The Project Gutenberg eBook of Democracy in America, Part I. by Alexis de Tocqueville (2024)

Book One

Introductory Chapter

Amongst the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in theUnited States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality ofconditions. I readily discovered the prodigious influence which this primaryfact exercises on the whole course of society, by giving a certain direction topublic opinion, and a certain tenor to the laws; by imparting new maxims to thegoverning powers, and peculiar habits to the governed. I speedily perceivedthat the influence of this fact extends far beyond the political character andthe laws of the country, and that it has no less empire over civil society thanover the Government; it creates opinions, engenders sentiments, suggests theordinary practices of life, and modifies whatever it does not produce. The moreI advanced in the study of American society, the more I perceived that theequality of conditions is the fundamental fact from which all others seem to bederived, and the central point at which all my observations constantlyterminated.

I then turned my thoughts to our own hemisphere, where I imagined that Idiscerned something analogous to the spectacle which the New World presented tome. I observed that the equality of conditions is daily progressing towardsthose extreme limits which it seems to have reached in the United States, andthat the democracy which governs the American communities appears to be rapidlyrising into power in Europe. I hence conceived the idea of the book which isnow before the reader.

It is evident to all alike that a great democratic revolution is going onamongst us; but there are two opinions as to its nature and consequences. Tosome it appears to be a novel accident, which as such may still be checked; toothers it seems irresistible, because it is the most uniform, the most ancient,and the most permanent tendency which is to be found in history. Let usrecollect the situation of France seven hundred years ago, when the territorywas divided amongst a small number of families, who were the owners of the soiland the rulers of the inhabitants; the right of governing descended with thefamily inheritance from generation to generation; force was the only means bywhich man could act on man, and landed property was the sole source of power.Soon, however, the political power of the clergy was founded, and began toexert itself: the clergy opened its ranks to all classes, to the poor and therich, the villein and the lord; equality penetrated into the Government throughthe Church, and the being who as a serf must have vegetated in perpetualbondage took his place as a priest in the midst of nobles, and not infrequentlyabove the heads of kings.

The different relations of men became more complicated and more numerous associety gradually became more stable and more civilized. Thence the want ofcivil laws was felt; and the order of legal functionaries soon rose from theobscurity of the tribunals and their dusty chambers, to appear at the court ofthe monarch, by the side of the feudal barons in their ermine and their mail.Whilst the kings were ruining themselves by their great enterprises, and thenobles exhausting their resources by private wars, the lower orders wereenriching themselves by commerce. The influence of money began to beperceptible in State affairs. The transactions of business opened a new road topower, and the financier rose to a station of political influence in which hewas at once flattered and despised. Gradually the spread of mentalacquirements, and the increasing taste for literature and art, opened chancesof success to talent; science became a means of government, intelligence led tosocial power, and the man of letters took a part in the affairs of the State.The value attached to the privileges of birth decreased in the exact proportionin which new paths were struck out to advancement. In the eleventh centurynobility was beyond all price; in the thirteenth it might be purchased; it wasconferred for the first time in 1270; and equality was thus introduced into theGovernment by the aristocracy itself.

In the course of these seven hundred years it sometimes happened that in orderto resist the authority of the Crown, or to diminish the power of their rivals,the nobles granted a certain share of political rights to the people. Or, morefrequently, the king permitted the lower orders to enjoy a degree of power,with the intention of repressing the aristocracy. In France the kings havealways been the most active and the most constant of levellers. When they werestrong and ambitious they spared no pains to raise the people to the level ofthe nobles; when they were temperate or weak they allowed the people to riseabove themselves. Some assisted the democracy by their talents, others by theirvices. Louis XI and Louis XIV reduced every rank beneath the throne to the samesubjection; Louis XV descended, himself and all his Court, into the dust.

As soon as land was held on any other than a feudal tenure, and personalproperty began in its turn to confer influence and power, every improvementwhich was introduced in commerce or manufacture was a fresh element of theequality of conditions. Henceforward every new discovery, every new want whichit engendered, and every new desire which craved satisfaction, was a steptowards the universal level. The taste for luxury, the love of war, the sway offashion, and the most superficial as well as the deepest passions of the humanheart, co-operated to enrich the poor and to impoverish the rich.

From the time when the exercise of the intellect became the source of strengthand of wealth, it is impossible not to consider every addition to science,every fresh truth, and every new idea as a germ of power placed within thereach of the people. Poetry, eloquence, and memory, the grace of wit, the glowof imagination, the depth of thought, and all the gifts which are bestowed byProvidence with an equal hand, turned to the advantage of the democracy; andeven when they were in the possession of its adversaries they still served itscause by throwing into relief the natural greatness of man; its conquestsspread, therefore, with those of civilization and knowledge, and literaturebecame an arsenal where the poorest and the weakest could always find weaponsto their hand.

In perusing the pages of our history, we shall scarcely meet with a singlegreat event, in the lapse of seven hundred years, which has not turned to theadvantage of equality. The Crusades and the wars of the English decimated thenobles and divided their possessions; the erection of communities introduced anelement of democratic liberty into the bosom of feudal monarchy; the inventionof fire-arms equalized the villein and the noble on the field of battle;printing opened the same resources to the minds of all classes; the post wasorganized so as to bring the same information to the door of the poorman’s cottage and to the gate of the palace; and Protestantism proclaimedthat all men are alike able to find the road to heaven. The discovery ofAmerica offered a thousand new paths to fortune, and placed riches and powerwithin the reach of the adventurous and the obscure. If we examine what hashappened in France at intervals of fifty years, beginning with the eleventhcentury, we shall invariably perceive that a twofold revolution has taken placein the state of society. The noble has gone down on the social ladder, and theroturier has gone up; the one descends as the other rises. Every half centurybrings them nearer to each other, and they will very shortly meet.

Nor is this phenomenon at all peculiar to France. Whithersoever we turn oureyes we shall witness the same continual revolution throughout the whole ofChristendom. The various occurrences of national existence have everywhereturned to the advantage of democracy; all men have aided it by their exertions:those who have intentionally labored in its cause, and those who have served itunwittingly; those who have fought for it and those who have declaredthemselves its opponents, have all been driven along in the same track, haveall labored to one end, some ignorantly and some unwillingly; all have beenblind instruments in the hands of God.

The gradual development of the equality of conditions is therefore aprovidential fact, and it possesses all the characteristics of a divine decree:it is universal, it is durable, it constantly eludes all human interference,and all events as well as all men contribute to its progress. Would it, then,be wise to imagine that a social impulse which dates from so far back can bechecked by the efforts of a generation? Is it credible that the democracy whichhas annihilated the feudal system and vanquished kings will respect the citizenand the capitalist? Will it stop now that it has grown so strong and itsadversaries so weak? None can say which way we are going, for all terms ofcomparison are wanting: the equality of conditions is more complete in theChristian countries of the present day than it has been at any time or in anypart of the world; so that the extent of what already exists prevents us fromforeseeing what may be yet to come.

The whole book which is here offered to the public has been written under theimpression of a kind of religious dread produced in the author’s mind bythe contemplation of so irresistible a revolution, which has advanced forcenturies in spite of such amazing obstacles, and which is still proceeding inthe midst of the ruins it has made. It is not necessary that God himself shouldspeak in order to disclose to us the unquestionable signs of His will; we candiscern them in the habitual course of nature, and in the invariable tendencyof events: I know, without a special revelation, that the planets move in theorbits traced by the Creator’s finger. If the men of our time were led byattentive observation and by sincere reflection to acknowledge that the gradualand progressive development of social equality is at once the past and futureof their history, this solitary truth would confer the sacred character of aDivine decree upon the change. To attempt to check democracy would be in thatcase to resist the will of God; and the nations would then be constrained tomake the best of the social lot awarded to them by Providence.

The Christian nations of our age seem to me to present a most alarmingspectacle; the impulse which is bearing them along is so strong that it cannotbe stopped, but it is not yet so rapid that it cannot be guided: their fate isin their hands; yet a little while and it may be so no longer. The first dutywhich is at this time imposed upon those who direct our affairs is to educatethe democracy; to warm its faith, if that be possible; to purify its morals; todirect its energies; to substitute a knowledge of business for itsinexperience, and an acquaintance with its true interests for its blindpropensities; to adapt its government to time and place, and to modify it incompliance with the occurrences and the actors of the age. A new science ofpolitics is indispensable to a new world. This, however, is what we think ofleast; launched in the middle of a rapid stream, we obstinately fix our eyes onthe ruins which may still be described upon the shore we have left, whilst thecurrent sweeps us along, and drives us backwards towards the gulf.

In no country in Europe has the great social revolution which I have beendescribing made such rapid progress as in France; but it has always been borneon by chance. The heads of the State have never had any forethought for itsexigencies, and its victories have been obtained without their consent orwithout their knowledge. The most powerful, the most intelligent, and the mostmoral classes of the nation have never attempted to connect themselves with itin order to guide it. The people has consequently been abandoned to its wildpropensities, and it has grown up like those outcasts who receive theireducation in the public streets, and who are unacquainted with aught but thevices and wretchedness of society. The existence of a democracy was seeminglyunknown, when on a sudden it took possession of the supreme power. Everythingwas then submitted to its caprices; it was worshipped as the idol of strength;until, when it was enfeebled by its own excesses, the legislator conceived therash project of annihilating its power, instead of instructing it andcorrecting its vices; no attempt was made to fit it to govern, but all werebent on excluding it from the government.

The consequence of this has been that the democratic revolution has beeneffected only in the material parts of society, without that concomitant changein laws, ideas, customs, and manners which was necessary to render such arevolution beneficial. We have gotten a democracy, but without the conditionswhich lessen its vices and render its natural advantages more prominent; andalthough we already perceive the evils it brings, we are ignorant of thebenefits it may confer.

While the power of the Crown, supported by the aristocracy, peaceably governedthe nations of Europe, society possessed, in the midst of its wretchedness,several different advantages which can now scarcely be appreciated orconceived. The power of a part of his subjects was an insurmountable barrier tothe tyranny of the prince; and the monarch, who felt the almost divinecharacter which he enjoyed in the eyes of the multitude, derived a motive forthe just use of his power from the respect which he inspired. High as they wereplaced above the people, the nobles could not but take that calm and benevolentinterest in its fate which the shepherd feels towards his flock; and withoutacknowledging the poor as their equals, they watched over the destiny of thosewhose welfare Providence had entrusted to their care. The people never havingconceived the idea of a social condition different from its own, andentertaining no expectation of ever ranking with its chiefs, received benefitsfrom them without discussing their rights. It grew attached to them when theywere clement and just, and it submitted without resistance or servility totheir exactions, as to the inevitable visitations of the arm of God. Custom,and the manners of the time, had moreover created a species of law in the midstof violence, and established certain limits to oppression. As the noble neversuspected that anyone would attempt to deprive him of the privileges which hebelieved to be legitimate, and as the serf looked upon his own inferiority as aconsequence of the immutable order of nature, it is easy to imagine that amutual exchange of good-will took place between two classes so differentlygifted by fate. Inequality and wretchedness were then to be found in society;but the souls of neither rank of men were degraded. Men are not corrupted bythe exercise of power or debased by the habit of obedience, but by the exerciseof a power which they believe to be illegal and by obedience to a rule whichthey consider to be usurped and oppressive. On one side was wealth, strength,and leisure, accompanied by the refinements of luxury, the elegance of taste,the pleasures of wit, and the religion of art. On the other was labor and arude ignorance; but in the midst of this coarse and ignorant multitude it wasnot uncommon to meet with energetic passions, generous sentiments, profoundreligious convictions, and independent virtues. The body of a State thusorganized might boast of its stability, its power, and, above all, of itsglory.

But the scene is now changed, and gradually the two ranks mingle; the divisionswhich once severed mankind are lowered, property is divided, power is held incommon, the light of intelligence spreads, and the capacities of all classesare equally cultivated; the State becomes democratic, and the empire ofdemocracy is slowly and peaceably introduced into the institutions and themanners of the nation. I can conceive a society in which all men would professan equal attachment and respect for the laws of which they are the commonauthors; in which the authority of the State would be respected as necessary,though not as divine; and the loyalty of the subject to its chief magistratewould not be a passion, but a quiet and rational persuasion. Every individualbeing in the possession of rights which he is sure to retain, a kind of manlyreliance and reciprocal courtesy would arise between all classes, alike removedfrom pride and meanness. The people, well acquainted with its true interests,would allow that in order to profit by the advantages of society it isnecessary to satisfy its demands. In this state of things the voluntaryassociation of the citizens might supply the individual exertions of thenobles, and the community would be alike protected from anarchy and fromoppression.

I admit that, in a democratic State thus constituted, society will not bestationary; but the impulses of the social body may be regulated and directedforwards; if there be less splendor than in the halls of an aristocracy, thecontrast of misery will be less frequent also; the pleasures of enjoyment maybe less excessive, but those of comfort will be more general; the sciences maybe less perfectly cultivated, but ignorance will be less common; theimpetuosity of the feelings will be repressed, and the habits of the nationsoftened; there will be more vices and fewer crimes. In the absence ofenthusiasm and of an ardent faith, great sacrifices may be obtained from themembers of a commonwealth by an appeal to their understandings and theirexperience; each individual will feel the same necessity for uniting with hisfellow-citizens to protect his own weakness; and as he knows that if they areto assist he must co-operate, he will readily perceive that his personalinterest is identified with the interest of the community. The nation, taken asa whole, will be less brilliant, less glorious, and perhaps less strong; butthe majority of the citizens will enjoy a greater degree of prosperity, and thepeople will remain quiet, not because it despairs of amelioration, but becauseit is conscious of the advantages of its condition. If all the consequences ofthis state of things were not good or useful, society would at least haveappropriated all such as were useful and good; and having once and for everrenounced the social advantages of aristocracy, mankind would enter intopossession of all the benefits which democracy can afford.

But here it may be asked what we have adopted in the place of thoseinstitutions, those ideas, and those customs of our forefathers which we haveabandoned. The spell of royalty is broken, but it has not been succeeded by themajesty of the laws; the people has learned to despise all authority, but fearnow extorts a larger tribute of obedience than that which was formerly paid byreverence and by love.

I perceive that we have destroyed those independent beings which were able tocope with tyranny single-handed; but it is the Government that has inheritedthe privileges of which families, corporations, and individuals have beendeprived; the weakness of the whole community has therefore succeeded thatinfluence of a small body of citizens, which, if it was sometimes oppressive,was often conservative. The division of property has lessened the distancewhich separated the rich from the poor; but it would seem that the nearer theydraw to each other, the greater is their mutual hatred, and the more vehementthe envy and the dread with which they resist each other’s claims topower; the notion of Right is alike insensible to both classes, and Forceaffords to both the only argument for the present, and the only guarantee forthe future. The poor man retains the prejudices of his forefathers withouttheir faith, and their ignorance without their virtues; he has adopted thedoctrine of self-interest as the rule of his actions, without understanding thescience which controls it, and his egotism is no less blind than hisdevotedness was formerly. If society is tranquil, it is not because it reliesupon its strength and its well-being, but because it knows its weakness and itsinfirmities; a single effort may cost it its life; everybody feels the evil,but no one has courage or energy enough to seek the cure; the desires, theregret, the sorrows, and the joys of the time produce nothing that is visibleor permanent, like the passions of old men which terminate in impotence.

We have, then, abandoned whatever advantages the old state of things afforded,without receiving any compensation from our present condition; we havedestroyed an aristocracy, and we seem inclined to survey its ruins withcomplacency, and to fix our abode in the midst of them.

The phenomena which the intellectual world presents are not less deplorable.The democracy of France, checked in its course or abandoned to its lawlesspassions, has overthrown whatever crossed its path, and has shaken all that ithas not destroyed. Its empire on society has not been gradually introduced orpeaceably established, but it has constantly advanced in the midst of disorderand the agitation of a conflict. In the heat of the struggle each partisan ishurried beyond the limits of his opinions by the opinions and the excesses ofhis opponents, until he loses sight of the end of his exertions, and holds alanguage which disguises his real sentiments or secret instincts. Hence arisesthe strange confusion which we are witnessing. I cannot recall to my mind apassage in history more worthy of sorrow and of pity than the scenes which arehappening under our eyes; it is as if the natural bond which unites theopinions of man to his tastes and his actions to his principles was now broken;the sympathy which has always been acknowledged between the feelings and theideas of mankind appears to be dissolved, and all the laws of moral analogy tobe abolished.

Zealous Christians may be found amongst us whose minds are nurtured in the loveand knowledge of a future life, and who readily espouse the cause of humanliberty as the source of all moral greatness. Christianity, which has declaredthat all men are equal in the sight of God, will not refuse to acknowledge thatall citizens are equal in the eye of the law. But, by a singular concourse ofevents, religion is entangled in those institutions which democracy assails,and it is not unfrequently brought to reject the equality it loves, and tocurse that cause of liberty as a foe which it might hallow by its alliance.

By the side of these religious men I discern others whose looks are turned tothe earth more than to Heaven; they are the partisans of liberty, not only asthe source of the noblest virtues, but more especially as the root of all solidadvantages; and they sincerely desire to extend its sway, and to impart itsblessings to mankind. It is natural that they should hasten to invoke theassistance of religion, for they must know that liberty cannot be establishedwithout morality, nor morality without faith; but they have seen religion inthe ranks of their adversaries, and they inquire no further; some of themattack it openly, and the remainder are afraid to defend it.

In former ages slavery has been advocated by the venal and slavish-minded,whilst the independent and the warm-hearted were struggling without hope tosave the liberties of mankind. But men of high and generous characters are nowto be met with, whose opinions are at variance with their inclinations, and whopraise that servility which they have themselves never known. Others, on thecontrary, speak in the name of liberty, as if they were able to feel itssanctity and its majesty, and loudly claim for humanity those rights which theyhave always disowned. There are virtuous and peaceful individuals whose puremorality, quiet habits, affluence, and talents fit them to be the leaders ofthe surrounding population; their love of their country is sincere, and theyare prepared to make the greatest sacrifices to its welfare, but they confoundthe abuses of civilization with its benefits, and the idea of evil isinseparable in their minds from that of novelty.

Not far from this class is another party, whose object is to materializemankind, to hit upon what is expedient without heeding what is just, to acquireknowledge without faith, and prosperity apart from virtue; assuming the titleof the champions of modern civilization, and placing themselves in a stationwhich they usurp with insolence, and from which they are driven by their ownunworthiness. Where are we then? The religionists are the enemies of liberty,and the friends of liberty attack religion; the high-minded and the nobleadvocate subjection, and the meanest and most servile minds preachindependence; honest and enlightened citizens are opposed to all progress,whilst men without patriotism and without principles are the apostles ofcivilization and of intelligence. Has such been the fate of the centuries whichhave preceded our own? and has man always inhabited a world like the present,where nothing is linked together, where virtue is without genius, and geniuswithout honor; where the love of order is confounded with a taste foroppression, and the holy rites of freedom with a contempt of law; where thelight thrown by conscience on human actions is dim, and where nothing seems tobe any longer forbidden or allowed, honorable or shameful, false or true? Icannot, however, believe that the Creator made man to leave him in an endlessstruggle with the intellectual miseries which surround us: God destines acalmer and a more certain future to the communities of Europe; I amunacquainted with His designs, but I shall not cease to believe in them becauseI cannot fathom them, and I had rather mistrust my own capacity than Hisjustice.

There is a country in the world where the great revolution which I am speakingof seems nearly to have reached its natural limits; it has been effected withease and simplicity, say rather that this country has attained the consequencesof the democratic revolution which we are undergoing without having experiencedthe revolution itself. The emigrants who fixed themselves on the shores ofAmerica in the beginning of the seventeenth century severed the democraticprinciple from all the principles which repressed it in the old communities ofEurope, and transplanted it unalloyed to the New World. It has there beenallowed to spread in perfect freedom, and to put forth its consequences in thelaws by influencing the manners of the country.

It appears to me beyond a doubt that sooner or later we shall arrive, like theAmericans, at an almost complete equality of conditions. But I do not concludefrom this that we shall ever be necessarily led to draw the same politicalconsequences which the Americans have derived from a similar socialorganization. I am far from supposing that they have chosen the only form ofgovernment which a democracy may adopt; but the identity of the efficient causeof laws and manners in the two countries is sufficient to account for theimmense interest we have in becoming acquainted with its effects in each ofthem.

It is not, then, merely to satisfy a legitimate curiosity that I have examinedAmerica; my wish has been to find instruction by which we may ourselves profit.Whoever should imagine that I have intended to write a panegyric will perceivethat such was not my design; nor has it been my object to advocate any form ofgovernment in particular, for I am of opinion that absolute excellence israrely to be found in any legislation; I have not even affected to discusswhether the social revolution, which I believe to be irresistible, isadvantageous or prejudicial to mankind; I have acknowledged this revolution asa fact already accomplished or on the eve of its accomplishment; and I haveselected the nation, from amongst those which have undergone it, in which itsdevelopment has been the most peaceful and the most complete, in order todiscern its natural consequences, and, if it be possible, to distinguish themeans by which it may be rendered profitable. I confess that in America I sawmore than America; I sought the image of democracy itself, with itsinclinations, its character, its prejudices, and its passions, in order tolearn what we have to fear or to hope from its progress.

In the first part of this work I have attempted to show the tendency given tothe laws by the democracy of America, which is abandoned almost withoutrestraint to its instinctive propensities, and to exhibit the course itprescribes to the Government and the influence it exercises on affairs. I havesought to discover the evils and the advantages which it produces. I haveexamined the precautions used by the Americans to direct it, as well as thosewhich they have not adopted, and I have undertaken to point out the causeswhich enable it to govern society. I do not know whether I have succeeded inmaking known what I saw in America, but I am certain that such has been mysincere desire, and that I have never, knowingly, moulded facts to ideas,instead of ideas to facts.

Whenever a point could be established by the aid of written documents, I havehad recourse to the original text, and to the most authentic and approvedworks. I have cited my authorities in the notes, and anyone may refer to them.Whenever an opinion, a political custom, or a remark on the manners of thecountry was concerned, I endeavored to consult the most enlightened men I metwith. If the point in question was important or doubtful, I was not satisfiedwith one testimony, but I formed my opinion on the evidence of severalwitnesses. Here the reader must necessarily believe me upon my word. I couldfrequently have quoted names which are either known to him, or which deserve tobe so, in proof of what I advance; but I have carefully abstained from thispractice. A stranger frequently hears important truths at the fire-side of hishost, which the latter would perhaps conceal from the ear of friendship; heconsoles himself with his guest for the silence to which he is restricted, andthe shortness of the traveller’s stay takes away all fear of hisindiscretion. I carefully noted every conversation of this nature as soon as itoccurred, but these notes will never leave my writing-case; I had rather injurethe success of my statements than add my name to the list of those strangerswho repay the generous hospitality they have received by subsequent chagrin andannoyance.

I am aware that, notwithstanding my care, nothing will be easier than tocriticise this book, if anyone ever chooses to criticise it. Those readers whomay examine it closely will discover the fundamental idea which connects theseveral parts together. But the diversity of the subjects I have had to treatis exceedingly great, and it will not be difficult to oppose an isolated factto the body of facts which I quote, or an isolated idea to the body of ideas Iput forth. I hope to be read in the spirit which has guided my labors, and thatmy book may be judged by the general impression it leaves, as I have formed myown judgment not on any single reason, but upon the mass of evidence. It mustnot be forgotten that the author who wishes to be understood is obliged to pushall his ideas to their utmost theoretical consequences, and often to the vergeof what is false or impracticable; for if it be necessary sometimes to quit therules of logic in active life, such is not the case in discourse, and a manfinds that almost as many difficulties spring from inconsistency of language asusually arise from inconsistency of conduct.

I conclude by pointing out myself what many readers will consider the principaldefect of the work. This book is written to favor no particular views, and incomposing it I have entertained no designs of serving or attacking any party; Ihave undertaken not to see differently, but to look further than parties, andwhilst they are busied for the morrow I have turned my thoughts to the Future.

Chapter I: Exterior Form OfNorth America

Chapter Summary

North America divided into two vast regions, one inclining towards the Pole,the other towards the Equator—Valley of the Mississippi—Traces ofthe Revolutions of the Globe—Shore of the Atlantic Ocean where theEnglish Colonies were founded—Difference in the appearance of North andof South America at the time of their Discovery—Forests of NorthAmerica—Prairies—Wandering Tribes of Natives—Their outwardappearance, manners, and language—Traces of an unknown people.

Exterior Form Of North America

North America presents in its external form certain general features which itis easy to discriminate at the first glance. A sort of methodical order seemsto have regulated the separation of land and water, mountains and valleys. Asimple, but grand, arrangement is discoverable amidst the confusion of objectsand the prodigious variety of scenes. This continent is divided, almostequally, into two vast regions, one of which is bounded on the north by theArctic Pole, and by the two great oceans on the east and west. It stretchestowards the south, forming a triangle whose irregular sides meet at lengthbelow the great lakes of Canada. The second region begins where the otherterminates, and includes all the remainder of the continent. The one slopesgently towards the Pole, the other towards the Equator.

The territory comprehended in the first region descends towards the north withso imperceptible a slope that it may almost be said to form a level plain.Within the bounds of this immense tract of country there are neither highmountains nor deep valleys. Streams meander through it irregularly: greatrivers mix their currents, separate and meet again, disperse and form vastmarshes, losing all trace of their channels in the labyrinth of waters theyhave themselves created; and thus, at length, after innumerable windings, fallinto the Polar Seas. The great lakes which bound this first region are notwalled in, like most of those in the Old World, between hills and rocks. Theirbanks are flat, and rise but a few feet above the level of their waters; eachof them thus forming a vast bowl filled to the brim. The slightest change inthe structure of the globe would cause their waters to rush either towards thePole or to the tropical sea.

The second region is more varied on its surface, and better suited for thehabitation of man. Two long chains of mountains divide it from one extreme tothe other; the Alleghany ridge takes the form of the shores of the AtlanticOcean; the other is parallel with the Pacific. The space which lies betweenthese two chains of mountains contains 1,341,649 square miles. *a Its surfaceis therefore about six times as great as that of France. This vast territory,however, forms a single valley, one side of which descends gradually from therounded summits of the Alleghanies, while the other rises in an uninterruptedcourse towards the tops of the Rocky Mountains. At the bottom of the valleyflows an immense river, into which the various streams issuing from themountains fall from all parts. In memory of their native land, the Frenchformerly called this river the St. Louis. The Indians, in their pompouslanguage, have named it the Father of Waters, or the Mississippi.

a
[ Darby’s “View of the United States.”]

The Mississippi takes its source above the limit of the two great regions ofwhich I have spoken, not far from the highest point of the table-land wherethey unite. Near the same spot rises another river, *b which empties itselfinto the Polar seas. The course of the Mississippi is at first dubious: itwinds several times towards the north, from whence it rose; and at length,after having been delayed in lakes and marshes, it flows slowly onwards to thesouth. Sometimes quietly gliding along the argillaceous bed which nature hasassigned to it, sometimes swollen by storms, the Mississippi waters 2,500 milesin its course. *c At the distance of 1,364 miles from its mouth this riverattains an average depth of fifteen feet; and it is navigated by vessels of 300tons burden for a course of nearly 500 miles. Fifty-seven large navigablerivers contribute to swell the waters of the Mississippi; amongst others, theMissouri, which traverses a space of 2,500 miles; the Arkansas of 1,300 miles,the Red River 1,000 miles, four whose course is from 800 to 1,000 miles inlength, viz., the Illinois, the St. Peter’s, the St. Francis, and theMoingona; besides a countless multitude of rivulets which unite from all partstheir tributary streams.

b
[ The Red River.]

c
[ Warden’s “Description of the United States.”]

The valley which is watered by the Mississippi seems formed to be the bed ofthis mighty river, which, like a god of antiquity, dispenses both good and evilin its course. On the shores of the stream nature displays an inexhaustiblefertility; in proportion as you recede from its banks, the powers of vegetationlanguish, the soil becomes poor, and the plants that survive have a sicklygrowth. Nowhere have the great convulsions of the globe left more evidenttraces than in the valley of the Mississippi; the whole aspect of the countryshows the powerful effects of water, both by its fertility and by itsbarrenness. The waters of the primeval ocean accumulated enormous beds ofvegetable mould in the valley, which they levelled as they retired. Upon theright shore of the river are seen immense plains, as smooth as if thehusbandman had passed over them with his roller. As you approach the mountainsthe soil becomes more and more unequal and sterile; the ground is, as it were,pierced in a thousand places by primitive rocks, which appear like the bones ofa skeleton whose flesh is partly consumed. The surface of the earth is coveredwith a granite sand and huge irregular masses of stone, among which a fewplants force their growth, and give the appearance of a green field coveredwith the ruins of a vast edifice. These stones and this sand discover, onexamination, a perfect analogy with those which compose the arid and brokensummits of the Rocky Mountains. The flood of waters which washed the soil tothe bottom of the valley afterwards carried away portions of the rocksthemselves; and these, dashed and bruised against the neighboring cliffs, wereleft scattered like wrecks at their feet. *d The valley of the Mississippi is,upon the whole, the most magnificent dwelling-place prepared by God forman’s abode; and yet it may be said that at present it is but a mightydesert.

d
[ See Appendix, A.]

On the eastern side of the Alleghanies, between the base of these mountains andthe Atlantic Ocean, there lies a long ridge of rocks and sand, which the seaappears to have left behind as it retired. The mean breadth of this territorydoes not exceed one hundred miles; but it is about nine hundred miles inlength. This part of the American continent has a soil which offers everyobstacle to the husbandman, and its vegetation is scanty and unvaried.

Upon this inhospitable coast the first united efforts of human industry weremade. The tongue of arid land was the cradle of those English colonies whichwere destined one day to become the United States of America. The centre ofpower still remains here; whilst in the backwoods the true elements of thegreat people to whom the future control of the continent belongs are gatheringalmost in secrecy together.

When the Europeans first landed on the shores of the West Indies, andafterwards on the coast of South America, they thought themselves transportedinto those fabulous regions of which poets had sung. The sea sparkled withphosphoric light, and the extraordinary transparency of its waters discoveredto the view of the navigator all that had hitherto been hidden in the deepabyss. *e Here and there appeared little islands perfumed with odoriferousplants, and resembling baskets of flowers floating on the tranquil surface ofthe ocean. Every object which met the sight, in this enchanting region, seemedprepared to satisfy the wants or contribute to the pleasures of man. Almost allthe trees were loaded with nourishing fruits, and those which were useless asfood delighted the eye by the brilliancy and variety of their colors. In grovesof fragrant lemon-trees, wild figs, flowering myrtles, acacias, and oleanders,which were hung with festoons of various climbing plants, covered with flowers,a multitude of birds unknown in Europe displayed their bright plumage,glittering with purple and azure, and mingled their warbling with the harmonyof a world teeming with life and motion. *f Underneath this brilliant exteriordeath was concealed. But the air of these climates had so enervating aninfluence that man, absorbed by present enjoyment, was rendered regardless ofthe future.

e
[ Malte Brun tells us (vol. v. p. 726) that the water of the Caribbean Sea isso transparent that corals and fish are discernible at a depth of sixtyfathoms. The ship seemed to float in air, the navigator became giddy as his eyepenetrated through the crystal flood, and beheld submarine gardens, or beds ofshells, or gilded fishes gliding among tufts and thickets of seaweed.]

f
[ See Appendix, B.]

North America appeared under a very different aspect; there everything wasgrave, serious, and solemn: it seemed created to be the domain of intelligence,as the South was that of sensual delight. A turbulent and foggy ocean washedits shores. It was girt round by a belt of granite rocks, or by wide tracts ofsand. The foliage of its woods was dark and gloomy, for they were composed offirs, larches, evergreen oaks, wild olive-trees, and laurels. Beyond this outerbelt lay the thick shades of the central forest, where the largest trees whichare produced in the two hemispheres grow side by side. The plane, the catalpa,the sugar-maple, and the Virginian poplar mingled their branches with those ofthe oak, the beech, and the lime. In these, as in the forests of the Old World,destruction was perpetually going on. The ruins of vegetation were heaped uponeach other; but there was no laboring hand to remove them, and their decay wasnot rapid enough to make room for the continual work of reproduction. Climbingplants, grasses, and other herbs forced their way through the mass of dyingtrees; they crept along their bending trunks, found nourishment in their dustycavities, and a passage beneath the lifeless bark. Thus decay gave itsassistance to life, and their respective productions were mingled together. Thedepths of these forests were gloomy and obscure, and a thousand rivulets,undirected in their course by human industry, preserved in them a constantmoisture. It was rare to meet with flowers, wild fruits, or birds beneath theirshades. The fall of a tree overthrown by age, the rushing torrent of acataract, the lowing of the buffalo, and the howling of the wind were the onlysounds which broke the silence of nature.

To the east of the great river, the woods almost disappeared; in their steadwere seen prairies of immense extent. Whether Nature in her infinite varietyhad denied the germs of trees to these fertile plains, or whether they had oncebeen covered with forests, subsequently destroyed by the hand of man, is aquestion which neither tradition nor scientific research has been able toresolve.

These immense deserts were not, however, devoid of human inhabitants. Somewandering tribes had been for ages scattered among the forest shades or thegreen pastures of the prairie. From the mouth of the St. Lawrence to the deltaof the Mississippi, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, these savagespossessed certain points of resemblance which bore witness of their commonorigin; but at the same time they differed from all other known races of men:*g they were neither white like the Europeans, nor yellow like most of theAsiatics, nor black like the negroes. Their skin was reddish brown, their hairlong and shining, their lips thin, and their cheekbones very prominent. Thelanguages spoken by the North American tribes are various as far as regardedtheir words, but they were subject to the same grammatical rules. These rulesdiffered in several points from such as had been observed to govern the originof language. The idiom of the Americans seemed to be the product of newcombinations, and bespoke an effort of the understanding of which the Indiansof our days would be incapable. *h

g
[ With the progress of discovery some resemblance has been found to existbetween the physical conformation, the language, and the habits of the Indiansof North America, and those of the Tongous, Mantchous, Mongols, Tartars, andother wandering tribes of Asia. The land occupied by these tribes is not verydistant from Behring’s Strait, which allows of the supposition, that at aremote period they gave inhabitants to the desert continent of America. Butthis is a point which has not yet been clearly elucidated by science. See MalteBrun, vol. v.; the works of Humboldt; Fischer, “Conjecture surl’Origine des Americains”; Adair, “History of the AmericanIndians.”]

h
[ See Appendix, C.]

The social state of these tribes differed also in many respects from all thatwas seen in the Old World. They seemed to have multiplied freely in the midstof their deserts without coming in contact with other races more civilized thantheir own. Accordingly, they exhibited none of those indistinct, incoherentnotions of right and wrong, none of that deep corruption of manners, which isusually joined with ignorance and rudeness among nations which, after advancingto civilization, have relapsed into a state of barbarism. The Indian wasindebted to no one but himself; his virtues, his vices, and his prejudices werehis own work; he had grown up in the wild independence of his nature.

If, in polished countries, the lowest of the people are rude and uncivil, it isnot merely because they are poor and ignorant, but that, being so, they are indaily contact with rich and enlightened men. The sight of their own hard lotand of their weakness, which is daily contrasted with the happiness and powerof some of their fellow-creatures, excites in their hearts at the same time thesentiments of anger and of fear: the consciousness of their inferiority and oftheir dependence irritates while it humiliates them. This state of minddisplays itself in their manners and language; they are at once insolent andservile. The truth of this is easily proved by observation; the people are morerude in aristocratic countries than elsewhere, in opulent cities than in ruraldistricts. In those places where the rich and powerful are assembled togetherthe weak and the indigent feel themselves oppressed by their inferiorcondition. Unable to perceive a single chance of regaining their equality, theygive up to despair, and allow themselves to fall below the dignity of humannature.

This unfortunate effect of the disparity of conditions is not observable insavage life: the Indians, although they are ignorant and poor, are equal andfree. At the period when Europeans first came among them the natives of NorthAmerica were ignorant of the value of riches, and indifferent to the enjoymentswhich civilized man procures to himself by their means. Nevertheless there wasnothing coarse in their demeanor; they practised an habitual reserve and a kindof aristocratic politeness. Mild and hospitable when at peace, though mercilessin war beyond any known degree of human ferocity, the Indian would exposehimself to die of hunger in order to succor the stranger who asked admittanceby night at the door of his hut; yet he could tear in pieces with his hands thestill quivering limbs of his prisoner. The famous republics of antiquity nevergave examples of more unshaken courage, more haughty spirits, or moreintractable love of independence than were hidden in former times among thewild forests of the New World. *i The Europeans produced no great impressionwhen they landed upon the shores of North America; their presence engenderedneither envy nor fear. What influence could they possess over such men as wehave described? The Indian could live without wants, suffer without complaint,and pour out his death-song at the stake. *j Like all the other members of thegreat human family, these savages believed in the existence of a better world,and adored under different names, God, the creator of the universe. Theirnotions on the great intellectual truths were in general simple andphilosophical. *k

i
[ We learn from President Jefferson’s “Notes upon Virginia,”p. 148, that among the Iroquois, when attacked by a superior force, aged menrefused to fly or to survive the destruction of their country; and they braveddeath like the ancient Romans when their capital was sacked by the Gauls.Further on, p. 150, he tells us that there is no example of an Indian who,having fallen into the hands of his enemies, begged for his life; on thecontrary, the captive sought to obtain death at the hands of his conquerors bythe use of insult and provocation.]

j
[ See “Histoire de la Louisiane,” by Lepage Dupratz; Charlevoix,“Histoire de la Nouvelle France”; “Lettres du Rev. G.Hecwelder;” “Transactions of the American PhilosophicalSociety,” v. I; Jefferson’s “Notes on Virginia,” pp.135-190. What is said by Jefferson is of especial weight, on account of thepersonal merit of the writer, of his peculiar position, and of thematter-of-fact age in which he lived.]

k
[ See Appendix, D.]

Although we have here traced the character of a primitive people, yet it cannotbe doubted that another people, more civilized and more advanced in allrespects, had preceded it in the same regions.

An obscure tradition which prevailed among the Indians to the north of theAtlantic informs us that these very tribes formerly dwelt on the west side ofthe Mississippi. Along the banks of the Ohio, and throughout the centralvalley, there are frequently found, at this day, tumuli raised by the hands ofmen. On exploring these heaps of earth to their centre, it is usual to meetwith human bones, strange instruments, arms and utensils of all kinds, made ofmetal, or destined for purposes unknown to the present race. The Indians of ourtime are unable to give any information relative to the history of this unknownpeople. Neither did those who lived three hundred years ago, when America wasfirst discovered, leave any accounts from which even an hypothesis could beformed. Tradition—that perishable, yet ever renewed monument of thepristine world—throws no light upon the subject. It is an undoubted fact,however, that in this part of the globe thousands of our fellow-beings hadlived. When they came hither, what was their origin, their destiny, theirhistory, and how they perished, no one can tell. How strange does it appearthat nations have existed, and afterwards so completely disappeared from theearth that the remembrance of their very names is effaced; their languages arelost; their glory is vanished like a sound without an echo; though perhapsthere is not one which has not left behind it some tomb in memory of itspassage! The most durable monument of human labor is that which recalls thewretchedness and nothingness of man.

Although the vast country which we have been describing was inhabited by manyindigenous tribes, it may justly be said at the time of its discovery byEuropeans to have formed one great desert. The Indians occupied withoutpossessing it. It is by agricultural labor that man appropriates the soil, andthe early inhabitants of North America lived by the produce of the chase. Theirimplacable prejudices, their uncontrolled passions, their vices, and still moreperhaps their savage virtues, consigned them to inevitable destruction. Theruin of these nations began from the day when Europeans landed on their shores;it has proceeded ever since, and we are now witnessing the completion of it.They seem to have been placed by Providence amidst the riches of the New Worldto enjoy them for a season, and then surrender them. Those coasts, so admirablyadapted for commerce and industry; those wide and deep rivers; thatinexhaustible valley of the Mississippi; the whole continent, in short, seemedprepared to be the abode of a great nation, yet unborn.

In that land the great experiment was to be made, by civilized man, of theattempt to construct society upon a new basis; and it was there, for the firsttime, that theories hitherto unknown, or deemed impracticable, were to exhibita spectacle for which the world had not been prepared by the history of thepast.

Chapter II: Origin Of TheAnglo-Americans—Part I

Chapter Summary

Utility of knowing the origin of nations in order to understand their socialcondition and their laws—America the only country in which thestarting-point of a great people has been clearly observable—In whatrespects all who emigrated to British America were similar—In what theydiffered—Remark applicable to all Europeans who established themselves onthe shores of the New World—Colonization of Virginia—Colonizationof New England—Original character of the first inhabitants of NewEngland—Their arrival—Their first laws—Their socialcontract—Penal code borrowed from the Hebrew legislation—Religiousfervor—Republican spirit—Intimate union of the spirit of religionwith the spirit of liberty.

Origin Of The Anglo-Americans, And Its Importance In Relation To Their FutureCondition.

After the birth of a human being his early years are obscurely spent in thetoils or pleasures of childhood. As he grows up the world receives him, whenhis manhood begins, and he enters into contact with his fellows. He is thenstudied for the first time, and it is imagined that the germ of the vices andthe virtues of his maturer years is then formed. This, if I am not mistaken, isa great error. We must begin higher up; we must watch the infant in itsmother’s arms; we must see the first images which the external worldcasts upon the dark mirror of his mind; the first occurrences which hewitnesses; we must hear the first words which awaken the sleeping powers ofthought, and stand by his earliest efforts, if we would understand theprejudices, the habits, and the passions which will rule his life. The entireman is, so to speak, to be seen in the cradle of the child.

The growth of nations presents something analogous to this: they all bear somemarks of their origin; and the circ*mstances which accompanied their birth andcontributed to their rise affect the whole term of their being. If we were ableto go back to the elements of states, and to examine the oldest monuments oftheir history, I doubt not that we should discover the primal cause of theprejudices, the habits, the ruling passions, and, in short, of all thatconstitutes what is called the national character; we should then find theexplanation of certain customs which now seem at variance with the prevailingmanners; of such laws as conflict with established principles; and of suchincoherent opinions as are here and there to be met with in society, like thosefragments of broken chains which we sometimes see hanging from the vault of anedifice, and supporting nothing. This might explain the destinies of certainnations, which seem borne on by an unknown force to ends of which theythemselves are ignorant. But hitherto facts have been wanting to researches ofthis kind: the spirit of inquiry has only come upon communities in their latterdays; and when they at length contemplated their origin, time had alreadyobscured it, or ignorance and pride adorned it with truth-concealing fables.

America is the only country in which it has been possible to witness thenatural and tranquil growth of society, and where the influences exercised onthe future condition of states by their origin is clearly distinguishable. Atthe period when the peoples of Europe landed in the New World their nationalcharacteristics were already completely formed; each of them had a physiognomyof its own; and as they had already attained that stage of civilization atwhich men are led to study themselves, they have transmitted to us a faithfulpicture of their opinions, their manners, and their laws. The men of thesixteenth century are almost as well known to us as our contemporaries.America, consequently, exhibits in the broad light of day the phenomena whichthe ignorance or rudeness of earlier ages conceals from our researches. Nearenough to the time when the states of America were founded, to be accuratelyacquainted with their elements, and sufficiently removed from that period tojudge of some of their results, the men of our own day seem destined to seefurther than their predecessors into the series of human events. Providence hasgiven us a torch which our forefathers did not possess, and has allowed us todiscern fundamental causes in the history of the world which the obscurity ofthe past concealed from them. If we carefully examine the social and politicalstate of America, after having studied its history, we shall remain perfectlyconvinced that not an opinion, not a custom, not a law, I may even say not anevent, is upon record which the origin of that people will not explain. Thereaders of this book will find the germ of all that is to follow in the presentchapter, and the key to almost the whole work.

The emigrants who came, at different periods to occupy the territory nowcovered by the American Union differed from each other in many respects; theiraim was not the same, and they governed themselves on different principles.These men had, however, certain features in common, and they were all placed inan analogous situation. The tie of language is perhaps the strongest and themost durable that can unite mankind. All the emigrants spoke the same tongue;they were all offsets from the same people. Born in a country which had beenagitated for centuries by the struggles of faction, and in which all partieshad been obliged in their turn to place themselves under the protection of thelaws, their political education had been perfected in this rude school, andthey were more conversant with the notions of right and the principles of truefreedom than the greater part of their European contemporaries. At the periodof their first emigrations the parish system, that fruitful germ of freeinstitutions, was deeply rooted in the habits of the English; and with it thedoctrine of the sovereignty of the people had been introduced into the bosom ofthe monarchy of the House of Tudor.

The religious quarrels which have agitated the Christian world were then rife.England had plunged into the new order of things with headlong vehemence. Thecharacter of its inhabitants, which had always been sedate and reflective,became argumentative and austere. General information had been increased byintellectual debate, and the mind had received a deeper cultivation. Whilstreligion was the topic of discussion, the morals of the people were reformed.All these national features are more or less discoverable in the physiognomy ofthose adventurers who came to seek a new home on the opposite shores of theAtlantic.

Another remark, to which we shall hereafter have occasion to recur, isapplicable not only to the English, but to the French, the Spaniards, and allthe Europeans who successively established themselves in the New World. Allthese European colonies contained the elements, if not the development, of acomplete democracy. Two causes led to this result. It may safely be advanced,that on leaving the mother-country the emigrants had in general no notion ofsuperiority over one another. The happy and the powerful do not go into exile,and there are no surer guarantees of equality among men than poverty andmisfortune. It happened, however, on several occasions, that persons of rankwere driven to America by political and religious quarrels. Laws were made toestablish a gradation of ranks; but it was soon found that the soil of Americawas opposed to a territorial aristocracy. To bring that refractory land intocultivation, the constant and interested exertions of the owner himself werenecessary; and when the ground was prepared, its produce was found to beinsufficient to enrich a master and a farmer at the same time. The land wasthen naturally broken up into small portions, which the proprietor cultivatedfor himself. Land is the basis of an aristocracy, which clings to the soil thatsupports it; for it is not by privileges alone, nor by birth, but by landedproperty handed down from generation to generation, that an aristocracy isconstituted. A nation may present immense fortunes and extreme wretchedness,but unless those fortunes are territorial there is no aristocracy, but simplythe class of the rich and that of the poor.

All the British colonies had then a great degree of similarity at the epoch oftheir settlement. All of them, from their first beginning, seemed destined towitness the growth, not of the aristocratic liberty of their mother-country,but of that freedom of the middle and lower orders of which the history of theworld had as yet furnished no complete example.

In this general uniformity several striking differences were howeverdiscernible, which it is necessary to point out. Two branches may bedistinguished in the Anglo-American family, which have hitherto grown upwithout entirely commingling; the one in the South, the other in the North.

Virginia received the first English colony; the emigrants took possession of itin 1607. The idea that mines of gold and silver are the sources of nationalwealth was at that time singularly prevalent in Europe; a fatal delusion, whichhas done more to impoverish the nations which adopted it, and has cost morelives in America, than the united influence of war and bad laws. The men sentto Virginia *a were seekers of gold, adventurers, without resources and withoutcharacter, whose turbulent and restless spirit endangered the infant colony, *band rendered its progress uncertain. The artisans and agriculturists arrivedafterwards; and, although they were a more moral and orderly race of men, theywere in nowise above the level of the inferior classes in England. *c No loftyconceptions, no intellectual system, directed the foundation of these newsettlements. The colony was scarcely established when slavery was introduced,*d and this was the main circ*mstance which has exercised so prodigious aninfluence on the character, the laws, and all the future prospects of theSouth. Slavery, as we shall afterwards show, dishonors labor; it introducesidleness into society, and with idleness, ignorance and pride, luxury anddistress. It enervates the powers of the mind, and benumbs the activity of man.The influence of slavery, united to the English character, explains the mannersand the social condition of the Southern States.

a
[ The charter granted by the Crown of England in 1609 stipulated, amongst otherconditions, that the adventurers should pay to the Crown a fifth of the produceof all gold and silver mines. See Marshall’s “Life ofWashington,” vol. i. pp. 18-66.] [Footnote b: A large portion of theadventurers, says Stith (“History of Virginia”), were unprincipledyoung men of family, whom their parents were glad to ship off, dischargedservants, fraudulent bankrupts, or debauchees; and others of the same class,people more apt to pillage and destroy than to assist the settlement, were theseditious chiefs, who easily led this band into every kind of extravagance andexcess. See for the history of Virginia the following works:—

“History of Virginia, from the First Settlements in the year 1624,”by Smith.

“History of Virginia,” by William Stith.

“History of Virginia, from the Earliest Period,” by Beverley.]

c
[ It was not till some time later that a certain number of rich Englishcapitalists came to fix themselves in the colony.]

d
[ Slavery was introduced about the year 1620 by a Dutch vessel which landedtwenty negroes on the banks of the river James. See Chalmer.]

In the North, the same English foundation was modified by the most oppositeshades of character; and here I may be allowed to enter into some details. Thetwo or three main ideas which constitute the basis of the social theory of theUnited States were first combined in the Northern English colonies, moregenerally denominated the States of New England. *e The principles of NewEngland spread at first to the neighboring states; they then passedsuccessively to the more distant ones; and at length they imbued the wholeConfederation. They now extend their influence beyond its limits over the wholeAmerican world. The civilization of New England has been like a beacon lit upona hill, which, after it has diffused its warmth around, tinges the distanthorizon with its glow.

e
[ The States of New England are those situated to the east of the Hudson; theyare now six in number: 1, Connecticut; 2, Rhode Island; 3, Massachusetts; 4,Vermont; 5, New Hampshire; 6, Maine.]

The foundation of New England was a novel spectacle, and all the circ*mstancesattending it were singular and original. The large majority of colonies havebeen first inhabited either by men without education and without resources,driven by their poverty and their misconduct from the land which gave thembirth, or by speculators and adventurers greedy of gain. Some settlementscannot even boast so honorable an origin; St. Domingo was founded bybuccaneers; and the criminal courts of England originally supplied thepopulation of Australia.

