The core of this concept, crucial to understanding the debates surrounding slavery in the United States during the mid-19th century, rested on the idea that even though a territory might theoretically allow slavery based on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, the people living in that territory could effectively prevent its existence. This could be achieved by failing to pass local laws and regulations necessary to protect slaveholders’ property rights. Without such local enforcement, slavery could not practically exist, regardless of federal rulings.
Its importance lies in its attempted reconciliation of popular sovereignty with the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. While the Court stated that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories, this concept suggested that the residents of a territory still held the power to decide its fate through their own inaction. This approach was perceived by some as a way to appease both pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions, although it ultimately proved unsatisfactory to both. It exacerbated sectional tensions, further contributing to the political polarization that led to the Civil War.
