Final answer:
During the U.S. westward expansion, wagon train disputes could be settled by vote or written constitution, reflecting the larger judicial framework established by the Constitution and subsequent laws like the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. Popular sovereignty and debates over slavery also mirrored the governance issues in the developing nation.
Step-by-step explanation:
Disputes within wagon trains during the westward expansion of the United States could indeed be resolved through voting or occasionally through a written constitution. The practice of adopting written constitutions reflected the broader legal and governmental frameworks developing at the time. After the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which granted Congress the power to create lower federal courts and establish the Supreme Court, legal disputes between states began to be resolved more systematically.
This judicial framework provided by Article III and the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 was part of the foundation for resolving disputes at a national level. Meanwhile, debates on a smaller scale, such as within wagon trains, often had to rely on more immediate and direct systems of governance, reflecting a microcosm of the larger challenges faced by a growing nation.
The concept of popular sovereignty, where citizens decide issues based on majority rule, also permeated the federal problem of whether territories would allow or ban slavery. These territorial debates echoed the concerns present at the Constitutional Convention regarding the institution of slavery, the counting of slaves for representation and taxation, and the potential for the abolition of slavery.
The Northwest Ordinance and subsequent legislation, such as the Horse Creek Council of 1851 and Fort Atkinson Council of 1853, showed attempts to manage the expansion with respect to indigenous territories and the increasing sectional divisions over slavery and settlement.