The settlers who established themselves on the shores of New England allbelonged to the more independent classes of their native country. Their unionon the soil of America at once presented the singular phenomenon of a societycontaining neither lords nor common people, neither rich nor poor. These menpossessed, in proportion to their number, a greater mass of intelligence thanis to be found in any European nation of our own time. All, without a singleexception, had received a good education, and many of them were known in Europefor their talents and their acquirements. The other colonies had been foundedby adventurers without family; the emigrants of New England brought with themthe best elements of order and morality—they landed in the desertaccompanied by their wives and children. But what most especially distinguishedthem was the aim of their undertaking. They had not been obliged by necessityto leave their country; the social position they abandoned was one to beregretted, and their means of subsistence were certain. Nor did they cross theAtlantic to improve their situation or to increase their wealth; the call whichsummoned them from the comforts of their homes was purely intellectual; and infacing the inevitable sufferings of exile their object was the triumph of anidea.

The emigrants, or, as they deservedly styled themselves, the Pilgrims, belongedto that English sect the austerity of whose principles had acquired for themthe name of Puritans. Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but itcorresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republicantheories. It was this tendency which had aroused its most dangerousadversaries. Persecuted by the Government of the mother-country, and disgustedby the habits of a society opposed to the rigor of their own principles, thePuritans went forth to seek some rude and unfrequented part of the world, wherethey could live according to their own opinions, and worship God in freedom.

A few quotations will throw more light upon the spirit of these piousadventures than all we can say of them. Nathaniel Morton, *f the historian ofthe first years of the settlement, thus opens his subject:

f
[ “New England’s Memorial,” p. 13; Boston, 1826. See also“Hutchinson’s History,” vol. ii. p. 440.]

“Gentle Reader,—I have for some length of time looked upon it as aduty incumbent, especially on the immediate successors of those that have hadso large experience of those many memorable and signal demonstrations ofGod’s goodness, viz., the first beginners of this Plantation in NewEngland, to commit to writing his gracious dispensations on that behalf; havingso many inducements thereunto, not onely otherwise but so plentifully in theSacred Scriptures: that so, what we have seen, and what our fathers have toldus (Psalm lxxviii. 3, 4), we may not hide from our children, showing to thegenerations to come the praises of the Lord; that especially the seed ofAbraham his servant, and the children of Jacob his chosen (Psalm cv. 5, 6), mayremember his marvellous works in the beginning and progress of the planting ofNew England, his wonders and the judgments of his mouth; how that God brought avine into this wilderness; that he cast out the heathen, and planted it; thathe made room for it and caused it to take deep root; and it filled the land(Psalm lxxx. 8, 9). And not onely so, but also that he hath guided his peopleby his strength to his holy habitation and planted them in the mountain of hisinheritance in respect of precious Gospel enjoyments: and that as especiallyGod may have the glory of all unto whom it is most due; so also some rays ofglory may reach the names of those blessed Saints that were the maininstruments and the beginning of this happy enterprise.”

It is impossible to read this opening paragraph without an involuntary feelingof religious awe; it breathes the very savor of Gospel antiquity. The sincerityof the author heightens his power of language. The band which to his eyes was amere party of adventurers gone forth to seek their fortune beyond seas appearsto the reader as the germ of a great nation wafted by Providence to apredestined shore.

The author thus continues his narrative of the departure of the firstpilgrims:—

“So they left that goodly and pleasant city of Leyden, *g which had beentheir resting-place for above eleven years; but they knew that they werepilgrims and strangers here below, and looked not much on these things, butlifted up their eyes to Heaven, their dearest country, where God hath preparedfor them a city (Heb. xi. 16), and therein quieted their spirits. When theycame to Delfs-Haven they found the ship and all things ready; and such of theirfriends as could not come with them followed after them, and sundry came fromAmsterdam to see them shipt, and to take their leaves of them. One night wasspent with little sleep with the most, but with friendly entertainment andChristian discourse, and other real expressions of true Christian love. Thenext day they went on board, and their friends with them, where truly dolefulwas the sight of that sad and mournful parting, to hear what sighs and sobs andprayers did sound amongst them; what tears did gush from every eye, and pithyspeeches pierced each other’s heart, that sundry of the Dutch strangersthat stood on the Key as spectators could not refrain from tears. But the tide(which stays for no man) calling them away, that were thus loth to depart,their Reverend Pastor falling down on his knees, and they all with him, withwatery cheeks commended them with most fervent prayers unto the Lord and hisblessing; and then, with mutual embraces and many tears they took their leavesone of another, which proved to be the last leave to many of them.”

g
[ The emigrants were, for the most part, godly Christians from the North ofEngland, who had quitted their native country because they were “studiousof reformation, and entered into covenant to walk with one another according tothe primitive pattern of the Word of God.” They emigrated to Holland, andsettled in the city of Leyden in 1610, where they abode, being lovinglyrespected by the Dutch, for many years: they left it in 1620 for severalreasons, the last of which was, that their posterity would in a few generationsbecome Dutch, and so lose their interest in the English nation; they beingdesirous rather to enlarge His Majesty’s dominions, and to live undertheir natural prince.—Translator’s Note.]

The emigrants were about 150 in number, including the women and the children.Their object was to plant a colony on the shores of the Hudson; but afterhaving been driven about for some time in the Atlantic Ocean, they were forcedto land on that arid coast of New England which is now the site of the town ofPlymouth. The rock is still shown on which the pilgrims disembarked. *h

h
[ This rock is become an object of veneration in the United States. I have seenbits of it carefully preserved in several towns of the Union. Does not thissufficiently show how entirely all human power and greatness is in the soul ofman? Here is a stone which the feet of a few outcasts pressed for an instant,and this stone becomes famous; it is treasured by a great nation, its very dustis shared as a relic: and what is become of the gateways of a thousandpalaces?]

“But before we pass on,” continues our historian, “let thereader with me make a pause and seriously consider this poor people’spresent condition, the more to be raised up to admiration of God’sgoodness towards them in their preservation: for being now passed the vastocean, and a sea of troubles before them in expectation, they had now nofriends to welcome them, no inns to entertain or refresh them, no houses, ormuch less towns to repair unto to seek for succour: and for the season it waswinter, and they that know the winters of the country know them to be sharp andviolent, subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to knownplaces, much more to search unknown coasts. Besides, what could they see but ahideous and desolate wilderness, full of wilde beasts, and wilde men? and whatmultitudes of them there were, they then knew not: for which way soever theyturned their eyes (save upward to Heaven) they could have but little solace orcontent in respect of any outward object; for summer being ended, all thingsstand in appearance with a weather-beaten face, and the whole country full ofwoods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hew; if they looked behindthem, there was the mighty ocean which they had passed, and was now as a mainbar or gulph to separate them from all the civil parts of the world.”

It must not be imagined that the piety of the Puritans was of a merelyspeculative kind, or that it took no cognizance of the course of worldlyaffairs. Puritanism, as I have already remarked, was scarcely less a politicalthan a religious doctrine. No sooner had the emigrants landed on the barrencoast described by Nathaniel Morton than it was their first care to constitutea society, by passing the following Act:

“In the name of God. Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyalsubjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, etc., etc., Having undertakenfor the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian Faith, and the honour ofour King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern partsof Virginia; Do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of Godand one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil bodypolitick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the endsaforesaid: and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute and frame such just andequal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and officers, from time to time,as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of theColony: unto which we promise all due submission and obedience,” etc. *i

i
[ The emigrants who founded the State of Rhode Island in 1638, those who landedat New Haven in 1637, the first settlers in Connecticut in 1639, and thefounders of Providence in 1640, began in like manner by drawing up a socialcontract, which was acceded to by all the interested parties. See“Pitkin’s History,” pp. 42 and 47.]

This happened in 1620, and from that time forwards the emigration went on. Thereligious and political passions which ravaged the British Empire during thewhole reign of Charles I drove fresh crowds of sectarians every year to theshores of America. In England the stronghold of Puritanism was in the middleclasses, and it was from the middle classes that the majority of the emigrantscame. The population of New England increased rapidly; and whilst the hierarchyof rank despotically classed the inhabitants of the mother-country, the colonycontinued to present the novel spectacle of a community hom*ogeneous in all itsparts. A democracy, more perfect than any which antiquity had dreamt of,started in full size and panoply from the midst of an ancient feudal society.

Chapter II: Origin Of TheAnglo-Americans—Part II

The English Government was not dissatisfied with an emigration which removedthe elements of fresh discord and of further revolutions. On the contrary,everything was done to encourage it, and great exertions were made to mitigatethe hardships of those who sought a shelter from the rigor of theircountry’s laws on the soil of America. It seemed as if New England was aregion given up to the dreams of fancy and the unrestrained experiments ofinnovators.

The English colonies (and this is one of the main causes of their prosperity)have always enjoyed more internal freedom and more political independence thanthe colonies of other nations; but this principle of liberty was nowhere moreextensively applied than in the States of New England.

It was generally allowed at that period that the territories of the New Worldbelonged to that European nation which had been the first to discover them.Nearly the whole coast of North America thus became a British possessiontowards the end of the sixteenth century. The means used by the EnglishGovernment to people these new domains were of several kinds; the Kingsometimes appointed a governor of his own choice, who ruled a portion of theNew World in the name and under the immediate orders of the Crown; *j this isthe colonial system adopted by other countries of Europe. Sometimes grants ofcertain tracts were made by the Crown to an individual or to a company, *k inwhich case all the civil and political power fell into the hands of one or morepersons, who, under the inspection and control of the Crown, sold the lands andgoverned the inhabitants. Lastly, a third system consisted in allowing acertain number of emigrants to constitute a political society under theprotection of the mother-country, and to govern themselves in whatever was notcontrary to her laws. This mode of colonization, so remarkably favorable toliberty, was only adopted in New England. *l

j
[ This was the case in the State of New York.]

k
[ Maryland, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey were in this situation.See “Pitkin’s History,” vol. i. pp. 11-31.]

l
[ See the work entitled “Historical Collection of State Papers and otherauthentic Documents intended as materials for a History of the United States ofAmerica, by Ebenezer Hasard. Philadelphia, 1792,” for a great number ofdocuments relating to the commencement of the colonies, which are valuable fromtheir contents and their authenticity: amongst them are the various chartersgranted by the King of England, and the first acts of the local governments.

See also the analysis of all these charters given by Mr. Story, Judge of theSupreme Court of the United States, in the Introduction to his“Commentary on the Constitution of the United States.” It resultsfrom these documents that the principles of representative government and theexternal forms of political liberty were introduced into all the colonies attheir origin. These principles were more fully acted upon in the North than inthe South, but they existed everywhere.]

In 1628 *m a charter of this kind was granted by Charles I to the emigrants whowent to form the colony of Massachusetts. But, in general, charters were notgiven to the colonies of New England till they had acquired a certainexistence. Plymouth, Providence, New Haven, the State of Connecticut, and thatof Rhode Island *n were founded without the co-operation and almost without theknowledge of the mother-country. The new settlers did not derive theirincorporation from the seat of the empire, although they did not deny itssupremacy; they constituted a society of their own accord, and it was not tillthirty or forty years afterwards, under Charles II. that their existence waslegally recognized by a royal charter.

m
[ See “Pitkin’s History,” p, 35. See the “History ofthe Colony of Massachusetts Bay,” by Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 9.] [Footnoten: See “Pitkin’s History,” pp. 42, 47.]

This frequently renders its it difficult to detect the link which connected theemigrants with the land of their forefathers in studying the earliesthistorical and legislative records of New England. They exercised the rights ofsovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war,made police regulations, and enacted laws as if their allegiance was due onlyto God. *o Nothing can be more curious and, at the same time more instructive,than the legislation of that period; it is there that the solution of the greatsocial problem which the United States now present to the world is to be found.

o
[ The inhabitants of Massachusetts had deviated from the forms which arepreserved in the criminal and civil procedure of England; in 1650 the decreesof justice were not yet headed by the royal style. See Hutchinson, vol. i. p.452.]

Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the codeof laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut in 1650. *p Thelegislators of Connecticut *q begin with the penal laws, and, strange to say,they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ. “Whosoever shallworship any other God than the Lord,” says the preamble of the Code,“shall surely be put to death.” This is followed by ten or twelveenactments of the same kind, copied verbatim from the books of Exodus,Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Blasphemy, sorcery, adultery, *r and rape werepunished with death; an outrage offered by a son to his parents was to beexpiated by the same penalty. The legislation of a rude and half-civilizedpeople was thus applied to an enlightened and moral community. The consequencewas that the punishment of death was never more frequently prescribed by thestatute, and never more rarely enforced towards the guilty.

p
[ Code of 1650, p. 28; Hartford, 1830.]

q
[ See also in “Hutchinson’s History,” vol. i. pp. 435, 456,the analysis of the penal code adopted in 1648 by the Colony of Massachusetts:this code is drawn up on the same principles as that of Connecticut.]

r
[ Adultery was also punished with death by the law of Massachusetts: andHutchinson, vol. i. p. 441, says that several persons actually suffered forthis crime. He quotes a curious anecdote on this subject, which occurred in theyear 1663. A married woman had had criminal intercourse with a young man; herhusband died, and she married the lover. Several years had elapsed, when thepublic began to suspect the previous intercourse of this couple: they werethrown into prison, put upon trial, and very narrowly escaped capitalpunishment.]

The chief care of the legislators, in this body of penal laws, was themaintenance of orderly conduct and good morals in the community: theyconstantly invaded the domain of conscience, and there was scarcely a sin whichwas not subject to magisterial censure. The reader is aware of the rigor withwhich these laws punished rape and adultery; intercourse between unmarriedpersons was likewise severely repressed. The judge was empowered to inflict apecuniary penalty, a whipping, or marriage *s on the misdemeanants; and if therecords of the old courts of New Haven may be believed, prosecutions of thiskind were not unfrequent. We find a sentence bearing date the first of May,1660, inflicting a fine and reprimand on a young woman who was accused of usingimproper language, and of allowing herself to be kissed. *t The Code of 1650abounds in preventive measures. It punishes idleness and drunkenness withseverity. *u Innkeepers are forbidden to furnish more than a certain quantityof liquor to each consumer; and simple lying, whenever it may be injurious, *vis checked by a fine or a flogging. In other places, the legislator, entirelyforgetting the great principles of religious toleration which he had himselfupheld in Europe, renders attendance on divine service compulsory, *w and goesso far as to visit with severe punishment, ** and even with death, theChristians who chose to worship God according to a ritual differing from hisown. *x Sometimes indeed the zeal of his enactments induces him to descend tothe most frivolous particulars: thus a law is to be found in the same Codewhich prohibits the use of tobacco. *y It must not be forgotten that thesefantastical and vexatious laws were not imposed by authority, but that theywere freely voted by all the persons interested, and that the manners of thecommunity were even more austere and more puritanical than the laws. In 1649 asolemn association was formed in Boston to check the worldly luxury of longhair. *z

s
[ Code of 1650, p. 48. It seems sometimes to have happened that the judgessuperadded these punishments to each other, as is seen in a sentence pronouncedin 1643 (p. 114, “New Haven Antiquities”), by which MargaretBedford, convicted of loose conduct, was condemned to be whipped, andafterwards to marry Nicholas Jemmings, her accomplice.]

t
[ “New Haven Antiquities,” p. 104. See also“Hutchinson’s History,” for several causes equallyextraordinary.]

u
[ Code of 1650, pp. 50, 57.]

v
[ Ibid., p. 64.]

w
[ Ibid., p. 44.]

*
[ This was not peculiar to Connecticut. See, for instance, the law which, onSeptember 13, 1644, banished the Anabaptists from the State of Massachusetts.(“Historical Collection of State Papers,” vol. i. p. 538.) See alsothe law against the Quakers, passed on October 14, 1656: “Whereas,”says the preamble, “an accursed race of heretics called Quakers hassprung up,” etc. The clauses of the statute inflict a heavy fine on allcaptains of ships who should import Quakers into the country. The Quakers whomay be found there shall be whipped and imprisoned with hard labor. Thosemembers of the sect who should defend their opinions shall be first fined, thenimprisoned, and finally driven out of the province.—“HistoricalCollection of State Papers,” vol. i. p. 630.]

x
[ By the penal law of Massachusetts, any Catholic priest who should set foot inthe colony after having been once driven out of it was liable to capitalpunishment.]

y
[ Code of 1650, p. 96.]

z
[ “New England’s Memorial,” p. 316. See Appendix, E.]

These errors are no doubt discreditable to human reason; they attest theinferiority of our nature, which is incapable of laying firm hold upon what istrue and just, and is often reduced to the alternative of two excesses. Instrict connection with this penal legislation, which bears such striking marksof a narrow sectarian spirit, and of those religious passions which had beenwarmed by persecution and were still fermenting among the people, a body ofpolitical laws is to be found, which, though written two hundred years ago, isstill ahead of the liberties of our age. The general principles which are thegroundwork of modern constitutions—principles which were imperfectlyknown in Europe, and not completely triumphant even in Great Britain, in theseventeenth century—were all recognized and determined by the laws of NewEngland: the intervention of the people in public affairs, the free voting oftaxes, the responsibility of authorities, personal liberty, and trial by jury,were all positively established without discussion. From these fruitfulprinciples consequences have been derived and applications have been made suchas no nation in Europe has yet ventured to attempt.

In Connecticut the electoral body consisted, from its origin, of the wholenumber of citizens; and this is readily to be understood, *a when we recollectthat this people enjoyed an almost perfect equality of fortune, and a stillgreater uniformity of opinions. *b In Connecticut, at this period, all theexecutive functionaries were elected, including the Governor of the State. *cThe citizens above the age of sixteen were obliged to bear arms; they formed anational militia, which appointed its own officers, and was to hold itself atall times in readiness to march for the defence of the country. *d

a
[ Constitution of 1638, p. 17.]

b
[ In 1641 the General Assembly of Rhode Island unanimously declared that thegovernment of the State was a democracy, and that the power was vested in thebody of free citizens, who alone had the right to make the laws and to watchtheir execution.—Code of 1650, p. 70.]

c
[ “Pitkin’s History,” p. 47.]

d
[ Constitution of 1638, p. 12.]

In the laws of Connecticut, as well as in all those of New England, we find thegerm and gradual development of that township independence which is the lifeand mainspring of American liberty at the present day. The political existenceof the majority of the nations of Europe commenced in the superior ranks ofsociety, and was gradually and imperfectly communicated to the differentmembers of the social body. In America, on the other hand, it may be said thatthe township was organized before the county, the county before the State, theState before the Union. In New England townships were completely anddefinitively constituted as early as 1650. The independence of the township wasthe nucleus round which the local interests, passions, rights, and dutiescollected and clung. It gave scope to the activity of a real political lifemost thoroughly democratic and republican. The colonies still recognized thesupremacy of the mother-country; monarchy was still the law of the State; butthe republic was already established in every township. The towns named theirown magistrates of every kind, rated themselves, and levied their own taxes. *eIn the parish of New England the law of representation was not adopted, but theaffairs of the community were discussed, as at Athens, in the market-place, bya general assembly of the citizens.

e
[ Code of 1650, p. 80.]

In studying the laws which were promulgated at this first era of the Americanrepublics, it is impossible not to be struck by the remarkable acquaintancewith the science of government and the advanced theory of legislation whichthey display. The ideas there formed of the duties of society towards itsmembers are evidently much loftier and more comprehensive than those of theEuropean legislators at that time: obligations were there imposed which wereelsewhere slighted. In the States of New England, from the first, the conditionof the poor was provided for; *f strict measures were taken for the maintenanceof roads, and surveyors were appointed to attend to them; *g registers wereestablished in every parish, in which the results of public deliberations, andthe births, deaths, and marriages of the citizens were entered; *h clerks weredirected to keep these registers; *i officers were charged with theadministration of vacant inheritances, and with the arbitration of litigatedlandmarks; and many others were created whose chief functions were themaintenance of public order in the community. *j The law enters into a thousanduseful provisions for a number of social wants which are at present veryinadequately felt in France. [Footnote f: Ibid., p. 78.]

g
[ Ibid., p. 49.]

h
[ See “Hutchinson’s History,” vol. i. p. 455.]

i
[ Code of 1650, p. 86.]

j
[ Ibid., p. 40.]

But it is by the attention it pays to Public Education that the originalcharacter of American civilization is at once placed in the clearest light.“It being,” says the law, “one chief project of Satan to keepmen from the knowledge of the Scripture by persuading from the use of tongues,to the end that learning may not be buried in the graves of our forefathers, inchurch and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors. . . .” *k Herefollow clauses establishing schools in every township, and obliging theinhabitants, under pain of heavy fines, to support them. Schools of a superiorkind were founded in the same manner in the more populous districts. Themunicipal authorities were bound to enforce the sending of children to schoolby their parents; they were empowered to inflict fines upon all who refusedcompliance; and in case of continued resistance society assumed the place ofthe parent, took possession of the child, and deprived the father of thosenatural rights which he used to so bad a purpose. The reader will undoubtedlyhave remarked the preamble of these enactments: in America religion is the roadto knowledge, and the observance of the divine laws leads man to civil freedom.

k
[ Ibid., p. 90.]

If, after having cast a rapid glance over the state of American society in1650, we turn to the condition of Europe, and more especially to that of theContinent, at the same period, we cannot fail to be struck with astonishment.On the Continent of Europe, at the beginning of the seventeenth century,absolute monarchy had everywhere triumphed over the ruins of the oligarchicaland feudal liberties of the Middle Ages. Never were the notions of right morecompletely confounded than in the midst of the splendor and literature ofEurope; never was there less political activity among the people; never werethe principles of true freedom less widely circulated; and at that very timethose principles, which were scorned or unknown by the nations of Europe, wereproclaimed in the deserts of the New World, and were accepted as the futurecreed of a great people. The boldest theories of the human reason were put intopractice by a community so humble that not a statesman condescended to attendto it; and a legislation without a precedent was produced offhand by theimagination of the citizens. In the bosom of this obscure democracy, which hadas yet brought forth neither generals, nor philosophers, nor authors, a manmight stand up in the face of a free people and pronounce the following finedefinition of liberty. *l

l
[ Mather’s “Magnalia Christi Americana,” vol. ii. p. 13. Thisspeech was made by Winthrop; he was accused of having committed arbitraryactions during his magistracy, but after having made the speech of which theabove is a fragment, he was acquitted by acclamation, and from that timeforwards he was always re-elected governor of the State. See Marshal, vol. i.p. 166.]

“Nor would I have you to mistake in the point of your own liberty. Thereis a liberty of a corrupt nature which is effected both by men and beasts to dowhat they list, and this liberty is inconsistent with authority, impatient ofall restraint; by this liberty ‘sumus omnes deteriores’: ’tisthe grand enemy of truth and peace, and all the ordinances of God are bentagainst it. But there is a civil, a moral, a federal liberty which is theproper end and object of authority; it is a liberty for that only which is justand good: for this liberty you are to stand with the hazard of your very livesand whatsoever crosses it is not authority, but a distemper thereof. Thisliberty is maintained in a way of subjection to authority; and the authorityset over you will, in all administrations for your good, be quietly submittedunto by all but such as have a disposition to shake off the yoke and lose theirtrue liberty, by their murmuring at the honor and power of authority.”

The remarks I have made will suffice to display the character of Anglo-Americancivilization in its true light. It is the result (and this should be constantlypresent to the mind of two distinct elements), which in other places have beenin frequent hostility, but which in America have been admirably incorporatedand combined with one another. I allude to the spirit of Religion and thespirit of Liberty.

The settlers of New England were at the same time ardent sectarians and daringinnovators. Narrow as the limits of some of their religious opinions were, theywere entirely free from political prejudices. Hence arose two tendencies,distinct but not opposite, which are constantly discernible in the manners aswell as in the laws of the country.

It might be imagined that men who sacrificed their friends, their family, andtheir native land to a religious conviction were absorbed in the pursuit of theintellectual advantages which they purchased at so dear a rate. The energy,however, with which they strove for the acquirement of wealth, moral enjoyment,and the comforts as well as liberties of the world, is scarcely inferior tothat with which they devoted themselves to Heaven.

Political principles and all human laws and institutions were moulded andaltered at their pleasure; the barriers of the society in which they were bornwere broken down before them; the old principles which had governed the worldfor ages were no more; a path without a turn and a field without an horizonwere opened to the exploring and ardent curiosity of man: but at the limits ofthe political world he checks his researches, he discreetly lays aside the useof his most formidable faculties, he no longer consents to doubt or toinnovate, but carefully abstaining from raising the curtain of the sanctuary,he yields with submissive respect to truths which he will not discuss. Thus, inthe moral world everything is classed, adapted, decided, and foreseen; in thepolitical world everything is agitated, uncertain, and disputed: in the one isa passive, though a voluntary, obedience; in the other an independence scornfulof experience and jealous of authority.

These two tendencies, apparently so discrepant, are far from conflicting; theyadvance together, and mutually support each other. Religion perceives thatcivil liberty affords a noble exercise to the faculties of man, and that thepolitical world is a field prepared by the Creator for the efforts of theintelligence. Contented with the freedom and the power which it enjoys in itsown sphere, and with the place which it occupies, the empire of religion isnever more surely established than when it reigns in the hearts of menunsupported by aught beside its native strength. Religion is no less thecompanion of liberty in all its battles and its triumphs; the cradle of itsinfancy, and the divine source of its claims. The safeguard of morality isreligion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge offreedom. *m

m
[ See Appendix, F.]

Reasons Of Certain Anomalies Which The Laws And Customs Of The Anglo-AmericansPresent

Remains of aristocratic institutions in the midst of a completedemocracy—Why?—Distinction carefully to be drawn between what is ofPuritanical and what is of English origin.

The reader is cautioned not to draw too general or too absolute an inferencefrom what has been said. The social condition, the religion, and the manners ofthe first emigrants undoubtedly exercised an immense influence on the destinyof their new country. Nevertheless they were not in a situation to found astate of things solely dependent on themselves: no man can entirely shake offthe influence of the past, and the settlers, intentionally or involuntarily,mingled habits and notions derived from their education and from the traditionsof their country with those habits and notions which were exclusively theirown. To form a judgment on the Anglo-Americans of the present day it istherefore necessary to distinguish what is of Puritanical and what is ofEnglish origin.

Laws and customs are frequently to be met with in the United States whichcontrast strongly with all that surrounds them. These laws seem to be drawn upin a spirit contrary to the prevailing tenor of the American legislation; andthese customs are no less opposed to the tone of society. If the Englishcolonies had been founded in an age of darkness, or if their origin was alreadylost in the lapse of years, the problem would be insoluble.

I shall quote a single example to illustrate what I advance. The civil andcriminal procedure of the Americans has only two means ofaction—committal and bail. The first measure taken by the magistrate isto exact security from the defendant, or, in case of refusal, to incarceratehim: the ground of the accusation and the importance of the charges against himare then discussed. It is evident that a legislation of this kind is hostile tothe poor man, and favorable only to the rich. The poor man has not always asecurity to produce, even in a civil cause; and if he is obliged to wait forjustice in prison, he is speedily reduced to distress. The wealthy individual,on the contrary, always escapes imprisonment in civil causes; nay, more, he mayreadily elude the punishment which awaits him for a delinquency by breaking hisbail. So that all the penalties of the law are, for him, reducible to fines. *nNothing can be more aristocratic than this system of legislation. Yet inAmerica it is the poor who make the law, and they usually reserve the greatestsocial advantages to themselves. The explanation of the phenomenon is to befound in England; the laws of which I speak are English, *o and the Americanshave retained them, however repugnant they may be to the tenor of theirlegislation and the mass of their ideas. Next to its habits, the thing which anation is least apt to change is its civil legislation. Civil laws are onlyfamiliarly known to legal men, whose direct interest it is to maintain them asthey are, whether good or bad, simply because they themselves are conversantwith them. The body of the nation is scarcely acquainted with them; it merelyperceives their action in particular cases; but it has some difficulty inseizing their tendency, and obeys them without premeditation. I have quoted oneinstance where it would have been easy to adduce a great number of others. Thesurface of American society is, if I may use the expression, covered with alayer of democracy, from beneath which the old aristocratic colors sometimespeep.

n
[ Crimes no doubt exist for which bail is inadmissible, but they are few innumber.]

o
[ See Blackstone; and Delolme, book I chap. x.]

Chapter III: SocialConditions Of The Anglo-Americans

Chapter Summary

A Social condition is commonly the result of circ*mstances, sometimes of laws,oftener still of these two causes united; but wherever it exists, it may justlybe considered as the source of almost all the laws, the usages, and the ideaswhich regulate the conduct of nations; whatever it does not produce itmodifies. It is therefore necessary, if we would become acquainted with thelegislation and the manners of a nation, to begin by the study of its socialcondition.

The Striking Characteristic Of The Social Condition Of The Anglo-Americans InIts Essential Democracy.

The first emigrants of New England—Their equality—Aristocratic lawsintroduced in the South—Period of the Revolution—Change in the lawof descent—Effects produced by this change—Democracy carried to itsutmost limits in the new States of the West—Equality of education.

Many important observations suggest themselves upon the social condition of theAnglo-Americans, but there is one which takes precedence of all the rest. Thesocial condition of the Americans is eminently democratic; this was itscharacter at the foundation of the Colonies, and is still more strongly markedat the present day. I have stated in the preceding chapter that great equalityexisted among the emigrants who settled on the shores of New England. The germof aristocracy was never planted in that part of the Union. The only influencewhich obtained there was that of intellect; the people were used to reverencecertain names as the emblems of knowledge and virtue. Some of theirfellow-citizens acquired a power over the rest which might truly have beencalled aristocratic, if it had been capable of transmission from father to son.

This was the state of things to the east of the Hudson: to the south-west ofthat river, and in the direction of the Floridas, the case was different. Inmost of the States situated to the south-west of the Hudson some great Englishproprietors had settled, who had imported with them aristocratic principles andthe English law of descent. I have explained the reasons why it was impossibleever to establish a powerful aristocracy in America; these reasons existed withless force to the south-west of the Hudson. In the South, one man, aided byslaves, could cultivate a great extent of country: it was therefore common tosee rich landed proprietors. But their influence was not altogetheraristocratic as that term is understood in Europe, since they possessed noprivileges; and the cultivation of their estates being carried on by slaves,they had no tenants depending on them, and consequently no patronage. Still,the great proprietors south of the Hudson constituted a superior class, havingideas and tastes of its own, and forming the centre of political action. Thiskind of aristocracy sympathized with the body of the people, whose passions andinterests it easily embraced; but it was too weak and too short-lived to exciteeither love or hatred for itself. This was the class which headed theinsurrection in the South, and furnished the best leaders of the Americanrevolution.

At the period of which we are now speaking society was shaken to its centre:the people, in whose name the struggle had taken place, conceived the desire ofexercising the authority which it had acquired; its democratic tendencies wereawakened; and having thrown off the yoke of the mother-country, it aspired toindependence of every kind. The influence of individuals gradually ceased to befelt, and custom and law united together to produce the same result.

But the law of descent was the last step to equality. I am surprised thatancient and modern jurists have not attributed to this law a greater influenceon human affairs. *a It is true that these laws belong to civil affairs; butthey ought nevertheless to be placed at the head of all political institutions;for, whilst political laws are only the symbol of a nation’s condition,they exercise an incredible influence upon its social state. They have,moreover, a sure and uniform manner of operating upon society, affecting, as itwere, generations yet unborn.

a
[ I understand by the law of descent all those laws whose principal object isto regulate the distribution of property after the death of its owner. The lawof entail is of this number; it certainly prevents the owner from disposing ofhis possessions before his death; but this is solely with the view ofpreserving them entire for the heir. The principal object, therefore, of thelaw of entail is to regulate the descent of property after the death of itsowner: its other provisions are merely means to this end.]

Through their means man acquires a kind of preternatural power over the futurelot of his fellow-creatures. When the legislator has regulated the law ofinheritance, he may rest from his labor. The machine once put in motion will goon for ages, and advance, as if self-guided, towards a given point. When framedin a particular manner, this law unites, draws together, and vests property andpower in a few hands: its tendency is clearly aristocratic. On oppositeprinciples its action is still more rapid; it divides, distributes, anddisperses both property and power. Alarmed by the rapidity of its progress,those who despair of arresting its motion endeavor to obstruct it bydifficulties and impediments; they vainly seek to counteract its effect bycontrary efforts; but it gradually reduces or destroys every obstacle, until byits incessant activity the bulwarks of the influence of wealth are ground downto the fine and shifting sand which is the basis of democracy. When the law ofinheritance permits, still more when it decrees, the equal division of afather’s property amongst all his children, its effects are of two kinds:it is important to distinguish them from each other, although they tend to thesame end.

In virtue of the law of partible inheritance, the death of every proprietorbrings about a kind of revolution in property; not only do his possessionschange hands, but their very nature is altered, since they are parcelled intoshares, which become smaller and smaller at each division. This is the directand, as it were, the physical effect of the law. It follows, then, that incountries where equality of inheritance is established by law, property, andespecially landed property, must have a tendency to perpetual diminution. Theeffects, however, of such legislation would only be perceptible after a lapseof time, if the law was abandoned to its own working; for supposing the familyto consist of two children (and in a country people as France is the averagenumber is not above three), these children, sharing amongst them the fortune ofboth parents, would not be poorer than their father or mother.

But the law of equal division exercises its influence not merely upon theproperty itself, but it affects the minds of the heirs, and brings theirpassions into play. These indirect consequences tend powerfully to thedestruction of large fortunes, and especially of large domains. Among nationswhose law of descent is founded upon the right of primogeniture landed estatesoften pass from generation to generation without undergoing division, theconsequence of which is that family feeling is to a certain degree incorporatedwith the estate. The family represents the estate, the estate the family; whosename, together with its origin, its glory, its power, and its virtues, is thusperpetuated in an imperishable memorial of the past and a sure pledge of thefuture.

When the equal partition of property is established by law, the intimateconnection is destroyed between family feeling and the preservation of thepaternal estate; the property ceases to represent the family; for as it mustinevitably be divided after one or two generations, it has evidently a constanttendency to diminish, and must in the end be completely dispersed. The sons ofthe great landed proprietor, if they are few in number, or if fortune befriendsthem, may indeed entertain the hope of being as wealthy as their father, butnot that of possessing the same property as he did; the riches must necessarilybe composed of elements different from his.

Now, from the moment that you divest the landowner of that interest in thepreservation of his estate which he derives from association, from tradition,and from family pride, you may be certain that sooner or later he will disposeof it; for there is a strong pecuniary interest in favor of selling, asfloating capital produces higher interest than real property, and is morereadily available to gratify the passions of the moment.

Great landed estates which have once been divided never come together again;for the small proprietor draws from his land a better revenue, in proportion,than the large owner does from his, and of course he sells it at a higher rate.*b The calculations of gain, therefore, which decide the rich man to sell hisdomain will still more powerfully influence him against buying small estates tounite them into a large one.

b
[ I do not mean to say that the small proprietor cultivates his land better,but he cultivates it with more ardor and care; so that he makes up by his laborfor his want of skill.]

What is called family pride is often founded upon an illusion of self-love. Aman wishes to perpetuate and immortalize himself, as it were, in hisgreat-grandchildren. Where the esprit de famille ceases to act individualselfishness comes into play. When the idea of family becomes vague,indeterminate, and uncertain, a man thinks of his present convenience; heprovides for the establishment of his succeeding generation, and no more.Either a man gives up the idea of perpetuating his family, or at any rate heseeks to accomplish it by other means than that of a landed estate. Thus notonly does the law of partible inheritance render it difficult for families topreserve their ancestral domains entire, but it deprives them of theinclination to attempt it, and compels them in some measure to co-operate withthe law in their own extinction.

The law of equal distribution proceeds by two methods: by acting upon things,it acts upon persons; by influencing persons, it affects things. By these meansthe law succeeds in striking at the root of landed property, and dispersingrapidly both families and fortunes. *c

c
[ Land being the most stable kind of property, we find, from time to time, richindividuals who are disposed to make great sacrifices in order to obtain it,and who willingly forfeit a considerable part of their income to make sure ofthe rest. But these are accidental cases. The preference for landed property isno longer found habitually in any class but among the poor. The smalllandowner, who has less information, less imagination, and fewer passions thanthe great one, is generally occupied with the desire of increasing his estate:and it often happens that by inheritance, by marriage, or by the chances oftrade, he is gradually furnished with the means. Thus, to balance the tendencywhich leads men to divide their estates, there exists another, which incitesthem to add to them. This tendency, which is sufficient to prevent estates frombeing divided ad infinitum, is not strong enough to create great territorialpossessions, certainly not to keep them up in the same family.]

Most certainly it is not for us Frenchmen of the nineteenth century, who dailywitness the political and social changes which the law of partition is bringingto pass, to question its influence. It is perpetually conspicuous in ourcountry, overthrowing the walls of our dwellings and removing the landmarks ofour fields. But although it has produced great effects in France, much stillremains for it to do. Our recollections, opinions, and habits present powerfulobstacles to its progress.

In the United States it has nearly completed its work of destruction, and therewe can best study its results. The English laws concerning the transmission ofproperty were abolished in almost all the States at the time of the Revolution.The law of entail was so modified as not to interrupt the free circulation ofproperty. *d The first generation having passed away, estates began to beparcelled out, and the change became more and more rapid with the progress oftime. At this moment, after a lapse of a little more than sixty years, theaspect of society is totally altered; the families of the great landedproprietors are almost all commingled with the general mass. In the State ofNew York, which formerly contained many of these, there are but two who stillkeep their heads above the stream, and they must shortly disappear. The sons ofthese opulent citizens are become merchants, lawyers, or physicians. Most ofthem have lapsed into obscurity. The last trace of hereditary ranks anddistinctions is destroyed—the law of partition has reduced all to onelevel. [Footnote d: See Appendix, G.]

I do not mean that there is any deficiency of wealthy individuals in the UnitedStates; I know of no country, indeed, where the love of money has takenstronger hold on the affections of men, and where the profounder contempt isexpressed for the theory of the permanent equality of property. But wealthcirculates with inconceivable rapidity, and experience shows that it is rare tofind two succeeding generations in the full enjoyment of it.

This picture, which may perhaps be thought to be overcharged, still gives avery imperfect idea of what is taking place in the new States of the West andSouth-west. At the end of the last century a few bold adventurers began topenetrate into the valleys of the Mississippi, and the mass of the populationvery soon began to move in that direction: communities unheard of till thenwere seen to emerge from the wilds: States whose names were not in existence afew years before claimed their place in the American Union; and in the Westernsettlements we may behold democracy arrived at its utmost extreme. In theseStates, founded off-hand, and, as it were, by chance, the inhabitants are butof yesterday. Scarcely known to one another, the nearest neighbors are ignorantof each other’s history. In this part of the American continent,therefore, the population has not experienced the influence of great names andgreat wealth, nor even that of the natural aristocracy of knowledge and virtue.None are there to wield that respectable power which men willingly grant to theremembrance of a life spent in doing good before their eyes. The new States ofthe West are already inhabited, but society has no existence among them. *e

e
[ This may have been true in 1832, but is not so in 1874, when great citieslike Chicago and San Francisco have sprung up in the Western States. But as yetthe Western States exert no powerful influence on Americansociety.—-Translator’s Note.]

It is not only the fortunes of men which are equal in America; even theirrequirements partake in some degree of the same uniformity. I do not believethat there is a country in the world where, in proportion to the population,there are so few uninstructed and at the same time so few learned individuals.Primary instruction is within the reach of everybody; superior instruction isscarcely to be obtained by any. This is not surprising; it is in fact thenecessary consequence of what we have advanced above. Almost all the Americansare in easy circ*mstances, and can therefore obtain the first elements of humanknowledge.

In America there are comparatively few who are rich enough to live without aprofession. Every profession requires an apprenticeship, which limits the timeof instruction to the early years of life. At fifteen they enter upon theircalling, and thus their education ends at the age when ours begins. Whatever isdone afterwards is with a view to some special and lucrative object; a scienceis taken up as a matter of business, and the only branch of it which isattended to is such as admits of an immediate practical application. In Americamost of the rich men were formerly poor; most of those who now enjoy leisurewere absorbed in business during their youth; the consequence of which is, thatwhen they might have had a taste for study they had no time for it, and whentime is at their disposal they have no longer the inclination.

There is no class, then, in America, in which the taste for intellectualpleasures is transmitted with hereditary fortune and leisure, and by which thelabors of the intellect are held in honor. Accordingly there is an equal wantof the desire and the power of application to these objects.

A middle standard is fixed in America for human knowledge. All approach as nearto it as they can; some as they rise, others as they descend. Of course, animmense multitude of persons are to be found who entertain the same number ofideas on religion, history, science, political economy, legislation, andgovernment. The gifts of intellect proceed directly from God, and man cannotprevent their unequal distribution. But in consequence of the state of thingswhich we have here represented it happens that, although the capacities of menare widely different, as the Creator has doubtless intended they should be,they are submitted to the same method of treatment.

In America the aristocratic element has always been feeble from its birth; andif at the present day it is not actually destroyed, it is at any rate socompletely disabled that we can scarcely assign to it any degree of influencein the course of affairs. The democratic principle, on the contrary, has gainedso much strength by time, by events, and by legislation, as to have become notonly predominant but all-powerful. There is no family or corporate authority,and it is rare to find even the influence of individual character enjoy anydurability.

America, then, exhibits in her social state a most extraordinary phenomenon.Men are there seen on a greater equality in point of fortune and intellect, or,in other words, more equal in their strength, than in any other country of theworld, or in any age of which history has preserved the remembrance.

Political Consequences Of The Social Condition Of The Anglo-Americans

The political consequences of such a social condition as this are easilydeducible. It is impossible to believe that equality will not eventually findits way into the political world as it does everywhere else. To conceive of menremaining forever unequal upon one single point, yet equal on all others, isimpossible; they must come in the end to be equal upon all. Now I know of onlytwo methods of establishing equality in the political world; every citizen mustbe put in possession of his rights, or rights must be granted to no one. Fornations which are arrived at the same stage of social existence as theAnglo-Americans, it is therefore very difficult to discover a medium betweenthe sovereignty of all and the absolute power of one man: and it would be vainto deny that the social condition which I have been describing is equallyliable to each of these consequences.

There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men towish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humbleto the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depravedtaste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful totheir own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequalitywith freedom. Not that those nations whose social condition is democraticnaturally despise liberty; on the contrary, they have an instinctive love ofit. But liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desires; equalityis their idol: they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty, and ifthey miss their aim resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing cansatisfy them except equality, and rather than lose it they resolve to perish.

On the other hand, in a State where the citizens are nearly on an equality, itbecomes difficult for them to preserve their independence against theaggressions of power. No one among them being strong enough to engage in thestruggle with advantage, nothing but a general combination can protect theirliberty. And such a union is not always to be found.

From the same social position, then, nations may derive one or the other of twogreat political results; these results are extremely different from each other,but they may both proceed from the same cause.

The Anglo-Americans are the first nations who, having been exposed to thisformidable alternative, have been happy enough to escape the dominion ofabsolute power. They have been allowed by their circ*mstances, their origin,their intelligence, and especially by their moral feeling, to establish andmaintain the sovereignty of the people.

Chapter IV: The Principle OfThe Sovereignty Of The People In America

Chapter Summary

It predominates over the whole of society in America—Application made ofthis principle by the Americans even before their Revolution—Developmentgiven to it by that Revolution—Gradual and irresistible extension of theelective qualification.

The Principle Of The Sovereignty Of The People In America

Whenever the political laws of the United States are to be discussed, it iswith the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people that we must begin. Theprinciple of the sovereignty of the people, which is to be found, more or less,at the bottom of almost all human institutions, generally remains concealedfrom view. It is obeyed without being recognized, or if for a moment it bebrought to light, it is hastily cast back into the gloom of the sanctuary.“The will of the nation” is one of those expressions which havebeen most profusely abused by the wily and the despotic of every age. To theeyes of some it has been represented by the venal suffrages of a few of thesatellites of power; to others by the votes of a timid or an interestedminority; and some have even discovered it in the silence of a people, on thesupposition that the fact of submission established the right of command.

In America the principle of the sovereignty of the people is not either barrenor concealed, as it is with some other nations; it is recognized by the customsand proclaimed by the laws; it spreads freely, and arrives without impedimentat its most remote consequences. If there be a country in the world where thedoctrine of the sovereignty of the people can be fairly appreciated, where itcan be studied in its application to the affairs of society, and where itsdangers and its advantages may be foreseen, that country is assuredly America.

I have already observed that, from their origin, the sovereignty of the peoplewas the fundamental principle of the greater number of British colonies inAmerica. It was far, however, from then exercising as much influence on thegovernment of society as it now does. Two obstacles, the one external, theother internal, checked its invasive progress. It could not ostensibly discloseitself in the laws of colonies which were still constrained to obey themother-country: it was therefore obliged to spread secretly, and to gain groundin the provincial assemblies, and especially in the townships.

American society was not yet prepared to adopt it with all its consequences.The intelligence of New England, and the wealth of the country to the south ofthe Hudson (as I have shown in the preceding chapter), long exercised a sort ofaristocratic influence, which tended to retain the exercise of social authorityin the hands of a few. The public functionaries were not universally elected,and the citizens were not all of them electors. The electoral franchise waseverywhere placed within certain limits, and made dependent on a certainqualification, which was exceedingly low in the North and more considerable inthe South.

The American revolution broke out, and the doctrine of the sovereignty of thepeople, which had been nurtured in the townships and municipalities, tookpossession of the State: every class was enlisted in its cause; battles werefought, and victories obtained for it, until it became the law of laws.

A no less rapid change was effected in the interior of society, where the lawof descent completed the abolition of local influences.

At the very time when this consequence of the laws and of the revolution wasapparent to every eye, victory was irrevocably pronounced in favor of thedemocratic cause. All power was, in fact, in its hands, and resistance was nolonger possible. The higher orders submitted without a murmur and without astruggle to an evil which was thenceforth inevitable. The ordinary fate offalling powers awaited them; each of their several members followed his owninterests; and as it was impossible to wring the power from the hands of apeople which they did not detest sufficiently to brave, their only aim was tosecure its good-will at any price. The most democratic laws were consequentlyvoted by the very men whose interests they impaired; and thus, although thehigher classes did not excite the passions of the people against their order,they accelerated the triumph of the new state of things; so that by a singularchange the democratic impulse was found to be most irresistible in the veryStates where the aristocracy had the firmest hold. The State of Maryland, whichhad been founded by men of rank, was the first to proclaim universal suffrage,and to introduce the most democratic forms into the conduct of its government.

When a nation modifies the elective qualification, it may easily be foreseenthat sooner or later that qualification will be entirely abolished. There is nomore invariable rule in the history of society: the further electoral rightsare extended, the greater is the need of extending them; for after eachconcession the strength of the democracy increases, and its demands increasewith its strength. The ambition of those who are below the appointed rate isirritated in exact proportion to the great number of those who are above it.The exception at last becomes the rule, concession follows concession, and nostop can be made short of universal suffrage.

At the present day the principle of the sovereignty of the people has acquired,in the United States, all the practical development which the imagination canconceive. It is unencumbered by those fictions which have been thrown over itin other countries, and it appears in every possible form according to theexigency of the occasion. Sometimes the laws are made by the people in a body,as at Athens; and sometimes its representatives, chosen by universal suffrage,transact business in its name, and almost under its immediate control.

In some countries a power exists which, though it is in a degree foreign to thesocial body, directs it, and forces it to pursue a certain track. In others theruling force is divided, being partly within and partly without the ranks ofthe people. But nothing of the kind is to be seen in the United States; theresociety governs itself for itself. All power centres in its bosom; and scarcelyan individual is to be meet with who would venture to conceive, or, still less,to express, the idea of seeking it elsewhere. The nation participates in themaking of its laws by the choice of its legislators, and in the execution ofthem by the choice of the agents of the executive government; it may almost besaid to govern itself, so feeble and so restricted is the share left to theadministration, so little do the authorities forget their popular origin andthe power from which they emanate. *a [Footnote a: See Appendix, H.]

Chapter V: Necessity OfExamining The Condition Of The States—Part I

Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States Before That Of The Union AtLarge.

It is proposed to examine in the following chapter what is the form ofgovernment established in America on the principle of the sovereignty of thepeople; what are its resources, its hindrances, its advantages, and itsdangers. The first difficulty which presents itself arises from the complexnature of the constitution of the United States, which consists of two distinctsocial structures, connected and, as it were, encased one within the other; twogovernments, completely separate and almost independent, the one fulfilling theordinary duties and responding to the daily and indefinite calls of acommunity, the other circ*mscribed within certain limits, and only exercisingan exceptional authority over the general interests of the country. In short,there are twenty-four small sovereign nations, whose agglomeration constitutesthe body of the Union. To examine the Union before we have studied the Stateswould be to adopt a method filled with obstacles. The form of the FederalGovernment of the United States was the last which was adopted; and it is infact nothing more than a modification or a summary of those republicanprinciples which were current in the whole community before it existed, andindependently of its existence. Moreover, the Federal Government is, as I havejust observed, the exception; the Government of the States is the rule. Theauthor who should attempt to exhibit the picture as a whole before he hadexplained its details would necessarily fall into obscurity and repetition.

The great political principles which govern American society at this dayundoubtedly took their origin and their growth in the State. It is thereforenecessary to become acquainted with the State in order to possess a clue to theremainder. The States which at present compose the American Union all presentthe same features, as far as regards the external aspect of their institutions.Their political or administrative existence is centred in three focuses ofaction, which may not inaptly be compared to the different nervous centreswhich convey motion to the human body. The township is the lowest in order,then the county, and lastly the State; and I propose to devote the followingchapter to the examination of these three divisions.

