the executor of the law that the populace would him against his life, his honour, his pledge and when he was incompetent, the people could vote him out as per the constitutional agreement. de Tocquiville (1831) explains that he Queen/King was independent in their decisions and exercises representing a monarchy which the people were expected to concede to. The duration of the two powers, also show discrepancies. While the term of the president was subject to the executive authority. The monarchy was undisputable and would only