What would have happened if popular sovereignty had become law? In your opinion, what types of issues should be decided within each state, and which at the federal level?

Many of the Republicans who opposed Abraham Lincoln, particularly Stephan A. Douglas, preferred allowing federal territories to decide whether slavery would be legal within their borders. What do you believe would have happened if this policy, known as popular sovereignty, had become law?

In your opinion, what types of issues should be decided within each state, and which at the federal level?

This is a loaded question. It's difficult to predict historical outcomes, but I think that if popular sovereignty had become law the United States will likely have been divided into two pieces. The Confederate states may have formed their own country, and the North may have continued on in its own fashion, since the South was trying to secede from the Union.

In terms of which issues should be left up to the states, this is another really tough question. I believe basic rights and privileges of a democratic republic should be upheld everywhere, including abortion, voting, freedom of speech/ religion/ personal expression, and gun ownership (this is not an all-inclusive list). The states should be left to decide how to allocate their resources, such as for education, law enforcement, economic development/ resource allocation, taxes, etc. (again, this is not an exhaustive list).

I must also state that things are more complex than can be efficiently stated in this book discussion, and that I'm sure there are many issues of which I am significantly naive about!

Molly Mae said it well and I almost completely agree but control of the military(if course this does not include state and local police) and foreign affairs should also be left to the national government.

Things that should be controlled at the state level should probably be things that the state tax pays for vs government funding provided for other issues. Abortion rights at the state level appears to make sense except for what happens when someone leaves one state to go to another state for a procedure that is not allowed in their state? In the end, not everyone will agree on tough issues for their own personal reasons - as is what we saw in the book and throughout history. I did like how this book that appeared to be about history, made us think about the present. Are we making progress in our approach to finding answers that people vary greatly on how should be addressed?

I, too, agree with Molly Mae, supplemented by carriem. Their answers come close. While I might attempt answers to a few of these questions, they go far beyond the book. Lincoln was a visionary, though, so maybe we should attempt to be visionaries, too

I am finding myself more and more wanting federal laws versus state laws. If a state creates a law against something I strongly believe in, do I move to another state? And what happens when the governor of that state rolls over to the other party, do I move again? A right that should be for everyone should be a national law.

I agree with bettyt that federal law should always take precedent. It would be impossible to remain "United" States if individual states are permitted to vote something into law in their state (i.e. slavery) that is not permitted in other states.