The American System Of Townships And Municipal Bodies

Why the Author begins the examination of the political institutions with thetownship—Its existence in all nations—Difficulty of establishingand preserving municipal independence—Its importance—Why the Authorhas selected the township system of New England as the main topic of hisdiscussion.

It is not undesignedly that I begin this subject with the Township. The villageor township is the only association which is so perfectly natural that wherevera number of men are collected it seems to constitute itself.

The town, or tithing, as the smallest division of a community, must necessarilyexist in all nations, whatever their laws and customs may be: if man makesmonarchies and establishes republics, the first association of mankind seemsconstituted by the hand of God. But although the existence of the township iscoeval with that of man, its liberties are not the less rarely respected andeasily destroyed. A nation is always able to establish great politicalassemblies, because it habitually contains a certain number of individualsfitted by their talents, if not by their habits, for the direction of affairs.The township is, on the contrary, composed of coarser materials, which are lesseasily fashioned by the legislator. The difficulties which attend theconsolidation of its independence rather augment than diminish with theincreasing enlightenment of the people. A highly civilized community spurns theattempts of a local independence, is disgusted at its numerous blunders, and isapt to despair of success before the experiment is completed. Again, noimmunities are so ill protected from the encroachments of the supreme power asthose of municipal bodies in general: they are unable to struggle,single-handed, against a strong or an enterprising government, and they cannotdefend their cause with success unless it be identified with the customs of thenation and supported by public opinion. Thus until the independence oftownships is amalgamated with the manners of a people it is easily destroyed,and it is only after a long existence in the laws that it can be thusamalgamated. Municipal freedom is not the fruit of human device; it is rarelycreated; but it is, as it were, secretly and spontaneously engendered in themidst of a semi-barbarous state of society. The constant action of the laws andthe national habits, peculiar circ*mstances, and above all time, mayconsolidate it; but there is certainly no nation on the continent of Europewhich has experienced its advantages. Nevertheless local assemblies of citizensconstitute the strength of free nations. Town-meetings are to liberty whatprimary schools are to science; they bring it within the people’s reach,they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it. A nation may establish a systemof free government, but without the spirit of municipal institutions it cannothave the spirit of liberty. The transient passions and the interests of anhour, or the chance of circ*mstances, may have created the external forms ofindependence; but the despotic tendency which has been repelled will, sooner orlater, inevitably reappear on the surface.

In order to explain to the reader the general principles on which the politicalorganization of the counties and townships of the United States rests, I havethought it expedient to choose one of the States of New England as an example,to examine the mechanism of its constitution, and then to cast a general glanceover the country. The township and the county are not organized in the samemanner in every part of the Union; it is, however, easy to perceive that thesame principles have guided the formation of both of them throughout the Union.I am inclined to believe that these principles have been carried further in NewEngland than elsewhere, and consequently that they offer greater facilities tothe observations of a stranger. The institutions of New England form a completeand regular whole; they have received the sanction of time, they have thesupport of the laws, and the still stronger support of the manners of thecommunity, over which they exercise the most prodigious influence; theyconsequently deserve our attention on every account.

Limits Of The Township

The township of New England is a division which stands between the commune andthe canton of France, and which corresponds in general to the English tithing,or town. Its average population is from two to three thousand; *a so that, onthe one hand, the interests of its inhabitants are not likely to conflict, and,on the other, men capable of conducting its affairs are always to be foundamong its citizens.

a
[ In 1830 there were 305 townships in the State of Massachusetts, and 610,014inhabitants, which gives an average of about 2,000 inhabitants to eachtownship.]

Authorities Of The Township In New England

The people the source of all power here as elsewhere—Manages its ownaffairs—No corporation—The greater part of the authority vested inthe hands of the Selectmen—How the Selectmenact—Town-meeting—Enumeration of the public officers of thetownship—Obligatory and remunerated functions.

In the township, as well as everywhere else, the people is the only source ofpower; but in no stage of government does the body of citizens exercise a moreimmediate influence. In America the people is a master whose exigencies demandobedience to the utmost limits of possibility.

In New England the majority acts by representatives in the conduct of thepublic business of the State; but if such an arrangement be necessary ingeneral affairs, in the townships, where the legislative and administrativeaction of the government is in more immediate contact with the subject, thesystem of representation is not adopted. There is no corporation; but the bodyof electors, after having designated its magistrates, directs them ineverything that exceeds the simple and ordinary executive business of theState. *b

b
[ The same rules are not applicable to the great towns, which generally have amayor, and a corporation divided into two bodies; this, however, is anexception which requires the sanction of a law.—See the Act of February22, 1822, for appointing the authorities of the city of Boston. It frequentlyhappens that small towns as well as cities are subject to a peculiaradministration. In 1832, 104 townships in the State of New York were governedin this manner.—Williams’ Register.]

This state of things is so contrary to our ideas, and so different from ourcustoms, that it is necessary for me to adduce some examples to explain itthoroughly.

The public duties in the township are extremely numerous and minutely divided,as we shall see further on; but the larger proportion of administrative poweris vested in the hands of a small number of individuals, called “theSelectmen.” *c The general laws of the State impose a certain number ofobligations on the selectmen, which they may fulfil without the authorizationof the body they represent, but which they can only neglect on their ownresponsibility. The law of the State obliges them, for instance, to draw up thelist of electors in their townships; and if they omit this part of theirfunctions, they are guilty of a misdemeanor. In all the affairs, however, whichare determined by the town-meeting, the selectmen are the organs of the popularmandate, as in France the Maire executes the decree of the municipal council.They usually act upon their own responsibility, and merely put in practiceprinciples which have been previously recognized by the majority. But if anychange is to be introduced in the existing state of things, or if they wish toundertake any new enterprise, they are obliged to refer to the source of theirpower. If, for instance, a school is to be established, the selectmen convokethe whole body of the electors on a certain day at an appointed place; theyexplain the urgency of the case; they give their opinion on the means ofsatisfying it, on the probable expense, and the site which seems to be mostfavorable. The meeting is consulted on these several points; it adopts theprinciple, marks out the site, votes the rate, and confides the execution ofits resolution to the selectmen.

c
[ Three selectmen are appointed in the small townships, and nine in the largeones. See “The Town-Officer,” p. 186. See also the principal lawsof the State of Massachusetts relative to the selectmen:

Act of February 20, 1786, vol. i. p. 219; February 24, 1796, vol. i. p. 488;March 7, 1801, vol. ii. p. 45; June 16, 1795, vol. i. p. 475; March 12, 1808,vol. ii. p. 186; February 28, 1787, vol. i. p. 302; June 22, 1797, vol. i. p.539.]

The selectmen have alone the right of calling a town-meeting, but they may berequested to do so: if ten citizens are desirous of submitting a new project tothe assent of the township, they may demand a general convocation of theinhabitants; the selectmen are obliged to comply, but they have only the rightof presiding at the meeting. *d

d
[ See Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 150, Act of March 25, 1786.]

The selectmen are elected every year in the month of April or of May. Thetown-meeting chooses at the same time a number of other municipal magistrates,who are entrusted with important administrative functions. The assessors ratethe township; the collectors receive the rate. A constable is appointed to keepthe peace, to watch the streets, and to forward the execution of the laws; thetown-clerk records all the town votes, orders, grants, births, deaths, andmarriages; the treasurer keeps the funds; the overseer of the poor performs thedifficult task of superintending the action of the poor-laws; committee-men areappointed to attend to the schools and to public instruction; and theroad-surveyors, who take care of the greater and lesser thoroughfares of thetownship, complete the list of the principal functionaries. They are, however,still further subdivided; and amongst the municipal officers are to be foundparish commissioners, who audit the expenses of public worship; differentclasses of inspectors, some of whom are to direct the citizens in case of fire;tithing-men, listers, haywards, chimney-viewers, fence-viewers to maintain thebounds of property, timber-measurers, and sealers of weights and measures. *e

e
[ All these magistrates actually exist; their different functions are alldetailed in a book called “The Town-Officer,” by Isaac Goodwin,Worcester, 1827; and in the “Collection of the General Laws ofMassachusetts,” 3 vols., Boston, 1823.]

There are nineteen principal officers in a township. Every inhabitant isconstrained, on the pain of being fined, to undertake these differentfunctions; which, however, are almost all paid, in order that the poorercitizens may be able to give up their time without loss. In general theAmerican system is not to grant a fixed salary to its functionaries. Everyservice has its price, and they are remunerated in proportion to what they havedone.

Existence Of The Township

Every one the best judge of his own interest—Corollary of the principleof the sovereignty of the people—Application of those doctrines in thetownships of America—The township of New England is sovereign in all thatconcerns itself alone: subject to the State in all other matters—Bond ofthe township and the State—In France the Government lends its agent tothe Commune—In America the reverse occurs.

I have already observed that the principle of the sovereignty of the peoplegoverns the whole political system of the Anglo-Americans. Every page of thisbook will afford new instances of the same doctrine. In the nations by whichthe sovereignty of the people is recognized every individual possesses an equalshare of power, and participates alike in the government of the State. Everyindividual is, therefore, supposed to be as well informed, as virtuous, and asstrong as any of his fellow-citizens. He obeys the government, not because heis inferior to the authorities which conduct it, or that he is less capablethan his neighbor of governing himself, but because he acknowledges the utilityof an association with his fellow-men, and because he knows that no suchassociation can exist without a regulating force. If he be a subject in allthat concerns the mutual relations of citizens, he is free and responsible toGod alone for all that concerns himself. Hence arises the maxim that every oneis the best and the sole judge of his own private interest, and that societyhas no right to control a man’s actions, unless they are prejudicial tothe common weal, or unless the common weal demands his co-operation. Thisdoctrine is universally admitted in the United States. I shall hereafterexamine the general influence which it exercises on the ordinary actions oflife; I am now speaking of the nature of municipal bodies.

The township, taken as a whole, and in relation to the government of thecountry, may be looked upon as an individual to whom the theory I have justalluded to is applied. Municipal independence is therefore a naturalconsequence of the principle of the sovereignty of the people in the UnitedStates: all the American republics recognize it more or less; but circ*mstanceshave peculiarly favored its growth in New England.

In this part of the Union the impulsion of political activity was given in thetownships; and it may almost be said that each of them originally formed anindependent nation. When the Kings of England asserted their supremacy, theywere contented to assume the central power of the State. The townships of NewEngland remained as they were before; and although they are now subject to theState, they were at first scarcely dependent upon it. It is important toremember that they have not been invested with privileges, but that they have,on the contrary, forfeited a portion of their independence to the State. Thetownships are only subordinate to the State in those interests which I shallterm social, as they are common to all the citizens. They are independent inall that concerns themselves; and amongst the inhabitants of New England Ibelieve that not a man is to be found who would acknowledge that the State hasany right to interfere in their local interests. The towns of New England buyand sell, sue or are sued, augment or diminish their rates, without theslightest opposition on the part of the administrative authority of the State.

They are bound, however, to comply with the demands of the community. If theState is in need of money, a town can neither give nor withhold the supplies.If the State projects a road, the township cannot refuse to let it cross itsterritory; if a police regulation is made by the State, it must be enforced bythe town. A uniform system of instruction is organized all over the country,and every town is bound to establish the schools which the law ordains. Inspeaking of the administration of the United States I shall have occasion topoint out the means by which the townships are compelled to obey in thesedifferent cases: I here merely show the existence of the obligation. Strict asthis obligation is, the government of the State imposes it in principle only,and in its performance the township resumes all its independent rights. Thus,taxes are voted by the State, but they are levied and collected by thetownship; the existence of a school is obligatory, but the township builds,pays, and superintends it. In France the State-collector receives the localimposts; in America the town-collector receives the taxes of the State. Thusthe French Government lends its agents to the commune; in America the townshipis the agent of the Government. This fact alone shows the extent of thedifferences which exist between the two nations.

Public Spirit Of The Townships Of New England

How the township of New England wins the affections of itsinhabitants—Difficulty of creating local public spirit inEurope—The rights and duties of the American township favorable toit—Characteristics of home in the United States—Manifestations ofpublic spirit in New England—Its happy effects.

In America, not only do municipal bodies exist, but they are kept alive andsupported by public spirit. The township of New England possesses twoadvantages which infallibly secure the attentive interest of mankind, namely,independence and authority. Its sphere is indeed small and limited, but withinthat sphere its action is unrestrained; and its independence gives to it a realimportance which its extent and population may not always ensure.

It is to be remembered that the affections of men generally lie on the side ofauthority. Patriotism is not durable in a conquered nation. The New Englanderis attached to his township, not only because he was born in it, but because itconstitutes a social body of which he is a member, and whose government claimsand deserves the exercise of his sagacity. In Europe the absence of localpublic spirit is a frequent subject of regret to those who are in power;everyone agrees that there is no surer guarantee of order and tranquility, andyet nothing is more difficult to create. If the municipal bodies were madepowerful and independent, the authorities of the nation might be disunited andthe peace of the country endangered. Yet, without power and independence, atown may contain good subjects, but it can have no active citizens. Anotherimportant fact is that the township of New England is so constituted as toexcite the warmest of human affections, without arousing the ambitious passionsof the heart of man. The officers of the country are not elected, and theirauthority is very limited. Even the State is only a second-rate community,whose tranquil and obscure administration offers no inducement sufficient todraw men away from the circle of their interests into the turmoil of publicaffairs. The federal government confers power and honor on the men who conductit; but these individuals can never be very numerous. The high station of thePresidency can only be reached at an advanced period of life, and the otherfederal functionaries are generally men who have been favored by fortune, ordistinguished in some other career. Such cannot be the permanent aim of theambitious. But the township serves as a centre for the desire of public esteem,the want of exciting interests, and the taste for authority and popularity, inthe midst of the ordinary relations of life; and the passions which commonlyembroil society change their character when they find a vent so near thedomestic hearth and the family circle.

In the American States power has been disseminated with admirable skill for thepurpose of interesting the greatest possible number of persons in the commonweal. Independently of the electors who are from time to time called intoaction, the body politic is divided into innumerable functionaries andofficers, who all, in their several spheres, represent the same powerful wholein whose name they act. The local administration thus affords an unfailingsource of profit and interest to a vast number of individuals.

The American system, which divides the local authority among so many citizens,does not scruple to multiply the functions of the town officers. For in theUnited States it is believed, and with truth, that patriotism is a kind ofdevotion which is strengthened by ritual observance. In this manner theactivity of the township is continually perceptible; it is daily manifested inthe fulfilment of a duty or the exercise of a right, and a constant thoughgentle motion is thus kept up in society which animates without disturbing it.

The American attaches himself to his home as the mountaineer clings to hishills, because the characteristic features of his country are there moredistinctly marked than elsewhere. The existence of the townships of New Englandis in general a happy one. Their government is suited to their tastes, andchosen by themselves. In the midst of the profound peace and general comfortwhich reign in America the commotions of municipal discord are unfrequent. Theconduct of local business is easy. The political education of the people haslong been complete; say rather that it was complete when the people first setfoot upon the soil. In New England no tradition exists of a distinction ofranks; no portion of the community is tempted to oppress the remainder; and theabuses which may injure isolated individuals are forgotten in the generalcontentment which prevails. If the government is defective (and it would nodoubt be easy to point out its deficiencies), the fact that it really emanatesfrom those it governs, and that it acts, either ill or well, casts theprotecting spell of a parental pride over its faults. No term of comparisondisturbs the satisfaction of the citizen: England formerly governed the mass ofthe colonies, but the people was always sovereign in the township where itsrule is not only an ancient but a primitive state.

The native of New England is attached to his township because it is independentand free: his co-operation in its affairs ensures his attachment to itsinterest; the well-being it affords him secures his affection; and its welfareis the aim of his ambition and of his future exertions: he takes a part inevery occurrence in the place; he practises the art of government in the smallsphere within his reach; he accustoms himself to those forms which can aloneensure the steady progress of liberty; he imbibes their spirit; he acquires ataste for order, comprehends the union or the balance of powers, and collectsclear practical notions on the nature of his duties and the extent of hisrights.

The Counties Of New England

The division of the countries in America has considerable analogy with that ofthe arrondissem*nts of France. The limits of the counties are arbitrarily laiddown, and the various districts which they contain have no necessaryconnection, no common tradition or natural sympathy; their object is simply tofacilitate the administration of justice.

The extent of the township was too small to contain a system of judicialinstitutions; each county has, however, a court of justice, *f a sheriff toexecute its decrees, and a prison for criminals. There are certain wants whichare felt alike by all the townships of a county; it is therefore natural thatthey should be satisfied by a central authority. In the State of Massachusettsthis authority is vested in the hands of several magistrates, who are appointedby the Governor of the State, with the advice *g of his council. *h Theofficers of the county have only a limited and occasional authority, which isapplicable to certain predetermined cases. The State and the townships possessall the power requisite to conduct public business. The budget of the county isdrawn up by its officers, and is voted by the legislature, but there is noassembly which directly or indirectly represents the county. It has, therefore,properly speaking, no political existence.

f
[ See the Act of February 14, 1821, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 551.]

g
[ See the Act of February 20, 1819, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. ii. p. 494.]

h
[ The council of the Governor is an elective body.] A twofold tendency may bediscerned in the American constitutions, which impels the legislator tocentralize the legislative and to disperse the executive power. The township ofNew England has in itself an indestructible element of independence; and thisdistinct existence could only be fictitiously introduced into the county, whereits utility has not been felt. But all the townships united have but onerepresentation, which is the State, the centre of the national authority:beyond the action of the township and that of the nation, nothing can be saidto exist but the influence of individual exertion.

Administration In New England

Administration not perceived in America—Why?—The Europeans believethat liberty is promoted by depriving the social authority of some of itsrights; the Americans, by dividing its exercise—Almost all theadministration confined to the township, and divided amongst thetown-officers—No trace of an administrative body to be perceived, eitherin the township or above it—The reason of this—How it happens thatthe administration of the State is uniform—Who is empowered to enforcethe obedience of the township and the county to the law—The introductionof judicial power into the administration—Consequence of the extension ofthe elective principle to all functionaries—The Justice of the Peace inNew England—By whom appointed—County officer: ensures theadministration of the townships—Court of Sessions—Itsaction—Right of inspection and indictment disseminated like the otheradministrative functions—Informers encouraged by the division of fines.

Nothing is more striking to an European traveller in the United States than theabsence of what we term the Government, or the Administration. Written lawsexist in America, and one sees that they are daily executed; but althougheverything is in motion, the hand which gives the impulse to the social machinecan nowhere be discovered. Nevertheless, as all peoples are obliged to haverecourse to certain grammatical forms, which are the foundation of humanlanguage, in order to express their thoughts; so all communities are obliged tosecure their existence by submitting to a certain dose of authority, withoutwhich they fall a prey to anarchy. This authority may be distributed in severalways, but it must always exist somewhere.

There are two methods of diminishing the force of authority in a nation: Thefirst is to weaken the supreme power in its very principle, by forbidding orpreventing society from acting in its own defence under certain circ*mstances.To weaken authority in this manner is what is generally termed in Europe to laythe foundations of freedom. The second manner of diminishing the influence ofauthority does not consist in stripping society of any of its rights, nor inparalyzing its efforts, but in distributing the exercise of its privileges invarious hands, and in multiplying functionaries, to each of whom the degree ofpower necessary for him to perform his duty is entrusted. There may be nationswhom this distribution of social powers might lead to anarchy; but in itself itis not anarchical. The action of authority is indeed thus rendered lessirresistible and less perilous, but it is not totally suppressed.

The revolution of the United States was the result of a mature and dignifiedtaste for freedom, and not of a vague or ill-defined craving for independence.It contracted no alliance with the turbulent passions of anarchy; but itscourse was marked, on the contrary, by an attachment to whatever was lawful andorderly.

It was never assumed in the United States that the citizen of a free countryhas a right to do whatever he pleases; on the contrary, social obligations werethere imposed upon him more various than anywhere else. No idea was everentertained of attacking the principles or of contesting the rights of society;but the exercise of its authority was divided, to the end that the office mightbe powerful and the officer insignificant, and that the community should be atonce regulated and free. In no country in the world does the law hold soabsolute a language as in America, and in no country is the right of applyingit vested in so many hands. The administrative power in the United Statespresents nothing either central or hierarchical in its constitution, whichaccounts for its passing, unperceived. The power exists, but its representativeis not to be perceived.

We have already seen that the independent townships of New England protecttheir own private interests; and the municipal magistrates are the persons towhom the execution of the laws of the State is most frequently entrusted. *iBesides the general laws, the State sometimes passes general policeregulations; but more commonly the townships and town officers, conjointly withjustices of the peace, regulate the minor details of social life, according tothe necessities of the different localities, and promulgate such enactments asconcern the health of the community, and the peace as well as morality of thecitizens. *j Lastly, these municipal magistrates provide, of their own accordand without any delegated powers, for those unforeseen emergencies whichfrequently occur in society. *k

i
[ See “The Town-Officer,” especially at the words Selectmen,Assessors, Collectors, Schools, Surveyors of Highways. I take one example in athousand: the State prohibits travelling on the Sunday; the tything-men, whoare town-officers, are specially charged to keep watch and to execute the law.See the Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 410.

The selectmen draw up the lists of electors for the election of the Governor,and transmit the result of the ballot to the Secretary of the State. See Act ofFebruary 24, 1796: Id., vol. i. p. 488.]

j
[ Thus, for instance, the selectmen authorize the construction of drains, pointout the proper sites for slaughter-houses and other trades which are a nuisanceto the neighborhood. See the Act of June 7, 1785: Id., vol. i. p. 193.]

k
[ The selectmen take measures for the security of the public in case ofcontagious diseases, conjointly with the justices of the peace. See Act of June22, 1797, vol. i. p. 539.]

It results from what we have said that in the State of Massachusetts theadministrative authority is almost entirely restricted to the township, *l butthat it is distributed among a great number of individuals. In the Frenchcommune there is properly but one official functionary, namely, the Maire; andin New England we have seen that there are nineteen. These nineteenfunctionaries do not in general depend upon one another. The law carefullyprescribes a circle of action to each of these magistrates; and within thatcircle they have an entire right to perform their functions independently ofany other authority. Above the township scarcely any trace of a series ofofficial dignitaries is to be found. It sometimes happens that the countyofficers alter a decision of the townships or town magistrates, *m but ingeneral the authorities of the county have no right to interfere with theauthorities of the township, *n except in such matters as concern the county.

l
[ I say almost, for there are various circ*mstances in the annals of a townshipwhich are regulated by the justice of the peace in his individual capacity, orby the justices of the peace assembled in the chief town of the county; thuslicenses are granted by the justices. See the Act of February 28, 1787, vol. i.p. 297.]

m
[ Thus licenses are only granted to such persons as can produce a certificateof good conduct from the selectmen. If the selectmen refuse to give thecertificate, the party may appeal to the justices assembled in the Court ofSessions, and they may grant the license. See Act of March 12, 1808, vol. ii.p. 186.

The townships have the right to make by-laws, and to enforce them by fineswhich are fixed by law; but these by-laws must be approved by the Court ofSessions. See Act of March 23, 1786, vol. i. p. 254.]

n
[ In Massachusetts the county magistrates are frequently called upon toinvestigate the acts of the town magistrates; but it will be shown further onthat this investigation is a consequence, not of their administrative, but oftheir judicial power.]

The magistrates of the township, as well as those of the county, are bound tocommunicate their acts to the central government in a very small number ofpredetermined cases. *o But the central government is not represented by anindividual whose business it is to publish police regulations and ordinancesenforcing the execution of the laws; to keep up a regular communication withthe officers of the township and the county; to inspect their conduct, todirect their actions, or to reprimand their faults. There is no point whichserves as a centre to the radii of the administration.

o
[ The town committees of schools are obliged to make an annual report to theSecretary of the State on the condition of the school. See Act of March 10,1827, vol. iii. p. 183.]

Chapter V: Necessity OfExamining The Condition Of The States—Part II

What, then, is the uniform plan on which the government is conducted, and howis the compliance of the counties and their magistrates or the townships andtheir officers enforced? In the States of New England the legislative authorityembraces more subjects than it does in France; the legislator penetrates to thevery core of the administration; the law descends to the most minute details;the same enactment prescribes the principle and the method of its application,and thus imposes a multitude of strict and rigorously defined obligations onthe secondary functionaries of the State. The consequence of this is that ifall the secondary functionaries of the administration conform to the law,society in all its branches proceeds with the greatest uniformity: thedifficulty remains of compelling the secondary functionaries of theadministration to conform to the law. It may be affirmed that, in general,society has only two methods of enforcing the execution of the laws at itsdisposal: a discretionary power may be entrusted to a superior functionary ofdirecting all the others, and of cashiering them in case of disobedience; orthe courts of justice may be authorized to inflict judicial penalties on theoffender: but these two methods are not always available.

The right of directing a civil officer presupposes that of cashiering him if hedoes not obey orders, and of rewarding him by promotion if he fulfils hisduties with propriety. But an elected magistrate can neither be cashiered norpromoted. All elective functions are inalienable until their term is expired.In fact, the elected magistrate has nothing either to expect or to fear fromhis constituents; and when all public offices are filled by ballot there can beno series of official dignities, because the double right of commanding and ofenforcing obedience can never be vested in the same individual, and because thepower of issuing an order can never be joined to that of inflicting apunishment or bestowing a reward.

The communities therefore in which the secondary functionaries of thegovernment are elected are perforce obliged to make great use of judicialpenalties as a means of administration. This is not evident at first sight; forthose in power are apt to look upon the institution of elective functionariesas one concession, and the subjection of the elected magistrate to the judgesof the land as another. They are equally averse to both these innovations; andas they are more pressingly solicited to grant the former than the latter, theyaccede to the election of the magistrate, and leave him independent of thejudicial power. Nevertheless, the second of these measures is the only thingthat can possibly counterbalance the first; and it will be found that anelective authority which is not subject to judicial power will, sooner orlater, either elude all control or be destroyed. The courts of justice are theonly possible medium between the central power and the administrative bodies;they alone can compel the elected functionary to obey, without violating therights of the elector. The extension of judicial power in the political worldought therefore to be in the exact ratio of the extension of elective offices:if these two institutions do not go hand in hand, the State must fall intoanarchy or into subjection.

It has always been remarked that habits of legal business do not render men aptto the exercise of administrative authority. The Americans have borrowed fromthe English, their fathers, the idea of an institution which is unknown uponthe continent of Europe: I allude to that of the Justices of the Peace. TheJustice of the Peace is a sort of mezzo termine between the magistrate and theman of the world, between the civil officer and the judge. A justice of thepeace is a well-informed citizen, though he is not necessarily versed in theknowledge of the laws. His office simply obliges him to execute the policeregulations of society; a task in which good sense and integrity are of moreavail than legal science. The justice introduces into the administration acertain taste for established forms and publicity, which renders him a mostunserviceable instrument of despotism; and, on the other hand, he is notblinded by those superstitions which render legal officers unfit members of agovernment. The Americans have adopted the system of the English justices ofthe peace, but they have deprived it of that aristocratic character which isdiscernible in the mother-country. The Governor of Massachusetts *p appoints acertain number of justices of the peace in every county, whose functions lastseven years. *q He further designates three individuals from amongst the wholebody of justices who form in each county what is called the Court of Sessions.The justices take a personal share in public business; they are sometimesentrusted with administrative functions in conjunction with elected officers,*r they sometimes constitute a tribunal, before which the magistrates summarilyprosecute a refractory citizen, or the citizens inform against the abuses ofthe magistrate. But it is in the Court of Sessions that they exercise theirmost important functions. This court meets twice a year in the county town; inMassachusetts it is empowered to enforce the obedience of the greater number *sof public officers. *t It must be observed, that in the State of Massachusettsthe Court of Sessions is at the same time an administrative body, properly socalled, and a political tribunal. It has been asserted that the county is apurely administrative division. The Court of Sessions presides over that smallnumber of affairs which, as they concern several townships, or all thetownships of the county in common, cannot be entrusted to any one of them inparticular. *u In all that concerns county business the duties of the Court ofSessions are purely administrative; and if in its investigations itoccasionally borrows the forms of judicial procedure, it is only with a view toits own information, *v or as a guarantee to the community over which itpresides. But when the administration of the township is brought before it, italways acts as a judicial body, and in some few cases as an official assembly.

p
[ We shall hereafter learn what a Governor is: I shall content myself withremarking in this place that he represents the executive power of the wholeState.]

q
[ See the Constitution of Massachusetts, chap. II. sect. 1. Section 9; chap.III. Section 3.]

r
[ Thus, for example, a stranger arrives in a township from a country where acontagious disease prevails, and he falls ill. Two justices of the peace can,with the assent of the selectmen, order the sheriff of the county to remove andtake care of him.—Act of June 22, 1797, vol. i. p. 540.

In general the justices interfere in all the important acts of theadministration, and give them a semi-judicial character.] [Footnote s: I saythe greater number, because certain administrative misdemeanors are broughtbefore ordinary tribunals. If, for instance, a township refuses to make thenecessary expenditure for its schools or to name a school-committee, it isliable to a heavy fine. But this penalty is pronounced by the Supreme JudicialCourt or the Court of Common Pleas. See Act of March 10, 1827, Laws ofMassachusetts, vol. iii. p. 190. Or when a township neglects to provide thenecessary war-stores.—Act of February 21, 1822: Id., vol. ii. p. 570.]

t
[ In their individual capacity the justices of the peace take a part in thebusiness of the counties and townships.] [Footnote u: These affairs may bebrought under the following heads:—1. The erection of prisons and courtsof justice. 2. The county budget, which is afterwards voted by the State. 3.The distribution of the taxes so voted. 4. Grants of certain patents. 5. Thelaying down and repairs of the country roads.]

v
[ Thus, when a road is under consideration, almost all difficulties aredisposed of by the aid of the jury.]

The first difficulty is to procure the obedience of an authority as entirelyindependent of the general laws of the State as the township is. We have statedthat assessors are annually named by the town-meetings to levy the taxes. If atownship attempts to evade the payment of the taxes by neglecting to name itsassessors, the Court of Sessions condemns it to a heavy penalty. *w The fine islevied on each of the inhabitants; and the sheriff of the county, who is theofficer of justice, executes the mandate. Thus it is that in the United Statesthe authority of the Government is mysteriously concealed under the forms of ajudicial sentence; and its influence is at the same time fortified by thatirresistible power with which men have invested the formalities of law.

w
[ See Act of February 20, 1786, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 217.]

These proceedings are easy to follow and to understand. The demands made upon atownship are in general plain and accurately defined; they consist in a simplefact without any complication, or in a principle without its application indetail. *x But the difficulty increases when it is not the obedience of thetownship, but that of the town officers which is to be enforced. All thereprehensible actions of which a public functionary may be guilty are reducibleto the following heads:

x
[ There is an indirect method of enforcing the obedience of a township. Supposethat the funds which the law demands for the maintenance of the roads have notbeen voted, the town surveyor is then authorized, ex officio, to levy thesupplies. As he is personally responsible to private individuals for the stateof the roads, and indictable before the Court of Sessions, he is sure to employthe extraordinary right which the law gives him against the township. Thus bythreatening the officer the Court of Sessions exacts compliance from the town.See Act of March 5, 1787, Id., vol. i. p. 305.]

He may execute the law without energy or zeal;

He may neglect to execute the law;

He may do what the law enjoins him not to do.

The last two violations of duty can alone come under the cognizance of atribunal; a positive and appreciable fact is the indispensable foundation of anaction at law. Thus, if the selectmen omit to fulfil the legal formalitiesusual at town elections, they may be condemned to pay a fine; *y but when thepublic officer performs his duty without ability, and when he obeys the letterof the law without zeal or energy, he is at least beyond the reach of judicialinterference. The Court of Sessions, even when it is invested with its officialpowers, is in this case unable to compel him to a more satisfactory obedience.The fear of removal is the only check to these quasi-offences; and as the Courtof Sessions does not originate the town authorities, it cannot removefunctionaries whom it does not appoint. Moreover, a perpetual investigationwould be necessary to convict the officer of negligence or lukewarmness; andthe Court of Sessions sits but twice a year and then only judges such offencesas are brought before its notice. The only security of that active andenlightened obedience which a court of justice cannot impose upon publicofficers lies in the possibility of their arbitrary removal. In France thissecurity is sought for in powers exercised by the heads of the administration;in America it is sought for in the principle of election.

y
[ Laws of Massachusetts, vol. ii. p. 45.]

Thus, to recapitulate in a few words what I have been showing: If a publicofficer in New England commits a crime in the exercise of his functions, theordinary courts of justice are always called upon to pass sentence upon him. Ifhe commits a fault in his official capacity, a purely administrative tribunalis empowered to punish him; and, if the affair is important or urgent, thejudge supplies the omission of the functionary. *z Lastly, if the sameindividual is guilty of one of those intangible offences of which human justicehas no cognizance, he annually appears before a tribunal from which there is noappeal, which can at once reduce him to insignificance and deprive him of hischarge. This system undoubtedly possesses great advantages, but its executionis attended with a practical difficulty which it is important to point out.

z
[ If, for instance, a township persists in refusing to name its assessors, theCourt of Sessions nominates them; and the magistrates thus appointed areinvested with the same authority as elected officers. See the Act quoted above,February 20, 1787.]

I have already observed that the administrative tribunal, which is called theCourt of Sessions, has no right of inspection over the town officers. It canonly interfere when the conduct of a magistrate is specially brought under itsnotice; and this is the delicate part of the system. The Americans of NewEngland are unacquainted with the office of public prosecutor in the Court ofSessions, *a and it may readily be perceived that it could not have beenestablished without difficulty. If an accusing magistrate had merely beenappointed in the chief town of each county, and if he had been unassisted byagents in the townships, he would not have been better acquainted with what wasgoing on in the county than the members of the Court of Sessions. But toappoint agents in each township would have been to centre in his person themost formidable of powers, that of a judicial administration. Moreover, lawsare the children of habit, and nothing of the kind exists in the legislation ofEngland. The Americans have therefore divided the offices of inspection and ofprosecution, as well as all the other functions of the administration. Grandjurors are bound by the law to apprise the court to which they belong of allthe misdemeanors which may have been committed in their county. *b There arecertain great offences which are officially prosecuted by the States; *c butmore frequently the task of punishing delinquents devolves upon the fiscalofficer, whose province it is to receive the fine: thus the treasurer of thetownship is charged with the prosecution of such administrative offences asfall under his notice. But a more special appeal is made by Americanlegislation to the private interest of the citizen; *d and this great principleis constantly to be met with in studying the laws of the United States.American legislators are more apt to give men credit for intelligence than forhonesty, and they rely not a little on personal cupidity for the execution ofthe laws. When an individual is really and sensibly injured by anadministrative abuse, it is natural that his personal interest should inducehim to prosecute. But if a legal formality be required, which, howeveradvantageous to the community, is of small importance to individuals,plaintiffs may be less easily found; and thus, by a tacit agreement, the lawsmay fall into disuse. Reduced by their system to this extremity, the Americansare obliged to encourage informers by bestowing on them a portion of thepenalty in certain cases, *e and to insure the execution of the laws by thedangerous expedient of degrading the morals of the people. The onlyadministrative authority above the county magistrates is, properly speaking,that of the Government.

a
[ I say the Court of Sessions, because in common courts there is a magistratewho exercises some of the functions of a public prosecutor.]

b
[ The grand-jurors are, for instance, bound to inform the court of the badstate of the roads.—Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 308.]

c
[ If, for instance, the treasurer of the county holds back hisaccounts.—Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 406.] [Footnote d: Thus, if aprivate individual breaks down or is wounded in consequence of the badness of aroad, he can sue the township or the county for damages at thesessions.—Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 309.]

e
[ In cases of invasion or insurrection, if the town-officers neglect to furnishthe necessary stores and ammunition for the militia, the township may becondemned to a fine of from $200 to $500. It may readily be imagined that insuch a case it might happen that no one cared to prosecute; hence the law addsthat all the citizens may indict offences of this kind, and that half of thefine shall belong to the plaintiff. See Act of March 6, 1810, vol. ii. p. 236.The same clause is frequently to be met with in the law of Massachusetts. Notonly are private individuals thus incited to prosecute the public officers, butthe public officers are encouraged in the same manner to bring the disobedienceof private individuals to justice. If a citizen refuses to perform the workwhich has been assigned to him upon a road, the road surveyor may prosecutehim, and he receives half the penalty for himself. See the Laws above quoted,vol. i. p. 308.]

General Remarks On The Administration Of The United States Differences of theStates of the Union in their system of administration—Activity andperfection of the local authorities decrease towards the South—Power ofthe magistrate increases; that of the elector diminishes—Administrationpasses from the township to the county—States of New York, Ohio,Pennsylvania—Principles of administration applicable to the wholeUnion—Election of public officers, and inalienability of theirfunctions—Absence of gradation of ranks—Introduction of judicialresources into the administration.

I have already premised that, after having examined the constitution of thetownship and the county of New England in detail, I should take a general viewof the remainder of the Union. Townships and a local activity exist in everyState; but in no part of the confederation is a township to be met withprecisely similar to those of New England. The more we descend towards theSouth, the less active does the business of the township or parish become; thenumber of magistrates, of functions, and of rights decreases; the populationexercises a less immediate influence on affairs; town meetings are lessfrequent, and the subjects of debate less numerous. The power of the electedmagistrate is augmented and that of the elector diminished, whilst the publicspirit of the local communities is less awakened and less influential. *f Thesedifferences may be perceived to a certain extent in the State of New York; theyare very sensible in Pennsylvania; but they become less striking as we advanceto the northwest. The majority of the emigrants who settle in the northwesternStates are natives of New England, and they carry the habits of their mothercountry with them into that which they adopt. A township in Ohio is by no meansdissimilar from a township in Massachusetts.

f
[ For details see the Revised Statutes of the State of New York, part i. chap.xi. vol. i. pp. 336-364, entitled, “Of the Powers, Duties, and Privilegesof Towns.”

See in the Digest of the Laws of Pennsylvania, the words Assessors, Collector,Constables, Overseer of the Poor, Supervisors of Highways; and in the Acts of ageneral nature of the State of Ohio, the Act of February 25, 1834, relating totownships, p. 412; besides the peculiar dispositions relating to diverstown-officers, such as Township’s Clerk, Trustees, Overseers of the Poor,Fence Viewers, Appraisers of Property, Township’s Treasurer, Constables,Supervisors of Highways.]

We have seen that in Massachusetts the mainspring of public administration liesin the township. It forms the common centre of the interests and affections ofthe citizens. But this ceases to be the case as we descend to States in whichknowledge is less generally diffused, and where the township consequentlyoffers fewer guarantees of a wise and active administration. As we leave NewEngland, therefore, we find that the importance of the town is graduallytransferred to the county, which becomes the centre of administration, and theintermediate power between the Government and the citizen. In Massachusetts thebusiness of the county is conducted by the Court of Sessions, which is composedof a quorum named by the Governor and his council; but the county has norepresentative assembly, and its expenditure is voted by the nationallegislature. In the great State of New York, on the contrary, and in those ofOhio and Pennsylvania, the inhabitants of each county choose a certain numberof representatives, who constitute the assembly of the county. *g The countyassembly has the right of taxing the inhabitants to a certain extent; and inthis respect it enjoys the privileges of a real legislative body: at the sametime it exercises an executive power in the county, frequently directs theadministration of the townships, and restricts their authority within muchnarrower bounds than in Massachusetts.

g
[ See the Revised Statutes of the State of New York, part i. chap. xi. vol. i.p. 340. Id. chap. xii. p. 366; also in the Acts of the State of Ohio, an actrelating to county commissioners, February 25, 1824, p. 263. See the Digest ofthe Laws of Pennsylvania, at the words County-rates and Levies, p. 170. In theState of New York each township elects a representative, who has a share in theadministration of the county as well as in that of the township.]

Such are the principal differences which the systems of county and townadministration present in the Federal States. Were it my intention to examinethe provisions of American law minutely, I should have to point out stillfurther differences in the executive details of the several communities. Butwhat I have already said may suffice to show the general principles on whichthe administration of the United States rests. These principles are differentlyapplied; their consequences are more or less numerous in various localities;but they are always substantially the same. The laws differ, and their outwardfeatures change, but their character does not vary. If the township and thecounty are not everywhere constituted in the same manner, it is at least truethat in the United States the county and the township are always based upon thesame principle, namely, that everyone is the best judge of what concernshimself alone, and the most proper person to supply his private wants. Thetownship and the county are therefore bound to take care of their specialinterests: the State governs, but it does not interfere with theiradministration. Exceptions to this rule may be met with, but not a contraryprinciple.

The first consequence of this doctrine has been to cause all the magistrates tobe chosen either by or at least from amongst the citizens. As the officers areeverywhere elected or appointed for a certain period, it has been impossible toestablish the rules of a dependent series of authorities; there are almost asmany independent functionaries as there are functions, and the executive poweris disseminated in a multitude of hands. Hence arose the indispensablenecessity of introducing the control of the courts of justice over theadministration, and the system of pecuniary penalties, by which the secondarybodies and their representatives are constrained to obey the laws. This systemobtains from one end of the Union to the other. The power of punishing themisconduct of public officers, or of performing the part of the executive inurgent cases, has not, however, been bestowed on the same judges in all theStates. The Anglo-Americans derived the institution of justices of the peacefrom a common source; but although it exists in all the States, it is notalways turned to the same use. The justices of the peace everywhere participatein the administration of the townships and the counties, *h either as publicofficers or as the judges of public misdemeanors, but in most of the States themore important classes of public offences come under the cognizance of theordinary tribunals.

h
[ In some of the Southern States the county courts are charged with all thedetails of the administration. See the Statutes of the State of Tennessee,arts. Judiciary, Taxes, etc.]

The election of public officers, or the inalienability of their functions, theabsence of a gradation of powers, and the introduction of a judicial controlover the secondary branches of the administration, are the universalcharacteristics of the American system from Maine to the Floridas. In someStates (and that of New York has advanced most in this direction) traces of acentralized administration begin to be discernible. In the State of New Yorkthe officers of the central government exercise, in certain cases, a sort ofinspection or control over the secondary bodies. *i

i
[ For instance, the direction of public instruction centres in the hands of theGovernment. The legislature names the members of the University, who aredenominated Regents; the Governor and Lieutentant-Governor of the State arenecessarily of the number.—Revised Statutes, vol. i. p. 455. The Regentsof the University annually visit the colleges and academies, and make theirreport to the legislature. Their superintendence is not inefficient, forseveral reasons: the colleges in order to become corporations stand in need ofa charter, which is only granted on the recommendation of the Regents; everyyear funds are distributed by the State for the encouragement of learning, andthe Regents are the distributors of this money. See chap. xv.“Instruction,” Revised Statutes, vol. i. p. 455.

The school-commissioners are obliged to send an annual report to theSuperintendent of the Republic.—Id. p. 488.

A similar report is annually made to the same person on the number andcondition of the poor.—Id. p. 631.]

At other times they constitute a court of appeal for the decision of affairs.*j In the State of New York judicial penalties are less used than in otherparts as a means of administration, and the right of prosecuting the offencesof public officers is vested in fewer hands. *k The same tendency is faintlyobservable in some other States; *l but in general the prominent feature of theadministration in the United States is its excessive local independence.

j
[ If any one conceives himself to be wronged by the school-commissioners (whoare town-officers), he can appeal to the superintendent of the primary schools,whose decision is final.—Revised Statutes, vol. i. p. 487.

Provisions similar to those above cited are to be met with from time to time inthe laws of the State of New York; but in general these attempts atcentralization are weak and unproductive. The great authorities of the Statehave the right of watching and controlling the subordinate agents, without thatof rewarding or punishing them. The same individual is never empowered to givean order and to punish disobedience; he has therefore the right of commanding,without the means of exacting compliance. In 1830 the Superintendent of Schoolscomplained in his Annual Report addressed to the legislature that severalschool-commissioners had neglected, notwithstanding his application, to furnishhim with the accounts which were due. He added that if this omission continuedhe should be obliged to prosecute them, as the law directs, before the propertribunals.]

k
[ Thus the district-attorney is directed to recover all fines below the sum offifty dollars, unless such a right has been specially awarded to anothermagistrate.—Revised Statutes, vol. i. p. 383.]

l
[ Several traces of centralization may be discovered in Massachusetts; forinstance, the committees of the town-schools are directed to make an annualreport to the Secretary of State. See Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 367.]

Of The State

I have described the townships and the administration; it now remains for me tospeak of the State and the Government. This is ground I may pass over rapidly,without fear of being misunderstood; for all I have to say is to be found inwritten forms of the various constitutions, which are easily to be procured.These constitutions rest upon a simple and rational theory; their forms havebeen adopted by all constitutional nations, and are become familiar to us. Inthis place, therefore, it is only necessary for me to give a short analysis; Ishall endeavor afterwards to pass judgment upon what I now describe.

Chapter V: Necessity OfExamining The Condition Of The States—Part III

Legislative PowerOf The State

Division of the Legislative Body into two Houses—Senate—House ofRepresentatives—Different functions of these two Bodies.

The legislative power of the State is vested in two assemblies, the first ofwhich generally bears the name of the Senate. The Senate is commonly alegislative body; but it sometimes becomes an executive and judicial one. Ittakes a part in the government in several ways, according to the constitutionof the different States; *m but it is in the nomination of public functionariesthat it most commonly assumes an executive power. It partakes of judicial powerin the trial of certain political offences, and sometimes also in the decisionof certain civil cases. *n The number of its members is always small. The otherbranch of the legislature, which is usually called the House ofRepresentatives, has no share whatever in the administration, and only takes apart in the judicial power inasmuch as it impeaches public functionaries beforethe Senate. The members of the two Houses are nearly everywhere subject to thesame conditions of election. They are chosen in the same manner, and by thesame citizens. The only difference which exists between them is, that the termfor which the Senate is chosen is in general longer than that of the House ofRepresentatives. The latter seldom remain in office longer than a year; theformer usually sit two or three years. By granting to the senators theprivilege of being chosen for several years, and being renewed seriatim, thelaw takes care to preserve in the legislative body a nucleus of men alreadyaccustomed to public business, and capable of exercising a salutary influenceupon the junior members.

m
[ In Massachusetts the Senate is not invested with any administrativefunctions.]

n
[ As in the State of New York.]

The Americans, plainly, did not desire, by this separation of the legislativebody into two branches, to make one house hereditary and the other elective;one aristocratic and the other democratic. It was not their object to create inthe one a bulwark to power, whilst the other represented the interests andpassions of the people. The only advantages which result from the presentconstitution of the United States are the division of the legislative power andthe consequent check upon political assemblies; with the creation of a tribunalof appeal for the revision of the laws.

Time and experience, however, have convinced the Americans that if these areits only advantages, the division of the legislative power is still a principleof the greatest necessity. Pennsylvania was the only one of the United Stateswhich at first attempted to establish a single House of Assembly, and Franklinhimself was so far carried away by the necessary consequences of the principleof the sovereignty of the people as to have concurred in the measure; but thePennsylvanians were soon obliged to change the law, and to create two Houses.Thus the principle of the division of the legislative power was finallyestablished, and its necessity may henceforward be regarded as a demonstratedtruth. This theory, which was nearly unknown to the republics ofantiquity—which was introduced into the world almost by accident, like somany other great truths—and misunderstood by several modern nations, isat length become an axiom in the political science of the present age.

[See Benjamin Franklin]

The Executive Power Of The State

Office of Governor in an American State—The place he occupies in relationto the Legislature—His rights and his duties—His dependence on thepeople.

The executive power of the State may with truth be said to be represented bythe Governor, although he enjoys but a portion of its rights. The suprememagistrate, under the title of Governor, is the official moderator andcounsellor of the legislature. He is armed with a veto or suspensive power,which allows him to stop, or at least to retard, its movements at pleasure. Helays the wants of the country before the legislative body, and points out themeans which he thinks may be usefully employed in providing for them; he is thenatural executor of its decrees in all the undertakings which interest thenation at large. *o In the absence of the legislature, the Governor is bound totake all necessary steps to guard the State against violent shocks andunforeseen dangers. The whole military power of the State is at the disposal ofthe Governor. He is the commander of the militia, and head of the armed force.When the authority, which is by general consent awarded to the laws, isdisregarded, the Governor puts himself at the head of the armed force of theState, to quell resistance, and to restore order. Lastly, the Governor takes noshare in the administration of townships and counties, except it be indirectlyin the nomination of Justices of the Peace, which nomination he has not thepower to cancel. *p The Governor is an elected magistrate, and is generallychosen for one or two years only; so that he always continues to be strictlydependent upon the majority who returned him.

o
[ Practically speaking, it is not always the Governor who executes the plans ofthe Legislature; it often happens that the latter, in voting a measure, namesspecial agents to superintend the execution of it.]

p
[ In some of the States the justices of the peace are not elected by theGovernor.]

Political Effects Of The System Of Local Administration In The United States

Necessary distinction between the general centralization of Government and thecentralization of the local administration—Local administration notcentralized in the United States: great general centralization of theGovernment—Some bad consequences resulting to the United States from thelocal administration—Administrative advantages attending this order ofthings—The power which conducts the Government is less regular, lessenlightened, less learned, but much greater than in Europe—Politicaladvantages of this order of things—In the United States the interests ofthe country are everywhere kept in view—Support given to the Governmentby the community—Provincial institutions more necessary in proportion asthe social condition becomes more democratic—Reason of this.

Centralization is become a word of general and daily use, without any precisemeaning being attached to it. Nevertheless, there exist two distinct kinds ofcentralization, which it is necessary to discriminate with accuracy. Certaininterests are common to all parts of a nation, such as the enactment of itsgeneral laws and the maintenance of its foreign relations. Other interests arepeculiar to certain parts of the nation; such, for instance, as the business ofdifferent townships. When the power which directs the general interests iscentred in one place, or vested in the same persons, it constitutes a centralgovernment. In like manner the power of directing partial or local interests,when brought together into one place, constitutes what may be termed a centraladministration.

Upon some points these two kinds of centralization coalesce; but by classifyingthe objects which fall more particularly within the province of each of them,they may easily be distinguished. It is evident that a central governmentacquires immense power when united to administrative centralization. Thuscombined, it accustoms men to set their own will habitually and completelyaside; to submit, not only for once, or upon one point, but in every respect,and at all times. Not only, therefore, does this union of power subdue themcompulsorily, but it affects them in the ordinary habits of life, andinfluences each individual, first separately and then collectively.

These two kinds of centralization mutually assist and attract each other; butthey must not be supposed to be inseparable. It is impossible to imagine a morecompletely central government than that which existed in France under LouisXIV.; when the same individual was the author and the interpreter of the laws,and the representative of France at home and abroad, he was justified inasserting that the State was identified with his person. Nevertheless, theadministration was much less centralized under Louis XIV. than it is at thepresent day.

In England the centralization of the government is carried to great perfection;the State has the compact vigor of a man, and by the sole act of its will itputs immense engines in motion, and wields or collects the efforts of itsauthority. Indeed, I cannot conceive that a nation can enjoy a secure orprosperous existence without a powerful centralization of government. But I amof opinion that a central administration enervates the nations in which itexists by incessantly diminishing their public spirit. If such anadministration succeeds in condensing at a given moment, on a given point, allthe disposable resources of a people, it impairs at least the renewal of thoseresources. It may ensure a victory in the hour of strife, but it graduallyrelaxes the sinews of strength. It may contribute admirably to the transientgreatness of a man, but it cannot ensure the durable prosperity of a nation.

If we pay proper attention, we shall find that whenever it is said that a Statecannot act because it has no central point, it is the centralization of thegovernment in which it is deficient. It is frequently asserted, and we areprepared to assent to the proposition, that the German empire was never able tobring all its powers into action. But the reason was, that the State was neverable to enforce obedience to its general laws, because the several members ofthat great body always claimed the right, or found the means, of refusing theirco-operation to the representatives of the common authority, even in theaffairs which concerned the mass of the people; in other words, because therewas no centralization of government. The same remark is applicable to theMiddle Ages; the cause of all the confusion of feudal society was that thecontrol, not only of local but of general interests, was divided amongst athousand hands, and broken up in a thousand different ways; the absence of acentral government prevented the nations of Europe from advancing with energyin any straightforward course.

We have shown that in the United States no central administration and nodependent series of public functionaries exist. Local authority has beencarried to lengths which no European nation could endure without greatinconvenience, and which has even produced some disadvantageous consequences inAmerica. But in the United States the centralization of the Government iscomplete; and it would be easy to prove that the national power is more compactthan it has ever been in the old nations of Europe. Not only is there but onelegislative body in each State; not only does there exist but one source ofpolitical authority; but district assemblies and county courts have not ingeneral been multiplied, lest they should be tempted to exceed theiradministrative duties, and interfere with the Government. In America thelegislature of each State is supreme; nothing can impede its authority; neitherprivileges, nor local immunities, nor personal influence, nor even the empireof reason, since it represents that majority which claims to be the sole organof reason. Its own determination is, therefore, the only limit to this action.In juxtaposition to it, and under its immediate control, is the representativeof the executive power, whose duty it is to constrain the refractory to submitby superior force. The only symptom of weakness lies in certain details of theaction of the Government. The American republics have no standing armies tointimidate a discontented minority; but as no minority has as yet been reducedto declare open war, the necessity of an army has not been felt. *q The Stateusually employs the officers of the township or the county to deal with thecitizens. Thus, for instance, in New England, the assessor fixes the rate oftaxes; the collector receives them; the town-treasurer transmits the amount tothe public treasury; and the disputes which may arise are brought before theordinary courts of justice. This method of collecting taxes is slow as well asinconvenient, and it would prove a perpetual hindrance to a Government whosepecuniary demands were large. It is desirable that, in whatever materiallyaffects its existence, the Government should be served by officers of its own,appointed by itself, removable at pleasure, and accustomed to rapid methods ofproceeding. But it will always be easy for the central government, organized asit is in America, to introduce new and more efficacious modes of action,proportioned to its wants. [Footnote q: [The Civil War of 1860-65 cruellybelied this statement, and in the course of the struggle the North alone calledtwo millions and a half of men to arms; but to the honor of the United Statesit must be added that, with the cessation of the contest, this army disappearedas rapidly as it had been raised.—Translator’s Note.]]

The absence of a central government will not, then, as has often been asserted,prove the destruction of the republics of the New World; far from supposingthat the American governments are not sufficiently centralized, I shall provehereafter that they are too much so. The legislative bodies daily encroach uponthe authority of the Government, and their tendency, like that of the FrenchConvention, is to appropriate it entirely to themselves. Under thesecirc*mstances the social power is constantly changing hands, because it issubordinate to the power of the people, which is too apt to forget the maximsof wisdom and of foresight in the consciousness of its strength: hence arisesits danger; and thus its vigor, and not its impotence, will probably be thecause of its ultimate destruction.

The system of local administration produces several different effects inAmerica. The Americans seem to me to have outstepped the limits of sound policyin isolating the administration of the Government; for order, even insecond-rate affairs, is a matter of national importance. *r As the State has noadministrative functionaries of its own, stationed on different points of itsterritory, to whom it can give a common impulse, the consequence is that itrarely attempts to issue any general police regulations. The want of theseregulations is severely felt, and is frequently observed by Europeans. Theappearance of disorder which prevails on the surface leads him at first toimagine that society is in a state of anarchy; nor does he perceive his mistaketill he has gone deeper into the subject. Certain undertakings are ofimportance to the whole State; but they cannot be put in execution, becausethere is no national administration to direct them. Abandoned to the exertionsof the towns or counties, under the care of elected or temporary agents, theylead to no result, or at least to no durable benefit.

r
[ The authority which represents the State ought not, I think, to waive theright of inspecting the local administration, even when it does not interferemore actively. Suppose, for instance, that an agent of the Government wasstationed at some appointed spot in the country, to prosecute the misdemeanorsof the town and county officers, would not a more uniform order be the result,without in any way compromising the independence of the township? Nothing ofthe kind, however, exists in America: there is nothing above the county-courts,which have, as it were, only an incidental cognizance of the offences they aremeant to repress.]

The partisans of centralization in Europe are wont to maintain that theGovernment directs the affairs of each locality better than the citizens coulddo it for themselves; this may be true when the central power is enlightened,and when the local districts are ignorant; when it is as alert as they areslow; when it is accustomed to act, and they to obey. Indeed, it is evidentthat this double tendency must augment with the increase of centralization, andthat the readiness of the one and the incapacity of the others must become moreand more prominent. But I deny that such is the case when the people is asenlightened, as awake to its interests, and as accustomed to reflect on them,as the Americans are. I am persuaded, on the contrary, that in this case thecollective strength of the citizens will always conduce more efficaciously tothe public welfare than the authority of the Government. It is difficult topoint out with certainty the means of arousing a sleeping population, and ofgiving it passions and knowledge which it does not possess; it is, I am wellaware, an arduous task to persuade men to busy themselves about their ownaffairs; and it would frequently be easier to interest them in the punctiliosof court etiquette than in the repairs of their common dwelling. But whenever acentral administration affects to supersede the persons most interested, I aminclined to suppose that it is either misled or desirous to mislead. Howeverenlightened and however skilful a central power may be, it cannot of itselfembrace all the details of the existence of a great nation. Such vigilanceexceeds the powers of man. And when it attempts to create and set in motion somany complicated springs, it must submit to a very imperfect result, or consumeitself in bootless efforts.

Centralization succeeds more easily, indeed, in subjecting the external actionsof men to a certain uniformity, which at least commands our regard,independently of the objects to which it is applied, like those devotees whoworship the statue and forget the deity it represents. Centralization impartswithout difficulty an admirable regularity to the routine of business; providesfor the details of the social police with sagacity; represses the smallestdisorder and the most petty misdemeanors; maintains society in a status quoalike secure from improvement and decline; and perpetuates a drowsy precisionin the conduct of affairs, which is hailed by the heads of the administrationas a sign of perfect order and public tranquillity: *s in short, it excels morein prevention than in action. Its force deserts it when society is to bedisturbed or accelerated in its course; and if once the co-operation of privatecitizens is necessary to the furtherance of its measures, the secret of itsimpotence is disclosed. Even whilst it invokes their assistance, it is on thecondition that they shall act exactly as much as the Government chooses, andexactly in the manner it appoints. They are to take charge of the details,without aspiring to guide the system; they are to work in a dark andsubordinate sphere, and only to judge the acts in which they have themselvescooperated by their results. These, however, are not conditions on which thealliance of the human will is to be obtained; its carriage must be free and itsactions responsible, or (such is the constitution of man) the citizen hadrather remain a passive spectator than a dependent actor in schemes with whichhe is unacquainted.

s
[ China appears to me to present the most perfect instance of that species ofwell-being which a completely central administration may furnish to the nationsamong which it exists. Travellers assure us that the Chinese have peace withouthappiness, industry without improvement, stability without strength, and publicorder without public morality. The condition of society is always tolerable,never excellent. I am convinced that, when China is opened to Europeanobservation, it will be found to contain the most perfect model of a centraladministration which exists in the universe.]

It is undeniable that the want of those uniform regulations which control theconduct of every inhabitant of France is not unfrequently felt in the UnitedStates. Gross instances of social indifference and neglect are to be met with,and from time to time disgraceful blemishes are seen in complete contrast withthe surrounding civilization. Useful undertakings which cannot succeed withoutperpetual attention and rigorous exactitude are very frequently abandoned inthe end; for in America, as well as in other countries, the people is subjectto sudden impulses and momentary exertions. The European who is accustomed tofind a functionary always at hand to interfere with all he undertakes has somedifficulty in accustoming himself to the complex mechanism of theadministration of the townships. In general it may be affirmed that the lesserdetails of the police, which render life easy and comfortable, are neglected inAmerica; but that the essential guarantees of man in society are as strongthere as elsewhere. In America the power which conducts the Government is farless regular, less enlightened, and less learned, but an hundredfold moreauthoritative than in Europe. In no country in the world do the citizens makesuch exertions for the common weal; and I am acquainted with no people whichhas established schools as numerous and as efficacious, places of publicworship better suited to the wants of the inhabitants, or roads kept in betterrepair. Uniformity or permanence of design, the minute arrangement of details,*t and the perfection of an ingenious administration, must not be sought for inthe United States; but it will be easy to find, on the other hand, the symptomsof a power which, if it is somewhat barbarous, is at least robust; and of anexistence which is checkered with accidents indeed, but cheered at the sametime by animation and effort.

t
[ A writer of talent, who, in the comparison which he has drawn between thefinances of France and those of the United States, has proved that ingenuitycannot always supply the place of a knowledge of facts, very justly reproachesthe Americans for the sort of confusion which exists in the accounts of theexpenditure in the townships; and after giving the model of a departmentalbudget in France, he adds:—“We are indebted to centralization, thatadmirable invention of a great man, for the uniform order and method whichprevail alike in all the municipal budgets, from the largest town to thehumblest commune.” Whatever may be my admiration of this result, when Isee the communes of France, with their excellent system of accounts, plungedinto the grossest ignorance of their true interests, and abandoned to soincorrigible an apathy that they seem to vegetate rather than to live; when, onthe other hand, I observe the activity, the information, and the spirit ofenterprise which keep society in perpetual labor, in those American townshipswhose budgets are drawn up with small method and with still less uniformity, Iam struck by the spectacle; for to my mind the end of a good government is toensure the welfare of a people, and not to establish order and regularity inthe midst of its misery and its distress. I am therefore led to suppose thatthe prosperity of the American townships and the apparent confusion of theiraccounts, the distress of the French communes and the perfection of theirbudget, may be attributable to the same cause. At any rate I am suspicious of abenefit which is united to so many evils, and I am not averse to an evil whichis compensated by so many benefits.]

Granting for an instant that the villages and counties of the United Stateswould be more usefully governed by a remote authority which they had never seenthan by functionaries taken from the midst of them—admitting, for thesake of argument, that the country would be more secure, and the resources ofsociety better employed, if the whole administration centred in a singlearm—still the political advantages which the Americans derive from theirsystem would induce me to prefer it to the contrary plan. It profits me butlittle, after all, that a vigilant authority should protect the tranquillity ofmy pleasures and constantly avert all dangers from my path, without my care ormy concern, if this same authority is the absolute mistress of my liberty andof my life, and if it so monopolizes all the energy of existence that when itlanguishes everything languishes around it, that when it sleeps everything mustsleep, that when it dies the State itself must perish.

In certain countries of Europe the natives consider themselves as a kind ofsettlers, indifferent to the fate of the spot upon which they live. Thegreatest changes are effected without their concurrence and (unless chance mayhave apprised them of the event) without their knowledge; nay more, the citizenis unconcerned as to the condition of his village, the police of his street,the repairs of the church or of the parsonage; for he looks upon all thesethings as unconnected with himself, and as the property of a powerful strangerwhom he calls the Government. He has only a life-interest in these possessions,and he entertains no notions of ownership or of improvement. This want ofinterest in his own affairs goes so far that, if his own safety or that of hischildren is endangered, instead of trying to avert the peril, he will fold hisarms, and wait till the nation comes to his assistance. This same individual,who has so completely sacrificed his own free will, has no natural propensityto obedience; he cowers, it is true, before the pettiest officer; but he bravesthe law with the spirit of a conquered foe as soon as its superior force isremoved: his oscillations between servitude and license are perpetual. When anation has arrived at this state it must either change its customs and its lawsor perish: the source of public virtue is dry, and, though it may containsubjects, the race of citizens is extinct. Such communities are a natural preyto foreign conquests, and if they do not disappear from the scene of life, itis because they are surrounded by other nations similar or inferior tothemselves: it is because the instinctive feeling of their country’sclaims still exists in their hearts; and because an involuntary pride in thename it bears, or a vague reminiscence of its bygone fame, suffices to givethem the impulse of self-preservation.

Nor can the prodigious exertions made by tribes in the defence of a country towhich they did not belong be adduced in favor of such a system; for it will befound that in these cases their main incitement was religion. The permanence,the glory, or the prosperity of the nation were become parts of their faith,and in defending the country they inhabited they defended that Holy City ofwhich they were all citizens. The Turkish tribes have never taken an activeshare in the conduct of the affairs of society, but they accomplishedstupendous enterprises as long as the victories of the Sultan were the triumphsof the Mohammedan faith. In the present age they are in rapid decay, becausetheir religion is departing, and despotism only remains. Montesquieu, whoattributed to absolute power an authority peculiar to itself, did it, as Iconceive, an undeserved honor; for despotism, taken by itself, can produce nodurable results. On close inspection we shall find that religion, and not fear,has ever been the cause of the long-lived prosperity of an absolute government.Whatever exertions may be made, no true power can be founded among men whichdoes not depend upon the free union of their inclinations; and patriotism andreligion are the only two motives in the world which can permanently direct thewhole of a body politic to one end.

Laws cannot succeed in rekindling the ardor of an extinguished faith, but menmay be interested in the fate of their country by the laws. By this influencethe vague impulse of patriotism, which never abandons the human heart, may bedirected and revived; and if it be connected with the thoughts, the passions,and the daily habits of life, it may be consolidated into a durable andrational sentiment.

Let it not be said that the time for the experiment is already past; for theold age of nations is not like the old age of men, and every fresh generationis a new people ready for the care of the legislator.

It is not the administrative but the political effects of the local system thatI most admire in America. In the United States the interests of the country areeverywhere kept in view; they are an object of solicitude to the people of thewhole Union, and every citizen is as warmly attached to them as if they werehis own. He takes pride in the glory of his nation; he boasts of its success,to which he conceives himself to have contributed, and he rejoices in thegeneral prosperity by which he profits. The feeling he entertains towards theState is analogous to that which unites him to his family, and it is by a kindof egotism that he interests himself in the welfare of his country.

The European generally submits to a public officer because he represents asuperior force; but to an American he represents a right. In America it may besaid that no one renders obedience to man, but to justice and to law. If theopinion which the citizen entertains of himself is exaggerated, it is at leastsalutary; he unhesitatingly confides in his own powers, which appear to him tobe all-sufficient. When a private individual meditates an undertaking, howeverdirectly connected it may be with the welfare of society, he never thinks ofsoliciting the co-operation of the Government, but he publishes his plan,offers to execute it himself, courts the assistance of other individuals, andstruggles manfully against all obstacles. Undoubtedly he is often lesssuccessful than the State might have been in his position; but in the end thesum of these private undertakings far exceeds all that the Government couldhave done.

As the administrative authority is within the reach of the citizens, whom it insome degree represents, it excites neither their jealousy nor their hatred; asits resources are limited, every one feels that he must not rely solely on itsassistance. Thus, when the administration thinks fit to interfere, it is notabandoned to itself as in Europe; the duties of the private citizens are notsupposed to have lapsed because the State assists in their fulfilment, butevery one is ready, on the contrary, to guide and to support it. This action ofindividual exertions, joined to that of the public authorities, frequentlyperforms what the most energetic central administration would be unable toexecute. It would be easy to adduce several facts in proof of what I advance,but I had rather give only one, with which I am more thoroughly acquainted. *uIn America the means which the authorities have at their disposal for thediscovery of crimes and the arrest of criminals are few. The State police doesnot exist, and passports are unknown. The criminal police of the United Statescannot be compared to that of France; the magistrates and public prosecutorsare not numerous, and the examinations of prisoners are rapid and oral.Nevertheless in no country does crime more rarely elude punishment. The reasonis, that every one conceives himself to be interested in furnishing evidence ofthe act committed, and in stopping the delinquent. During my stay in the UnitedStates I witnessed the spontaneous formation of committees for the pursuit andprosecution of a man who had committed a great crime in a certain county. InEurope a criminal is an unhappy being who is struggling for his life againstthe ministers of justice, whilst the population is merely a spectator of theconflict; in America he is looked upon as an enemy of the human race, and thewhole of mankind is against him.

u
[ See Appendix, I.]

I believe that provincial institutions are useful to all nations, but nowheredo they appear to me to be more indispensable than amongst a democratic people.In an aristocracy order can always be maintained in the midst of liberty, andas the rulers have a great deal to lose order is to them a first-rateconsideration. In like manner an aristocracy protects the people from theexcesses of despotism, because it always possesses an organized power ready toresist a despot. But a democracy without provincial institutions has nosecurity against these evils. How can a populace, unaccustomed to freedom insmall concerns, learn to use it temperately in great affairs? What resistancecan be offered to tyranny in a country where every private individual isimpotent, and where the citizens are united by no common tie? Those who dreadthe license of the mob, and those who fear the rule of absolute power, oughtalike to desire the progressive growth of provincial liberties.

On the other hand, I am convinced that democratic nations are most exposed tofall beneath the yoke of a central administration, for several reasons, amongstwhich is the following. The constant tendency of these nations is toconcentrate all the strength of the Government in the hands of the only powerwhich directly represents the people, because beyond the people nothing is tobe perceived but a mass of equal individuals confounded together. But when thesame power is already in possession of all the attributes of the Government, itcan scarcely refrain from penetrating into the details of the administration,and an opportunity of doing so is sure to present itself in the end, as was thecase in France. In the French Revolution there were two impulses in oppositedirections, which must never be confounded—the one was favorable toliberty, the other to despotism. Under the ancient monarchy the King was thesole author of the laws, and below the power of the sovereign certain vestigesof provincial institutions, half destroyed, were still distinguishable. Theseprovincial institutions were incoherent, ill compacted, and frequently absurd;in the hands of the aristocracy they had sometimes been converted intoinstruments of oppression. The Revolution declared itself the enemy of royaltyand of provincial institutions at the same time; it confounded all that hadpreceded it—despotic power and the checks to its abuses—inindiscriminate hatred, and its tendency was at once to overthrow and tocentralize. This double character of the French Revolution is a fact which hasbeen adroitly handled by the friends of absolute power. Can they be accused oflaboring in the cause of despotism when they are defending that centraladministration which was one of the great innovations of the Revolution? *v Inthis manner popularity may be conciliated with hostility to the rights of thepeople, and the secret slave of tyranny may be the professed admirer offreedom.

v
[ See Appendix K.]

I have visited the two nations in which the system of provincial liberty hasbeen most perfectly established, and I have listened to the opinions ofdifferent parties in those countries. In America I met with men who secretlyaspired to destroy the democratic institutions of the Union; in England I foundothers who attacked the aristocracy openly, but I know of no one who does notregard provincial independence as a great benefit. In both countries I haveheard a thousand different causes assigned for the evils of the State, but thelocal system was never mentioned amongst them. I have heard citizens attributethe power and prosperity of their country to a multitude of reasons, but theyall placed the advantages of local institutions in the foremost rank. Am I tosuppose that when men who are naturally so divided on religious opinions and onpolitical theories agree on one point (and that one of which they have dailyexperience), they are all in error? The only nations which deny the utility ofprovincial liberties are those which have fewest of them; in other words, thosewho are unacquainted with the institution are the only persons who pass acensure upon it.

Chapter VI: Judicial Power InThe United States

Chapter Summary

The Anglo-Americans have retained the characteristics of judicial power whichare common to all nations—They have, however, made it a powerfulpolitical organ—How—In what the judicial system of theAnglo-Americans differs from that of all other nations—Why the Americanjudges have the right of declaring the laws to be unconstitutional—Howthey use this right—Precautions taken by the legislator to prevent itsabuse.

Judicial Power In The United States And Its Influence On Political Society.

I have thought it essential to devote a separate chapter to the judicialauthorities of the United States, lest their great political importance shouldbe lessened in the reader’s eyes by a merely incidental mention of them.Confederations have existed in other countries beside America, and republicshave not been established upon the shores of the New World alone; therepresentative system of government has been adopted in several States ofEurope, but I am not aware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organizeda judicial power on the principle now adopted by the Americans. The judicialorganization of the United States is the institution which a stranger has thegreatest difficulty in understanding. He hears the authority of a judge invokedin the political occurrences of every day, and he naturally concludes that inthe United States the judges are important political functionaries;nevertheless, when he examines the nature of the tribunals, they offer nothingwhich is contrary to the usual habits and privileges of those bodies, and themagistrates seem to him to interfere in public affairs of chance, but by achance which recurs every day.

When the Parliament of Paris remonstrated, or refused to enregister an edict,or when it summoned a functionary accused of malversation to its bar, itspolitical influence as a judicial body was clearly visible; but nothing of thekind is to be seen in the United States. The Americans have retained all theordinary characteristics of judicial authority, and have carefully restrictedits action to the ordinary circle of its functions.

The first characteristic of judicial power in all nations is the duty ofarbitration. But rights must be contested in order to warrant the interferenceof a tribunal; and an action must be brought to obtain the decision of a judge.As long, therefore, as the law is uncontested, the judicial authority is notcalled upon to discuss it, and it may exist without being perceived. When ajudge in a given case attacks a law relating to that case, he extends thecircle of his customary duties, without however stepping beyond it; since he isin some measure obliged to decide upon the law in order to decide the case. Butif he pronounces upon a law without resting upon a case, he clearly stepsbeyond his sphere, and invades that of the legislative authority.

The second characteristic of judicial power is that it pronounces on specialcases, and not upon general principles. If a judge in deciding a particularpoint destroys a general principle, by passing a judgment which tends to rejectall the inferences from that principle, and consequently to annul it, heremains within the ordinary limits of his functions. But if he directly attacksa general principle without having a particular case in view, he leaves thecircle in which all nations have agreed to confine his authority, he assumes amore important, and perhaps a more useful, influence than that of themagistrate, but he ceases to be a representative of the judicial power.

The third characteristic of the judicial power is its inability to act unlessit is appealed to, or until it has taken cognizance of an affair. Thischaracteristic is less general than the other two; but, notwithstanding theexceptions, I think it may be regarded as essential. The judicial power is byits nature devoid of action; it must be put in motion in order to produce aresult. When it is called upon to repress a crime, it punishes the criminal;when a wrong is to be redressed, it is ready to redress it; when an actrequires interpretation, it is prepared to interpret it; but it does not pursuecriminals, hunt out wrongs, or examine into evidence of its own accord. Ajudicial functionary who should open proceedings, and usurp the censorship ofthe laws, would in some measure do violence to the passive nature of hisauthority.

The Americans have retained these three distinguishing characteristics of thejudicial power; an American judge can only pronounce a decision when litigationhas arisen, he is only conversant with special cases, and he cannot act untilthe cause has been duly brought before the court. His position is thereforeperfectly similar to that of the magistrate of other nations; and he isnevertheless invested with immense political power. If the sphere of hisauthority and his means of action are the same as those of other judges, it maybe asked whence he derives a power which they do not possess. The cause of thisdifference lies in the simple fact that the Americans have acknowledged theright of the judges to found their decisions on the constitution rather than onthe laws. In other words, they have left them at liberty not to apply such lawsas may appear to them to be unconstitutional.

I am aware that a similar right has been claimed—but claimed invain—by courts of justice in other countries; but in America it isrecognized by all authorities; and not a party, nor so much as an individual,is found to contest it. This fact can only be explained by the principles ofthe American constitution. In France the constitution is (or at least issupposed to be) immutable; and the received theory is that no power has theright of changing any part of it. In England the Parliament has an acknowledgedright to modify the constitution; as, therefore, the constitution may undergoperpetual changes, it does not in reality exist; the Parliament is at once alegislative and a constituent assembly. The political theories of America aremore simple and more rational. An American constitution is not supposed to beimmutable as in France, nor is it susceptible of modification by the ordinarypowers of society as in England. It constitutes a detached whole, which, as itrepresents the determination of the whole people, is no less binding on thelegislator than on the private citizen, but which may be altered by the will ofthe people in predetermined cases, according to established rules. In Americathe constitution may therefore vary, but as long as it exists it is the originof all authority, and the sole vehicle of the predominating force. *a

a
[ [The fifth article of the original Constitution of the United States providesthe mode in which amendments of the Constitution may be made. Amendments mustbe proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and ratified by theLegislatures of three-fourths of the several States. Fifteen amendments of theConstitution have been made at different times since 1789, the most importantof which are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth, framed and ratifiedafter the Civil War. The original Constitution of the United States, followedby these fifteen amendments, is printed at the end of this edition.—Translator’s Note, 1874.]]

It is easy to perceive in what manner these differences must act upon theposition and the rights of the judicial bodies in the three countries I havecited. If in France the tribunals were authorized to disobey the laws on theground of their being opposed to the constitution, the supreme power would infact be placed in their hands, since they alone would have the right ofinterpreting a constitution, the clauses of which can be modified by noauthority. They would therefore take the place of the nation, and exercise asabsolute a sway over society as the inherent weakness of judicial power wouldallow them to do. Undoubtedly, as the French judges are incompetent to declarea law to be unconstitutional, the power of changing the constitution isindirectly given to the legislative body, since no legal barrier would opposethe alterations which it might prescribe. But it is better to grant the powerof changing the constitution of the people to men who represent (howeverimperfectly) the will of the people, than to men who represent no one butthemselves.

It would be still more unreasonable to invest the English judges with the rightof resisting the decisions of the legislative body, since the Parliament whichmakes the laws also makes the constitution; and consequently a law emanatingfrom the three powers of the State can in no case be unconstitutional. Butneither of these remarks is applicable to America.

In the United States the constitution governs the legislator as much as theprivate citizen; as it is the first of laws it cannot be modified by a law, andit is therefore just that the tribunals should obey the constitution inpreference to any law. This condition is essential to the power of thejudicature, for to select that legal obligation by which he is most strictlybound is the natural right of every magistrate.

In France the constitution is also the first of laws, and the judges have thesame right to take it as the ground of their decisions, but were they toexercise this right they must perforce encroach on rights more sacred thantheir own, namely, on those of society, in whose name they are acting. In thiscase the State-motive clearly prevails over the motives of an individual. InAmerica, where the nation can always reduce its magistrates to obedience bychanging its constitution, no danger of this kind is to be feared. Upon thispoint, therefore, the political and the logical reasons agree, and the peopleas well as the judges preserve their privileges.

Whenever a law which the judge holds to be unconstitutional is argued in atribunal of the United States he may refuse to admit it as a rule; this poweris the only one which is peculiar to the American magistrate, but it gives riseto immense political influence. Few laws can escape the searching analysis ofthe judicial power for any length of time, for there are few which are notprejudicial to some private interest or other, and none which may not bebrought before a court of justice by the choice of parties, or by the necessityof the case. But from the time that a judge has refused to apply any given lawin a case, that law loses a portion of its moral cogency. The persons to whoseinterests it is prejudicial learn that means exist of evading its authority,and similar suits are multiplied, until it becomes powerless. One of twoalternatives must then be resorted to: the people must alter the constitution,or the legislature must repeal the law. The political power which the Americanshave intrusted to their courts of justice is therefore immense, but the evilsof this power are considerably diminished by the obligation which has beenimposed of attacking the laws through the courts of justice alone. If the judgehad been empowered to contest the laws on the ground of theoreticalgeneralities, if he had been enabled to open an attack or to pass a censure onthe legislator, he would have played a prominent part in the political sphere;and as the champion or the antagonist of a party, he would have arrayed thehostile passions of the nation in the conflict. But when a judge contests a lawapplied to some particular case in an obscure proceeding, the importance of hisattack is concealed from the public gaze, his decision bears upon the interestof an individual, and if the law is slighted it is only collaterally. Moreover,although it is censured, it is not abolished; its moral force may bediminished, but its cogency is by no means suspended, and its final destructioncan only be accomplished by the reiterated attacks of judicial functionaries.It will readily be understood that by connecting the censorship of the lawswith the private interests of members of the community, and by intimatelyuniting the prosecution of the law with the prosecution of an individual,legislation is protected from wanton assailants, and from the daily aggressionsof party spirit. The errors of the legislator are exposed whenever their evilconsequences are most felt, and it is always a positive and appreciable factwhich serves as the basis of a prosecution.

I am inclined to believe this practice of the American courts to be at once themost favorable to liberty as well as to public order. If the judge could onlyattack the legislator openly and directly, he would sometimes be afraid tooppose any resistance to his will; and at other moments party spirit mightencourage him to brave it at every turn. The laws would consequently beattacked when the power from which they emanate is weak, and obeyed when it isstrong. That is to say, when it would be useful to respect them they would becontested, and when it would be easy to convert them into an instrument ofoppression they would be respected. But the American judge is brought into thepolitical arena independently of his own will. He only judges the law becausehe is obliged to judge a case. The political question which he is called uponto resolve is connected with the interest of the suitors, and he cannot refuseto decide it without abdicating the duties of his post. He performs hisfunctions as a citizen by fulfilling the precise duties which belong to hisprofession as a magistrate. It is true that upon this system the judicialcensorship which is exercised by the courts of justice over the legislationcannot extend to all laws indiscriminately, inasmuch as some of them can nevergive rise to that exact species of contestation which is termed a lawsuit; andeven when such a contestation is possible, it may happen that no one cares tobring it before a court of justice. The Americans have often felt thisdisadvantage, but they have left the remedy incomplete, lest they should giveit an efficacy which might in some cases prove dangerous. Within these limitsthe power vested in the American courts of justice of pronouncing a statute tobe unconstitutional forms one of the most powerful barriers which has ever beendevised against the tyranny of political assemblies.

Other Powers Granted To American Judges

The United States all the citizens have the right of indicting publicfunctionaries before the ordinary tribunals—How they use thisright—Art. 75 of the French Constitution of the An VIII—TheAmericans and the English cannot understand the purport of this clause.

It is perfectly natural that in a free country like America all the citizensshould have the right of indicting public functionaries before the ordinarytribunals, and that all the judges should have the power of punishing publicoffences. The right granted to the courts of justice of judging the agents ofthe executive government, when they have violated the laws, is so natural a onethat it cannot be looked upon as an extraordinary privilege. Nor do the springsof government appear to me to be weakened in the United States by the customwhich renders all public officers responsible to the judges of the land. TheAmericans seem, on the contrary, to have increased by this means that respectwhich is due to the authorities, and at the same time to have rendered thosewho are in power more scrupulous of offending public opinion. I was struck bythe small number of political trials which occur in the United States, but Ihad no difficulty in accounting for this circ*mstance. A lawsuit, of whatevernature it may be, is always a difficult and expensive undertaking. It is easyto attack a public man in a journal, but the motives which can warrant anaction at law must be serious. A solid ground of complaint must therefore existto induce an individual to prosecute a public officer, and public officers arecareful not to furnish these grounds of complaint when they are afraid of beingprosecuted.

This does not depend upon the republican form of American institutions, for thesame facts present themselves in England. These two nations do not regard theimpeachment of the principal officers of State as a sufficient guarantee oftheir independence. But they hold that the right of minor prosecutions, whichare within the reach of the whole community, is a better pledge of freedom thanthose great judicial actions which are rarely employed until it is too late.

In the Middle Ages, when it was very difficult to overtake offenders, thejudges inflicted the most dreadful tortures on the few who were arrested, whichby no means diminished the number of crimes. It has since been discovered thatwhen justice is more certain and more mild, it is at the same time moreefficacious. The English and the Americans hold that tyranny and oppression areto be treated like any other crime, by lessening the penalty and facilitatingconviction.

In the year VIII of the French Republic a constitution was drawn up in whichthe following clause was introduced: “Art. 75. All the agents of thegovernment below the rank of ministers can only be prosecuted for offencesrelating to their several functions by virtue of a decree of the Conseild’Etat; in which the case the prosecution takes place before the ordinarytribunals.” This clause survived the “Constitution de l’AnVIII,” and it is still maintained in spite of the just complaints of thenation. I have always found the utmost difficulty in explaining its meaning toEnglishmen or Americans. They were at once led to conclude that the Conseild’Etat in France was a great tribunal, established in the centre of thekingdom, which exercised a preliminary and somewhat tyrannical jurisdiction inall political causes. But when I told them that the Conseil d’Etat wasnot a judicial body, in the common sense of the term, but an administrativecouncil composed of men dependent on the Crown, so that the king, after havingordered one of his servants, called a Prefect, to commit an injustice, has thepower of commanding another of his servants, called a Councillor of State, toprevent the former from being punished; when I demonstrated to them that thecitizen who has been injured by the order of the sovereign is obliged tosolicit from the sovereign permission to obtain redress, they refused to creditso flagrant an abuse, and were tempted to accuse me of falsehood or ofignorance. It frequently happened before the Revolution that a Parliamentissued a warrant against a public officer who had committed an offence, andsometimes the proceedings were stopped by the authority of the Crown, whichenforced compliance with its absolute and despotic will. It is painful toperceive how much lower we are sunk than our forefathers, since we allow thingsto pass under the color of justice and the sanction of the law which violencealone could impose upon them.

Chapter VII: PoliticalJurisdiction In The United States

Chapter Summary

Definition of political jurisdiction—What is understood by politicaljurisdiction in France, in England, and in the United States—In Americathe political judge can only pass sentence on public officers—He morefrequently passes a sentence of removal from office than apenalty—Political jurisdiction as it exists in the United States is,notwithstanding its mildness, and perhaps in consequence of that mildness, amost powerful instrument in the hands of the majority.

Political Jurisdiction In The United States

I understand, by political jurisdiction, that temporary right of pronouncing alegal decision with which a political body may be invested.

In absolute governments no utility can accrue from the introduction ofextraordinary forms of procedure; the prince in whose name an offender isprosecuted is as much the sovereign of the courts of justice as of everythingelse, and the idea which is entertained of his power is of itself a sufficientsecurity. The only thing he has to fear is, that the external formalities ofjustice should be neglected, and that his authority should be dishonored from awish to render it more absolute. But in most free countries, in which themajority can never exercise the same influence upon the tribunals as anabsolute monarch, the judicial power has occasionally been vested for a time inthe representatives of the nation. It has been thought better to introduce atemporary confusion between the functions of the different authorities than toviolate the necessary principle of the unity of government.

England, France, and the United States have established this politicaljurisdiction by law; and it is curious to examine the different adaptationswhich these three great nations have made of the principle. In England and inFrance the House of Lords and the Chambre des Paris *a constitute the highestcriminal court of their respective nations, and although they do not habituallytry all political offences, they are competent to try them all. Anotherpolitical body enjoys the right of impeachment before the House of Lords: theonly difference which exists between the two countries in this respect is, thatin England the Commons may impeach whomsoever they please before the Lords,whilst in France the Deputies can only employ this mode of prosecution againstthe ministers of the Crown.

a
[ [As it existed under the constitutional monarchy down to 1848.]]

In both countries the Upper House may make use of all the existing penal lawsof the nation to punish the delinquents.

In the United States, as well as in Europe, one branch of the legislature isauthorized to impeach and another to judge: the House of Representativesarraigns the offender, and the Senate awards his sentence. But the Senate canonly try such persons as are brought before it by the House of Representatives,and those persons must belong to the class of public functionaries. Thus thejurisdiction of the Senate is less extensive than that of the Peers of France,whilst the right of impeachment by the Representatives is more general thanthat of the Deputies. But the great difference which exists between Europe andAmerica is, that in Europe political tribunals are empowered to inflict all thedispositions of the penal code, while in America, when they have deprived theoffender of his official rank, and have declared him incapable of filling anypolitical office for the future, their jurisdiction terminates and that of theordinary tribunals begins.

Suppose, for instance, that the President of the United States has committedthe crime of high treason; the House of Representatives impeaches him, and theSenate degrades him; he must then be tried by a jury, which alone can deprivehim of his liberty or his life. This accurately illustrates the subject we aretreating. The political jurisdiction which is established by the laws of Europeis intended to try great offenders, whatever may be their birth, their rank, ortheir powers in the State; and to this end all the privileges of the courts ofjustice are temporarily extended to a great political assembly. The legislatoris then transformed into the magistrate; he is called upon to admit, todistinguish, and to punish the offence; and as he exercises all the authorityof a judge, the law restricts him to the observance of all the duties of thathigh office, and of all the formalities of justice. When a public functionaryis impeached before an English or a French political tribunal, and is foundguilty, the sentence deprives him ipso facto of his functions, and it maypronounce him to be incapable of resuming them or any others for the future.But in this case the political interdict is a consequence of the sentence, andnot the sentence itself. In Europe the sentence of a political tribunal is tobe regarded as a judicial verdict rather than as an administrative measure. Inthe United States the contrary takes place; and although the decision of theSenate is judicial in its form, since the Senators are obliged to comply withthe practices and formalities of a court of justice; although it is judicial inrespect to the motives on which it is founded, since the Senate is in generalobliged to take an offence at common law as the basis of its sentence;nevertheless the object of the proceeding is purely administrative. If it hadbeen the intention of the American legislator to invest a political body withgreat judicial authority, its action would not have been limited to the circleof public functionaries, since the most dangerous enemies of the State may bein the possession of no functions at all; and this is especially true inrepublics, where party influence is the first of authorities, and where thestrength of many a reader is increased by his exercising no legal power.

If it had been the intention of the American legislator to give society themeans of repressing State offences by exemplary punishment, according to thepractice of ordinary justice, the resources of the penal code would all havebeen placed at the disposal of the political tribunals. But the weapon withwhich they are intrusted is an imperfect one, and it can never reach the mostdangerous offenders, since men who aim at the entire subversion of the laws arenot likely to murmur at a political interdict.

The main object of the political jurisdiction which obtains in the UnitedStates is, therefore, to deprive the ill-disposed citizen of an authority whichhe has used amiss, and to prevent him from ever acquiring it again. This isevidently an administrative measure sanctioned by the formalities of a judicialdecision. In this matter the Americans have created a mixed system; they havesurrounded the act which removes a public functionary with the securities of apolitical trial; and they have deprived all political condemnations of theirseverest penalties. Every link of the system may easily be traced from thispoint; we at once perceive why the American constitutions subject all the civilfunctionaries to the jurisdiction of the Senate, whilst the military, whosecrimes are nevertheless more formidable, are exempted from that tribunal. Inthe civil service none of the American functionaries can be said to beremovable; the places which some of them occupy are inalienable, and the othersare chosen for a term which cannot be shortened. It is therefore necessary totry them all in order to deprive them of their authority. But military officersare dependent on the chief magistrate of the State, who is himself a civilfunctionary, and the decision which condemns him is a blow upon them all.

If we now compare the American and the European systems, we shall meet withdifferences no less striking in the different effects which each of themproduces or may produce. In France and in England the jurisdiction of politicalbodies is looked upon as an extraordinary resource, which is only to beemployed in order to rescue society from unwonted dangers. It is not to bedenied that these tribunals, as they are constituted in Europe, are apt toviolate the conservative principle of the balance of power in the State, and tothreaten incessantly the lives and liberties of the subject. The same politicaljurisdiction in the United States is only indirectly hostile to the balance ofpower; it cannot menace the lives of the citizens, and it does not hover, as inEurope, over the heads of the community, since those only who have submitted toits authority on accepting office are exposed to the severity of itsinvestigations. It is at the same time less formidable and less efficacious;indeed, it has not been considered by the legislators of the United States as aremedy for the more violent evils of society, but as an ordinary means ofconducting the government. In this respect it probably exercises more realinfluence on the social body in America than in Europe. We must not be misledby the apparent mildness of the American legislation in all that relates topolitical jurisdiction. It is to be observed, in the first place, that in theUnited States the tribunal which passes sentence is composed of the sameelements, and subject to the same influences, as the body which impeaches theoffender, and that this uniformity gives an almost irresistible impulse to thevindictive passions of parties. If political judges in the United States cannotinflict such heavy penalties as those of Europe, there is the less chance oftheir acquitting a prisoner; and the conviction, if it is less formidable, ismore certain. The principal object of the political tribunals of Europe is topunish the offender; the purpose of those in America is to deprive him of hisauthority. A political condemnation in the United States may, therefore, belooked upon as a preventive measure; and there is no reason for restricting thejudges to the exact definitions of criminal law. Nothing can be more alarmingthan the excessive latitude with which political offences are described in thelaws of America. Article II., Section 4, of the Constitution of the UnitedStates runs thus:—“The President, Vice-President, and all civilofficers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for,and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes andmisdemeanors.” Many of the Constitutions of the States are even lessexplicit. “Public officers,” says the Constitution ofMassachusetts, *b “shall be impeached for misconduct ormaladministration;” the Constitution of Virginia declares that all thecivil officers who shall have offended against the State, by maladministration,corruption, or other high crimes, may be impeached by the House of Delegates;in some constitutions no offences are specified, in order to subject the publicfunctionaries to an unlimited responsibility. *c But I will venture to affirmthat it is precisely their mildness which renders the American laws mostformidable in this respect. We have shown that in Europe the removal of afunctionary and his political interdiction are the consequences of the penaltyhe is to undergo, and that in America they constitute the penalty itself. Theconsequence is that in Europe political tribunals are invested with rightswhich they are afraid to use, and that the fear of punishing too much hindersthem from punishing at all. But in America no one hesitates to inflict apenalty from which humanity does not recoil. To condemn a political opponent todeath, in order to deprive him of his power, is to commit what all the worldwould execrate as a horrible assassination; but to declare that opponentunworthy to exercise that authority, to deprive him of it, and to leave himuninjured in life and limb, may be judged to be the fair issue of the struggle.But this sentence, which it is so easy to pronounce, is not the less fatallysevere to the majority of those upon whom it is inflicted. Great criminals mayundoubtedly brave its intangible rigor, but ordinary offenders will dread it asa condemnation which destroys their position in the world, casts a blight upontheir honor, and condemns them to a shameful inactivity worse than death. Theinfluence exercised in the United States upon the progress of society by thejurisdiction of political bodies may not appear to be formidable, but it isonly the more immense. It does not directly coerce the subject, but it rendersthe majority more absolute over those in power; it does not confer an unboundedauthority on the legislator which can be exerted at some momentous crisis, butit establishes a temperate and regular influence, which is at all timesavailable. If the power is decreased, it can, on the other hand, be moreconveniently employed and more easily abused. By preventing political tribunalsfrom inflicting judicial punishments the Americans seem to have eluded theworst consequences of legislative tyranny, rather than tyranny itself; and I amnot sure that political jurisdiction, as it is constituted in the UnitedStates, is not the most formidable weapon which has ever been placed in therude grasp of a popular majority. When the American republics begin todegenerate it will be easy to verify the truth of this observation, byremarking whether the number of political impeachments augments.*d

b
[ Chap. I. sect. ii. Section 8.]

c
[ See the constitutions of Illinois, Maine, Connecticut, and Georgia.]

d
[ See Appendix, N.

[The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868—which was resortedto by his political opponents solely as a means of turning him out of office,for it could not be contended that he had been guilty of high crimes andmisdemeanors, and he was in fact honorably acquitted and reinstated inoffice—is a striking confirmation of the truth of thisremark.—Translator’s Note, 1874.]]

Chapter VIII: The FederalConstitution—Part I

I have hitherto considered each State as a separate whole, and I have explainedthe different springs which the people sets in motion, and the different meansof action which it employs. But all the States which I have considered asindependent are forced to submit, in certain cases, to the supreme authority ofthe Union. The time is now come for me to examine separately the supremacy withwhich the Union has been invested, and to cast a rapid glance over the FederalConstitution.

Chapter Summary

Origin of the first Union—Its weakness—Congress appeals to theconstituent authority—Interval of two years between this appeal and thepromulgation of the new Constitution.

History Of The Federal Constitution

The thirteen colonies which simultaneously threw off the yoke of Englandtowards the end of the last century professed, as I have already observed, thesame religion, the same language, the same customs, and almost the same laws;they were struggling against a common enemy; and these reasons weresufficiently strong to unite them one to another, and to consolidate them intoone nation. But as each of them had enjoyed a separate existence and agovernment within its own control, the peculiar interests and customs whichresulted from this system were opposed to a compact and intimate union whichwould have absorbed the individual importance of each in the general importanceof all. Hence arose two opposite tendencies, the one prompting theAnglo-Americans to unite, the other to divide their strength. As long as thewar with the mother-country lasted the principle of union was kept alive bynecessity; and although the laws which constituted it were defective, thecommon tie subsisted in spite of their imperfections. *a But no sooner waspeace concluded than the faults of the legislation became manifest, and theState seemed to be suddenly dissolved. Each colony became an independentrepublic, and assumed an absolute sovereignty. The federal government,condemned to impotence by its constitution, and no longer sustained by thepresence of a common danger, witnessed the outrages offered to its flag by thegreat nations of Europe, whilst it was scarcely able to maintain its groundagainst the Indian tribes, and to pay the interest of the debt which had beencontracted during the war of independence. It was already on the verge ofdestruction, when it officially proclaimed its inability to conduct thegovernment, and appealed to the constituent authority of the nation. *b IfAmerica ever approached (for however brief a time) that lofty pinnacle of gloryto which the fancy of its inhabitants is wont to point, it was at the solemnmoment at which the power of the nation abdicated, as it were, the empire ofthe land. All ages have furnished the spectacle of a people struggling withenergy to win its independence; and the efforts of the Americans in throwingoff the English yoke have been considerably exaggerated. Separated from theirenemies by three thousand miles of ocean, and backed by a powerful ally, thesuccess of the United States may be more justly attributed to theirgeographical position than to the valor of their armies or the patriotism oftheir citizens. It would be ridiculous to compare the American was to the warsof the French Revolution, or the efforts of the Americans to those of theFrench when they were attacked by the whole of Europe, without credit andwithout allies, yet capable of opposing a twentieth part of their population tothe world, and of bearing the torch of revolution beyond their frontiers whilstthey stifled its devouring flame within the bosom of their country. But it is anovelty in the history of society to see a great people turn a calm andscrutinizing eye upon itself, when apprised by the legislature that the wheelsof government are stopped; to see it carefully examine the extent of the evil,and patiently wait for two whole years until a remedy was discovered, which itvoluntarily adopted without having wrung a tear or a drop of blood frommankind. At the time when the inadequacy of the first constitution wasdiscovered America possessed the double advantage of that calm which hadsucceeded the effervescence of the revolution, and of those great men who hadled the revolution to a successful issue. The assembly which accepted the taskof composing the second constitution was small; *c but George Washington wasits President, and it contained the choicest talents and the noblest heartswhich had ever appeared in the New World. This national commission, after longand mature deliberation, offered to the acceptance of the people the body ofgeneral laws which still rules the Union. All the States adopted itsuccessively. *d The new Federal Government commenced its functions in 1789,after an interregnum of two years. The Revolution of America terminated whenthat of France began.

a
[ See the articles of the first confederation formed in 1778. This constitutionwas not adopted by all the States until 1781. See also the analysis given ofthis constitution in “The Federalist” from No. 15 to No. 22,inclusive, and Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of theUnited States,” pp. 85-115.]

b
[ Congress made this declaration on February 21, 1787.]

c
[ It consisted of fifty-five members; Washington, Madison, Hamilton, and thetwo Morrises were amongst the number.]

d
[ It was not adopted by the legislative bodies, but representatives wereelected by the people for this sole purpose; and the new constitution wasdiscussed at length in each of these assemblies.]

Summary Of The FederalConstitution

Division of authority between the Federal Government and the States—TheGovernment of the States is the rule, the Federal Government the exception.

The first question which awaited the Americans was intricate, and by no meanseasy of solution: the object was so to divide the authority of the differentStates which composed the Union that each of them should continue to governitself in all that concerned its internal prosperity, whilst the entire nation,represented by the Union, should continue to form a compact body, and toprovide for the general exigencies of the people. It was as impossible todetermine beforehand, with any degree of accuracy, the share of authority whicheach of two governments was to enjoy, as to foresee all the incidents in theexistence of a nation.

The obligations and the claims of the Federal Government were simple and easilydefinable, because the Union had been formed with the express purpose ofmeeting the general exigencies of the people; but the claims and obligations ofthe States were, on the other hand, complicated and various, because thoseGovernments had penetrated into all the details of social life. The attributesof the Federal Government were therefore carefully enumerated and all that wasnot included amongst them was declared to constitute a part of the privilegesof the several Governments of the States. Thus the government of the Statesremained the rule, and that of the Confederation became the exception. *e

e
[ See the Amendment to the Federal Constitution; “Federalist,” No.32; Story, p. 711; Kent’s “Commentaries,” vol. i. p. 364.

It is to be observed that whenever the exclusive right of regulating certainmatters is not reserved to Congress by the Constitution, the States may take upthe affair until it is brought before the National Assembly. For instance,Congress has the right of making a general law on bankruptcy, which, however,it neglects to do. Each State is then at liberty to make a law for itself. Thispoint has been established by discussion in the law-courts, and may be said tobelong more properly to jurisprudence.]

But as it was foreseen that, in practice, questions might arise as to the exactlimits of this exceptional authority, and that it would be dangerous to submitthese questions to the decision of the ordinary courts of justice, establishedin the States by the States themselves, a high Federal court was created, *fwhich was destined, amongst other functions, to maintain the balance of powerwhich had been established by the Constitution between the two rivalGovernments. *g

f
[ The action of this court is indirect, as we shall hereafter show.]

g
[ It is thus that “The Federalist,” No. 45, explains the divisionof supremacy between the Union and the States: “The powers delegated bythe Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which areto remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former willbe exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, andforeign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to allthe objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the internalorder and prosperity of the State.” I shall often have occasion to quote“The Federalist” in this work. When the bill which has since becomethe Constitution of the United States was submitted to the approval of thepeople, and the discussions were still pending, three men, who had alreadyacquired a portion of that celebrity which they have since enjoyed—JohnJay, Hamilton, and Madison—formed an association with the intention ofexplaining to the nation the advantages of the measure which was proposed. Withthis view they published a series of articles in the shape of a journal, whichnow form a complete treatise. They entitled their journal “TheFederalist,” a name which has been retained in the work. “TheFederalist” is an excellent book, which ought to be familiar to thestatesmen of all countries, although it especially concerns America.]

Prerogative Of The Federal Government

Power of declaring war, making peace, and levying general taxes vested in theFederal Government—What part of the internal policy of the country it maydirect—The Government of the Union in some respects more central than theKing’s Government in the old French monarchy.

The external relations of a people may be compared to those of privateindividuals, and they cannot be advantageously maintained without the agency ofa single head of a Government. The exclusive right of making peace and war, ofconcluding treaties of commerce, of raising armies, and equipping fleets, wasgranted to the Union. *h The necessity of a national Government was lessimperiously felt in the conduct of the internal policy of society; but thereare certain general interests which can only be attended to with advantage by ageneral authority. The Union was invested with the power of controlling themonetary system, of directing the post office, and of opening the great roadswhich were to establish a communication between the different parts of thecountry. *i The independence of the Government of each State was formallyrecognized in its sphere; nevertheless, the Federal Government was authorizedto interfere in the internal affairs of the States *j in a few predeterminedcases, in which an indiscreet abuse of their independence might compromise thesecurity of the Union at large. Thus, whilst the power of modifying andchanging their legislation at pleasure was preserved in all the republics, theywere forbidden to enact ex post facto laws, or to create a class of nobles intheir community. *k Lastly, as it was necessary that the Federal Governmentshould be able to fulfil its engagements, it was endowed with an unlimitedpower of levying taxes. *l

h
[ See Constitution, sect. 8; “Federalist,” Nos. 41 and 42;Kent’s “Commentaries,” vol. i. p. 207; Story, pp. 358-382;Ibid. pp. 409-426.]

i
[ Several other privileges of the same kind exist, such as that which empowersthe Union to legislate on bankruptcy, to grant patents, and other matters inwhich its intervention is clearly necessary.]

j
[ Even in these cases its interference is indirect. The Union interferes bymeans of the tribunals, as will be hereafter shown.]

k
[ Federal Constitution, sect. 10, art. I.]

l
[ Constitution, sects. 8, 9, and 10; “Federalist,” Nos. 30-36,inclusive, and 41-44; Kent’s “Commentaries,” vol. i. pp. 207and 381; Story, pp. 329 and 514.]

In examining the balance of power as established by the Federal Constitution;in remarking on the one hand the portion of sovereignty which has been reservedto the several States, and on the other the share of power which the Union hasassumed, it is evident that the Federal legislators entertained the clearestand most accurate notions on the nature of the centralization of government.The United States form not only a republic, but a confederation; neverthelessthe authority of the nation is more central than it was in several of themonarchies of Europe when the American Constitution was formed. Take, forinstance, the two following examples.

Thirteen supreme courts of justice existed in France, which, generallyspeaking, had the right of interpreting the law without appeal; and thoseprovinces which were styled pays d’etats were authorized to refuse theirassent to an impost which had been levied by the sovereign who represented thenation. In the Union there is but one tribunal to interpret, as there is onelegislature to make the laws; and an impost voted by the representatives of thenation is binding upon all the citizens. In these two essential points,therefore, the Union exercises more central authority than the French monarchypossessed, although the Union is only an assemblage of confederate republics.

In Spain certain provinces had the right of establishing a system ofcustom-house duties peculiar to themselves, although that privilege belongs, byits very nature, to the national sovereignty. In America the Congress alone hasthe right of regulating the commercial relations of the States. The governmentof the Confederation is therefore more centralized in this respect than thekingdom of Spain. It is true that the power of the Crown in France or in Spainwas always able to obtain by force whatever the Constitution of the countrydenied, and that the ultimate result was consequently the same; but I am herediscussing the theory of the Constitution.

Federal Powers

After having settled the limits within which the Federal Government was to act,the next point was to determine the powers which it was to exert.

Legislative Powers *m

m
[ [In this chapter the author points out the essence of the conflict betweenthe seceding States and the Union which caused the Civil War of 1861.]]

Division of the Legislative Body into two branches—Difference in themanner of forming the two Houses—The principle of the independence of theStates predominates in the formation of the Senate—The principle of thesovereignty of the nation in the composition of the House ofRepresentatives—Singular effects of the fact that a Constitution can onlybe logical in the early stages of a nation.

The plan which had been laid down beforehand for the Constitutions of theseveral States was followed, in many points, in the organization of the powersof the Union. The Federal legislature of the Union was composed of a Senate anda House of Representatives. A spirit of conciliation prescribed the observanceof distinct principles in the formation of these two assemblies. I have alreadyshown that two contrary interests were opposed to each other in theestablishment of the Federal Constitution. These two interests had given riseto two opinions. It was the wish of one party to convert the Union into aleague of independent States, or a sort of congress, at which therepresentatives of the several peoples would meet to discuss certain points oftheir common interests. The other party desired to unite the inhabitants of theAmerican colonies into one sole nation, and to establish a Government whichshould act as the sole representative of the nation, as far as the limitedsphere of its authority would permit. The practical consequences of these twotheories were exceedingly different.

The question was, whether a league was to be established instead of a nationalGovernment; whether the majority of the State, instead of the majority of theinhabitants of the Union, was to give the law: for every State, the small aswell as the great, would then remain in the full enjoyment of its independence,and enter the Union upon a footing of perfect equality. If, however, theinhabitants of the United States were to be considered as belonging to one andthe same nation, it would be just that the majority of the citizens of theUnion should prescribe the law. Of course the lesser States could not subscribeto the application of this doctrine without, in fact, abdicating theirexistence in relation to the sovereignty of the Confederation; since they wouldhave passed from the condition of a co-equal and co-legislative authority tothat of an insignificant fraction of a great people. But if the former systemwould have invested them with an excessive authority, the latter would haveannulled their influence altogether. Under these circ*mstances the result was,that the strict rules of logic were evaded, as is usually the case wheninterests are opposed to arguments. A middle course was hit upon by thelegislators, which brought together by force two systems theoreticallyirreconcilable.

The principle of the independence of the States prevailed in the formation ofthe Senate, and that of the sovereignty of the nation predominated in thecomposition of the House of Representatives. It was decided that each Stateshould send two senators to Congress, and a number of representativesproportioned to its population. *n It results from this arrangement that theState of New York has at the present day forty representatives and only twosenators; the State of Delaware has two senators and only one representative;the State of Delaware is therefore equal to the State of New York in theSenate, whilst the latter has forty times the influence of the former in theHouse of Representatives. Thus, if the minority of the nation preponderates inthe Senate,. it may paralyze the decisions of the majority represented in theother House, which is contrary to the spirit of constitutional government.

n
[ Every ten years Congress fixes anew the number of representatives which eachState is to furnish. The total number was 69 in 1789, and 240 in 1833. (See“American Almanac,” 1834, p. 194.) The Constitution decided thatthere should not be more than one representative for every 30,000 persons; butno minimum was fixed on. The Congress has not thought fit to augment the numberof representatives in proportion to the increase of population. The first Actwhich was passed on the subject (April 14, 1792: see “Laws of the UnitedStates,” by Story, vol. i. p. 235) decided that there should be onerepresentative for every 33,000 inhabitants. The last Act, which was passed in1832, fixes the proportion at one for 48,000. The population represented iscomposed of all the free men and of three-fifths of the slaves.

[The last Act of apportionment, passed February 2, 1872, fixes therepresentation at one to 134,684 inhabitants. There are now (1875) 283 membersof the lower House of Congress, and 9 for the States at large, making in all292 members. The old States have of course lost the representatives which thenew States have gained.—Translator’s Note.]]

These facts show how rare and how difficult it is rationally and logically tocombine all the several parts of legislation. In the course of time differentinterests arise, and different principles are sanctioned by the same people;and when a general constitution is to be established, these interests andprinciples are so many natural obstacles to the rigorous application of anypolitical system, with all its consequences. The early stages of nationalexistence are the only periods at which it is possible to maintain the completelogic of legislation; and when we perceive a nation in the enjoyment of thisadvantage, before we hasten to conclude that it is wise, we should do well toremember that it is young. When the Federal Constitution was formed, theinterests of independence for the separate States, and the interest of unionfor the whole people, were the only two conflicting interests which existedamongst the Anglo-Americans, and a compromise was necessarily made betweenthem.

It is, however, just to acknowledge that this part of the Constitution has nothitherto produced those evils which might have been feared. All the States areyoung and contiguous; their customs, their ideas, and their exigencies are notdissimilar; and the differences which result from their size or inferiority donot suffice to set their interests at variance. The small States haveconsequently never been induced to league themselves together in the Senate tooppose the designs of the larger ones; and indeed there is so irresistible anauthority in the legitimate expression of the will of a people that the Senatecould offer but a feeble opposition to the vote of the majority of the House ofRepresentatives.

It must not be forgotten, on the other hand, that it was not in the power ofthe American legislators to reduce to a single nation the people for whom theywere making laws. The object of the Federal Constitution was not to destroy theindependence of the States, but to restrain it. By acknowledging the realauthority of these secondary communities (and it was impossible to deprive themof it), they disavowed beforehand the habitual use of constraint in enforcing gthe decisions of the majority. Upon this principle the introduction of theinfluence of the States into the mechanism of the Federal Government was by nomeans to be wondered at, since it only attested the existence of anacknowledged power, which was to be humored and not forcibly checked.

A Further Difference Between The Senate And The House Of Representatives

The Senate named by the provincial legislators, the Representatives by thepeople—Double election of the former; single election of thelatter—Term of the different offices—Peculiar functions of eachHouse.

The Senate not only differs from the other House in the principle which itrepresents, but also in the mode of its election, in the term for which it ischosen, and in the nature of its functions. The House of Representatives isnamed by the people, the Senate by the legislators of each State; the former isdirectly elected, the latter is elected by an elected body; the term for whichthe representatives are chosen is only two years, that of the senators is six.The functions of the House of Representatives are purely legislative, and theonly share it takes in the judicial power is in the impeachment of publicofficers. The Senate co-operates in the work of legislation, and tries thosepolitical offences which the House of Representatives submits to its decision.It also acts as the great executive council of the nation; the treaties whichare concluded by the President must be ratified by the Senate, and theappointments he may make must be definitely approved by the same body. *o

o
[ See “The Federalist,” Nos. 52-56, inclusive; Story, pp. 199-314;Constitution of the United States, sects. 2 and 3.] The Executive Power *p

p
[ See “The Federalist,” Nos. 67-77; Constitution of the UnitedStates, art. 2; Story, p. 315, pp. 615-780; Kent’s“Commentaries,” p. 255.]

Dependence of the President—He is elective and responsible—He isfree to act in his own sphere under the inspection, but not under thedirection, of the Senate—His salary fixed at his entry intooffice—Suspensive veto.

The American legislators undertook a difficult task in attempting to create anexecutive power dependent on the majority of the people, and neverthelesssufficiently strong to act without restraint in its own sphere. It wasindispensable to the maintenance of the republican form of government that therepresentative of the executive power should be subject to the will of thenation.

The President is an elective magistrate. His honor, his property, his liberty,and his life are the securities which the people has for the temperate use ofhis power. But in the exercise of his authority he cannot be said to beperfectly independent; the Senate takes cognizance of his relations withforeign powers, and of the distribution of public appointments, so that he canneither be bribed nor can he employ the means of corruption. The legislators ofthe Union acknowledged that the executive power would be incompetent to fulfilits task with dignity and utility, unless it enjoyed a greater degree ofstability and of strength than had been granted to it in the separate States.

The President is chosen for four years, and he may be reelected; so that thechances of a prolonged administration may inspire him with hopeful undertakingsfor the public good, and with the means of carrying them into execution. ThePresident was made the sole representative of the executive power of the Union,and care was taken not to render his decisions subordinate to the vote of acouncil—a dangerous measure, which tends at the same time to clog theaction of the Government and to diminish its responsibility. The Senate has theright of annulling g certain acts of the President; but it cannot compel him totake any steps, nor does it participate in the exercise of the executive power.

The action of the legislature on the executive power may be direct; and we havejust shown that the Americans carefully obviated this influence; but it may, onthe other hand, be indirect. Public assemblies which have the power ofdepriving an officer of state of his salary encroach upon his independence; andas they are free to make the laws, it is to be feared lest they shouldgradually appropriate to themselves a portion of that authority which theConstitution had vested in his hands. This dependence of the executive power isone of the defects inherent in republican constitutions. The Americans have notbeen able to counteract the tendency which legislative assemblies have to getpossession of the government, but they have rendered this propensity lessirresistible. The salary of the President is fixed, at the time of his enteringupon office, for the whole period of his magistracy. The President is,moreover, provided with a suspensive veto, which allows him to oppose thepassing of such laws as might destroy the portion of independence which theConstitution awards him. The struggle between the President and the legislaturemust always be an unequal one, since the latter is certain of bearing down allresistance by persevering in its plans; but the suspensive veto forces it atleast to reconsider the matter, and, if the motion be persisted in, it mustthen be backed by a majority of two-thirds of the whole house. The veto is, infact, a sort of appeal to the people. The executive power, which, without thissecurity, might have been secretly oppressed, adopts this means of pleading itscause and stating its motives. But if the legislature is certain ofoverpowering all resistance by persevering in its plans, I reply, that in theconstitutions of all nations, of whatever kind they may be, a certain pointexists at which the legislator is obliged to have recourse to the good senseand the virtue of his fellow-citizens. This point is more prominent and morediscoverable in republics, whilst it is more remote and more carefullyconcealed in monarchies, but it always exists somewhere. There is no country inthe world in which everything can be provided for by the laws, or in whichpolitical institutions can prove a substitute for common sense and publicmorality.

Differences Between The Position Of The President Of The United States And ThatOf A Constitutional King Of France

Executive power in the Northern States as limited and as partial as thesupremacy which it represents—Executive power in France as universal asthe supremacy it represents—The King a branch of thelegislature—The President the mere executor of the law—Otherdifferences resulting from the duration of the two powers—The Presidentchecked in the exercise of the executive authority—The King independentin its exercise—Notwithstanding these discrepancies France is more akinto a republic than the Union to a monarchy—Comparison of the number ofpublic officers depending upon the executive power in the two countries.

The executive power has so important an influence on the destinies of nationsthat I am inclined to pause for an instant at this portion of my subject, inorder more clearly to explain the part it sustains in America. In order to forman accurate idea of the position of the President of the United States, it maynot be irrelevant to compare it to that of one of the constitutional kings ofEurope. In this comparison I shall pay but little attention to the externalsigns of power, which are more apt to deceive the eye of the observer than toguide his researches. When a monarchy is being gradually transformed into arepublic, the executive power retains the titles, the honors, the etiquette,and even the funds of royalty long after its authority has disappeared. TheEnglish, after having cut off the head of one king and expelled another fromhis throne, were accustomed to accost the successor of those princes upon theirknees. On the other hand, when a republic falls under the sway of a singleindividual, the demeanor of the sovereign is simple and unpretending, as if hisauthority was not yet paramount. When the emperors exercised an unlimitedcontrol over the fortunes and the lives of their fellow-citizens, it wascustomary to call them Caesar in conversation, and they were in the habit ofsupping without formality at their friends’ houses. It is thereforenecessary to look below the surface.

The sovereignty of the United States is shared between the Union and theStates, whilst in France it is undivided and compact: hence arises the firstand the most notable difference which exists between the President of theUnited States and the King of France. In the United States the executive poweris as limited and partial as the sovereignty of the Union in whose name itacts; in France it is as universal as the authority of the State. The Americanshave a federal and the French a national Government.

Chapter VIII: The FederalConstitution—Part II

This cause of inferiority results from the nature of things, but it is not theonly one; the second in importance is as follows: Sovereignty may be defined tobe the right of making laws: in France, the King really exercises a portion ofthe sovereign power, since the laws have no weight till he has given his assentto them; he is, moreover, the executor of all they ordain. The President isalso the executor of the laws, but he does not really co-operate in theirformation, since the refusal of his assent does not annul them. He is thereforemerely to be considered as the agent of the sovereign power. But not only doesthe King of France exercise a portion of the sovereign power, he alsocontributes to the nomination of the legislature, which exercises the otherportion. He has the privilege of appointing the members of one chamber, and ofdissolving the other at his pleasure; whereas the President of the UnitedStates has no share in the formation of the legislative body, and cannotdissolve any part of it. The King has the same right of bringing forwardmeasures as the Chambers; a right which the President does not possess. TheKing is represented in each assembly by his ministers, who explain hisintentions, support his opinions, and maintain the principles of theGovernment. The President and his ministers are alike excluded from Congress;so that his influence and his opinions can only penetrate indirectly into thatgreat body. The King of France is therefore on an equal footing with thelegislature, which can no more act without him than he can without it. ThePresident exercises an authority inferior to, and depending upon, that of thelegislature.

Even in the exercise of the executive power, properly so called—the pointupon which his position seems to be most analogous to that of the King ofFrance—the President labors under several causes of inferiority. Theauthority of the King, in France, has, in the first place, the advantage ofduration over that of the President, and durability is one of the chiefelements of strength; nothing is either loved or feared but what is likely toendure. The President of the United States is a magistrate elected for fouryears; the King, in France, is an hereditary sovereign. In the exercise of theexecutive power the President of the United States is constantly subject to ajealous scrutiny. He may make, but he cannot conclude, a treaty; he maydesignate, but he cannot appoint, a public officer. *q The King of France isabsolute within the limits of his authority. The President of the United Statesis responsible for his actions; but the person of the King is declaredinviolable by the French Charter. *r

q
[ The Constitution had left it doubtful whether the President was obliged toconsult the Senate in the removal as well as in the appointment of Federalofficers. “The Federalist” (No. 77) seemed to establish theaffirmative; but in 1789 Congress formally decided that, as the President wasresponsible for his actions, he ought not to be forced to employ agents who hadforfeited his esteem. See Kent’s “Commentaries”, vol. i. p.289.]

r
[ [This comparison applied to the Constitutional King of France and to thepowers he held under the Charter of 1830, till the overthrow of the monarchy in1848.—Translator’s Note.]]

Nevertheless, the supremacy of public opinion is no less above the head of theone than of the other. This power is less definite, less evident, and lesssanctioned by the laws in France than in America, but in fact it exists. InAmerica, it acts by elections and decrees; in France it proceeds byrevolutions; but notwithstanding the different constitutions of these twocountries, public opinion is the predominant authority in both of them. Thefundamental principle of legislation—a principle essentiallyrepublican—is the same in both countries, although its consequences maybe different, and its results more or less extensive. Whence I am led toconclude that France with its King is nearer akin to a republic than the Unionwith its President is to a monarchy.

In what I have been saying I have only touched upon the main points ofdistinction; and if I could have entered into details, the contrast would havebeen rendered still more striking. I have remarked that the authority of thePresident in the United States is only exercised within the limits of a partialsovereignty, whilst that of the King in France is undivided. I might have goneon to show that the power of the King’s government in France exceeds itsnatural limits, however extensive they may be, and penetrates in a thousanddifferent ways into the administration of private interests. Amongst theexamples of this influence may be quoted that which results from the greatnumber of public functionaries, who all derive their appointments from theGovernment. This number now exceeds all previous limits; it amounts to 138,000*s nominations, each of which may be considered as an element of power. ThePresident of the United States has not the exclusive right of making any publicappointments, and their whole number scarcely exceeds 12,000. *t

s
[ The sums annually paid by the State to these officers amount to 200,000,000fr. ($40,000,000).]

t
[ This number is extracted from the “National Calendar” for 1833.The “National Calendar” is an American almanac which contains thenames of all the Federal officers. It results from this comparison that theKing of France has eleven times as many places at his disposal as thePresident, although the population of France is not much more than double thatof the Union.

[I have not the means of ascertaining the number of appointments now at thedisposal of the President of the United States, but his patronage and the abuseof it have largely increased since 1833.—Translator’s Note, 1875.]]

Accidental Causes Which May Increase The Influence Of The Executive Government

External security of the Union—Army of six thousand men—Fewships—The President has no opportunity of exercising his greatprerogatives—In the prerogatives he exercises he is weak.

If the executive government is feebler in America than in France, the cause ismore attributable to the circ*mstances than to the laws of the country.

It is chiefly in its foreign relations that the executive power of a nation iscalled upon to exert its skill and its vigor. If the existence of the Unionwere perpetually threatened, and if its chief interests were in dailyconnection with those of other powerful nations, the executive government wouldassume an increased importance in proportion to the measures expected of it,and those which it would carry into effect. The President of the United Statesis the commander-in-chief of the army, but of an army composed of only sixthousand men; he commands the fleet, but the fleet reckons but few sail; heconducts the foreign relations of the Union, but the United States are a nationwithout neighbors. Separated from the rest of the world by the ocean, and tooweak as yet to aim at the dominion of the seas, they have no enemies, and theirinterests rarely come into contact with those of any other nation of the globe.

The practical part of a Government must not be judged by the theory of itsconstitution. The President of the United States is in the possession of almostroyal prerogatives, which he has no opportunity of exercising; and thoseprivileges which he can at present use are very circ*mscribed. The laws allowhim to possess a degree of influence which circ*mstances do not permit him toemploy.

On the other hand, the great strength of the royal prerogative in France arisesfrom circ*mstances far more than from the laws. There the executive governmentis constantly struggling against prodigious obstacles, and exerting all itsenergies to repress them; so that it increases by the extent of itsachievements, and by the importance of the events it controls, withoutmodifying its constitution. If the laws had made it as feeble and ascirc*mscribed as it is in the Union, its influence would very soon become stillmore preponderant.

Why The President Of The United States Does Not Require The Majority Of The TwoHouses In Order To Carry On The Government It is an established axiom in Europethat a constitutional King cannot persevere in a system of government which isopposed by the two other branches of the legislature. But several Presidents ofthe United States have been known to lose the majority in the legislative bodywithout being obliged to abandon the supreme power, and without inflicting aserious evil upon society. I have heard this fact quoted as an instance of theindependence and the power of the executive government in America: amoment’s reflection will convince us, on the contrary, that it is a proofof its extreme weakness.

A King in Europe requires the support of the legislature to enable him toperform the duties imposed upon him by the Constitution, because those dutiesare enormous. A constitutional King in Europe is not merely the executor of thelaw, but the execution of its provisions devolves so completely upon him thathe has the power of paralyzing its influence if it opposes his designs. Herequires the assistance of the legislative assemblies to make the law, butthose assemblies stand in need of his aid to execute it: these two authoritiescannot subsist without each other, and the mechanism of government is stoppedas soon as they are at variance.

In America the President cannot prevent any law from being passed, nor can heevade the obligation of enforcing it. His sincere and zealous co-operation isno doubt useful, but it is not indispensable, in the carrying on of publicaffairs. All his important acts are directly or indirectly submitted to thelegislature, and of his own free authority he can do but little. It istherefore his weakness, and not his power, which enables him to remain inopposition to Congress. In Europe, harmony must reign between the Crown and theother branches of the legislature, because a collision between them may proveserious; in America, this harmony is not indispensable, because such acollision is impossible.

Election Of The President

Dangers of the elective system increase in proportion to the extent of theprerogative—This system possible in America because no powerful executiveauthority is required—What circ*mstances are favorable to the electivesystem—Why the election of the President does not cause a deviation fromthe principles of the Government—Influence of the election of thePresident on secondary functionaries.

The dangers of the system of election applied to the head of the executivegovernment of a great people have been sufficiently exemplified by experienceand by history, and the remarks I am about to make refer to America alone.These dangers may be more or less formidable in proportion to the place whichthe executive power occupies, and to the importance it possesses in the State;and they may vary according to the mode of election and the circ*mstances inwhich the electors are placed. The most weighty argument against the electionof a chief magistrate is, that it offers so splendid a lure to privateambition, and is so apt to inflame men in the pursuit of power, that whenlegitimate means are wanting force may not unfrequently seize what rightdenied.

It is clear that the greater the privileges of the executive authority are, thegreater is the temptation; the more the ambition of the candidates is excited,the more warmly are their interests espoused by a throng of partisans who hopeto share the power when their patron has won the prize. The dangers of theelective system increase, therefore, in the exact ratio of the influenceexercised by the executive power in the affairs of State. The revolutions ofPoland were not solely attributable to the elective system in general, but tothe fact that the elected monarch was the sovereign of a powerful kingdom.Before we can discuss the absolute advantages of the elective system we mustmake preliminary inquiries as to whether the geographical position, the laws,the habits, the manners, and the opinions of the people amongst whom it is tobe introduced will admit of the establishment of a weak and dependent executivegovernment; for to attempt to render the representative of the State a powerfulsovereign, and at the same time elective, is, in my opinion, to entertain twoincompatible designs. To reduce hereditary royalty to the condition of anelective authority, the only means that I am acquainted with are tocirc*mscribe its sphere of action beforehand, gradually to diminish itsprerogatives, and to accustom the people to live without its protection.Nothing, however, is further from the designs of the republicans of Europe thanthis course: as many of them owe their hatred of tyranny to the sufferingswhich they have personally undergone, it is oppression, and not the extent ofthe executive power, which excites their hostility, and they attack the formerwithout perceiving how nearly it is connected with the latter.

Hitherto no citizen has shown any disposition to expose his honor and his lifein order to become the President of the United States; because the power ofthat office is temporary, limited, and subordinate. The prize of fortune mustbe great to encourage adventurers in so desperate a game. No candidate has asyet been able to arouse the dangerous enthusiasm or the passionate sympathiesof the people in his favor, for the very simple reason that when he is at thehead of the Government he has but little power, but little wealth, and butlittle glory to share amongst his friends; and his influence in the State istoo small for the success or the ruin of a faction to depend upon the elevationof an individual to power.

The great advantage of hereditary monarchies is, that as the private interestof a family is always intimately connected with the interests of the State, theexecutive government is never suspended for a single instant; and if theaffairs of a monarchy are not better conducted than those of a republic, atleast there is always some one to conduct them, well or ill, according to hiscapacity. In elective States, on the contrary, the wheels of government ceaseto act, as it were, of their own accord at the approach of an election, andeven for some time previous to that event. The laws may indeed accelerate theoperation of the election, which may be conducted with such simplicity andrapidity that the seat of power will never be left vacant; but, notwithstandingthese precautions, a break necessarily occurs in the minds of the people.

At the approach of an election the head of the executive government is whollyoccupied by the coming struggle; his future plans are doubtful; he canundertake nothing new, and the he will only prosecute with indifference thosedesigns which another will perhaps terminate. “I am so near the time ofmy retirement from office,” said President Jefferson on the 21st ofJanuary, 1809 (six weeks before the election), “that I feel no passion, Itake no part, I express no sentiment. It appears to me just to leave to mysuccessor the commencement of those measures which he will have to prosecute,and for which he will be responsible.”

On the other hand, the eyes of the nation are centred on a single point; allare watching the gradual birth of so important an event. The wider theinfluence of the executive power extends, the greater and the more necessary isits constant action, the more fatal is the term of suspense; and a nation whichis accustomed to the government, or, still more, one used to the administrativeprotection of a powerful executive authority would be infallibly convulsed byan election of this kind. In the United States the action of the Government maybe slackened with impunity, because it is always weak and circ*mscribed. *u

u
[ [This, however, may be a great danger. The period during which Mr. Buchananretained office, after the election of Mr. Lincoln, from November, 1860, toMarch, 1861, was that which enabled the seceding States of the South tocomplete their preparations for the Civil War, and the Executive Government wasparalyzed. No greater evil could befall a nation.—Translator’sNote.]]

One of the principal vices of the elective system is that it always introducesa certain degree of instability into the internal and external policy of theState. But this disadvantage is less sensibly felt if the share of power vestedin the elected magistrate is small. In Rome the principles of the Governmentunderwent no variation, although the Consuls were changed every year, becausethe Senate, which was an hereditary assembly, possessed the directingauthority. If the elective system were adopted in Europe, the condition of mostof the monarchical States would be changed at every new election. In Americathe President exercises a certain influence on State affairs, but he does notconduct them; the preponderating power is vested in the representatives of thewhole nation. The political maxims of the country depend therefore on the massof the people, not on the President alone; and consequently in America theelective system has no very prejudicial influence on the fixed principles ofthe Government. But the want of fixed principles is an evil so inherent in theelective system that it is still extremely perceptible in the narrow sphere towhich the authority of the President extends.

The Americans have admitted that the head of the executive power, who has tobear the whole responsibility of the duties he is called upon to fulfil, oughtto be empowered to choose his own agents, and to remove them at pleasure: thelegislative bodies watch the conduct of the President more than they direct it.The consequence of this arrangement is, that at every new election the fate ofall the Federal public officers is in suspense. Mr. Quincy Adams, on his entryinto office, discharged the majority of the individuals who had been appointedby his predecessor: and I am not aware that General Jackson allowed a singleremovable functionary employed in the Federal service to retain his placebeyond the first year which succeeded his election. It is sometimes made asubject of complaint that in the constitutional monarchies of Europe the fateof the humbler servants of an Administration depends upon that of theMinisters. But in elective Governments this evil is far greater. In aconstitutional monarchy successive ministries are rapidly formed; but as theprincipal representative of the executive power does not change, the spirit ofinnovation is kept within bounds; the changes which take place are in thedetails rather than in the principles of the administrative system; but tosubstitute one system for another, as is done in America every four years, bylaw, is to cause a sort of revolution. As to the misfortunes which may fallupon individuals in consequence of this state of things, it must be allowedthat the uncertain situation of the public officers is less fraught with evilconsequences in America than elsewhere. It is so easy to acquire an independentposition in the United States that the public officer who loses his place maybe deprived of the comforts of life, but not of the means of subsistence.

I remarked at the beginning of this chapter that the dangers of the electivesystem applied to the head of the State are augmented or decreased by thepeculiar circ*mstances of the people which adopts it. However the functions ofthe executive power may be restricted, it must always exercise a greatinfluence upon the foreign policy of the country, for a negotiation cannot beopened or successfully carried on otherwise than by a single agent. The moreprecarious and the more perilous the position of a people becomes, the moreabsolute is the want of a fixed and consistent external policy, and the moredangerous does the elective system of the Chief Magistrate become. The policyof the Americans in relation to the whole world is exceedingly simple; for itmay almost be said that no country stands in need of them, nor do they requirethe co-operation of any other people. Their independence is never threatened.In their present condition, therefore, the functions of the executive power areno less limited by circ*mstances than by the laws; and the President mayfrequently change his line of policy without involving the State in difficultyor destruction.

Whatever the prerogatives of the executive power may be, the period whichimmediately precedes an election and the moment of its duration must always beconsidered as a national crisis, which is perilous in proportion to theinternal embarrassments and the external dangers of the country. Few of thenations of Europe could escape the calamities of anarchy or of conquest everytime they might have to elect a new sovereign. In America society is soconstituted that it can stand without assistance upon its own basis; nothing isto be feared from the pressure of external dangers, and the election of thePresident is a cause of agitation, but not of ruin.

Mode Of Election

Skill of the American legislators shown in the mode of election adopted bythem—Creation of a special electoral body—Separate votes of theseelectors—Case in which the House of Representatives is called upon tochoose the President—Results of the twelve elections which have takenplace since the Constitution has been established.

Besides the dangers which are inherent in the system, many other difficultiesmay arise from the mode of election, which may be obviated by the precaution ofthe legislator. When a people met in arms on some public spot to choose itshead, it was exposed to all the chances of civil war resulting from so martiala mode of proceeding, besides the dangers of the elective system in itself. ThePolish laws, which subjected the election of the sovereign to the veto of asingle individual, suggested the murder of that individual or prepared the wayto anarchy.

In the examination of the institutions and the political as well as socialcondition of the United States, we are struck by the admirable harmony of thegifts of fortune and the efforts of man. The nation possessed two of the maincauses of internal peace; it was a new country, but it was inhabited by apeople grown old in the exercise of freedom. America had no hostile neighborsto dread; and the American legislators, profiting by these favorablecirc*mstances, created a weak and subordinate executive power which couldwithout danger be made elective.

It then only remained for them to choose the least dangerous of the variousmodes of election; and the rules which they laid down upon this point admirablycorrespond to the securities which the physical and political constitution ofthe country already afforded. Their object was to find the mode of electionwhich would best express the choice of the people with the least possibleexcitement and suspense. It was admitted in the first place that the simplemajority should be decisive; but the difficulty was to obtain this majoritywithout an interval of delay which it was most important to avoid. It rarelyhappens that an individual can at once collect the majority of the suffrages ofa great people; and this difficulty is enhanced in a republic of confederateStates, where local influences are apt to preponderate. The means by which itwas proposed to obviate this second obstacle was to delegate the electoralpowers of the nation to a body of representatives. This mode of electionrendered a majority more probable; for the fewer the electors are, the greateris the chance of their coming to a final decision. It also offered anadditional probability of a judicious choice. It then remained to be decidedwhether this right of election was to be entrusted to a legislative body, thehabitual representative assembly of the nation, or whether an electoralassembly should be formed for the express purpose of proceeding to thenomination of a President. The Americans chose the latter alternative, from abelief that the individuals who were returned to make the laws were incompetentto represent the wishes of the nation in the election of its chief magistrate;and that, as they are chosen for more than a year, the constituency theyrepresent might have changed its opinion in that time. It was thought that ifthe legislature was empowered to elect the head of the executive power, itsmembers would, for some time before the election, be exposed to the manoeuvresof corruption and the tricks of intrigue; whereas the special electors would,like a jury, remain mixed up with the crowd till the day of action, when theywould appear for the sole purpose of giving their votes.

It was therefore established that every State should name a certain number ofelectors, *v who in their turn should elect the President; and as it had beenobserved that the assemblies to which the choice of a chief magistrate had beenentrusted in elective countries inevitably became the centres of passion and ofcabal; that they sometimes usurped an authority which did not belong to them;and that their proceedings, or the uncertainty which resulted from them, weresometimes prolonged so much as to endanger the welfare of the State, it wasdetermined that the electors should all vote upon the same day, without beingconvoked to the same place. *w This double election rendered a majorityprobable, though not certain; for it was possible that as many differencesmight exist between the electors as between their constituents. In this case itwas necessary to have recourse to one of three measures; either to appoint newelectors, or to consult a second time those already appointed, or to defer theelection to another authority. The first two of these alternatives,independently of the uncertainty of their results, were likely to delay thefinal decision, and to perpetuate an agitation which must always be accompaniedwith danger. The third expedient was therefore adopted, and it was agreed thatthe votes should be transmitted sealed to the President of the Senate, and thatthey should be opened and counted in the presence of the Senate and the Houseof Representatives. If none of the candidates has a majority, the House ofRepresentatives then proceeds immediately to elect a President, but with thecondition that it must fix upon one of the three candidates who have thehighest numbers. *x

v
[ As many as it sends members to Congress. The number of electors at theelection of 1833 was 288. (See “The National Calendar,” 1833.)]

w
[ The electors of the same State assemble, but they transmit to the centralgovernment the list of their individual votes, and not the mere result of thevote of the majority.] [Footnote x: In this case it is the majority of theStates, and not the majority of the members, which decides the question; sothat New York has not more influence in the debate than Rhode Island. Thus thecitizens of the Union are first consulted as members of one and the samecommunity; and, if they cannot agree, recourse is had to the division of theStates, each of which has a separate and independent vote. This is one of thesingularities of the Federal Constitution which can only be explained by thejar of conflicting interests.]

Thus it is only in case of an event which cannot often happen, and which cannever be foreseen, that the election is entrusted to the ordinaryrepresentatives of the nation; and even then they are obliged to choose acitizen who has already been designated by a powerful minority of the specialelectors. It is by this happy expedient that the respect which is due to thepopular voice is combined with the utmost celerity of execution and thoseprecautions which the peace of the country demands. But the decision of thequestion by the House of Representatives does not necessarily offer animmediate solution of the difficulty, for the majority of that assembly maystill be doubtful, and in this case the Constitution prescribes no remedy.Nevertheless, by restricting the number of candidates to three, and byreferring the matter to the judgment of an enlightened public body, it hassmoothed all the obstacles *y which are not inherent in the elective system.

y
[ Jefferson, in 1801, was not elected until the thirty-sixth time ofballoting.]

In the forty-four years which have elapsed since the promulgation of theFederal Constitution the United States have twelve times chosen a President.Ten of these elections took place simultaneously by the votes of the specialelectors in the different States. The House of Representatives has only twiceexercised its conditional privilege of deciding in cases of uncertainty; thefirst time was at the election of Mr. Jefferson in 1801; the second was in1825, when Mr. Quincy Adams was named. *z

z
[ [General Grant is now (1874) the eighteenth President of the United States.]]

Crises Of The Election

The Election may be considered as a national crisis—Why?—Passionsof the people—Anxiety of the President—Calm which succeeds theagitation of the election.

I have shown what the circ*mstances are which favored the adoption of theelective system in the United States, and what precautions were taken by thelegislators to obviate its dangers. The Americans are habitually accustomed toall kinds of elections, and they know by experience the utmost degree ofexcitement which is compatible with security. The vast extent of the countryand the dissemination of the inhabitants render a collision between partiesless probable and less dangerous there than elsewhere. The politicalcirc*mstances under which the elections have hitherto been carried on havepresented no real embarrassments to the nation.

Nevertheless, the epoch of the election of a President of the United States maybe considered as a crisis in the affairs of the nation. The influence which heexercises on public business is no doubt feeble and indirect; but the choice ofthe President, which is of small importance to each individual citizen,concerns the citizens collectively; and however trifling an interest may be, itassumes a great degree of importance as soon as it becomes general. ThePresident possesses but few means of rewarding his supporters in comparison tothe kings of Europe, but the places which are at his disposal are sufficientlynumerous to interest, directly or indirectly, several thousand electors in hissuccess. Political parties in the United States are led to rally round anindividual, in order to acquire a more tangible shape in the eyes of the crowd,and the name of the candidate for the Presidency is put forward as the symboland personification of their theories. For these reasons parties are stronglyinterested in gaining the election, not so much with a view to the triumph oftheir principles under the auspices of the President-elect as to show by themajority which returned him, the strength of the supporters of thoseprinciples.

For a long while before the appointed time is at hand the election becomes themost important and the all-engrossing topic of discussion. The ardor of factionis redoubled; and all the artificial passions which the imagination can createin the bosom of a happy and peaceful land are agitated and brought to light.The President, on the other hand, is absorbed by the cares of self-defence. Heno longer governs for the interest of the State, but for that of hisre-election; he does homage to the majority, and instead of checking itspassions, as his duty commands him to do, he frequently courts its worstcaprices. As the election draws near, the activity of intrigue and theagitation of the populace increase; the citizens are divided into hostilecamps, each of which assumes the name of its favorite candidate; the wholenation glows with feverish excitement; the election is the daily theme of thepublic papers, the subject of private conversation, the end of every thoughtand every action, the sole interest of the present. As soon as the choice isdetermined, this ardor is dispelled; and as a calmer season returns, thecurrent of the State, which had nearly broken its banks, sinks to its usuallevel: *a but who can refrain from astonishment at the causes of the storm.

a
[ [Not always. The election of President Lincoln was the signal of civilwar.—Translator’s Note.]]

Chapter VIII: The FederalConstitution—Part III

Re-election Of The President

When the head of the executive power is re-eligible, it is the State which isthe source of intrigue and corruption—The desire of being re-elected thechief aim of a President of the United States—Disadvantage of the systempeculiar to America—The natural evil of democracy is that it subordinatesall authority to the slightest desires of the majority—The re-election ofthe President encourages this evil.

It may be asked whether the legislators of the United States did right or wrongin allowing the re-election of the President. It seems at first sight contraryto all reason to prevent the head of the executive power from being elected asecond time. The influence which the talents and the character of a singleindividual may exercise upon the fate of a whole people, in criticalcirc*mstances or arduous times, is well known: a law preventing the re-electionof the chief magistrate would deprive the citizens of the surest pledge of theprosperity and the security of the commonwealth; and, by a singularinconsistency, a man would be excluded from the government at the very timewhen he had shown his ability in conducting its affairs.

But if these arguments are strong, perhaps still more powerful reasons may beadvanced against them. Intrigue and corruption are the natural defects ofelective government; but when the head of the State can be re-elected theseevils rise to a great height, and compromise the very existence of the country.When a simple candidate seeks to rise by intrigue, his manoeuvres mustnecessarily be limited to a narrow sphere; but when the chief magistrate entersthe lists, he borrows the strength of the government for his own purposes. Inthe former case the feeble resources of an individual are in action; in thelatter, the State itself, with all its immense influence, is busied in the workof corruption and cabal. The private citizen, who employs the most immoralpractices to acquire power, can only act in a manner indirectly prejudicial tothe public prosperity. But if the representative of the executive descends intothe combat, the cares of government dwindle into second-rate importance, andthe success of his election is his first concern. All laws and all thenegotiations he undertakes are to him nothing more than electioneering schemes;places become the reward of services rendered, not to the nation, but to itschief; and the influence of the government, if not injurious to the country, isat least no longer beneficial to the community for which it was created.

It is impossible to consider the ordinary course of affairs in the UnitedStates without perceiving that the desire of being re-elected is the chief aimof the President; that his whole administration, and even his most indifferentmeasures, tend to this object; and that, as the crisis approaches, his personalinterest takes the place of his interest in the public good. The principle ofre-eligibility renders the corrupt influence of elective government still moreextensive and pernicious.

In America it exercises a peculiarly fatal influence on the sources of nationalexistence. Every government seems to be afflicted by some evil which isinherent in its nature, and the genius of the legislator is shown in eludingits attacks. A State may survive the influence of a host of bad laws, and themischief they cause is frequently exaggerated; but a law which encourages thegrowth of the canker within must prove fatal in the end, although its badconsequences may not be immediately perceived.

The principle of destruction in absolute monarchies lies in the excessive andunreasonable extension of the prerogative of the crown; and a measure tendingto remove the constitutional provisions which counterbalance this influencewould be radically bad, even if its immediate consequences were unattended withevil. By a parity of reasoning, in countries governed by a democracy, where thepeople is perpetually drawing all authority to itself, the laws which increaseor accelerate its action are the direct assailants of the very principle of thegovernment.

The greatest proof of the ability of the American legislators is, that theyclearly discerned this truth, and that they had the courage to act up to it.They conceived that a certain authority above the body of the people wasnecessary, which should enjoy a degree of independence, without, however, beingentirely beyond the popular control; an authority which would be forced tocomply with the permanent determinations of the majority, but which would beable to resist its caprices, and to refuse its most dangerous demands. To thisend they centred the whole executive power of the nation in a single arm; theygranted extensive prerogatives to the President, and they armed him with theveto to resist the encroachments of the legislature.

But by introducing the principle of re-election they partly destroyed theirwork; and they rendered the President but little inclined to exert the greatpower they had vested in his hands. If ineligible a second time, the Presidentwould be far from independent of the people, for his responsibility would notbe lessened; but the favor of the people would not be so necessary to him as toinduce him to court it by humoring its desires. If re-eligible (and this ismore especially true at the present day, when political morality is relaxed,and when great men are rare), the President of the United States becomes aneasy tool in the hands of the majority. He adopts its likings and itsanimosities, he hastens to anticipate its wishes, he forestalls its complaints,he yields to its idlest cravings, and instead of guiding it, as the legislatureintended that he should do, he is ever ready to follow its bidding. Thus, inorder not to deprive the State of the talents of an individual, those talentshave been rendered almost useless; and to reserve an expedient forextraordinary perils, the country has been exposed to daily dangers.

Federal Courts *b

b
[ See chap. VI, entitled “Judicial Power in the United States.”This chapter explains the general principles of the American theory of judicialinstitutions. See also the Federal Constitution, Art. 3. See “TheFederalists,” Nos. 78-83, inclusive; and a work entitled“Constitutional Law,” being a view of the practice and jurisdictionof the courts of the United States, by Thomas Sergeant. See Story, pp. 134,162, 489, 511, 581, 668; and the organic law of September 24, 1789, in the“Collection of the Laws of the United States,” by Story, vol. i. p.53.]

Political importance of the judiciary in the United States—Difficulty oftreating this subject—Utility of judicial power inconfederations—What tribunals could be introduced into theUnion—Necessity of establishing federal courts ofjustice—Organization of the national judiciary—The SupremeCourt—In what it differs from all known tribunals.

I have inquired into the legislative and executive power of the Union, and thejudicial power now remains to be examined; but in this place I cannot concealmy fears from the reader. Their judicial institutions exercise a greatinfluence on the condition of the Anglo-Americans, and they occupy a prominentplace amongst what are probably called political institutions: in this respectthey are peculiarly deserving of our attention. But I am at a loss to explainthe political action of the American tribunals without entering into sometechnical details of their constitution and their forms of proceeding; and Iknow not how to descend to these minutiae without wearying the curiosity of thereader by the natural aridity of the subject, or without risking to fall intoobscurity through a desire to be succinct. I can scarcely hope to escape thesevarious evils; for if I appear too lengthy to a man of the world, a lawyer mayon the other hand complain of my brevity. But these are the naturaldisadvantages of my subject, and more especially of the point which I am aboutto discuss.

The great difficulty was, not to devise the Constitution to the FederalGovernment, but to find out a method of enforcing its laws. Governments have ingeneral but two means of overcoming the opposition of the people they govern,viz., the physical force which is at their own disposal, and the moral forcewhich they derive from the decisions of the courts of justice.

A government which should have no other means of exacting obedience than openwar must be very near its ruin, for one of two alternatives would then probablyoccur: if its authority was small and its character temperate, it would notresort to violence till the last extremity, and it would connive at a number ofpartial acts of insubordination, in which case the State would gradually fallinto anarchy; if it was enterprising and powerful, it would perpetually haverecourse to its physical strength, and would speedily degenerate into amilitary despotism. So that its activity would not be less prejudicial to thecommunity than its inaction.

The great end of justice is to substitute the notion of right for that ofviolence, and to place a legal barrier between the power of the government andthe use of physical force. The authority which is awarded to the interventionof a court of justice by the general opinion of mankind is so surprisinglygreat that it clings to the mere formalities of justice, and gives a bodilyinfluence to the shadow of the law. The moral force which courts of justicepossess renders the introduction of physical force exceedingly rare, and isvery frequently substituted for it; but if the latter proves to beindispensable, its power is doubled by the association of the idea of law.

A federal government stands in greater need of the support of judicialinstitutions than any other, because it is naturally weak and exposed toformidable opposition. *c If it were always obliged to resort to violence inthe first instance, it could not fulfil its task. The Union, therefore,required a national judiciary to enforce the obedience of the citizens to thelaws, and to repeal the attacks which might be directed against them. Thequestion then remained as to what tribunals were to exercise these privileges;were they to be entrusted to the courts of justice which were already organizedin every State? or was it necessary to create federal courts? It may easily beproved that the Union could not adapt the judicial power of the States to itswants. The separation of the judiciary from the administrative power of theState no doubt affects the security of every citizen and the liberty of all.But it is no less important to the existence of the nation that these severalpowers should have the same origin, should follow the same principles, and actin the same sphere; in a word, that they should be correlative and hom*ogeneous.No one, I presume, ever suggested the advantage of trying offences committed inFrance by a foreign court of justice, in order to secure the impartiality ofthe judges. The Americans form one people in relation to their FederalGovernment; but in the bosom of this people divers political bodies have beenallowed to subsist which are dependent on the national Government in a fewpoints, and independent in all the rest; which have all a distinct origin,maxims peculiar to themselves, and special means of carrying on their affairs.To entrust the execution of the laws of the Union to tribunals instituted bythese political bodies would be to allow foreign judges to preside over thenation. Nay, more; not only is each State foreign to the Union at large, but itis in perpetual opposition to the common interests, since whatever authoritythe Union loses turns to the advantage of the States. Thus to enforce the lawsof the Union by means of the tribunals of the States would be to allow not onlyforeign but partial judges to preside over the nation.

c
[ Federal laws are those which most require courts of justice, and those at thesame time which have most rarely established them. The reason is thatconfederations have usually been formed by independent States, whichentertained no real intention of obeying the central Government, and which veryreadily ceded the right of command to the federal executive, and very prudentlyreserved the right of non-compliance to themselves.]

But the number, still more than the mere character, of the tribunals of theStates rendered them unfit for the service of the nation. When the FederalConstitution was formed there were already thirteen courts of justice in theUnited States which decided causes without appeal. That number is now increasedto twenty-four. To suppose that a State can subsist when its fundamental lawsmay be subjected to four-and-twenty different interpretations at the same timeis to advance a proposition alike contrary to reason and to experience.

The American legislators therefore agreed to create a federal judiciary powerto apply the laws of the Union, and to determine certain questions affectinggeneral interests, which were carefully determined beforehand. The entirejudicial power of the Union was centred in one tribunal, which was denominatedthe Supreme Court of the United States. But, to facilitate the expedition ofbusiness, inferior courts were appended to it, which were empowered to decidecauses of small importance without appeal, and with appeal causes of moremagnitude. The members of the Supreme Court are named neither by the people northe legislature, but by the President of the United States, acting with theadvice of the Senate. In order to render them independent of the otherauthorities, their office was made inalienable; and it was determined thattheir salary, when once fixed, should not be altered by the legislature. *d Itwas easy to proclaim the principle of a Federal judiciary, but difficultiesmultiplied when the extent of its jurisdiction was to be determined.

d
[ The Union was divided into districts, in each of which a resident Federaljudge was appointed, and the court in which he presided was termed a“District Court.” Each of the judges of the Supreme Court annuallyvisits a certain portion of the Republic, in order to try the most importantcauses upon the spot; the court presided over by this magistrate is styled a“Circuit Court.” Lastly, all the most serious cases of litigationare brought before the Supreme Court, which holds a solemn session once a year,at which all the judges of the Circuit Courts must attend. The jury wasintroduced into the Federal Courts in the same manner, and in the same cases,as into the courts of the States.

It will be observed that no analogy exists between the Supreme Court of theUnited States and the French Cour de Cassation, since the latter only hearsappeals on questions of law. The Supreme Court decides upon the evidence of thefact as well as upon the law of the case, whereas the Cour de Cassation doesnot pronounce a decision of its own, but refers the cause to the arbitration ofanother tribunal. See the law of September 24, 1789, “Laws of the UnitedStates,” by Story, vol. i. p. 53.]

Means Of Determining The Jurisdiction Of The Federal Courts Difficulty ofdetermining the jurisdiction of separate courts of justice inconfederations—The courts of the Union obtained the right of fixing theirown jurisdiction—In what respect this rule attacks the portion ofsovereignty reserved to the several States—The sovereignty of theseStates restricted by the laws, and the interpretation of thelaws—Consequently, the danger of the several States is more apparent thanreal.

As the Constitution of the United States recognized two distinct powers inpresence of each other, represented in a judicial point of view by two distinctclasses of courts of justice, the utmost care which could be taken in definingtheir separate jurisdictions would have been insufficient to prevent frequentcollisions between those tribunals. The question then arose to whom the rightof deciding the competency of each court was to be referred.

In nations which constitute a single body politic, when a question is debatedbetween two courts relating to their mutual jurisdiction, a third tribunal isgenerally within reach to decide the difference; and this is effected withoutdifficulty, because in these nations the questions of judicial competency haveno connection with the privileges of the national supremacy. But it wasimpossible to create an arbiter between a superior court of the Union and thesuperior court of a separate State which would not belong to one of these twoclasses. It was, therefore, necessary to allow one of these courts to judge itsown cause, and to take or to retain cognizance of the point which wascontested. To grant this privilege to the different courts of the States wouldhave been to destroy the sovereignty of the Union de facto after havingestablished it de jure; for the interpretation of the Constitution would soonhave restored that portion of independence to the States of which the terms ofthat act deprived them. The object of the creation of a Federal tribunal was toprevent the courts of the States from deciding questions affecting the nationalinterests in their own department, and so to form a uniform body ofjurisprudene for the interpretation of the laws of the Union. This end wouldnot have been accomplished if the courts of the several States had beencompetent to decide upon cases in their separate capacities from which theywere obliged to abstain as Federal tribunals. The Supreme Court of the UnitedStates was therefore invested with the right of determining all questions ofjurisdiction. *e

e
[ In order to diminish the number of these suits, it was decided that in agreat many Federal causes the courts of the States should be empowered todecide conjointly with those of the Union, the losing party having then a rightof appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court ofVirginia contested the right of the Supreme Court of the United States to judgean appeal from its decisions, but unsuccessfully. See “Kent’sCommentaries,” vol. i. p. 300, pp. 370 et seq.; Story’s“Commentaries,” p. 646; and “The Organic Law of the UnitedStates,” vol. i. p. 35.]

This was a severe blow upon the independence of the States, which was thusrestricted not only by the laws, but by the interpretation of them; by onelimit which was known, and by another which was dubious; by a rule which wascertain, and a rule which was arbitrary. It is true the Constitution had laiddown the precise limits of the Federal supremacy, but whenever this supremacyis contested by one of the States, a Federal tribunal decides the question.Nevertheless, the dangers with which the independence of the States wasthreatened by this mode of proceeding are less serious than they appeared tobe. We shall see hereafter that in America the real strength of the country isvested in the provincial far more than in the Federal Government. The Federaljudges are conscious of the relative weakness of the power in whose name theyact, and they are more inclined to abandon a right of jurisdiction in caseswhere it is justly their own than to assert a privilege to which they have nolegal claim.

Different Cases Of Jurisdiction

The matter and the party are the first conditions of the Federaljurisdiction—Suits in which ambassadors are engaged—Suits of theUnion—Of a separate State—By whom tried—Causes resulting fromthe laws of the Union—Why judged by the Federal tribunals—Causesrelating to the performance of contracts tried by the Federalcourts—Consequence of this arrangement.

After having appointed the means of fixing the competency of the Federalcourts, the legislators of the Union defined the cases which should come withintheir jurisdiction. It was established, on the one hand, that certain partiesmust always be brought before the Federal courts, without any regard to thespecial nature of the cause; and, on the other, that certain causes must alwaysbe brought before the same courts, without any regard to the quality of theparties in the suit. These distinctions were therefore admitted to be the basisof the Federal jurisdiction.

Ambassadors are the representatives of nations in a state of amity with theUnion, and whatever concerns these personages concerns in some degree the wholeUnion. When an ambassador is a party in a suit, that suit affects the welfareof the nation, and a Federal tribunal is naturally called upon to decide it.

The Union itself may be invoked in legal proceedings, and in this case it wouldbe alike contrary to the customs of all nations and to common sense to appealto a tribunal representing any other sovereignty than its own; the Federalcourts, therefore, take cognizance of these affairs.

When two parties belonging to two different States are engaged in a suit, thecase cannot with propriety be brought before a court of either State. Thesurest expedient is to select a tribunal like that of the Union, which canexcite the suspicions of neither party, and which offers the most natural aswell as the most certain remedy.

When the two parties are not private individuals, but States, an importantpolitical consideration is added to the same motive of equity. The quality ofthe parties in this case gives a national importance to all their disputes; andthe most trifling litigation of the States may be said to involve the peace ofthe whole Union. *f

f
[ The Constitution also says that the Federal courts shall decide“controversies between a State and the citizens of another State.”And here a most important question of a constitutional nature arose, which was,whether the jurisdiction given by the Constitution in cases in which a State isa party extended to suits brought against a State as well as by it, or wasexclusively confined to the latter. The question was most elaboratelyconsidered in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, and was decided by the majorityof the Supreme Court in the affirmative. The decision created general alarmamong the States, and an amendment was proposed and ratified by which the powerwas entirely taken away, so far as it regards suits brought against a State.See Story’s “Commentaries,” p. 624, or in the large editionSection 1677.]

The nature of the cause frequently prescribes the rule of competency. Thus allthe questions which concern maritime commerce evidently fall under thecognizance of the Federal tribunals. *g Almost all these questions areconnected with the interpretation of the law of nations, and in this respectthey essentially interest the Union in relation to foreign powers. Moreover, asthe sea is not included within the limits of any peculiar jurisdiction, thenational courts can only hear causes which originate in maritime affairs.

g
[ As for instance, all cases of piracy.]

The Constitution comprises under one head almost all the cases which by theirvery nature come within the limits of the Federal courts. The rule which itlays down is simple, but pregnant with an entire system of ideas, and with avast multitude of facts. It declares that the judicial power of the SupremeCourt shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the laws of theUnited States.

Two examples will put the intention of the legislator in the clearest light:

The Constitution prohibits the States from making laws on the value andcirculation of money: If, notwithstanding this prohibition, a State passes alaw of this kind, with which the interested parties refuse to comply because itis contrary to the Constitution, the case must come before a Federal court,because it arises under the laws of the United States. Again, if difficultiesarise in the levying of import duties which have been voted by Congress, theFederal court must decide the case, because it arises under the interpretationof a law of the United States.

This rule is in perfect accordance with the fundamental principles of theFederal Constitution. The Union, as it was established in 1789, possesses, itis true, a limited supremacy; but it was intended that within its limits itshould form one and the same people. *h Within those limits the Union issovereign. When this point is established and admitted, the inference is easy;for if it be acknowledged that the United States constitute one and the samepeople within the bounds prescribed by their Constitution, it is impossible torefuse them the rights which belong to other nations. But it has been allowed,from the origin of society, that every nation has the right of deciding by itsown courts those questions which concern the execution of its own laws. To thisit is answered that the Union is in so singular a position that in relation tosome matters it constitutes a people, and that in relation to all the rest itis a nonentity. But the inference to be drawn is, that in the laws relating tothese matters the Union possesses all the rights of absolute sovereignty. Thedifficulty is to know what these matters are; and when once it is resolved (andwe have shown how it was resolved, in speaking of the means of determining thejurisdiction of the Federal courts) no further doubt can arise; for as soon asit is established that a suit is Federal—that is to say, that it belongsto the share of sovereignty reserved by the Constitution of the Union—thenatural consequence is that it should come within the jurisdiction of a Federalcourt.

h
[ This principle was in some measure restricted by the introduction of theseveral States as independent powers into the Senate, and by allowing them tovote separately in the House of Representatives when the President is electedby that body. But these are exceptions, and the contrary principle is therule.]

Whenever the laws of the United States are attacked, or whenever they areresorted to in self-defence, the Federal courts must be appealed to. Thus thejurisdiction of the tribunals of the Union extends and narrows its limitsexactly in the same ratio as the sovereignty of the Union augments ordecreases. We have shown that the principal aim of the legislators of 1789 wasto divide the sovereign authority into two parts. In the one they placed thecontrol of all the general interests of the Union, in the other the control ofthe special interests of its component States. Their chief solicitude was toarm the Federal Government with sufficient power to enable it to resist, withinits sphere, the encroachments of the several States. As for these communities,the principle of independence within certain limits of their own was adopted intheir behalf; and they were concealed from the inspection, and protected fromthe control, of the central Government. In speaking of the division ofauthority, I observed that this latter principle had not always been heldsacred, since the States are prevented from passing certain laws whichapparently belong to their own particular sphere of interest. When a State ofthe Union passes a law of this kind, the citizens who are injured by itsexecution can appeal to the Federal courts.

Thus the jurisdiction of the Federal courts extends not only to all the caseswhich arise under the laws of the Union, but also to those which arise underlaws made by the several States in opposition to the Constitution. The Statesare prohibited from making ex post facto laws in criminal cases, and any personcondemned by virtue of a law of this kind can appeal to the judicial power ofthe Union. The States are likewise prohibited from making laws which may have atendency to impair the obligations of contracts. *i If a citizen thinks that anobligation of this kind is impaired by a law passed in his State, he may refuseto obey it, and may appeal to the Federal courts. *j

i
[ It is perfectly clear, says Mr. Story (“Commentaries,” p. 503, orin the large edition Section 1379), that any law which enlarges, abridges, orin any manner changes the intention of the parties, resulting from thestipulations in the contract, necessarily impairs it. He gives in the sameplace a very long and careful definition of what is understood by a contract inFederal jurisprudence. A grant made by the State to a private individual, andaccepted by him, is a contract, and cannot be revoked by any future law. Acharter granted by the State to a company is a contract, and equally binding tothe State as to the grantee. The clause of the Constitution here referred toinsures, therefore, the existence of a great part of acquired rights, but notof all. Property may legally be held, though it may not have passed into thepossessor’s hands by means of a contract; and its possession is anacquired right, not guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.]

j
[ A remarkable instance of this is given by Mr. Story (p. 508, or in the largeedition Section 1388): “Dartmouth College in New Hampshire had beenfounded by a charter granted to certain individuals before the AmericanRevolution, and its trustees formed a corporation under this charter. Thelegislature of New Hampshire had, without the consent of this corporation,passed an act changing the organization of the original provincial charter ofthe college, and transferring all the rights, privileges, and franchises fromthe old charter trustees to new trustees appointed under the act. Theconstitutionality of the act was contested, and, after solemn arguments, it wasdeliberately held by the Supreme Court that the provincial charter was acontract within the meaning of the Constitution (Art. I. Section 10), and thatthe emendatory act was utterly void, as impairing the obligation of thatcharter. The college was deemed, like other colleges of private foundation, tobe a private eleemosynary institution, endowed by its charter with a capacityto take property unconnected with the Government. Its funds were bestowed uponthe faith of the charter, and those funds consisted entirely of privatedonations. It is true that the uses were in some sense public, that is, for thegeneral benefit, and not for the mere benefit of the corporators; but this didnot make the corporation a public corporation. It was a private institution forgeneral charity. It was not distinguishable in principle from a privatedonation, vested in private trustees, for a public charity, or for a particularpurpose of beneficence. And the State itself, if it had bestowed funds upon acharity of the same nature, could not resume those funds.”]

This provision appears to me to be the most serious attack upon theindependence of the States. The rights awarded to the Federal Government forpurposes of obvious national importance are definite and easily comprehensible;but those with which this last clause invests it are not either clearlyappreciable or accurately defined. For there are vast numbers of political lawswhich influence the existence of obligations of contracts, which may thusfurnish an easy pretext for the aggressions of the central authority.

Chapter VIII: The FederalConstitution—Part IV

Procedure Of The Federal Courts

Natural weakness of the judiciary power in confederations—Legislatorsought to strive as much as possible to bring private individuals, and notStates, before the Federal Courts—How the Americans have succeeded inthis—Direct prosecution of private individuals in the FederalCourts—Indirect prosecution of the States which violate the laws of theUnion—The decrees of the Supreme Court enervate but do not destroy theprovincial laws.

I have shown what the privileges of the Federal courts are, and it is no lessimportant to point out the manner in which they are exercised. The irresistibleauthority of justice in countries in which the sovereignty in undivided isderived from the fact that the tribunals of those countries represent theentire nation at issue with the individual against whom their decree isdirected, and the idea of power is thus introduced to corroborate the idea ofright. But this is not always the case in countries in which the sovereignty isdivided; in them the judicial power is more frequently opposed to a fraction ofthe nation than to an isolated individual, and its moral authority and physicalstrength are consequently diminished. In federal States the power of the judgeis naturally decreased, and that of the justiciable parties is augmented. Theaim of the legislator in confederate States ought therefore to be to render theposition of the courts of justice analogous to that which they occupy incountries where the sovereignty is undivided; in other words, his efforts oughtconstantly to tend to maintain the judicial power of the confederation as therepresentative of the nation, and the justiciable party as the representativeof an individual interest.

Every government, whatever may be its constitution, requires the means ofconstraining its subjects to discharge their obligations, and of protecting itsprivileges from their assaults. As far as the direct action of the Governmenton the community is concerned, the Constitution of the United States contrived,by a master-stroke of policy, that the federal courts, acting in the name ofthe laws, should only take cognizance of parties in an individual capacity.For, as it had been declared that the Union consisted of one and the samepeople within the limits laid down by the Constitution, the inference was thatthe Government created by this Constitution, and acting within these limits,was invested with all the privileges of a national government, one of theprincipal of which is the right of transmitting its injunctions directly to theprivate citizen. When, for instance, the Union votes an impost, it does notapply to the States for the levying of it, but to every American citizen inproportion to his assessment. The Supreme Court, which is empowered to enforcethe execution of this law of the Union, exerts its influence not upon arefractory State, but upon the private taxpayer; and, like the judicial powerof other nations, it is opposed to the person of an individual. It is to beobserved that the Union chose its own antagonist; and as that antagonist isfeeble, he is naturally worsted.

But the difficulty increases when the proceedings are not brought forward bybut against the Union. The Constitution recognizes the legislative power of theStates; and a law so enacted may impair the privileges of the Union, in whichcase a collision in unavoidable between that body and the State which haspassed the law: and it only remains to select the least dangerous remedy, whichis very clearly deducible from the general principles I have beforeestablished. *k

k
[ See Chapter VI. on “Judicial Power in America.”]

It may be conceived that, in the case under consideration, the Union might haveused the State before a Federal court, which would have annulled the act, andby this means it would have adopted a natural course of proceeding; but thejudicial power would have been placed in open hostility to the State, and itwas desirable to avoid this predicament as much as possible. The Americans holdthat it is nearly impossible that a new law should not impair the interests ofsome private individual by its provisions: these private interests are assumedby the American legislators as the ground of attack against such measures asmay be prejudicial to the Union, and it is to these cases that the protectionof the Supreme Court is extended.

Suppose a State vends a certain portion of its territory to a company, and thata year afterwards it passes a law by which the territory is otherwise disposedof, and that clause of the Constitution which prohibits laws impairing theobligation of contracts violated. When the purchaser under the second actappears to take possession, the possessor under the first act brings his actionbefore the tribunals of the Union, and causes the title of the claimant to bepronounced null and void. *l Thus, in point of fact, the judicial power of theUnion is contesting the claims of the sovereignty of a State; but it only actsindirectly and upon a special application of detail: it attacks the law in itsconsequences, not in its principle, and it rather weakens than destroys it.

l
[ See Kent’s “Commentaries,” vol. i. p. 387.]

The last hypothesis that remained was that each State formed a corporationenjoying a separate existence and distinct civil rights, and that it couldtherefore sue or be sued before a tribunal. Thus a State could bring an actionagainst another State. In this instance the Union was not called upon tocontest a provincial law, but to try a suit in which a State was a party. Thissuit was perfectly similar to any other cause, except that the quality of theparties was different; and here the danger pointed out at the beginning of thischapter exists with less chance of being avoided. The inherent disadvantage ofthe very essence of Federal constitutions is that they engender parties in thebosom of the nation which present powerful obstacles to the free course ofjustice.

High Rank Of The Supreme Court Amongst The Great Powers Of State No nation everconstituted so great a judicial power as the Americans—Extent of itsprerogative—Its political influence—The tranquillity and the veryexistence of the Union depend on the discretion of the seven Federal Judges.

When we have successively examined in detail the organization of the SupremeCourt, and the entire prerogatives which it exercises, we shall readily admitthat a more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people. TheSupreme Court is placed at the head of all known tribunals, both by the natureof its rights and the class of justiciable parties which it controls.

In all the civilized countries of Europe the Government has always shown thegreatest repugnance to allow the cases to which it was itself a party to bedecided by the ordinary course of justice. This repugnance naturally attainsits utmost height in an absolute Government; and, on the other hand, theprivileges of the courts of justice are extended with the increasing libertiesof the people: but no European nation has at present held that all judicialcontroversies, without regard to their origin, can be decided by the judges ofcommon law.

In America this theory has been actually put in practice, and the Supreme Courtof the United States is the sole tribunal of the nation. Its power extends toall the cases arising under laws and treaties made by the executive andlegislative authorities, to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,and in general to all points which affect the law of nations. It may even beaffirmed that, although its constitution is essentially judicial, itsprerogatives are almost entirely political. Its sole object is to enforce theexecution of the laws of the Union; and the Union only regulates the relationsof the Government with the citizens, and of the nation with Foreign Powers: therelations of citizens amongst themselves are almost exclusively regulated bythe sovereignty of the States.

A second and still greater cause of the preponderance of this court may beadduced. In the nations of Europe the courts of justice are only called upon totry the controversies of private individuals; but the Supreme Court of theUnited States summons sovereign powers to its bar. When the clerk of the courtadvances on the steps of the tribunal, and simply says, “The State of NewYork versus the State of Ohio,” it is impossible not to feel that theCourt which he addresses is no ordinary body; and when it is recollected thatone of these parties represents one million, and the other two millions of men,one is struck by the responsibility of the seven judges whose decision is aboutto satisfy or to disappoint so large a number of their fellow-citizens.

The peace, the prosperity, and the very existence of the Union are vested inthe hands of the seven judges. Without their active co-operation theConstitution would be a dead letter: the Executive appeals to them forassistance against the encroachments of the legislative powers; the Legislaturedemands their protection from the designs of the Executive; they defend theUnion from the disobedience of the States, the States from the exaggeratedclaims of the Union, the public interest against the interests of privatecitizens, and the conservative spirit of order against the fleeting innovationsof democracy. Their power is enormous, but it is clothed in the authority ofpublic opinion. They are the all-powerful guardians of a people which respectslaw, but they would be impotent against popular neglect or popular contempt.The force of public opinion is the most intractable of agents, because itsexact limits cannot be defined; and it is not less dangerous to exceed than toremain below the boundary prescribed.

The Federal judges must not only be good citizens, and men possessed of thatinformation and integrity which are indispensable to magistrates, but they mustbe statesmen—politicians, not unread in the signs of the times, notafraid to brave the obstacles which can be subdued, nor slow to turn aside suchencroaching elements as may threaten the supremacy of the Union and theobedience which is due to the laws.

The President, who exercises a limited power, may err without causing greatmischief in the State. Congress may decide amiss without destroying the Union,because the electoral body in which Congress originates may cause it to retractit* decision by changing its members. But if the Supreme Court is ever composedof imprudent men or bad citizens, the Union may be plunged into anarchy orcivil war.

The real cause of this danger, however, does not lie in the constitution of thetribunal, but in the very nature of Federal Governments. We have observed thatin confederate peoples it is especially necessary to consolidate the judicialauthority, because in no other nations do those independent persons who areable to cope with the social body exist in greater power or in a bettercondition to resist the physical strength of the Government. But the more apower requires to be strengthened, the more extensive and independent it mustbe made; and the dangers which its abuse may create are heightened by itsindependence and its strength. The source of the evil is not, therefore, in theconstitution of the power, but in the constitution of those States which renderits existence necessary.

In What Respects The Federal Constitution Is Superior To That Of The States

In what respects the Constitution of the Union can be compared to that of theStates—Superiority of the Constitution of the Union attributable to thewisdom of the Federal legislators—Legislature of the Union less dependenton the people than that of the States—Executive power more independent inits sphere—Judicial power less subjected to the inclinations of themajority—Practical consequence of these facts—The dangers inherentin a democratic government eluded by the Federal legislators, and increased bythe legislators of the States.

The Federal Constitution differs essentially from that of the States in theends which it is intended to accomplish, but in the means by which these endsare promoted a greater analogy exists between them. The objects of theGovernments are different, but their forms are the same; and in this specialpoint of view there is some advantage in comparing them together.

I am of opinion that the Federal Constitution is superior to all theConstitutions of the States, for several reasons.

The present Constitution of the Union was formed at a later period than thoseof the majority of the States, and it may have derived some ameliorations frompast experience. But we shall be led to acknowledge that this is only asecondary cause of its superiority, when we recollect that eleven new States *nhave been added to the American Confederation since the promulgation of theFederal Constitution, and that these new republics have always ratherexaggerated than avoided the defects which existed in the former Constitutions.

n
[ [The number of States has now risen to 46 (1874), besides the District ofColumbia.]]

The chief cause of the superiority of the Federal Constitution lay in thecharacter of the legislators who composed it. At the time when it was formedthe dangers of the Confederation were imminent, and its ruin seemed inevitable.In this extremity the people chose the men who most deserved the esteem, ratherthan those who had gained the affections, of the country. I have alreadyobserved that distinguished as almost all the legislators of the Union were fortheir intelligence, they were still more so for their patriotism. They had allbeen nurtured at a time when the spirit of liberty was braced by a continualstruggle against a powerful and predominant authority. When the contest wasterminated, whilst the excited passions of the populace persisted in warringwith dangers which had ceased to threaten them, these men stopped short intheir career; they cast a calmer and more penetrating look upon the countrywhich was now their own; they perceived that the war of independence wasdefinitely ended, and that the only dangers which America had to fear werethose which might result from the abuse of the freedom she had won. They hadthe courage to say what they believed to be true, because they were animated bya warm and sincere love of liberty; and they ventured to propose restrictions,because they were resolutely opposed to destruction. *o

o
[ At this time Alexander Hamilton, who was one of the principal founders of theConstitution, ventured to express the following sentiments in “TheFederalist,” No. 71:—

“There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy ofthe Executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in theLegislature, as its best recommendation. But such men entertain very crudenotions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted as of thetrue means by which the public happiness may be promoted. The Republicanprinciple demands that the deliberative sense of the community should governthe conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; butit does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze ofpassion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from thearts of men who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests. It is ajust observation, that the people commonly intend the public good. This oftenapplies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulatorwho should pretend that they always reason right about the means of promotingit. They know from experience that they sometimes err; and the wonder is thatthey so seldom err as they do, beset, as they continually are, by the wiles ofparasites and sycophants; by the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, thedesperate; by the artifices of men who possess their confidence more than theydeserve it, and of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it. Whenoccasions present themselves in which the interests of the people are atvariance with their inclinations, it is the duty of persons whom they haveappointed to be the guardians of those interests to withstand the temporarydelusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedatereflection. Instances might be cited in which a conduct of this kind has savedthe people from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes, and has procuredlasting monuments of their gratitude to the men who had courage and magnanimityenough to serve them at the peril of their displeasure.”]

The greater number of the Constitutions of the States assign one year for theduration of the House of Representatives, and two years for that of the Senate;so that members of the legislative body are constantly and narrowly tied downby the slightest desires of their constituents. The legislators of the Unionwere of opinion that this excessive dependence of the Legislature tended toalter the nature of the main consequences of the representative system, sinceit vested the source, not only of authority, but of government, in the people.They increased the length of the time for which the representatives werereturned, in order to give them freer scope for the exercise of their ownjudgment.

The Federal Constitution, as well as the Constitutions of the different States,divided the legislative body into two branches. But in the States these twobranches were composed of the same elements, and elected in the same manner.The consequence was that the passions and inclinations of the populace were asrapidly and as energetically represented in one chamber as in the other, andthat laws were made with all the characteristics of violence and precipitation.By the Federal Constitution the two houses originate in like manner in thechoice of the people; but the conditions of eligibility and the mode ofelection were changed, to the end that, if, as is the case in certain nations,one branch of the Legislature represents the same interests as the other, itmay at least represent a superior degree of intelligence and discretion. Amature age was made one of the conditions of the senatorial dignity, and theUpper House was chosen by an elected assembly of a limited number of members.

To concentrate the whole social force in the hands of the legislative body isthe natural tendency of democracies; for as this is the power which emanatesthe most directly from the people, it is made to participate most fully in thepreponderating authority of the multitude, and it is naturally led tomonopolize every species of influence. This concentration is at onceprejudicial to a well-conducted administration, and favorable to the despotismof the majority. The legislators of the States frequently yielded to thesedemocratic propensities, which were invariably and courageously resisted by thefounders of the Union.

In the States the executive power is vested in the hands of a magistrate, whois apparently placed upon a level with the Legislature, but who is in realitynothing more than the blind agent and the passive instrument of its decisions.He can derive no influence from the duration of his functions, which terminatewith the revolving year, or from the exercise of prerogatives which canscarcely be said to exist. The Legislature can condemn him to inaction byintrusting the execution of the laws to special committees of its own members,and can annul his temporary dignity by depriving him of his salary. The FederalConstitution vests all the privileges and all the responsibility of theexecutive power in a single individual. The duration of the Presidency is fixedat four years; the salary of the individual who fills that office cannot bealtered during the term of his functions; he is protected by a body of officialdependents, and armed with a suspensive veto. In short, every effort was madeto confer a strong and independent position upon the executive authority withinthe limits which had been prescribed to it.

In the Constitutions of all the States the judicial power is that which remainsthe most independent of the legislative authority; nevertheless, in all theStates the Legislature has reserved to itself the right of regulating theemoluments of the judges, a practice which necessarily subjects thesemagistrates to its immediate influence. In some States the judges are onlytemporarily appointed, which deprives them of a great portion of their powerand their freedom. In others the legislative and judicial powers are entirelyconfounded; thus the Senate of New York, for instance, constitutes in certaincases the Superior Court of the State. The Federal Constitution, on the otherhand, carefully separates the judicial authority from all external influences;and it provides for the independence of the judges, by declaring that theirsalary shall not be altered, and that their functions shall be inalienable.

The practical consequences of these different systems may easily be perceived.An attentive observer will soon remark that the business of the Union isincomparably better conducted than that of any individual State. The conduct ofthe Federal Government is more fair and more temperate than that of the States,its designs are more fraught with wisdom, its projects are more durable andmore skilfully combined, its measures are put into execution with more vigorand consistency.

I recapitulate the substance of this chapter in a few words: The existence ofdemocracies is threatened by two dangers, viz., the complete subjection of thelegislative body to the caprices of the electoral body, and the concentrationof all the powers of the Government in the legislative authority. The growth ofthese evils has been encouraged by the policy of the legislators of the States,but it has been resisted by the legislators of the Union by every means whichlay within their control.

Characteristics Which Distinguish The Federal Constitution Of The United StatesOf America From All Other Federal Constitutions American Union appears toresemble all other confederations—Nevertheless its effects aredifferent—Reason of this—Distinctions between the Union and allother confederations—The American Government not a federal but animperfect national Government.

The United States of America do not afford either the first or the onlyinstance of confederate States, several of which have existed in modern Europe,without adverting to those of antiquity. Switzerland, the Germanic Empire, andthe Republic of the United Provinces either have been or still areconfederations. In studying the constitutions of these different countries, thepolitician is surprised to observe that the powers with which they invested theFederal Government are nearly identical with the privileges awarded by theAmerican Constitution to the Government of the United States. They confer uponthe central power the same rights of making peace and war, of raising money andtroops, and of providing for the general exigencies and the common interests ofthe nation. Nevertheless the Federal Government of these different peoples hasalways been as remarkable for its weakness and inefficiency as that of theUnion is for its vigorous and enterprising spirit. Again, the first AmericanConfederation perished through the excessive weakness of its Government; andthis weak Government was, notwithstanding, in possession of rights even moreextensive than those of the Federal Government of the present day. But the morerecent Constitution of the United States contains certain principles whichexercise a most important influence, although they do not at once strike theobserver.

This Constitution, which may at first sight be confounded with the federalconstitutions which preceded it, rests upon a novel theory, which may beconsidered as a great invention in modern political science. In all theconfederations which had been formed before the American Constitution of 1789the allied States agreed to obey the injunctions of a Federal Government; butthey reserved to themselves the right of ordaining and enforcing the executionof the laws of the Union. The American States which combined in 1789 agreedthat the Federal Government should not only dictate the laws, but that itshould execute it own enactments. In both cases the right is the same, but theexercise of the right is different; and this alteration produced the mostmomentous consequences.

In all the confederations which had been formed before the American Union theFederal Government demanded its supplies at the hands of the separateGovernments; and if the measure it prescribed was onerous to any one of thosebodies means were found to evade its claims: if the State was powerful, it hadrecourse to arms; if it was weak, it connived at the resistance which the lawof the Union, its sovereign, met with, and resorted to inaction under the pleaof inability. Under these circ*mstances one of the two alternatives hasinvariably occurred; either the most preponderant of the allied peoples hasassumed the privileges of the Federal authority and ruled all the States in itsname, *p or the Federal Government has been abandoned by its naturalsupporters, anarchy has arisen between the confederates, and the Union has lostall powers of action. *q

p
[ This was the case in Greece, when Philip undertook to execute the decree ofthe Amphictyons; in the Low Countries, where the province of Holland alwaysgave the law; and, in our own time, in the Germanic Confederation, in whichAustria and Prussia assume a great degree of influence over the whole country,in the name of the Diet.]

q
[ Such has always been the situation of the Swiss Confederation, which wouldhave perished ages ago but for the mutual jealousies of its neighbors.]

In America the subjects of the Union are not States, but private citizens: thenational Government levies a tax, not upon the State of Massachusetts, but uponeach inhabitant of Massachusetts. All former confederate governments presidedover communities, but that of the Union rules individuals; its force is notborrowed, but self-derived; and it is served by its own civil and militaryofficers, by its own army, and its own courts of justice. It cannot be doubtedthat the spirit of the nation, the passions of the multitude, and theprovincial prejudices of each State tend singularly to diminish the authorityof a Federal authority thus constituted, and to facilitate the means ofresistance to its mandates; but the comparative weakness of a restrictedsovereignty is an evil inherent in the Federal system. In America, each Statehas fewer opportunities of resistance and fewer temptations to non-compliance;nor can such a design be put in execution (if indeed it be entertained) withoutan open violation of the laws of the Union, a direct interruption of theordinary course of justice, and a bold declaration of revolt; in a word,without taking a decisive step which men hesitate to adopt.

In all former confederations the privileges of the Union furnished moreelements of discord than of power, since they multiplied the claims of thenation without augmenting the means of enforcing them: and in accordance withthis fact it may be remarked that the real weakness of federal governments hasalmost always been in the exact ratio of their nominal power. Such is not thecase in the American Union, in which, as in ordinary governments, the FederalGovernment has the means of enforcing all it is empowered to demand.

The human understanding more easily invents new things than new words, and weare thence constrained to employ a multitude of improper and inadequateexpressions. When several nations form a permanent league and establish asupreme authority, which, although it has not the same influence over themembers of the community as a national government, acts upon each of theConfederate States in a body, this Government, which is so essentiallydifferent from all others, is denominated a Federal one. Another form ofsociety is afterwards discovered, in which several peoples are fused into oneand the same nation with regard to certain common interests, although theyremain distinct, or at least only confederate, with regard to all their otherconcerns. In this case the central power acts directly upon those whom itgoverns, whom it rules, and whom it judges, in the same manner, as, but in amore limited circle than, a national government. Here the term FederalGovernment is clearly no longer applicable to a state of things which must bestyled an incomplete national Government: a form of government has been foundout which is neither exactly national nor federal; but no further progress hasbeen made, and the new word which will one day designate this novel inventiondoes not yet exist.

The absence of this new species of confederation has been the cause which hasbrought all Unions to Civil War, to subjection, or to a stagnant apathy, andthe peoples which formed these leagues have been either too dull to discern, ortoo pusillanimous to apply this great remedy. The American Confederationperished by the same defects.

But the Confederate States of America had been long accustomed to form aportion of one empire before they had won their independence; they had notcontracted the habit of governing themselves, and their national prejudices hadnot taken deep root in their minds. Superior to the rest of the world inpolitical knowledge, and sharing that knowledge equally amongst themselves,they were little agitated by the passions which generally oppose the extensionof federal authority in a nation, and those passions were checked by the wisdomof the chief citizens. The Americans applied the remedy with prudent firmnessas soon as they were conscious of the evil; they amended their laws, and theysaved their country.

Chapter VIII: The FederalConstitution—Part V

Advantages Of The Federal System In General, And Its Special Utility InAmerica.

Happiness and freedom of small nations—Power of great nations—Greatempires favorable to the growth of civilization—Strength often the firstelement of national prosperity—Aim of the Federal system to unite thetwofold advantages resulting from a small and from a largeterritory—Advantages derived by the United States from thissystem—The law adapts itself to the exigencies of the population;population does not conform to the exigencies of the law—Activity,amelioration, love and enjoyment of freedom in the Americancommunities—Public spirit of the Union the abstract of provincialpatriotism—Principles and things circulate freely over the territory ofthe United States—The Union is happy and free as a little nation, andrespected as a great empire.

In small nations the scrutiny of society penetrates into every part, and thespirit of improvement enters into the most trifling details; as the ambition ofthe people is necessarily checked by its weakness, all the efforts andresources of the citizens are turned to the internal benefit of the community,and are not likely to evaporate in the fleeting breath of glory. The desires ofevery individual are limited, because extraordinary faculties are rarely to bemet with. The gifts of an equal fortune render the various conditions of lifeuniform, and the manners of the inhabitants are orderly and simple. Thus, ifone estimate the gradations of popular morality and enlightenment, we shallgenerally find that in small nations there are more persons in easycirc*mstances, a more numerous population, and a more tranquil state ofsociety, than in great empires.

When tyranny is established in the bosom of a small nation, it is more gallingthan elsewhere, because, as it acts within a narrow circle, every point of thatcircle is subject to its direct influence. It supplies the place of those greatdesigns which it cannot entertain by a violent or an exasperating interferencein a multitude of minute details; and it leaves the political world, to whichit properly belongs, to meddle with the arrangements of domestic life. Tastesas well as actions are to be regulated at its pleasure; and the families of thecitizens as well as the affairs of the State are to be governed by itsdecisions. This invasion of rights occurs, however, but seldom, and freedom isin truth the natural state of small communities. The temptations which theGovernment offers to ambition are too weak, and the resources of privateindividuals are too slender, for the sovereign power easily to fall within thegrasp of a single citizen; and should such an event have occurred, the subjectsof the State can without difficulty overthrow the tyrant and his oppression bya simultaneous effort.

Small nations have therefore ever been the cradle of political liberty; and thefact that many of them have lost their immunities by extending their dominionshows that the freedom they enjoyed was more a consequence of the inferior sizethan of the character of the people.

The history of the world affords no instance of a great nation retaining theform of republican government for a long series of years, *r and this has ledto the conclusion that such a state of things is impracticable. For my ownpart, I cannot but censure the imprudence of attempting to limit the possibleand to judge the future on the part of a being who is hourly deceived by themost palpable realities of life, and who is constantly taken by surprise in thecirc*mstances with which he is most familiar. But it may be advanced withconfidence that the existence of a great republic will always be exposed to fargreater perils than that of a small one.

r
[ I do not speak of a confederation of small republics, but of a greatconsolidated Republic.]

All the passions which are most fatal to republican institutions spread with anincreasing territory, whilst the virtues which maintain their dignity do notaugment in the same proportion. The ambition of the citizens increases with thepower of the State; the strength of parties with the importance of the endsthey have in view; but that devotion to the common weal which is the surestcheck on destructive passions is not stronger in a large than in a smallrepublic. It might, indeed, be proved without difficulty that it is lesspowerful and less sincere. The arrogance of wealth and the dejection ofwretchedness, capital cities of unwonted extent, a lax morality, a vulgaregotism, and a great confusion of interests, are the dangers which almostinvariably arise from the magnitude of States. But several of these evils arescarcely prejudicial to a monarchy, and some of them contribute to maintain itsexistence. In monarchical States the strength of the government is its own; itmay use, but it does not depend on, the community, and the authority of theprince is proportioned to the prosperity of the nation; but the only securitywhich a republican government possesses against these evils lies in the supportof the majority. This support is not, however, proportionably greater in alarge republic than it is in a small one; and thus, whilst the means of attackperpetually increase both in number and in influence, the power of resistanceremains the same, or it may rather be said to diminish, since the propensitiesand interests of the people are diversified by the increase of the population,and the difficulty of forming a compact majority is constantly augmented. Ithas been observed, moreover, that the intensity of human passions isheightened, not only by the importance of the end which they propose to attain,but by the multitude of individuals who are animated by them at the same time.Every one has had occasion to remark that his emotions in the midst of asympathizing crowd are far greater than those which he would have felt insolitude. In great republics the impetus of political passion is irresistible,not only because it aims at gigantic purposes, but because it is felt andshared by millions of men at the same time.

It may therefore be asserted as a general proposition that nothing is moreopposed to the well-being and the freedom of man than vast empires.Nevertheless it is important to acknowledge the peculiar advantages of greatStates. For the very reason which renders the desire of power more intense inthese communities than amongst ordinary men, the love of glory is also moreprominent in the hearts of a class of citizens, who regard the applause of agreat people as a reward worthy of their exertions, and an elevatingencouragement to man. If we would learn why it is that great nations contributemore powerfully to the spread of human improvement than small States, we shalldiscover an adequate cause in the rapid and energetic circulation of ideas, andin those great cities which are the intellectual centres where all the rays ofhuman genius are reflected and combined. To this it may be added that mostimportant discoveries demand a display of national power which the Governmentof a small State is unable to make; in great nations the Government entertainsa greater number of general notions, and is more completely disengaged from theroutine of precedent and the egotism of local prejudice; its designs areconceived with more talent, and executed with more boldness.

In time of peace the well-being of small nations is undoubtedly more generaland more complete, but they are apt to suffer more acutely from the calamitiesof war than those great empires whose distant frontiers may for ages avert thepresence of the danger from the mass of the people, which is therefore morefrequently afflicted than ruined by the evil.

But in this matter, as in many others, the argument derived from the necessityof the case predominates over all others. If none but small nations existed, Ido not doubt that mankind would be more happy and more free; but the existenceof great nations is unavoidable.

This consideration introduces the element of physical strength as a conditionof national prosperity. It profits a people but little to be affluent and freeif it is perpetually exposed to be pillaged or subjugated; the number of itsmanufactures and the extent of its commerce are of small advantage if anothernation has the empire of the seas and gives the law in all the markets of theglobe. Small nations are often impoverished, not because they are small, butbecause they are weak; the great empires prosper less because they are greatthan because they are strong. Physical strength is therefore one of the firstconditions of the happiness and even of the existence of nations. Hence itoccurs that, unless very peculiar circ*mstances intervene, small nations arealways united to large empires in the end, either by force or by their ownconsent: yet I am unacquainted with a more deplorable spectacle than that of apeople unable either to defend or to maintain its independence.

The Federal system was created with the intention of combining the differentadvantages which result from the greater and the lesser extent of nations; anda single glance over the United States of America suffices to discover theadvantages which they have derived from its adoption.

In great centralized nations the legislator is obliged to impart a character ofuniformity to the laws which does not always suit the diversity of customs andof districts; as he takes no cognizance of special cases, he can only proceedupon general principles; and the population is obliged to conform to theexigencies of the legislation, since the legislation cannot adapt itself to theexigencies and the customs of the population, which is the cause of endlesstrouble and misery. This disadvantage does not exist in confederations.Congress regulates the principal measures of the national Government, and allthe details of the administration are reserved to the provincial legislatures.It is impossible to imagine how much this division of sovereignty contributesto the well-being of each of the States which compose the Union. In these smallcommunities, which are never agitated by the desire of aggrandizement or thecares of self-defence, all public authority and private energy is employed ininternal amelioration. The central government of each State, which is inimmediate juxtaposition to the citizens, is daily apprised of the wants whicharise in society; and new projects are proposed every year, which are discussedeither at town meetings or by the legislature of the State, and which aretransmitted by the press to stimulate the zeal and to excite the interest ofthe citizens. This spirit of amelioration is constantly alive in the Americanrepublics, without compromising their tranquillity; the ambition of poweryields to the less refined and less dangerous love of comfort. It is generallybelieved in America that the existence and the permanence of the republicanform of government in the New World depend upon the existence and thepermanence of the Federal system; and it is not unusual to attribute a largeshare of the misfortunes which have befallen the new States of South America tothe injudicious erection of great republics, instead of a divided andconfederate sovereignty.

It is incontestably true that the love and the habits of republican governmentin the United States were engendered in the townships and in the provincialassemblies. In a small State, like that of Connecticut for instance, wherecutting a canal or laying down a road is a momentous political question, wherethe State has no army to pay and no wars to carry on, and where much wealth andmuch honor cannot be bestowed upon the chief citizens, no form of governmentcan be more natural or more appropriate than that of a republic. But it is thissame republican spirit, it is these manners and customs of a free people, whichare engendered and nurtured in the different States, to be afterwards appliedto the country at large. The public spirit of the Union is, so to speak,nothing more than an abstract of the patriotic zeal of the provinces. Everycitizen of the United States transfuses his attachment to his little republicin the common store of American patriotism. In defending the Union he defendsthe increasing prosperity of his own district, the right of conducting itsaffairs, and the hope of causing measures of improvement to be adopted whichmay be favorable to his own interest; and these are motives which are wont tostir men more readily than the general interests of the country and the gloryof the nation.

On the other hand, if the temper and the manners of the inhabitants especiallyfitted them to promote the welfare of a great republic, the Federal systemsmoothed the obstacles which they might have encountered. The confederation ofall the American States presents none of the ordinary disadvantages resultingfrom great agglomerations of men. The Union is a great republic in extent, butthe paucity of objects for which its Government provides assimilates it to asmall State. Its acts are important, but they are rare. As the sovereignty ofthe Union is limited and incomplete, its exercise is not incompatible withliberty; for it does not excite those insatiable desires of fame and powerwhich have proved so fatal to great republics. As there is no common centre tothe country, vast capital cities, colossal wealth, abject poverty, and suddenrevolutions are alike unknown; and political passion, instead of spreading overthe land like a torrent of desolation, spends its strength against theinterests and the individual passions of every State.

Nevertheless, all commodities and ideas circulate throughout the Union asfreely as in a country inhabited by one people. Nothing checks the spirit ofenterprise. Government avails itself of the assistance of all who have talentsor knowledge to serve it. Within the frontiers of the Union the profoundestpeace prevails, as within the heart of some great empire; abroad, it ranks withthe most powerful nations of the earth; two thousand miles of coast are open tothe commerce of the world; and as it possesses the keys of the globe, its flagsis respected in the most remote seas. The Union is as happy and as free as asmall people, and as glorious and as strong as a great nation.

Why The Federal System Is Not Adapted To All Peoples, And How TheAnglo-Americans Were Enabled To Adopt It.

Every Federal system contains defects which baffle the efforts of thelegislator—The Federal system is complex—It demands a dailyexercise of discretion on the part of the citizens—Practical knowledge ofgovernment common amongst the Americans—Relative weakness of theGovernment of the Union, another defect inherent in the Federalsystem—The Americans have diminished without remedying it—Thesovereignty of the separate States apparently weaker, but really stronger, thanthat of the Union—Why?—Natural causes of union must exist betweenconfederate peoples besides the laws—What these causes are amongst theAnglo-Americans—Maine and Georgia, separated by a distance of a thousandmiles, more naturally united than Normandy and Brittany—War, the mainperil of confederations—This proved even by the example of the UnitedStates—The Union has no great wars to fear—Why?—Dangers towhich Europeans would be exposed if they adopted the Federal system of theAmericans.

When a legislator succeeds, after persevering efforts, in exercising anindirect influence upon the destiny of nations, his genius is lauded bymankind, whilst, in point of fact, the geographical position of the countrywhich he is unable to change, a social condition which arose without hisco-operation, manners and opinions which he cannot trace to their source, andan origin with which he is unacquainted, exercise so irresistible an influenceover the courses of society that he is himself borne away by the current, afteran ineffectual resistance. Like the navigator, he may direct the vessel whichbears him along, but he can neither change its structure, nor raise the winds,nor lull the waters which swell beneath him.

I have shown the advantages which the Americans derive from their federalsystem; it remains for me to point out the circ*mstances which rendered thatsystem practicable, as its benefits are not to be enjoyed by all nations. Theincidental defects of the Federal system which originate in the laws may becorrected by the skill of the legislator, but there are further evils inherentin the system which cannot be counteracted by the peoples which adopt it. Thesenations must therefore find the strength necessary to support the naturalimperfections of their Government.

The most prominent evil of all Federal systems is the very complex nature ofthe means they employ. Two sovereignties are necessarily in presence of eachother. The legislator may simplify and equalize the action of these twosovereignties, by limiting each of them to a sphere of authority accuratelydefined; but he cannot combine them into one, or prevent them from coming intocollision at certain points. The Federal system therefore rests upon a theorywhich is necessarily complicated, and which demands the daily exercise of aconsiderable share of discretion on the part of those it governs.

A proposition must be plain to be adopted by the understanding of a people. Afalse notion which is clear and precise will always meet with a greater numberof adherents in the world than a true principle which is obscure or involved.Hence it arises that parties, which are like small communities in the heart ofthe nation, invariably adopt some principle or some name as a symbol, whichvery inadequately represents the end they have in view and the means which areat their disposal, but without which they could neither act nor subsist. Thegovernments which are founded upon a single principle or a single feeling whichis easily defined are perhaps not the best, but they are unquestionably thestrongest and the most durable in the world.

In examining the Constitution of the United States, which is the most perfectfederal constitution that ever existed, one is startled, on the other hand, atthe variety of information and the excellence of discretion which itpresupposes in the people whom it is meant to govern. The government of theUnion depends entirely upon legal fictions; the Union is an ideal nation whichonly exists in the mind, and whose limits and extent can only be discerned bythe understanding.

When once the general theory is comprehended, numberless difficulties remain tobe solved in its application; for the sovereignty of the Union is so involvedin that of the States that it is impossible to distinguish its boundaries atthe first glance. The whole structure of the Government is artificial andconventional; and it would be ill adapted to a people which has not been longaccustomed to conduct its own affairs, or to one in which the science ofpolitics has not descended to the humblest classes of society. I have neverbeen more struck by the good sense and the practical judgment of the Americansthan in the ingenious devices by which they elude the numberless difficultiesresulting from their Federal Constitution. I scarcely ever met with a plainAmerican citizen who could not distinguish, with surprising facility, theobligations created by the laws of Congress from those created by the laws ofhis own State; and who, after having discriminated between the matters whichcome under the cognizance of the Union and those which the local legislature iscompetent to regulate, could not point out the exact limit of the severaljurisdictions of the Federal courts and the tribunals of the State.

The Constitution of the United States is like those exquisite productions ofhuman industry which ensure wealth and renown to their inventors, but which areprofitless in any other hands. This truth is exemplified by the condition ofMexico at the present time. The Mexicans were desirous of establishing afederal system, and they took the Federal Constitution of their neighbors, theAnglo-Americans, as their model, and copied it with considerable accuracy. *sBut although they had borrowed the letter of the law, they were unable tocreate or to introduce the spirit and the sense which give it life. They wereinvolved in ceaseless embarrassments between the mechanism of their doublegovernment; the sovereignty of the States and that of the Union perpetuallyexceeded their respective privileges, and entered into collision; and to thepresent day Mexico is alternately the victim of anarchy and the slave ofmilitary despotism.

s
[ See the Mexican Constitution of 1824.]

The second and the most fatal of all the defects I have alluded to, and thatwhich I believe to be inherent in the federal system, is the relative weaknessof the government of the Union. The principle upon which all confederationsrest is that of a divided sovereignty. The legislator may render this partitionless perceptible, he may even conceal it for a time from the public eye, but hecannot prevent it from existing, and a divided sovereignty must always be lesspowerful than an entire supremacy. The reader has seen in the remarks I havemade on the Constitution of the United States that the Americans have displayedsingular ingenuity in combining the restriction of the power of the Unionwithin the narrow limits of a federal government with the semblance and, to acertain extent, with the force of a national government. By this means thelegislators of the Union have succeeded in diminishing, though not incounteracting the natural danger of confederations.

It has been remarked that the American Government does not apply itself to theStates, but that it immediately transmits its injunctions to the citizens, andcompels them as isolated individuals to comply with its demands. But if theFederal law were to clash with the interests and the prejudices of a State, itmight be feared that all the citizens of that State would conceive themselvesto be interested in the cause of a single individual who should refuse to obey.If all the citizens of the State were aggrieved at the same time and in thesame manner by the authority of the Union, the Federal Government would vainlyattempt to subdue them individually; they would instinctively unite in a commondefence, and they would derive a ready-prepared organization from the share ofsovereignty which the institution of their State allows them to enjoy. Fictionwould give way to reality, and an organized portion of the territory might thencontest the central authority. *t The same observation holds good with regardto the Federal jurisdiction. If the courts of the Union violated an importantlaw of a State in a private case, the real, if not the apparent, contest wouldarise between the aggrieved State represented by a citizen and the Unionrepresented by its courts of justice. *u

t
[ [This is precisely what occurred in 1862, and the following paragraphdescribes correctly the feelings and notions of the South. General Lee heldthat his primary allegiance was due, not to the Union, but to Virginia.]]

u
[ For instance, the Union possesses by the Constitution the right of sellingunoccupied lands for its own profit. Supposing that the State of Ohio shouldclaim the same right in behalf of certain territories lying within itsboundaries, upon the plea that the Constitution refers to those lands alonewhich do not belong to the jurisdiction of any particular State, andconsequently should choose to dispose of them itself, the litigation would becarried on in the names of the purchasers from the State of Ohio and thepurchasers from the Union, and not in the names of Ohio and the Union. But whatwould become of this legal fiction if the Federal purchaser was confirmed inhis right by the courts of the Union, whilst the other competitor was orderedto retain possession by the tribunals of the State of Ohio?]

He would have but a partial knowledge of the world who should imagine that itis possible, by the aid of legal fictions, to prevent men from finding out andemploying those means of gratifying their passions which have been left open tothem; and it may be doubted whether the American legislators, when theyrendered a collision between the two sovereigns less probable, destroyed thecause of such a misfortune. But it may even be affirmed that they were unableto ensure the preponderance of the Federal element in a case of this kind. TheUnion is possessed of money and of troops, but the affections and theprejudices of the people are in the bosom of the States. The sovereignty of theUnion is an abstract being, which is connected with but few external objects;the sovereignty of the States is hourly perceptible, easily understood,constantly active; and if the former is of recent creation, the latter iscoeval with the people itself. The sovereignty of the Union is factitious, thatof the States is natural, and derives its existence from its own simpleinfluence, like the authority of a parent. The supreme power of the nation onlyaffects a few of the chief interests of society; it represents an immense butremote country, and claims a feeling of patriotism which is vague and illdefined; but the authority of the States controls every individual citizen atevery hour and in all circ*mstances; it protects his property, his freedom, andhis life; and when we recollect the traditions, the customs, the prejudices oflocal and familiar attachment with which it is connected, we cannot doubt ofthe superiority of a power which is interwoven with every circ*mstance thatrenders the love of one’s native country instinctive in the human heart.

Since legislators are unable to obviate such dangerous collisions as occurbetween the two sovereignties which coexist in the federal system, their firstobject must be, not only to dissuade the confederate States from warfare, butto encourage such institutions as may promote the maintenance of peace. Henceit results that the Federal compact cannot be lasting unless there exists inthe communities which are leagued together a certain number of inducements tounion which render their common dependence agreeable, and the task of theGovernment light, and that system cannot succeed without the presence offavorable circ*mstances added to the influence of good laws. All the peopleswhich have ever formed a confederation have been held together by a certainnumber of common interests, which served as the intellectual ties ofassociation.

But the sentiments and the principles of man must be taken into considerationas well as his immediate interests. A certain uniformity of civilization is notless necessary to the durability of a confederation than a uniformity ofinterests in the States which compose it. In Switzerland the difference whichexists between the Canton of Uri and the Canton of Vaud is equal to thatbetween the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries; and, properly speaking,Switzerland has never possessed a federal government. The union between thesetwo cantons only subsists upon the map, and their discrepancies would soon beperceived if an attempt were made by a central authority to prescribe the samelaws to the whole territory.

One of the circ*mstances which most powerfully contribute to support theFederal Government in America is that the States have not only similarinterests, a common origin, and a common tongue, but that they are also arrivedat the same stage of civilization; which almost always renders a unionfeasible. I do not know of any European nation, how small soever it may be,which does not present less uniformity in its different provinces than theAmerican people, which occupies a territory as extensive as one-half of Europe.The distance from the State of Maine to that of Georgia is reckoned at aboutone thousand miles; but the difference between the civilization of Maine andthat of Georgia is slighter than the difference between the habits of Normandyand those of Brittany. Maine and Georgia, which are placed at the oppositeextremities of a great empire, are consequently in the natural possession ofmore real inducements to form a confederation than Normandy and Brittany, whichare only separated by a bridge.

The geographical position of the country contributed to increase the facilitieswhich the American legislators derived from the manners and customs of theinhabitants; and it is to this circ*mstance that the adoption and themaintenance of the Federal system are mainly attributable.

The most important occurrence which can mark the annals of a people is thebreaking out of a war. In war a people struggles with the energy of a singleman against foreign nations in the defence of its very existence. The skill ofa government, the good sense of the community, and the natural fondness whichmen entertain for their country, may suffice to maintain peace in the interiorof a district, and to favor its internal prosperity; but a nation can onlycarry on a great war at the cost of more numerous and more painful sacrifices;and to suppose that a great number of men will of their own accord comply withthese exigencies of the State is to betray an ignorance of mankind. All thepeoples which have been obliged to sustain a long and serious warfare haveconsequently been led to augment the power of their government. Those whichhave not succeeded in this attempt have been subjugated. A long war almostalways places nations in the wretched alternative of being abandoned to ruin bydefeat or to despotism by success. War therefore renders the symptoms of theweakness of a government most palpable and most alarming; and I have shown thatthe inherent defeat of federal governments is that of being weak.

The Federal system is not only deficient in every kind of centralizedadministration, but the central government itself is imperfectly organized,which is invariably an influential cause of inferiority when the nation isopposed to other countries which are themselves governed by a single authority.In the Federal Constitution of the United States, by which the centralgovernment possesses more real force, this evil is still extremely sensible. Anexample will illustrate the case to the reader.

The Constitution confers upon Congress the right of calling forth militia toexecute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; andanother article declares that the President of the United States is thecommander-in-chief of the militia. In the war of 1812 the President ordered themilitia of the Northern States to march to the frontiers; but Connecticut andMassachusetts, whose interests were impaired by the war, refused to obey thecommand. They argued that the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government tocall forth the militia in case of insurrection or invasion, but that in thepresent instance there was neither invasion nor insurrection. They added, thatthe same Constitution which conferred upon the Union the right of calling forththe militia reserved to the States that of naming the officers; and thatconsequently (as they understood the clause) no officer of the Union had anyright to command the militia, even during war, except the President in person;and in this case they were ordered to join an army commanded by anotherindividual. These absurd and pernicious doctrines received the sanction notonly of the governors and the legislative bodies, but also of the courts ofjustice in both States; and the Federal Government was constrained to raiseelsewhere the troops which it required. *v

v
[ Kent’s “Commentaries,” vol. i. p. 244. I have selected anexample which relates to a time posterior to the promulgation of the presentConstitution. If I had gone back to the days of the Confederation, I might havegiven still more striking instances. The whole nation was at that time in astate of enthusiastic excitement; the Revolution was represented by a man whowas the idol of the people; but at that very period Congress had, to say thetruth, no resources at all at its disposal. Troops and supplies wereperpetually wanting. The best-devised projects failed in the execution, and theUnion, which was constantly on the verge of destruction, was saved by theweakness of its enemies far more than by its own strength. [All doubt as to thepowers of the Federal Executive was, however, removed by its efforts in theCivil War, and those powers were largely extended.]]

The only safeguard which the American Union, with all the relative perfectionof its laws, possesses against the dissolution which would be produced by agreat war, lies in its probable exemption from that calamity. Placed in thecentre of an immense continent, which offers a boundless field for humanindustry, the Union is almost as much insulated from the world as if itsfrontiers were girt by the ocean. Canada contains only a million ofinhabitants, and its population is divided into two inimical nations. The rigorof the climate limits the extension of its territory, and shuts up its portsduring the six months of winter. From Canada to the Gulf of Mexico a few savagetribes are to be met with, which retire, perishing in their retreat, before sixthousand soldiers. To the South, the Union has a point of contact with theempire of Mexico; and it is thence that serious hostilities may one day beexpected to arise. But for a long while to come the uncivilized state of theMexican community, the depravity of its morals, and its extreme poverty, willprevent that country from ranking high amongst nations. *w As for the Powers ofEurope, they are too distant to be formidable.

w
[ [War broke out between the United States and Mexico in 1846, and ended in theconquest of an immense territory, including California.]]

The great advantage of the United States does not, then, consist in a FederalConstitution which allows them to carry on great wars, but in a geographicalposition which renders such enterprises extremely improbable.

No one can be more inclined than I am myself to appreciate the advantages ofthe federal system, which I hold to be one of the combinations most favorableto the prosperity and freedom of man. I envy the lot of those nations whichhave been enabled to adopt it; but I cannot believe that any confederatepeoples could maintain a long or an equal contest with a nation of similarstrength in which the government should be centralized. A people which shoulddivide its sovereignty into fractional powers, in the presence of the greatmilitary monarchies of Europe, would, in my opinion, by that very act, abdicateits power, and perhaps its existence and its name. But such is the admirableposition of the New World that man has no other enemy than himself; and that,in order to be happy and to be free, it suffices to seek the gifts ofprosperity and the knowledge of freedom.

Chapter IX: Why The PeopleMay Strictly Be Said To Govern In The United

States

I have hitherto examined the institutions of the United States; I have passedtheir legislation in review, and I have depicted the present characteristics ofpolitical society in that country. But a sovereign power exists above theseinstitutions and beyond these characteristic features which may destroy ormodify them at its pleasure—I mean that of the people. It remains to beshown in what manner this power, which regulates the laws, acts: itspropensities and its passions remain to be pointed out, as well as the secretsprings which retard, accelerate, or direct its irresistible course; and theeffects of its unbounded authority, with the destiny which is probably reservedfor it.

In America the people appoints the legislative and the executive power, andfurnishes the jurors who punish all offences against the laws. The Americaninstitutions are democratic, not only in their principle but in all theirconsequences; and the people elects its representatives directly, and for themost part annually, in order to ensure their dependence. The people istherefore the real directing power; and although the form of government isrepresentative, it is evident that the opinions, the prejudices, the interests,and even the passions of the community are hindered by no durable obstaclesfrom exercising a perpetual influence on society. In the United States themajority governs in the name of the people, as is the case in all the countriesin which the people is supreme. The majority is principally composed ofpeaceful citizens who, either by inclination or by interest, are sincerelydesirous of the welfare of their country. But they are surrounded by theincessant agitation of parties, which attempt to gain their co-operation and toavail themselves of their support.

Chapter X: Parties In TheUnited States

Chapter Summary

Great distinction to be made between parties—Parties which are to eachother as rival nations—Parties properly so called—Differencebetween great and small parties—Epochs which produce them—Theircharacteristics—America has had great parties—They areextinct—Federalists—Republicans—Defeat of theFederalists—Difficulty of creating parties in the UnitedStates—What is done with this intention—Aristocratic or democraticcharacter to be met with in all parties—Struggle of General Jacksonagainst the Bank.

Parties In The United States

A great distinction must be made between parties. Some countries are so largethat the different populations which inhabit them have contradictory interests,although they are the subjects of the same Government, and they may thence bein a perpetual state of opposition. In this case the different fractions of thepeople may more properly be considered as distinct nations than as mereparties; and if a civil war breaks out, the struggle is carried on by rivalpeoples rather than by factions in the State.

But when the citizens entertain different opinions upon subjects which affectthe whole country alike, such, for instance, as the principles upon which thegovernment is to be conducted, then distinctions arise which may correctly bestyled parties. Parties are a necessary evil in free governments; but they havenot at all times the same character and the same propensities.

At certain periods a nation may be oppressed by such insupportable evils as toconceive the design of effecting a total change in its political constitution;at other times the mischief lies still deeper, and the existence of societyitself is endangered. Such are the times of great revolutions and of greatparties. But between these epochs of misery and of confusion there are periodsduring which human society seems to rest, and mankind to make a pause. Thispause is, indeed, only apparent, for time does not stop its course for nationsany more than for men; they are all advancing towards a goal with which theyare unacquainted; and we only imagine them to be stationary when their progressescapes our observation, as men who are going at a foot-pace seem to bestanding still to those who run.

But however this may be, there are certain epochs at which the changes thattake place in the social and political constitution of nations are so slow andso insensible that men imagine their present condition to be a final state; andthe human mind, believing itself to be firmly based upon certain foundations,does not extend its researches beyond the horizon which it descries. These arethe times of small parties and of intrigue.

The political parties which I style great are those which cling to principlesmore than to their consequences; to general, and not to especial cases; toideas, and not to men. These parties are usually distinguished by a noblercharacter, by more generous passions, more genuine convictions, and a more boldand open conduct than the others. In them private interest, which always playsthe chief part in political passions, is more studiously veiled under thepretext of the public good; and it may even be sometimes concealed from theeyes of the very persons whom it excites and impels.

Minor parties are, on the other hand, generally deficient in political faith.As they are not sustained or dignified by a lofty purpose, they ostensiblydisplay the egotism of their character in their actions. They glow with afactitious zeal; their language is vehement, but their conduct is timid andirresolute. The means they employ are as wretched as the end at which they aim.Hence it arises that when a calm state of things succeeds a violent revolution,the leaders of society seem suddenly to disappear, and the powers of the humanmind to lie concealed. Society is convulsed by great parties, by minor ones itis agitated; it is torn by the former, by the latter it is degraded; and ifthese sometimes save it by a salutary perturbation, those invariably disturb itto no good end.

America has already lost the great parties which once divided the nation; andif her happiness is considerably increased, her morality has suffered by theirextinction. When the War of Independence was terminated, and the foundations ofthe new Government were to be laid down, the nation was divided between twoopinions—two opinions which are as old as the world, and which areperpetually to be met with under all the forms and all the names which haveever obtained in free communities—the one tending to limit, the other toextend indefinitely, the power of the people. The conflict of these twoopinions never assumed that degree of violence in America which it hasfrequently displayed elsewhere. Both parties of the Americans were, in fact,agreed upon the most essential points; and neither of them had to destroy atraditionary constitution, or to overthrow the structure of society, in orderto ensure its own triumph. In neither of them, consequently, were a greatnumber of private interests affected by success or by defeat; but moralprinciples of a high order, such as the love of equality and of independence,were concerned in the struggle, and they sufficed to kindle violent passions.

The party which desired to limit the power of the people endeavored to applyits doctrines more especially to the Constitution of the Union, whence itderived its name of Federal. The other party, which affected to be moreexclusively attached to the cause of liberty, took that of Republican. Americais a land of democracy, and the Federalists were always in a minority; but theyreckoned on their side almost all the great men who had been called forth bythe War of Independence, and their moral influence was very considerable. Theircause was, moreover, favored by circ*mstances. The ruin of the Confederationhad impressed the people with a dread of anarchy, and the Federalists did notfail to profit by this transient disposition of the multitude. For ten ortwelve years they were at the head of affairs, and they were able to applysome, though not all, of their principles; for the hostile current was becomingfrom day to day too violent to be checked or stemmed. In 1801 the Republicansgot possession of the Government; Thomas Jefferson was named President; and heincreased the influence of their party by the weight of his celebrity, thegreatness of his talents, and the immense extent of his popularity.

The means by which the Federalists had maintained their position wereartificial, and their resources were temporary; it was by the virtues or thetalents of their leaders that they had risen to power. When the Republicansattained to that lofty station, their opponents were overwhelmed by utterdefeat. An immense majority declared itself against the retiring party, and theFederalists found themselves in so small a minority that they at once despairedof their future success. From that moment the Republican or Democratic party *ahas proceeded from conquest to conquest, until it has acquired absolutesupremacy in the country. The Federalists, perceiving that they were vanquishedwithout resource, and isolated in the midst of the nation, fell into twodivisions, of which one joined the victorious Republicans, and the otherabandoned its rallying-point and its name. Many years have already elapsedsince they ceased to exist as a party.

a
[ [It is scarcely necessary to remark that in more recent times thesignification of these terms has changed. The Republicans are therepresentatives of the old Federalists, and the Democrats of the oldRepublicans.—Trans. Note (1861).]] The accession of the Federalists topower was, in my opinion, one of the most fortunate incidents which accompaniedthe formation of the great American Union; they resisted the inevitablepropensities of their age and of the country. But whether their theories weregood or bad, they had the effect of being inapplicable, as a system, to thesociety which they professed to govern, and that which occurred under theauspices of Jefferson must therefore have taken place sooner or later. Buttheir Government gave the new republic time to acquire a certain stability, andafterwards to support the rapid growth of the very doctrines which they hadcombated. A considerable number of their principles were in point of factembodied in the political creed of their opponents; and the FederalConstitution which subsists at the present day is a lasting monument of theirpatriotism and their wisdom.

Great political parties are not, then, to be met with in the United States atthe present time. Parties, indeed, may be found which threaten the futuretranquillity of the Union; but there are none which seem to contest the presentform of Government or the present course of society. The parties by which theUnion is menaced do not rest upon abstract principles, but upon temporalinterests. These interests, disseminated in the provinces of so vast an empire,may be said to constitute rival nations rather than parties. Thus, upon arecent occasion, the North contended for the system of commercial prohibition,and the South took up arms in favor of free trade, simply because the North isa manufacturing and the South an agricultural district; and that therestrictive system which was profitable to the one was prejudicial to theother. *b

b
[ [The divisions of North and South have since acquired a far greater degree ofintensity, and the South, though conquered, still presents a formidable spiritof opposition to Northern government.—Translator’s Note, 1875.]]

In the absence of great parties, the United States abound with lessercontroversies; and public opinion is divided into a thousand minute shades ofdifference upon questions of very little moment. The pains which are taken tocreate parties are inconceivable, and at the present day it is no easy task. Inthe United States there is no religious animosity, because all religion isrespected, and no sect is predominant; there is no jealousy of rank, becausethe people is everything, and none can contest its authority; lastly, there isno public indigence to supply the means of agitation, because the physicalposition of the country opens so wide a field to industry that man is able toaccomplish the most surprising undertakings with his own native resources.Nevertheless, ambitious men are interested in the creation of parties, since itis difficult to eject a person from authority upon the mere ground that hisplace is coveted by others. The skill of the actors in the political world liestherefore in the art of creating parties. A political aspirant in the UnitedStates begins by discriminating his own interest, and by calculating upon thoseinterests which may be collected around and amalgamated with it; he thencontrives to discover some doctrine or some principle which may suit thepurposes of this new association, and which he adopts in order to bring forwardhis party and to secure his popularity; just as the imprimatur of a King was informer days incorporated with the volume which it authorized, but to which itnowise belonged. When these preliminaries are terminated, the new party isushered into the political world.

All the domestic controversies of the Americans at first appear to a strangerto be so incomprehensible and so puerile that he is at a loss whether to pity apeople which takes such arrant trifles in good earnest, or to envy thehappiness which enables it to discuss them. But when he comes to study thesecret propensities which govern the factions of America, he easily perceivesthat the greater part of them are more or less connected with one or the otherof those two divisions which have always existed in free communities. Thedeeper we penetrate into the working of these parties, the more do we perceivethat the object of the one is to limit, and that of the other to extend, thepopular authority. I do not assert that the ostensible end, or even that thesecret aim, of American parties is to promote the rule of aristocracy ordemocracy in the country; but I affirm that aristocratic or democratic passionsmay easily be detected at the bottom of all parties, and that, although theyescape a superficial observation, they are the main point and the very soul ofevery faction in the United States.

To quote a recent example. When the President attacked the Bank, the countrywas excited and parties were formed; the well-informed classes rallied roundthe Bank, the common people round the President. But it must not be imaginedthat the people had formed a rational opinion upon a question which offers somany difficulties to the most experienced statesmen. The Bank is a greatestablishment which enjoys an independent existence, and the people, accustomedto make and unmake whatsoever it pleases, is startled to meet with thisobstacle to its authority. In the midst of the perpetual fluctuation of societythe community is irritated by so permanent an institution, and is led to attackit in order to see whether it can be shaken and controlled, like all the otherinstitutions of the country.

Remains Of The Aristocratic Party In The United States

Secret opposition of wealthy individuals to democracy—Theirretirement—Their taste for exclusive pleasures and for luxury athome—Their simplicity abroad—Their affected condescension towardsthe people.

It sometimes happens in a people amongst which various opinions prevail thatthe balance of the several parties is lost, and one of them obtains anirresistible preponderance, overpowers all obstacles, harasses its opponents,and appropriates all the resources of society to its own purposes. Thevanquished citizens despair of success and they conceal their dissatisfactionin silence and in general apathy. The nation seems to be governed by a singleprinciple, and the prevailing party assumes the credit of having restored peaceand unanimity to the country. But this apparent unanimity is merely a cloak toalarming dissensions and perpetual opposition.

This is precisely what occurred in America; when the democratic party got theupper hand, it took exclusive possession of the conduct of affairs, and fromthat time the laws and the customs of society have been adapted to itscaprices. At the present day the more affluent classes of society are soentirely removed from the direction of political affairs in the United Statesthat wealth, far from conferring a right to the exercise of power, is rather anobstacle than a means of attaining to it. The wealthy members of the communityabandon the lists, through unwillingness to contend, and frequently to contendin vain, against the poorest classes of their fellow citizens. They concentrateall their enjoyments in the privacy of their homes, where they occupy a rankwhich cannot be assumed in public; and they constitute a private society in theState, which has its own tastes and its own pleasures. They submit to thisstate of things as an irremediable evil, but they are careful not to show thatthey are galled by its continuance; it is even not uncommon to hear them laudthe delights of a republican government, and the advantages of democraticinstitutions when they are in public. Next to hating their enemies, men aremost inclined to flatter them.

Mark, for instance, that opulent citizen, who is as anxious as a Jew of theMiddle Ages to conceal his wealth. His dress is plain, his demeanor unassuming;but the interior of his dwelling glitters with luxury, and none but a fewchosen guests whom he haughtily styles his equals are allowed to penetrate intothis sanctuary. No European noble is more exclusive in his pleasures, or morejealous of the smallest advantages which his privileged station confers uponhim. But the very same individual crosses the city to reach a darkcounting-house in the centre of traffic, where every one may accost him whopleases. If he meets his cobbler upon the way, they stop and converse; the twocitizens discuss the affairs of the State in which they have an equal interest,and they shake hands before they part.

But beneath this artificial enthusiasm, and these obsequious attentions to thepreponderating power, it is easy to perceive that the wealthy members of thecommunity entertain a hearty distaste to the democratic institutions of theircountry. The populace is at once the object of their scorn and of their fears.If the maladministration of the democracy ever brings about a revolutionarycrisis, and if monarchical institutions ever become practicable in the UnitedStates, the truth of what I advance will become obvious.

The two chief weapons which parties use in order to ensure success are thepublic press and the formation of associations.

Chapter XI: Liberty Of ThePress In The United States

Chapter Summary

Difficulty of restraining the liberty of the press—Particular reasonswhich some nations have to cherish this liberty—The liberty of the pressa necessary consequence of the sovereignty of the people as it is understood inAmerica—Violent language of the periodical press in the UnitedStates—Propensities of the periodical press—Illustrated by theUnited States—Opinion of the Americans upon the repression of the abuseof the liberty of the press by judicial prosecutions—Reasons for whichthe press is less powerful in America than in France.

Liberty Of The Press In The United States

The influence of the liberty of the press does not affect political opinionsalone, but it extends to all the opinions of men, and it modifies customs aswell as laws. In another part of this work I shall attempt to determinate thedegree of influence which the liberty of the press has exercised upon civilsociety in the United States, and to point out the direction which it has givento the ideas, as well as the tone which it has imparted to the character andthe feelings, of the Anglo-Americans, but at present I purpose simply toexamine the effects produced by the liberty of the press in the politicalworld.

I confess that I do not entertain that firm and complete attachment to theliberty of the press which things that are supremely good in their very natureare wont to excite in the mind; and I approve of it more from a recollection ofthe evils it prevents than from a consideration of the advantages it ensures.

If any one could point out an intermediate and yet a tenable position betweenthe complete independence and the entire subjection of the public expression ofopinion, I should perhaps be inclined to adopt it; but the difficulty is todiscover this position. If it is your intention to correct the abuses ofunlicensed printing and to restore the use of orderly language, you may in thefirst instance try the offender by a jury; but if the jury acquits him, theopinion which was that of a single individual becomes the opinion of thecountry at large. Too much and too little has therefore hitherto been done. Ifyou proceed, you must bring the delinquent before a court of permanent judges.But even here the cause must be heard before it can be decided; and the veryprinciples which no book would have ventured to avow are blazoned forth in thepleadings, and what was obscurely hinted at in a single composition is thenrepeated in a multitude of other publications. The language in which a thoughtis embodied is the mere carcass of the thought, and not the idea itself;tribunals may condemn the form, but the sense and spirit of the work is toosubtle for their authority. Too much has still been done to recede, too littleto attain your end; you must therefore proceed. If you establish a censorshipof the press, the tongue of the public speaker will still make itself heard,and you have only increased the mischief. The powers of thought do not rely,like the powers of physical strength, upon the number of their mechanicalagents, nor can a host of authors be reckoned like the troops which compose anarmy; on the contrary, the authority of a principle is often increased by thesmallness of the number of men by whom it is expressed. The words of astrong-minded man, which penetrate amidst the passions of a listening assembly,have more power than the vociferations of a thousand orators; and if it beallowed to speak freely in any public place, the consequence is the same as iffree speaking was allowed in every village. The liberty of discourse musttherefore be destroyed as well as the liberty of the press; this is thenecessary term of your efforts; but if your object was to repress the abuses ofliberty, they have brought you to the feet of a despot. You have been led fromthe extreme of independence to the extreme of subjection without meeting with asingle tenable position for shelter or repose.

There are certain nations which have peculiar reasons for cherishing theliberty of the press, independently of the general motives which I have justpointed out. For in certain countries which profess to enjoy the privileges offreedom every individual agent of the Government may violate the laws withimpunity, since those whom he oppresses cannot prosecute him before the courtsof justice. In this case the liberty of the press is not merely a guarantee,but it is the only guarantee, of their liberty and their security which thecitizens possess. If the rulers of these nations propose to abolish theindependence of the press, the people would be justified in saying: Give us theright of prosecuting your offences before the ordinary tribunals, and perhapswe may then waive our right of appeal to the tribunal of public opinion.

But in the countries in which the doctrine of the sovereignty of the peopleostensibly prevails, the censorship of the press is not only dangerous, but itis absurd. When the right of every citizen to co-operate in the government ofsociety is acknowledged, every citizen must be presumed to possess the power ofdiscriminating between the different opinions of his contemporaries, and ofappreciating the different facts from which inferences may be drawn. Thesovereignty of the people and the liberty of the press may therefore be lookedupon as correlative institutions; just as the censorship of the press anduniversal suffrage are two things which are irreconcilably opposed, and whichcannot long be retained among the institutions of the same people. Not a singleindividual of the twelve millions who inhabit the territory of the UnitedStates has as yet dared to propose any restrictions to the liberty of thepress. The first newspaper over which I cast my eyes, upon my arrival inAmerica, contained the following article:

In all this affair the language of Jackson has been that of a heartless despot,solely occupied with the preservation of his own authority. Ambition is hiscrime, and it will be his punishment too: intrigue is his native element, andintrigue will confound his tricks, and will deprive him of his power: hegoverns by means of corruption, and his immoral practices will redound to hisshame and confusion. His conduct in the political arena has been that of ashameless and lawless gamester. He succeeded at the time, but the hour ofretribution approaches, and he will be obliged to disgorge his winnings, tothrow aside his false dice, and to end his days in some retirement, where hemay curse his madness at his leisure; for repentance is a virtue with which hisheart is likely to remain forever unacquainted.

It is not uncommonly imagined in France that the virulence of the pressoriginates in the uncertain social condition, in the political excitement, andthe general sense of consequent evil which prevail in that country; and it istherefore supposed that as soon as society has resumed a certain degree ofcomposure the press will abandon its present vehemence. I am inclined to thinkthat the above causes explain the reason of the extraordinary ascendency it hasacquired over the nation, but that they do not exercise much influence upon thetone of its language. The periodical press appears to me to be actuated bypassions and propensities independent of the circ*mstances in which it isplaced, and the present position of America corroborates this opinion.

America is perhaps, at this moment, the country of the whole world whichcontains the fewest germs of revolution; but the press is not less destructivein its principles than in France, and it displays the same violence without thesame reasons for indignation. In America, as in France, it constitutes asingular power, so strangely composed of mingled good and evil that it is atthe same time indispensable to the existence of freedom, and nearlyincompatible with the maintenance of public order. Its power is certainly muchgreater in France than in the United States; though nothing is more rare in thelatter country than to hear of a prosecution having been instituted against it.The reason of this is perfectly simple: the Americans, having once admitted thedoctrine of the sovereignty of the people, apply it with perfect consistency.It was never their intention to found a permanent state of things with elementswhich undergo daily modifications; and there is consequently nothing criminalin an attack upon the existing laws, provided it be not attended with a violentinfraction of them. They are moreover of opinion that courts of justice areunable to check the abuses of the press; and that as the subtilty of humanlanguage perpetually eludes the severity of judicial analysis, offences of thisnature are apt to escape the hand which attempts to apprehend them. They holdthat to act with efficacy upon the press it would be necessary to find atribunal, not only devoted to the existing order of things, but capable ofsurmounting the influence of public opinion; a tribunal which should conductit* proceedings without publicity, which should pronounce its decrees withoutassigning its motives, and punish the intentions even more than the language ofan author. Whosoever should have the power of creating and maintaining atribunal of this kind would waste his time in prosecuting the liberty of thepress; for he would be the supreme master of the whole community, and he wouldbe as free to rid himself of the authors as of their writings. In thisquestion, therefore, there is no medium between servitude and extreme license;in order to enjoy the inestimable benefits which the liberty of the pressensures, it is necessary to submit to the inevitable evils which it engenders.To expect to acquire the former and to escape the latter is to cherish one ofthose illusions which commonly mislead nations in their times of sickness,when, tired with faction and exhausted by effort, they attempt to combinehostile opinions and contrary principles upon the same soil.

The small influence of the American journals is attributable to severalreasons, amongst which are the following:

The liberty of writing, like all other liberty, is most formidable when it is anovelty; for a people which has never been accustomed to co-operate in theconduct of State affairs places implicit confidence in the first tribune whoarouses its attention. The Anglo-Americans have enjoyed this liberty ever sincethe foundation of the settlements; moreover, the press cannot create humanpassions by its own power, however skillfully it may kindle them where theyexist. In America politics are discussed with animation and a varied activity,but they rarely touch those deep passions which are excited whenever thepositive interest of a part of the community is impaired: but in the UnitedStates the interests of the community are in a most prosperous condition. Asingle glance upon a French and an American newspaper is sufficient to show thedifference which exists between the two nations on this head. In France thespace allotted to commercial advertisem*nts is very limited, and theintelligence is not considerable, but the most essential part of the journal isthat which contains the discussion of the politics of the day. In Americathree-quarters of the enormous sheet which is set before the reader are filledwith advertisem*nts, and the remainder is frequently occupied by politicalintelligence or trivial anecdotes: it is only from time to time that one findsa corner devoted to passionate discussions like those with which thejournalists of France are wont to indulge their readers.

It has been demonstrated by observation, and discovered by the innate sagacityof the pettiest as well as the greatest of despots, that the influence of apower is increased in proportion as its direction is rendered more central. InFrance the press combines a twofold centralization; almost all its power iscentred in the same spot, and vested in the same hands, for its organs are farfrom numerous. The influence of a public press thus constituted, upon asceptical nation, must be unbounded. It is an enemy with which a Government maysign an occasional truce, but which it is difficult to resist for any length oftime.

Neither of these kinds of centralization exists in America. The United Stateshave no metropolis; the intelligence as well as the power of the country aredispersed abroad, and instead of radiating from a point, they cross each otherin every direction; the Americans have established no central control over theexpression of opinion, any more than over the conduct of business. These arecirc*mstances which do not depend on human foresight; but it is owing to thelaws of the Union that there are no licenses to be granted to printers, nosecurities demanded from editors as in France, and no stamp duty as in Franceand formerly in England. The consequence of this is that nothing is easier thanto set up a newspaper, and a small number of readers suffices to defray theexpenses of the editor.

The number of periodical and occasional publications which appears in theUnited States actually surpasses belief. The most enlightened Americansattribute the subordinate influence of the press to this excessivedissemination; and it is adopted as an axiom of political science in thatcountry that the only way to neutralize the effect of public journals is tomultiply them indefinitely. I cannot conceive that a truth which is soself-evident should not already have been more generally admitted in Europe; itis comprehensible that the persons who hope to bring about revolutions by meansof the press should be desirous of confining its action to a few powerfulorgans, but it is perfectly incredible that the partisans of the existing stateof things, and the natural supporters of the law, should attempt to diminishthe influence of the press by concentrating its authority. The Governments ofEurope seem to treat the press with the courtesy of the knights of old; theyare anxious to furnish it with the same central power which they have found tobe so trusty a weapon, in order to enhance the glory of their resistance to itsattacks.

In America there is scarcely a hamlet which has not its own newspaper. It mayreadily be imagined that neither discipline nor unity of design can becommunicated to so multifarious a host, and each one is consequently led tofight under his own standard. All the political journals of the United Statesare indeed arrayed on the side of the administration or against it; but theyattack and defend in a thousand different ways. They cannot succeed in formingthose great currents of opinion which overwhelm the most solid obstacles. Thisdivision of the influence of the press produces a variety of other consequenceswhich are scarcely less remarkable. The facility with which journals can beestablished induces a multitude of individuals to take a part in them; but asthe extent of competition precludes the possibility of considerable profit, themost distinguished classes of society are rarely led to engage in theseundertakings. But such is the number of the public prints that, even if theywere a source of wealth, writers of ability could not be found to direct themall. The journalists of the United States are usually placed in a very humbleposition, with a scanty education and a vulgar turn of mind. The will of themajority is the most general of laws, and it establishes certain habits whichform the characteristics of each peculiar class of society; thus it dictatesthe etiquette practised at courts and the etiquette of the bar. Thecharacteristics of the French journalist consist in a violent, but frequentlyan eloquent and lofty, manner of discussing the politics of the day; and theexceptions to this habitual practice are only occasional. The characteristicsof the American journalist consist in an open and coarse appeal to the passionsof the populace; and he habitually abandons the principles of political scienceto assail the characters of individuals, to track them into private life, anddisclose all their weaknesses and errors.

Nothing can be more deplorable than this abuse of the powers of thought; Ishall have occasion to point out hereafter the influence of the newspapers uponthe taste and the morality of the American people, but my present subjectexclusively concerns the political world. It cannot be denied that the effectsof this extreme license of the press tend indirectly to the maintenance ofpublic order. The individuals who are already in the possession of a highstation in the esteem of their fellow-citizens are afraid to write in thenewspapers, and they are thus deprived of the most powerful instrument whichthey can use to excite the passions of the multitude to their own advantage. *a

a
[ They only write in the papers when they choose to address the people in theirown name; as, for instance, when they are called upon to repel calumniousimputations, and to correct a misstatement of facts.]

The personal opinions of the editors have no kind of weight in the eyes of thepublic: the only use of a journal is, that it imparts the knowledge of certainfacts, and it is only by altering or distorting those facts that a journalistcan contribute to the support of his own views.

But although the press is limited to these resources, its influence in Americais immense. It is the power which impels the circulation of political lifethrough all the districts of that vast territory. Its eye is constantly open todetect the secret springs of political designs, and to summon the leaders ofall parties to the bar of public opinion. It rallies the interests of thecommunity round certain principles, and it draws up the creed which factionsadopt; for it affords a means of intercourse between parties which hear, andwhich address each other without ever having been in immediate contact. When agreat number of the organs of the press adopt the same line of conduct, theirinfluence becomes irresistible; and public opinion, when it is perpetuallyassailed from the same side, eventually yields to the attack. In the UnitedStates each separate journal exercises but little authority, but the power ofthe periodical press is only second to that of the people. *b

b
[ See Appendix, P.]

The opinions established in the United States under the empire of the libertyof the press are frequently more firmly rooted than those which are formedelsewhere under the sanction of a censor.

In the United States the democracy perpetually raises fresh individuals to theconduct of public affairs; and the measures of the administration areconsequently seldom regulated by the strict rules of consistency or of order.But the general principles of the Government are more stable, and the opinionsmost prevalent in society are generally more durable than in many othercountries. When once the Americans have taken up an idea, whether it be well orill founded, nothing is more difficult than to eradicate it from their minds.The same tenacity of opinion has been observed in England, where, for the lastcentury, greater freedom of conscience and more invincible prejudices haveexisted than in all the other countries of Europe. I attribute this consequenceto a cause which may at first sight appear to have a very opposite tendency,namely, to the liberty of the press. The nations amongst which this libertyexists are as apt to cling to their opinions from pride as from conviction.They cherish them because they hold them to be just, and because they exercisedtheir own free-will in choosing them; and they maintain them not only becausethey are true, but because they are their own. Several other reasons conduce tothe same end.

It was remarked by a man of genius that “ignorance lies at the two endsof knowledge.” Perhaps it would have been more correct to have said, thatabsolute convictions are to be met with at the two extremities, and that doubtlies in the middle; for the human intellect may be considered in three distinctstates, which frequently succeed one another. A man believes implicitly,because he adopts a proposition without inquiry. He doubts as soon as he isassailed by the objections which his inquiries may have aroused. But hefrequently succeeds in satisfying these doubts, and then he begins to believeafresh: he no longer lays hold on a truth in its most shadowy and uncertainform, but he sees it clearly before him, and he advances onwards by the lightit gives him. *c

c
[ It may, however, be doubted whether this rational and self-guiding convictionarouses as much fervor or enthusiastic devotedness in men as their firstdogmatical belief.]

When the liberty of the press acts upon men who are in the first of these threestates, it does not immediately disturb their habit of believing implicitlywithout investigation, but it constantly modifies the objects of theirintuitive convictions. The human mind continues to discern but one point uponthe whole intellectual horizon, and that point is in continual motion. Such arethe symptoms of sudden revolutions, and of the misfortunes which are sure tobefall those generations which abruptly adopt the unconditional freedom of thepress.

The circle of novel ideas is, however, soon terminated; the touch of experienceis upon them, and the doubt and mistrust which their uncertainty producesbecome universal. We may rest assured that the majority of mankind will eitherbelieve they know not wherefore, or will not know what to believe. Few are thebeings who can ever hope to attain to that state of rational and independentconviction which true knowledge can beget in defiance of the attacks of doubt.

It has been remarked that in times of great religious fervor men sometimeschange their religious opinions; whereas in times of general scepticismeveryone clings to his own persuasion. The same thing takes place in politicsunder the liberty of the press. In countries where all the theories of socialscience have been contested in their turn, the citizens who have adopted one ofthem stick to it, not so much because they are assured of its excellence, asbecause they are not convinced of the superiority of any other. In the presentage men are not very ready to die in defence of their opinions, but they arerarely inclined to change them; and there are fewer martyrs as well as fewerapostates.

Another still more valid reason may yet be adduced: when no abstract opinionsare looked upon as certain, men cling to the mere propensities and externalinterests of their position, which are naturally more tangible and morepermanent than any opinions in the world.

It is not a question of easy solution whether aristocracy or democracy is mostfit to govern a country. But it is certain that democracy annoys one part ofthe community, and that aristocracy oppresses another part. When the questionis reduced to the simple expression of the struggle between poverty and wealth,the tendency of each side of the dispute becomes perfectly evident withoutfurther controversy.

Chapter XII: PoliticalAssociations In The United States

Chapter Summary

Daily use which the Anglo-Americans make of the right ofassociation—Three kinds of political associations—In what mannerthe Americans apply the representative system to associations—Dangersresulting to the State—Great Convention of 1831 relative to theTariff—Legislative character of this Convention—Why the unlimitedexercise of the right of association is less dangerous in the United Statesthan elsewhere—Why it may be looked upon as necessary—Utility ofassociations in a democratic people.

Political Associations In The United States

In no country in the world has the principle of association been moresuccessfully used, or more unsparingly applied to a multitude of differentobjects, than in America. Besides the permanent associations which areestablished by law under the names of townships, cities, and counties, a vastnumber of others are formed and maintained by the agency of privateindividuals.

The citizen of the United States is taught from his earliest infancy to relyupon his own exertions in order to resist the evils and the difficulties oflife; he looks upon social authority with an eye of mistrust and anxiety, andhe only claims its assistance when he is quite unable to shift without it. Thishabit may even be traced in the schools of the rising generation, where thechildren in their games are wont to submit to rules which they have themselvesestablished, and to punish misdemeanors which they have themselves defined. Thesame spirit pervades every act of social life. If a stoppage occurs in athoroughfare, and the circulation of the public is hindered, the neighborsimmediately constitute a deliberative body; and this extemporaneous assemblygives rise to an executive power which remedies the inconvenience beforeanybody has thought of recurring to an authority superior to that of thepersons immediately concerned. If the public pleasures are concerned, anassociation is formed to provide for the splendor and the regularity of theentertainment. Societies are formed to resist enemies which are exclusively ofa moral nature, and to diminish the vice of intemperance: in the United Statesassociations are established to promote public order, commerce, industry,morality, and religion; for there is no end which the human will, seconded bythe collective exertions of individuals, despairs of attaining.

I shall hereafter have occasion to show the effects of association upon thecourse of society, and I must confine myself for the present to the politicalworld. When once the right of association is recognized, the citizens mayemploy it in several different ways.

An association consists simply in the public assent which a number ofindividuals give to certain doctrines, and in the engagement which theycontract to promote the spread of those doctrines by their exertions. The rightof association with these views is very analogous to the liberty of unlicensedwriting; but societies thus formed possess more authority than the press. Whenan opinion is represented by a society, it necessarily assumes a more exact andexplicit form. It numbers its partisans, and compromises their welfare in itscause: they, on the other hand, become acquainted with each other, and theirzeal is increased by their number. An association unites the efforts of mindswhich have a tendency to diverge in one single channel, and urges themvigorously towards one single end which it points out.

The second degree in the right of association is the power of meeting. When anassociation is allowed to establish centres of action at certain importantpoints in the country, its activity is increased and its influence extended.Men have the opportunity of seeing each other; means of execution are morereadily combined, and opinions are maintained with a degree of warmth andenergy which written language cannot approach.

Lastly, in the exercise of the right of political association, there is a thirddegree: the partisans of an opinion may unite in electoral bodies, and choosedelegates to represent them in a central assembly. This is, properly speaking,the application of the representative system to a party.

Thus, in the first instance, a society is formed between individuals professingthe same opinion, and the tie which keeps it together is of a purelyintellectual nature; in the second case, small assemblies are formed which onlyrepresent a fraction of the party. Lastly, in the third case, they constitute aseparate nation in the midst of the nation, a government within the Government.Their delegates, like the real delegates of the majority, represent the entirecollective force of their party; and they enjoy a certain degree of thatnational dignity and great influence which belong to the chosen representativesof the people. It is true that they have not the right of making the laws, butthey have the power of attacking those which are in being, and of drawing upbeforehand those which they may afterwards cause to be adopted.

If, in a people which is imperfectly accustomed to the exercise of freedom, orwhich is exposed to violent political passions, a deliberating minority, whichconfines itself to the contemplation of future laws, be placed in juxtapositionto the legislative majority, I cannot but believe that public tranquillityincurs very great risks in that nation. There is doubtless a very widedifference between proving that one law is in itself better than another andproving that the former ought to be substituted for the latter. But theimagination of the populace is very apt to overlook this difference, which isso apparent to the minds of thinking men. It sometimes happens that a nation isdivided into two nearly equal parties, each of which affects to represent themajority. If, in immediate contiguity to the directing power, another power beestablished, which exercises almost as much moral authority as the former, itis not to be believed that it will long be content to speak without acting; orthat it will always be restrained by the abstract consideration of the natureof associations which are meant to direct but not to enforce opinions, tosuggest but not to make the laws.

The more we consider the independence of the press in its principalconsequences, the more are we convinced that it is the chief and, so to speak,the constitutive element of freedom in the modern world. A nation which isdetermined to remain free is therefore right in demanding the unrestrainedexercise of this independence. But the unrestrained liberty of politicalassociation cannot be entirely assimilated to the liberty of the press. The oneis at the same time less necessary and more dangerous than the other. A nationmay confine it within certain limits without forfeiting any part of itsself-control; and it may sometimes be obliged to do so in order to maintain itsown authority.

In America the liberty of association for political purposes is unbounded. Anexample will show in the clearest light to what an extent this privilege istolerated.

The question of the tariff, or of free trade, produced a great manifestation ofparty feeling in America; the tariff was not only a subject of debate as amatter of opinion, but it exercised a favorable or a prejudicial influence uponseveral very powerful interests of the States. The North attributed a greatportion of its prosperity, and the South all its sufferings, to this system;insomuch that for a long time the tariff was the sole source of the politicalanimosities which agitated the Union.

In 1831, when the dispute was raging with the utmost virulence, a privatecitizen of Massachusetts proposed to all the enemies of the tariff, by means ofthe public prints, to send delegates to Philadelphia in order to consulttogether upon the means which were most fitted to promote freedom of trade.This proposal circulated in a few days from Maine to New Orleans by the powerof the printing-press: the opponents of the tariff adopted it with enthusiasm;meetings were formed on all sides, and delegates were named. The majority ofthese individuals were well known, and some of them had earned a considerabledegree of celebrity. South Carolina alone, which afterwards took up arms in thesame cause, sent sixty-three delegates. On October 1, 1831, this assembly,which according to the American custom had taken the name of a Convention, metat Philadelphia; it consisted of more than two hundred members. Its debateswere public, and they at once assumed a legislative character; the extent ofthe powers of Congress, the theories of free trade, and the different clausesof the tariff, were discussed in turn. At the end of ten days’deliberation the Convention broke up, after having published an address to theAmerican people, in which it declared:

I. That Congress had not the right of making a tariff, and that the existingtariff was unconstitutional;

II. That the prohibition of free trade was prejudicial to the interests of allnations, and to that of the American people in particular.

It must be acknowledged that the unrestrained liberty of political associationhas not hitherto produced, in the United States, those fatal consequences whichmight perhaps be expected from it elsewhere. The right of association wasimported from England, and it has always existed in America; so that theexercise of this privilege is now amalgamated with the manners and customs ofthe people. At the present time the liberty of association is become anecessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority. In the United States,as soon as a party is become preponderant, all public authority passes underits control; its private supporters occupy all the places, and have all theforce of the administration at their disposal. As the most distinguishedpartisans of the other side of the question are unable to surmount theobstacles which exclude them from power, they require some means ofestablishing themselves upon their own basis, and of opposing the moralauthority of the minority to the physical power which domineers over it. Thus adangerous expedient is used to obviate a still more formidable danger.

The omnipotence of the majority appears to me to present such extreme perils tothe American Republics that the dangerous measure which is used to repress itseems to be more advantageous than prejudicial. And here I am about to advancea proposition which may remind the reader of what I said before in speaking ofmunicipal freedom: There are no countries in which associations are moreneeded, to prevent the despotism of faction or the arbitrary power of a prince,than those which are democratically constituted. In aristocratic nations thebody of the nobles and the more opulent part of the community are in themselvesnatural associations, which act as checks upon the abuses of power. Incountries in which these associations do not exist, if private individuals areunable to create an artificial and a temporary substitute for them, I canimagine no permanent protection against the most galling tyranny; and a greatpeople may be oppressed by a small faction, or by a single individual, withimpunity.

The meeting of a great political Convention (for there are Conventions of allkinds), which may frequently become a necessary measure, is always a seriousoccurrence, even in America, and one which is never looked forward to, by thejudicious friends of the country, without alarm. This was very perceptible inthe Convention of 1831, at which the exertions of all the most distinguishedmembers of the Assembly tended to moderate its language, and to restrain thesubjects which it treated within certain limits. It is probable, in fact, thatthe Convention of 1831 exercised a very great influence upon the minds of themalcontents, and prepared them for the open revolt against the commercial lawsof the Union which took place in 1832.

It cannot be denied that the unrestrained liberty of association for politicalpurposes is the privilege which a people is longest in learning how toexercise. If it does not throw the nation into anarchy, it perpetually augmentsthe chances of that calamity. On one point, however, this perilous libertyoffers a security against dangers of another kind; in countries whereassociations are free, secret societies are unknown. In America there arenumerous factions, but no conspiracies.

Different ways in which the right of association is understood in Europe and inthe United States—Different use which is made of it.

The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, isthat of combining his exertions with those of his fellow-creatures, and ofacting in common with them. I am therefore led to conclude that the right ofassociation is almost as inalienable as the right of personal liberty. Nolegislator can attack it without impairing the very foundations of society.Nevertheless, if the liberty of association is a fruitful source of advantagesand prosperity to some nations, it may be perverted or carried to excess byothers, and the element of life may be changed into an element of destruction.A comparison of the different methods which associations pursue in thosecountries in which they are managed with discretion, as well as in those whereliberty degenerates into license, may perhaps be thought useful both togovernments and to parties.

The greater part of Europeans look upon an association as a weapon which is tobe hastily fashioned, and immediately tried in the conflict. A society isformed for discussion, but the idea of impending action prevails in the mindsof those who constitute it: it is, in fact, an army; and the time given toparley serves to reckon up the strength and to animate the courage of the host,after which they direct their march against the enemy. Resources which liewithin the bounds of the law may suggest themselves to the persons who composeit as means, but never as the only means, of success.

Such, however, is not the manner in which the right of association isunderstood in the United States. In America the citizens who form the minorityassociate, in order, in the first place, to show their numerical strength, andso to diminish the moral authority of the majority; and, in the second place,to stimulate competition, and to discover those arguments which are most fittedto act upon the majority; for they always entertain hopes of drawing over theiropponents to their own side, and of afterwards disposing of the supreme powerin their name. Political associations in the United States are thereforepeaceable in their intentions, and strictly legal in the means which theyemploy; and they assert with perfect truth that they only aim at success bylawful expedients.

The difference which exists between the Americans and ourselves depends onseveral causes. In Europe there are numerous parties so diametrically opposedto the majority that they can never hope to acquire its support, and at thesame time they think that they are sufficiently strong in themselves tostruggle and to defend their cause. When a party of this kind forms anassociation, its object is, not to conquer, but to fight. In America theindividuals who hold opinions very much opposed to those of the majority are nosort of impediment to its power, and all other parties hope to win it over totheir own principles in the end. The exercise of the right of associationbecomes dangerous in proportion to the impossibility which excludes greatparties from acquiring the majority. In a country like the United States, inwhich the differences of opinion are mere differences of hue, the right ofassociation may remain unrestrained without evil consequences. The inexperienceof many of the European nations in the enjoyment of liberty leads them only tolook upon the liberty of association as a right of attacking the Government.The first notion which presents itself to a party, as well as to an individual,when it has acquired a consciousness of its own strength, is that of violence:the notion of persuasion arises at a later period and is only derived fromexperience. The English, who are divided into parties which differ mostessentially from each other, rarely abuse the right of association, becausethey have long been accustomed to exercise it. In France the passion for war isso intense that there is no undertaking so mad, or so injurious to the welfareof the State, that a man does not consider himself honored in defending it, atthe risk of his life.

But perhaps the most powerful of the causes which tend to mitigate the excessesof political association in the United States is Universal Suffrage. Incountries in which universal suffrage exists the majority is never doubtful,because neither party can pretend to represent that portion of the communitywhich has not voted. The associations which are formed are aware, as well asthe nation at large, that they do not represent the majority: this is, indeed,a condition inseparable from their existence; for if they did represent thepreponderating power, they would change the law instead of soliciting itsreform. The consequence of this is that the moral influence of the Governmentwhich they attack is very much increased, and their own power is very muchenfeebled.

In Europe there are few associations which do not affect to represent themajority, or which do not believe that they represent it. This conviction orthis pretension tends to augment their force amazingly, and contributes no lessto legalize their measures. Violence may seem to be excusable in defence of thecause of oppressed right. Thus it is, in the vast labyrinth of human laws, thatextreme liberty sometimes corrects the abuses of license, and that extremedemocracy obviates the dangers of democratic government. In Europe,associations consider themselves, in some degree, as the legislative andexecutive councils of the people, which is unable to speak for itself. InAmerica, where they only represent a minority of the nation, they argue andthey petition.

The means which the associations of Europe employ are in accordance with theend which they propose to obtain. As the principal aim of these bodies is toact, and not to debate, to fight rather than to persuade, they are naturallyled to adopt a form of organization which differs from the ordinary customs ofcivil bodies, and which assumes the habits and the maxims of military life.They centralize the direction of their resources as much as possible, and theyintrust the power of the whole party to a very small number of leaders.

The members of these associations respond to a watchword, like soldiers onduty; they profess the doctrine of passive obedience; say rather, that inuniting together they at once abjure the exercise of their own judgment andfree will; and the tyrannical control which these societies exercise is oftenfar more insupportable than the authority possessed over society by theGovernment which they attack. Their moral force is much diminished by theseexcesses, and they lose the powerful interest which is always excited by astruggle between oppressors and the oppressed. The man who in given casesconsents to obey his fellows with servility, and who submits his activity andeven his opinions to their control, can have no claim to rank as a freecitizen.

The Americans have also established certain forms of government which areapplied to their associations, but these are invariably borrowed from the formsof the civil administration. The independence of each individual is formallyrecognized; the tendency of the members of the association points, as it doesin the body of the community, towards the same end, but they are not obliged tofollow the same track. No one abjures the exercise of his reason and his freewill; but every one exerts that reason and that will for the benefit of acommon undertaking.

Chapter XIII: Government OfThe Democracy In America—Part I

I am well aware of the difficulties which attend this part of my subject, butalthough every expression which I am about to make use of may clash, upon someone point, with the feelings of the different parties which divide my country,I shall speak my opinion with the most perfect openness.

In Europe we are at a loss how to judge the true character and the morepermanent propensities of democracy, because in Europe two conflictingprinciples exist, and we do not know what to attribute to the principlesthemselves, and what to refer to the passions which they bring into collision.Such, however, is not the case in America; there the people reigns without anyobstacle, and it has no perils to dread and no injuries to avenge. In America,democracy is swayed by its own free propensities; its course is natural and itsactivity is unrestrained; the United States consequently afford the mostfavorable opportunity of studying its real character. And to no people can thisinquiry be more vitally interesting than to the French nation, which is blindlydriven onwards by a daily and irresistible impulse towards a state of thingswhich may prove either despotic or republican, but which will assuredly bedemocratic.

Universal Suffrage

I have already observed that universal suffrage has been adopted in all theStates of the Union; it consequently occurs amongst different populations whichoccupy very different positions in the scale of society. I have hadopportunities of observing its effects in different localities, and amongstraces of men who are nearly strangers to each other by their language, theirreligion, and their manner of life; in Louisiana as well as in New England, inGeorgia and in Canada. I have remarked that Universal Suffrage is far fromproducing in America either all the good or all the evil consequences which areassigned to it in Europe, and that its effects differ very widely from thosewhich are usually attributed to it.

Choice Of The People, And Instinctive Preferences Of The American Democracy

In the United States the most able men are rarely placed at the head ofaffairs—Reason of this peculiarity—The envy which prevails in thelower orders of France against the higher classes is not a French, but a purelydemocratic sentiment—For what reason the most distinguished men inAmerica frequently seclude themselves from public affairs.

Many people in Europe are apt to believe without saying it, or to say withoutbelieving it, that one of the great advantages of universal suffrage is, thatit entrusts the direction of public affairs to men who are worthy of the publicconfidence. They admit that the people is unable to govern for itself, but theyaver that it is always sincerely disposed to promote the welfare of the State,and that it instinctively designates those persons who are animated by the samegood wishes, and who are the most fit to wield the supreme authority. I confessthat the observations I made in America by no means coincide with theseopinions. On my arrival in the United States I was surprised to find so muchdistinguished talent among the subjects, and so little among the heads of theGovernment. It is a well-authenticated fact, that at the present day the mostable men in the United States are very rarely placed at the head of affairs;and it must be acknowledged that such has been the result in proportion asdemocracy has outstepped all its former limits. The race of American statesmenhas evidently dwindled most remarkably in the course of the last fifty years.

Several causes may be assigned to this phenomenon. It is impossible,notwithstanding the most strenuous exertions, to raise the intelligence of thepeople above a certain level. Whatever may be the facilities of acquiringinformation, whatever may be the profusion of easy methods and of cheapscience, the human mind can never be instructed and educated without devoting aconsiderable space of time to those objects.

The greater or the lesser possibility of subsisting without labor is thereforethe necessary boundary of intellectual improvement. This boundary is moreremote in some countries and more restricted in others; but it must existsomewhere as long as the people is constrained to work in order to procure themeans of physical subsistence, that is to say, as long as it retains itspopular character. It is therefore quite as difficult to imagine a State inwhich all the citizens should be very well informed as a State in which theyshould all be wealthy; these two difficulties may be looked upon ascorrelative. It may very readily be admitted that the mass of the citizens aresincerely disposed to promote the welfare of their country; nay more, it mayeven be allowed that the lower classes are less apt to be swayed byconsiderations of personal interest than the higher orders: but it is alwaysmore or less impossible for them to discern the best means of attaining the endwhich they desire with sincerity. Long and patient observation, joined to amultitude of different notions, is required to form a just estimate of thecharacter of a single individual; and can it be supposed that the vulgar havethe power of succeeding in an inquiry which misleads the penetration of geniusitself? The people has neither the time nor the means which are essential tothe prosecution of an investigation of this kind: its conclusions are hastilyformed from a superficial inspection of the more prominent features of aquestion. Hence it often assents to the clamor of a mountebank who knows thesecret of stimulating its tastes, while its truest friends frequently fail intheir exertions.

Moreover, the democracy is not only deficient in that soundness of judgmentwhich is necessary to select men really deserving of its confidence, but it hasneither the desire nor the inclination to find them out. It cannot be deniedthat democratic institutions have a very strong tendency to promote the feelingof envy in the human heart; not so much because they afford to every one themeans of rising to the level of any of his fellow-citizens, as because thosemeans perpetually disappoint the persons who employ them. Democraticinstitutions awaken and foster a passion for equality which they can neverentirely satisfy. This complete equality eludes the grasp of the people at thevery moment at which it thinks to hold it fast, and “flies,” asPascal says, “with eternal flight”; the people is excited in thepursuit of an advantage, which is more precious because it is not sufficientlyremote to be unknown, or sufficiently near to be enjoyed. The lower orders areagitated by the chance of success, they are irritated by its uncertainty; andthey pass from the enthusiasm of pursuit to the exhaustion of ill-success, andlastly to the acrimony of disappointment. Whatever transcends their own limitsappears to be an obstacle to their desires, and there is no kind ofsuperiority, however legitimate it may be, which is not irksome in their sight.

It has been supposed that the secret instinct which leads the lower orders toremove their superiors as much as possible from the direction of public affairsis peculiar to France. This, however, is an error; the propensity to which Iallude is not inherent in any particular nation, but in democratic institutionsin general; and although it may have been heightened by peculiar politicalcirc*mstances, it owes its origin to a higher cause.

In the United States the people is not disposed to hate the superior classes ofsociety; but it is not very favorably inclined towards them, and it carefullyexcludes them from the exercise of authority. It does not entertain any dreadof distinguished talents, but it is rarely captivated by them; and it awardsits approbation very sparingly to such as have risen without the popularsupport.

Whilst the natural propensities of democracy induce the people to reject themost distinguished citizens as its rulers, these individuals are no less apt toretire from a political career in which it is almost impossible to retain theirindependence, or to advance without degrading themselves. This opinion has beenvery candidly set forth by Chancellor Kent, who says, in speaking with greateulogiums of that part of the Constitution which empowers the Executive tonominate the judges: “It is indeed probable that the men who are bestfitted to discharge the duties of this high office would have too much reservein their manners, and too much austerity in their principles, for them to bereturned by the majority at an election where universal suffrage isadopted.” Such were the opinions which were printed without contradictionin America in the year 1830!

I hold it to be sufficiently demonstrated that universal suffrage is by nomeans a guarantee of the wisdom of the popular choice, and that, whatever itsadvantages may be, this is not one of them.

Causes Which May Partly Correct These Tendencies Of The Democracy Contraryeffects produced on peoples as well as on individuals by greatdangers—Why so many distinguished men stood at the head of affairs inAmerica fifty years ago—Influence which the intelligence and the mannersof the people exercise upon its choice—Example of NewEngland—States of the Southwest—Influence of certain laws upon thechoice of the people—Election by an elected body—Its effects uponthe composition of the Senate.

When a State is threatened by serious dangers, the people frequently succeedsin selecting the citizens who are the most able to save it. It has beenobserved that man rarely retains his customary level in presence of verycritical circ*mstances; he rises above or he sinks below his usual condition,and the same thing occurs in nations at large. Extreme perils sometimes quenchthe energy of a people instead of stimulating it; they excite without directingits passions, and instead of clearing they confuse its powers of perception.The Jews deluged the smoking ruins of their temple with the carnage of theremnant of their host. But it is more common, both in the case of nations andin that of individuals, to find extraordinary virtues arising from the veryimminence of the danger. Great characters are then thrown into relief, asedifices which are concealed by the gloom of night are illuminated by the glareof a conflagration. At those dangerous times genius no longer abstains frompresenting itself in the arena; and the people, alarmed by the perils of itssituation, buries its envious passions in a short oblivion. Great names maythen be drawn from the balloting-box.

I have already observed that the American statesmen of the present day are veryinferior to those who stood at the head of affairs fifty years ago. This is asmuch a consequence of the circ*mstances as of the laws of the country. WhenAmerica was struggling in the high cause of independence to throw off the yokeof another country, and when it was about to usher a new nation into the world,the spirits of its inhabitants were roused to the height which their greatefforts required. In this general excitement the most distinguished men wereready to forestall the wants of the community, and the people clung to them forsupport, and placed them at its head. But events of this magnitude are rare,and it is from an inspection of the ordinary course of affairs that ourjudgment must be formed.

If passing occurrences sometimes act as checks upon the passions of democracy,the intelligence and the manners of the community exercise an influence whichis not less powerful and far more permanent. This is extremely perceptible inthe United States.

In New England the education and the liberties of the communities wereengendered by the moral and religious principles of their founders. Wheresociety has acquired a sufficient degree of stability to enable it to holdcertain maxims and to retain fixed habits, the lower orders are accustomed torespect intellectual superiority and to submit to it without complaint,although they set at naught all those privileges which wealth and birth haveintroduced among mankind. The democracy in New England consequently makes amore judicious choice than it does elsewhere.

But as we descend towards the South, to those States in which the constitutionof society is more modern and less strong, where instruction is less general,and where the principles of morality, of religion, and of liberty are lesshappily combined, we perceive that the talents and the virtues of those who arein authority become more and more rare.

Lastly, when we arrive at the new South-western States, in which theconstitution of society dates but from yesterday, and presents an agglomerationof adventurers and speculators, we are amazed at the persons who are investedwith public authority, and we are led to ask by what force, independent of thelegislation and of the men who direct it, the State can be protected, andsociety be made to flourish.

There are certain laws of a democratic nature which contribute, nevertheless,to correct, in some measure, the dangerous tendencies of democracy. On enteringthe House of Representatives of Washington one is struck by the vulgar demeanorof that great assembly. The eye frequently does not discover a man of celebritywithin its walls. Its members are almost all obscure individuals whose namespresent no associations to the mind: they are mostly village lawyers, men intrade, or even persons belonging to the lower classes of society. In a countryin which education is very general, it is said that the representatives of thepeople do not always know how to write correctly.

At a few yards’ distance from this spot is the door of the Senate, whichcontains within a small space a large proportion of the celebrated men ofAmerica. Scarcely an individual is to be perceived in it who does not recallthe idea of an active and illustrious career: the Senate is composed ofeloquent advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates, and statesmen ofnote, whose language would at all times do honor to the most remarkableparliamentary debates of Europe.

What then is the cause of this strange contrast, and why are the most ablecitizens to be found in one assembly rather than in the other? Why is theformer body remarkable for its vulgarity and its poverty of talent, whilst thelatter seems to enjoy a monopoly of intelligence and of sound judgment? Both ofthese assemblies emanate from the people; both of them are chosen by universalsuffrage; and no voice has hitherto been heard to assert in America that theSenate is hostile to the interests of the people. From what cause, then, doesso startling a difference arise? The only reason which appears to me adequatelyto account for it is, that the House of Representatives is elected by thepopulace directly, and that the Senate is elected by elected bodies. The wholebody of the citizens names the legislature of each State, and the FederalConstitution converts these legislatures into so many electoral bodies, whichreturn the members of the Senate. The senators are elected by an indirectapplication of universal suffrage; for the legislatures which name them are notaristocratic or privileged bodies which exercise the electoral franchise intheir own right; but they are chosen by the totality of the citizens; they aregenerally elected every year, and new members may constantly be chosen who willemploy their electoral rights in conformity with the wishes of the public. Butthis transmission of the popular authority through an assembly of chosen menoperates an important change in it, by refining its discretion and improvingthe forms which it adopts. Men who are chosen in this manner accuratelyrepresent the majority of the nation which governs them; but they represent theelevated thoughts which are current in the community, the propensities whichprompt its nobler actions, rather than the petty passions which disturb or thevices which disgrace it.

The time may be already anticipated at which the American Republics will beobliged to introduce the plan of election by an elected body more frequentlyinto their system of representation, or they will incur no small risk ofperishing miserably amongst the shoals of democracy.

And here I have no scruple in confessing that I look upon this peculiar systemof election as the only means of bringing the exercise of political power tothe level of all classes of the people. Those thinkers who regard thisinstitution as the exclusive weapon of a party, and those who fear, on theother hand, to make use of it, seem to me to fall into as great an error in theone case as in the other.

Influence Which The American Democracy Has Exercised On The Laws Relating ToElections

When elections are rare, they expose the State to a violent crisis—Whenthey are frequent, they keep up a degree of feverish excitement—TheAmericans have preferred the second of these two evils—Mutability of thelaws—Opinions of Hamilton and Jefferson on this subject.

When elections recur at long intervals the State is exposed to violentagitation every time they take place. Parties exert themselves to the utmost inorder to gain a prize which is so rarely within their reach; and as the evil isalmost irremediable for the candidates who fail, the consequences of theirdisappointed ambition may prove most disastrous; if, on the other hand, thelegal struggle can be repeated within a short space of time, the defeatedparties take patience. When elections occur frequently, their recurrence keepssociety in a perpetual state of feverish excitement, and imparts a continualinstability to public affairs.

Thus, on the one hand the State is exposed to the perils of a revolution, onthe other to perpetual mutability; the former system threatens the veryexistence of the Government, the latter is an obstacle to all steady andconsistent policy. The Americans have preferred the second of these evils tothe first; but they were led to this conclusion by their instinct much morethan by their reason; for a taste for variety is one of the characteristicpassions of democracy. An extraordinary mutability has, by this means, beenintroduced into their legislation. Many of the Americans consider theinstability of their laws as a necessary consequence of a system whose generalresults are beneficial. But no one in the United States affects to deny thefact of this instability, or to contend that it is not a great evil.

Hamilton, after having demonstrated the utility of a power which might prevent,or which might at least impede, the promulgation of bad laws, adds: “Itmight perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws includes that ofpreventing good ones, and may be used to the one purpose as well as to theother. But this objection will have little weight with those who can properlyestimate the mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the laws whichform the greatest blemish in the character and genius of ourgovernments.” (Federalist, No. 73.) And again in No. 62 of the same workhe observes: “The facility and excess of law-making seem to be thediseases to which our governments are most liable. . . . The mischievouseffects of the mutability in the public councils arising from a rapidsuccession of new members would fill a volume: every new election in the Statesis found to change one-half of the representatives. From this change of menmust proceed a change of opinions and of measures, which forfeits the respectand confidence of other nations, poisons the blessings of liberty itself, anddiminishes the attachment and reverence of the people toward a political systemwhich betrays so many marks of infirmity.”

Jefferson himself, the greatest Democrat whom the democracy of America has yetproduced, pointed out the same evils. “The instability of ourlaws,” said he in a letter to Madison, “is really a very seriousinconvenience. I think that we ought to have obviated it by deciding that awhole year should always be allowed to elapse between the bringing in of a billand the final passing of it. It should afterward be discussed and put to thevote without the possibility of making any alteration in it; and if thecirc*mstances of the case required a more speedy decision, the question shouldnot be decided by a simple majority, but by a majority of at least two-thirdsof both houses.”

Public Officers Under The Control Of The Democracy In America Simple exteriorof the American public officers—No official costume—All publicofficers are remunerated—Political consequences of this system—Nopublic career exists in America—Result of this.

Public officers in the United States are commingled with the crowd of citizens;they have neither palaces, nor guards, nor ceremonial costumes. This simpleexterior of the persons in authority is connected not only with thepeculiarities of the American character, but with the fundamental principles ofthat society. In the estimation of the democracy a government is not a benefit,but a necessary evil. A certain degree of power must be granted to publicofficers, for they would be of no use without it. But the ostensible semblanceof authority is by no means indispensable to the conduct of affairs, and it isneedlessly offensive to the susceptibility of the public. The public officersthemselves are well aware that they only enjoy the superiority over theirfellow-citizens which they derive from their authority upon condition ofputting themselves on a level with the whole community by their manners. Apublic officer in the United States is uniformly civil, accessible to all theworld, attentive to all requests, and obliging in his replies. I was pleased bythese characteristics of a democratic government; and I was struck by the manlyindependence of the citizens, who respect the office more than the officer, andwho are less attached to the emblems of authority than to the man who bearsthem.

I am inclined to believe that the influence which costumes really exercise, inan age like that in which we live, has been a good deal exaggerated. I neverperceived that a public officer in America was the less respected whilst he wasin the discharge of his duties because his own merit was set off by noadventitious signs. On the other hand, it is very doubtful whether a peculiardress contributes to the respect which public characters ought to have fortheir own position, at least when they are not otherwise inclined to respectit. When a magistrate (and in France such instances are not rare) indulges histrivial wit at the expense of the prisoner, or derides the predicament in whicha culprit is placed, it would be well to deprive him of his robes of office, tosee whether he would recall some portion of the natural dignity of mankind whenhe is reduced to the apparel of a private citizen.

A democracy may, however, allow a certain show of magisterial pomp, and clotheits officers in silks and gold, without seriously compromising its principles.Privileges of this kind are transitory; they belong to the place, and aredistinct from the individual: but if public officers are not uniformlyremunerated by the State, the public charges must be entrusted to men ofopulence and independence, who constitute the basis of an aristocracy; and ifthe people still retains its right of election, that election can only be madefrom a certain class of citizens. When a democratic republic renders officeswhich had formerly been remunerated gratuitous, it may safely be believed thatthe State is advancing to monarchical institutions; and when a monarchy beginsto remunerate such officers as had hitherto been unpaid, it is a sure sign thatit is approaching toward a despotic or a republican form of government. Thesubstitution of paid for unpaid functionaries is of itself, in my opinion,sufficient to constitute a serious revolution.

I look upon the entire absence of gratuitous functionaries in America as one ofthe most prominent signs of the absolute dominion which democracy exercises inthat country. All public services, of whatsoever nature they may be, are paid;so that every one has not merely the right, but also the means of performingthem. Although, in democratic States, all the citizens are qualified to occupystations in the Government, all are not tempted to try for them. The number andthe capacities of the candidates are more apt to restrict the choice ofelectors than the connections of the candidateship.

In nations in which the principle of election extends to every place in theState no political career can, properly speaking, be said to exist. Men arepromoted as if by chance to the rank which they enjoy, and they are by no meanssure of retaining it. The consequence is that in tranquil times publicfunctions offer but few lures to ambition. In the United States the persons whoengage in the perplexities of political life are individuals of very moderatepretensions. The pursuit of wealth generally diverts men of great talents andof great passions from the pursuit of power, and it very frequently happensthat a man does not undertake to direct the fortune of the State until he hasdiscovered his incompetence to conduct his own affairs. The vast number of veryordinary men who occupy public stations is quite as attributable to thesecauses as to the bad choice of the democracy. In the United States, I am notsure that the people would return the men of superior abilities who mightsolicit its support, but it is certain that men of this description do not comeforward.

Arbitrary Power Of Magistrates Under The Rule Of The American Democracy

For what reason the arbitrary power of Magistrates is greater in absolutemonarchies and in democratic republics than it is in limitedmonarchies—Arbitrary power of the Magistrates in New England.

In two different kinds of government the magistrates *a exercise a considerabledegree of arbitrary power; namely, under the absolute government of a singleindividual, and under that of a democracy. This identical result proceeds fromcauses which are nearly analogous.

a
[ I here use the word magistrates in the widest sense in which it can be taken;I apply it to all the officers to whom the execution of the laws is intrusted.]

In despotic States the fortune of no citizen is secure; and public officers arenot more safe than private individuals. The sovereign, who has under hiscontrol the lives, the property, and sometimes the honor of the men whom heemploys, does not scruple to allow them a great latitude of action, because heis convinced that they will not use it to his prejudice. In despotic States thesovereign is so attached to the exercise of his power, that he dislikes theconstraint even of his own regulations; and he is well pleased that his agentsshould follow a somewhat fortuitous line of conduct, provided he be certainthat their actions will never counteract his desires.

In democracies, as the majority has every year the right of depriving theofficers whom it has appointed of their power, it has no reason to fear anyabuse of their authority. As the people is always able to signify its wishes tothose who conduct the Government, it prefers leaving them to make their ownexertions to prescribing an invariable rule of conduct which would at oncefetter their activity and the popular authority.

It may even be observed, on attentive consideration, that under the rule of ademocracy the arbitrary power of the magistrate must be still greater than indespotic States. In the latter the sovereign has the power of punishing all thefaults with which he becomes acquainted, but it would be vain for him to hopeto become acquainted with all those which are committed. In the former thesovereign power is not only supreme, but it is universally present. TheAmerican functionaries are, in point of fact, much more independent in thesphere of action which the law traces out for them than any public officer inEurope. Very frequently the object which they are to accomplish is simplypointed out to them, and the choice of the means is left to their owndiscretion.

In New England, for instance, the selectmen of each township are bound to drawup the list of persons who are to serve on the jury; the only rule which islaid down to guide them in their choice is that they are to select citizenspossessing the elective franchise and enjoying a fair reputation. *b In Francethe lives and liberties of the subjects would be thought to be in danger if apublic officer of any kind was entrusted with so formidable a right. In NewEngland the same magistrates are empowered to post the names of habitualdrunkards in public-houses, and to prohibit the inhabitants of a town fromsupplying them with liquor. *c A censorial power of this excessive kind wouldbe revolting to the population of the most absolute monarchies; here, however,it is submitted to without difficulty.

b
[ See the Act of February 27, 1813. “General Collection of the Laws ofMassachusetts,” vol. ii. p. 331. It should be added that the jurors areafterwards drawn from these lists by lot.]

c
[ See Act of February 28, 1787. “General Collection of the Laws ofMassachusetts,” vol. i. p. 302.]

Nowhere has so much been left by the law to the arbitrary determination of themagistrate as in democratic republics, because this arbitrary power isunattended by any alarming consequences. It may even be asserted that thefreedom of the magistrate increases as the elective franchise is extended, andas the duration of the time of office is shortened. Hence arises the greatdifficulty which attends the conversion of a democratic republic into amonarchy. The magistrate ceases to be elective, but he retains the rights andthe habits of an elected officer, which lead directly to despotism.

It is only in limited monarchies that the law, which prescribes the sphere inwhich public officers are to act, superintends all their measures. The cause ofthis may be easily detected. In limited monarchies the power is divided betweenthe King and the people, both of whom are interested in the stability of themagistrate. The King does not venture to place the public officers under thecontrol of the people, lest they should be tempted to betray his interests; onthe other hand, the people fears lest the magistrates should serve to oppressthe liberties of the country, if they were entirely dependent upon the Crown;they cannot therefore be said to depend on either one or the other. The samecause which induces the king and the people to render public officersindependent suggests the necessity of such securities as may prevent theirindependence from encroaching upon the authority of the former and theliberties of the latter. They consequently agree as to the necessity ofrestricting the functionary to a line of conduct laid down beforehand, and theyare interested in confining him by certain regulations which he cannot evade.

Chapter XIII: Government OfThe Democracy In America—Part II

Instability Of TheAdministration In The United States

In America the public acts of a community frequently leave fewer traces thanthe occurrences of a family—Newspapers the only historicalremains—Instability of the administration prejudicial to the art ofgovernment.

The authority which public men possess in America is so brief, and they are sosoon commingled with the ever-changing population of the country, that the actsof a community frequently leave fewer traces than the occurrences of a privatefamily. The public administration is, so to speak, oral and traditionary. Butlittle is committed to writing, and that little is wafted away forever, likethe leaves of the Sibyl, by the smallest breeze.

The only historical remains in the United States are the newspapers; but if anumber be wanting, the chain of time is broken, and the present is severed fromthe past. I am convinced that in fifty years it will be more difficult tocollect authentic documents concerning the social condition of the Americans atthe present day than it is to find remains of the administration of Franceduring the Middle Ages; and if the United States were ever invaded bybarbarians, it would be necessary to have recourse to the history of othernations in order to learn anything of the people which now inhabits them.

The instability of the administration has penetrated into the habits of thepeople: it even appears to suit the general taste, and no one cares for whatoccurred before his time. No methodical system is pursued; no archives areformed; and no documents are brought together when it would be very easy to doso. Where they exist, little store is set upon them; and I have amongst mypapers several original public documents which were given to me in answer tosome of my inquiries. In America society seems to live from hand to mouth, likean army in the field. Nevertheless, the art of administration may undoubtedlybe ranked as a science, and no sciences can be improved if the discoveries andobservations of successive generations are not connected together in the orderin which they occur. One man, in the short space of his life remarks a fact;another conceives an idea; the former invents a means of execution, the latterreduces a truth to a fixed proposition; and mankind gathers the fruits ofindividual experience upon its way and gradually forms the sciences. But thepersons who conduct the administration in America can seldom afford anyinstruction to each other; and when they assume the direction of society, theysimply possess those attainments which are most widely disseminated in thecommunity, and no experience peculiar to themselves. Democracy, carried to itsfurthest limits, is therefore prejudicial to the art of government; and forthis reason it is better adapted to a people already versed in the conduct ofan administration than to a nation which is uninitiated in public affairs.

This remark, indeed, is not exclusively applicable to the science ofadministration. Although a democratic government is founded upon a very simpleand natural principle, it always presupposes the existence of a high degree ofculture and enlightenment in society. *d At the first glance it may be imaginedto belong to the earliest ages of the world; but maturer observation willconvince us that it could only come last in the succession of human history.

d
[ It is needless to observe that I speak here of the democratic form ofgovernment as applied to a people, not merely to a tribe.]

Charges Levied By The State Under The Rule Of The American Democracy

In all communities citizens divisible into three classes—Habits of eachof these classes in the direction of public finances—Why publicexpenditure must tend to increase when the people governs—What rendersthe extravagance of a democracy less to be feared in America—Publicexpenditure under a democracy.

Before we can affirm whether a democratic form of government is economical ornot, we must establish a suitable standard of comparison. The question would beone of easy solution if we were to attempt to draw a parallel between ademocratic republic and an absolute monarchy. The public expenditure would befound to be more considerable under the former than under the latter; such isthe case with all free States compared to those which are not so. It is certainthat despotism ruins individuals by preventing them from producing wealth, muchmore than by depriving them of the wealth they have produced; it dries up thesource of riches, whilst it usually respects acquired property. Freedom, on thecontrary, engenders far more benefits than it destroys; and the nations whichare favored by free institutions invariably find that their resources increaseeven more rapidly than their taxes.

My present object is to compare free nations to each other, and to point outthe influence of democracy upon the finances of a State.

Communities, as well as organic bodies, are subject to certain fixed rules intheir formation which they cannot evade. They are composed of certain elementswhich are common to them at all times and under all circ*mstances. The peoplemay always be mentally divided into three distinct classes. The first of theseclasses consists of the wealthy; the second, of those who are in easycirc*mstances; and the third is composed of those who have little or noproperty, and who subsist more especially by the work which they perform forthe two superior orders. The proportion of the individuals who are included inthese three divisions may vary according to the condition of society, but thedivisions themselves can never be obliterated.

It is evident that each of these classes will exercise an influence peculiar toits own propensities upon the administration of the finances of the State. Ifthe first of the three exclusively possesses the legislative power, it isprobable that it will not be sparing of the public funds, because the taxeswhich are levied on a large fortune only tend to diminish the sum ofsuperfluous enjoyment, and are, in point of fact, but little felt. If thesecond class has the power of making the laws, it will certainly not be lavishof taxes, because nothing is so onerous as a large impost which is levied upona small income. The government of the middle classes appears to me to be themost economical, though perhaps not the most enlightened, and certainly not themost generous, of free governments.

But let us now suppose that the legislative authority is vested in the lowestorders: there are two striking reasons which show that the tendency of theexpenditure will be to increase, not to diminish. As the great majority ofthose who create the laws are possessed of no property upon which taxes can beimposed, all the money which is spent for the community appears to be spent totheir advantage, at no cost of their own; and those who are possessed of somelittle property readily find means of regulating the taxes so that they areburdensome to the wealthy and profitable to the poor, although the rich areunable to take the same advantage when they are in possession of theGovernment.

In countries in which the poor *e should be exclusively invested with the powerof making the laws no great economy of public expenditure ought to be expected:that expenditure will always be considerable; either because the taxes do notweigh upon those who levy them, or because they are levied in such a manner asnot to weigh upon those classes. In other words, the government of thedemocracy is the only one under which the power which lays on taxes escapes thepayment of them.

e
[ The word poor is used here, and throughout the remainder of this chapter, ina relative, not in an absolute sense. Poor men in America would often appearrich in comparison with the poor of Europe; but they may with propriety bystyled poor in comparison with their more affluent countrymen.]

It may be objected (but the argument has no real weight) that the true interestof the people is indissolubly connected with that of the wealthier portion ofthe community, since it cannot but suffer by the severe measures to which itresorts. But is it not the true interest of kings to render their subjectshappy, and the true interest of nobles to admit recruits into their order onsuitable grounds? If remote advantages had power to prevail over the passionsand the exigencies of the moment, no such thing as a tyrannical sovereign or anexclusive aristocracy could ever exist.

Again, it may be objected that the poor are never invested with the sole powerof making the laws; but I reply, that wherever universal suffrage has beenestablished the majority of the community unquestionably exercises thelegislative authority; and if it be proved that the poor always constitute themajority, it may be added, with perfect truth, that in the countries in whichthey possess the elective franchise they possess the sole power of making laws.But it is certain that in all the nations of the world the greater number hasalways consisted of those persons who hold no property, or of those whoseproperty is insufficient to exempt them from the necessity of working in orderto procure an easy subsistence. Universal suffrage does therefore, in point offact, invest the poor with the government of society.

The disastrous influence which popular authority may sometimes exercise uponthe finances of a State was very clearly seen in some of the democraticrepublics of antiquity, in which the public treasure was exhausted in order torelieve indigent citizens, or to supply the games and theatrical amusem*nts ofthe populace. It is true that the representative system was then veryimperfectly known, and that, at the present time, the influence of popularpassion is less felt in the conduct of public affairs; but it may be believedthat the delegate will in the end conform to the principles of hisconstituents, and favor their propensities as much as their interests.

The extravagance of democracy is, however, less to be dreaded in proportion asthe people acquires a share of property, because on the one hand thecontributions of the rich are then less needed, and, on the other, it is moredifficult to lay on taxes which do not affect the interests of the lowerclasses. On this account universal suffrage would be less dangerous in Francethan in England, because in the latter country the property on which taxes maybe levied is vested in fewer hands. America, where the great majority of thecitizens possess some fortune, is in a still more favorable position thanFrance.

There are still further causes which may increase the sum of public expenditurein democratic countries. When the aristocracy governs, the individuals whoconduct the affairs of State are exempted by their own station in society fromevery kind of privation; they are contented with their position; power andrenown are the objects for which they strive; and, as they are placed far abovethe obscurer throng of citizens, they do not always distinctly perceive how thewell-being of the mass of the people ought to redound to their own honor. Theyare not indeed callous to the sufferings of the poor, but they cannot feelthose miseries as acutely as if they were themselves partakers of them.Provided that the people appear to submit to its lot, the rulers are satisfied,and they demand nothing further from the Government. An aristocracy is moreintent upon the means of maintaining its influence than upon the means ofimproving its condition.

When, on the contrary, the people is invested with the supreme authority, theperpetual sense of their own miseries impels the rulers of society to seek forperpetual ameliorations. A thousand different objects are subjected toimprovement; the most trivial details are sought out as susceptible ofamendment; and those changes which are accompanied with considerable expenseare more especially advocated, since the object is to render the condition ofthe poor more tolerable, who cannot pay for themselves.

Moreover, all democratic communities are agitated by an ill-defined excitementand by a kind of feverish impatience, that engender a multitude of innovations,almost all of which are attended with expense.

In monarchies and aristocracies the natural taste which the rulers have forpower and for renown is stimulated by the promptings of ambition, and they arefrequently incited by these temptations to very costly undertakings. Indemocracies, where the rulers labor under privations, they can only be courtedby such means as improve their well-being, and these improvements cannot takeplace without a sacrifice of money. When a people begins to reflect upon itssituation, it discovers a multitude of wants to which it had not before beensubject, and to satisfy these exigencies recourse must be had to the coffers ofthe State. Hence it arises that the public charges increase in proportion ascivilization spreads, and that imposts are augmented as knowledge pervades thecommunity.

The last cause which frequently renders a democratic government dearer than anyother is, that a democracy does not always succeed in moderating itsexpenditure, because it does not understand the art of being economical. As thedesigns which it entertains are frequently changed, and the agents of thosedesigns are still more frequently removed, its undertakings are often illconducted or left unfinished: in the former case the State spends sums out ofall proportion to the end which it proposes to accomplish; in the second, theexpense itself is unprofitable. *f

f
[ The gross receipts of the Treasury of the United States in 1832 were about$28,000,000; in 1870 they had risen to $411,000,000. The gross expenditure in1832 was $30,000,000; in 1870, $309,000,000.]

Tendencies Of The American Democracy As Regards The Salaries Of Public Officers

In the democracies those who establish high salaries have no chance ofprofiting by them—Tendency of the American democracy to increase thesalaries of subordinate officers and to lower those of the more importantfunctionaries—Reason of this—Comparative statement of the salariesof public officers in the United States and in France.

There is a powerful reason which usually induces democracies to economize uponthe salaries of public officers. As the number of citizens who dispense theremuneration is extremely large in democratic countries, so the number ofpersons who can hope to be benefited by the receipt of it is comparativelysmall. In aristocratic countries, on the contrary, the individuals who fix highsalaries have almost always a vague hope of profiting by them. Theseappointments may be looked upon as a capital which they create for their ownuse, or at least as a resource for their children.

It must, however, be allowed that a democratic State is most parsimonioustowards its principal agents. In America the secondary officers are much betterpaid, and the dignitaries of the administration much worse, than they areelsewhere.

These opposite effects result from the same cause; the people fixes thesalaries of the public officers in both cases; and the scale of remuneration isdetermined by the consideration of its own wants. It is held to be fair thatthe servants of the public should be placed in the same easy circ*mstances asthe public itself; *g but when the question turns upon the salaries of thegreat officers of State, this rule fails, and chance alone can guide thepopular decision. The poor have no adequate conception of the wants which thehigher classes of society may feel. The sum which is scanty to the rich appearsenormous to the poor man whose wants do not extend beyond the necessaries oflife; and in his estimation the Governor of a State, with his twelve or fifteenhundred dollars a year, is a very fortunate and enviable being. *h If youundertake to convince him that the representative of a great people ought to beable to maintain some show of splendor in the eyes of foreign nations, he willperhaps assent to your meaning; but when he reflects on his own humbledwelling, and on the hard-earned produce of his wearisome toil, he remembersall that he could do with a salary which you say is insufficient, and he isstartled or almost frightened at the sight of such uncommon wealth. Besides,the secondary public officer is almost on a level with the people, whilst theothers are raised above it. The former may therefore excite his interest, butthe latter begins to arouse his envy.

g
[ The easy circ*mstances in which secondary functionaries are placed in theUnited States result also from another cause, which is independent of thegeneral tendencies of democracy; every kind of private business is verylucrative, and the State would not be served at all if it did not pay itsservants. The country is in the position of a commercial undertaking, which isobliged to sustain an expensive competition, notwithstanding its tastes foreconomy.]

h
[ The State of Ohio, which contains a million of inhabitants, gives itsGovernor a salary of only $1,200 a year.]

This is very clearly seen in the United States, where the salaries seem todecrease as the authority of those who receive them augments *i

i
[ To render this assertion perfectly evident, it will suffice to examine thescale of salaries of the agents of the Federal Government. I have added thesalaries attached to the corresponding officers in France under theconstitutional monarchy to complete the comparison.

I have perhaps done wrong in selecting France as my standard of comparison. InFrance the democratic tendencies of the nation exercise an ever-increasinginfluence upon the Government, and the Chambers show a disposition to raise thelow salaries and to lower the principal ones. Thus, the Minister of Finance,who received 160,000 fr. under the Empire, receives 80,000 fr. in 1835: theDirecteurs-generaux of Finance, who then received 50,000 fr. now receive only20,000 fr. [This comparison is based on the state of things existing in Franceand the United States in 1831. It has since materially altered in bothcountries, but not so much as to impugn the truth of the author’sobservation.]]

Under the rule of an aristocracy it frequently happens, on the contrary, thatwhilst the high officers are receiving munificent salaries, the inferior oneshave not more than enough to procure the necessaries of life. The reason ofthis fact is easily discoverable from causes very analogous to those to which Ihave just alluded. If a democracy is unable to conceive the pleasures of therich or to witness them without envy, an aristocracy is slow to understand, or,to speak more correctly, is unacquainted with, the privations of the poor. Thepoor man is not (if we use the term aright) the fellow of the rich one; but heis a being of another species. An aristocracy is therefore apt to care butlittle for the fate of its subordinate agents; and their salaries are onlyraised when they refuse to perform their service for too scanty a remuneration.

It is the parsimonious conduct of democracy towards its principal officerswhich has countenanced a supposition of far more economical propensities thanany which it really possesses. It is true that it scarcely allows the means ofhonorable subsistence to the individuals who conduct its affairs; but enormoussums are lavished to meet the exigencies or to facilitate the enjoyments of thepeople. *j The money raised by taxation may be better employed, but it is notsaved. In general, democracy gives largely to the community, and very sparinglyto those who govern it. The reverse is the case in aristocratic countries,where the money of the State is expended to the profit of the persons who areat the head of affairs.

j
[ See the American budgets for the cost of indigent citizens and gratuitousinstruction. In 1831 $250,000 were spent in the State of New York for themaintenance of the poor, and at least $1,000,000 were devoted to gratuitousinstruction. (William’s “New York Annual Register,” 1832, pp.205 and 243.) The State of New York contained only 1,900,000 inhabitants in theyear 1830, which is not more than double the amount of population in theDepartment du Nord in France.]

Difficulty of Distinguishing The Causes Which Contribute To The Economy Of TheAmerican Government

We are liable to frequent errors in the research of those facts which exercisea serious influence upon the fate of mankind, since nothing is more difficultthan to appreciate their real value. One people is naturally inconsistent andenthusiastic; another is sober and calculating; and these characteristicsoriginate in their physical constitution or in remote causes with which we areunacquainted.

These are nations which are fond of parade and the bustle of festivity, andwhich do not regret the costly gaieties of an hour. Others, on the contrary,are attached to more retiring pleasures, and seem almost ashamed of appearingto be pleased. In some countries the highest value is set upon the beauty ofpublic edifices; in others the productions of art are treated withindifference, and everything which is unproductive is looked down upon withcontempt. In some renown, in others money, is the ruling passion.

Independently of the laws, all these causes concur to exercise a very powerfulinfluence upon the conduct of the finances of the State. If the Americans neverspend the money of the people in galas, it is not only because the impositionof taxes is under the control of the people, but because the people takes nodelight in public rejoicings. If they repudiate all ornament from theirarchitecture, and set no store on any but the more practical and homelyadvantages, it is not only because they live under democratic institutions, butbecause they are a commercial nation. The habits of private life are continuedin public; and we ought carefully to distinguish that economy which dependsupon their institutions from that which is the natural result of their mannersand customs.

Whether The Expenditure Of The United States Can Be Compared To That Of France

Two points to be established in order to estimate the extent of the publiccharges, viz., the national wealth and the rate of taxation—The wealthand the charges of France not accurately known—Why the wealth and chargesof the Union cannot be accurately known—Researches of the author with aview to discover the amount of taxation of Pennsylvania—General symptomswhich may serve to indicate the amount of the public charges in a givennation—Result of this investigation for the Union.

Many attempts have recently been made in France to compare the publicexpenditure of that country with the expenditure of the United States; allthese attempts have, however, been unattended by success, and a few words willsuffice to show that they could not have had a satisfactory result.

In order to estimate the amount of the public charges of a people twopreliminaries are indispensable: it is necessary, in the first place, to knowthe wealth of that people; and in the second, to learn what portion of thatwealth is devoted to the expenditure of the State. To show the amount oftaxation without showing the resources which are destined to meet the demand,is to undertake a futile labor; for it is not the expenditure, but the relationof the expenditure to the revenue, which it is desirable to know.

The same rate of taxation which may easily be supported by a wealthycontributor will reduce a poor one to extreme misery. The wealth of nations iscomposed of several distinct elements, of which population is the first, realproperty the second, and personal property the third. The first of these threeelements may be discovered without difficulty. Amongst civilized nations it iseasy to obtain an accurate census of the inhabitants; but the two others cannotbe determined with so much facility. It is difficult to take an exact accountof all the lands in a country which are under cultivation, with their naturalor their acquired value; and it is still more impossible to estimate the entirepersonal property which is at the disposal of a nation, and which eludes thestrictest analysis by the diversity and the number of shapes under which it mayoccur. And, indeed, we find that the most ancient civilized nations of Europe,including even those in which the administration is most central, have notsucceeded, as yet, in determining the exact condition of their wealth.

In America the attempt has never been made; for how would such an investigationbe possible in a country where society has not yet settled into habits ofregularity and tranquillity; where the national Government is not assisted by amultiple of agents whose exertions it can command and direct to one sole end;and where statistics are not studied, because no one is able to collect thenecessary documents, or to find time to peruse them? Thus the primary elementsof the calculations which have been made in France cannot be obtained in theUnion; the relative wealth of the two countries is unknown; the property of theformer is not accurately determined, and no means exist of computing that ofthe latter.

I consent, therefore, for the sake of the discussion, to abandon this necessaryterm of the comparison, and I confine myself to a computation of the actualamount of taxation, without investigating the relation which subsists betweenthe taxation and the revenue. But the reader will perceive that my task has notbeen facilitated by the limits which I here lay down for my researches.

It cannot be doubted that the central administration of France, assisted by allthe public officers who are at its disposal, might determine with exactitudethe amount of the direct and indirect taxes levied upon the citizens. But thisinvestigation, which no private individual can undertake, has not hitherto beencompleted by the French Government, or, at least, its results have not beenmade public. We are acquainted with the sum total of the charges of the State;we know the amount of the departmental expenditure; but the expenses of thecommunal divisions have not been computed, and the amount of the publicexpenses of France is consequently unknown.

If we now turn to America, we shall perceive that the difficulties aremultiplied and enhanced. The Union publishes an exact return of the amount ofits expenditure; the budgets of the four and twenty States furnish similarreturns of their revenues; but the expenses incident to the affairs of thecounties and the townships are unknown. *k

k
[ The Americans, as we have seen, have four separate budgets, the Union, theStates, the Counties, and the Townships having each severally their own. Duringmy stay in America I made every endeavor to discover the amount of the publicexpenditure in the townships and counties of the principal States of the Union,and I readily obtained the budget of the larger townships, but I found it quiteimpossible to procure that of the smaller ones. I possess, however, somedocuments relating to county expenses, which, although incomplete, are stillcurious. I have to thank Mr. Richards, Mayor of Philadelphia, for the budgetsof thirteen of the counties of Pennsylvania, viz., Lebanon, Centre, Franklin,Fayette, Montgomery, Luzerne, Dauphin, Butler, Alleghany, Columbia,Northampton, Northumberland, and Philadelphia, for the year 1830. Theirpopulation at that time consisted of 495,207 inhabitants. On looking at the mapof Pennsylvania, it will be seen that these thirteen counties are scattered inevery direction, and so generally affected by the causes which usuallyinfluence the condition of a country, that they may easily be supposed tofurnish a correct average of the financial state of the counties ofPennsylvania in general; and thus, upon reckoning that the expenses of thesecounties amounted in the year 1830 to about $361,650, or nearly 75 cents foreach inhabitant, and calculating that each of them contributed in the same yearabout $2.55 towards the Union, and about 75 cents to the State of Pennsylvania,it appears that they each contributed as their share of all the public expenses(except those of the townships) the sum of $4.05. This calculation is doublyincomplete, as it applies only to a single year and to one part of the publiccharges; but it has at least the merit of not being conjectural.]

The authority of the Federal government cannot oblige the provincialgovernments to throw any light upon this point; and even if these governmentswere inclined to afford their simultaneous co-operation, it may be doubtedwhether they possess the means of procuring a satisfactory answer.Independently of the natural difficulties of the task, the politicalorganization of the country would act as a hindrance to the success of theirefforts. The county and town magistrates are not appointed by the authoritiesof the State, and they are not subjected to their control. It is therefore veryallowable to suppose that, if the State was desirous of obtaining the returnswhich we require, its design would be counteracted by the neglect of thosesubordinate officers whom it would be obliged to employ. *l It is, in point offact, useless to inquire what the Americans might do to forward this inquiry,since it is certain that they have hitherto done nothing at all. There does notexist a single individual at the present day, in America or in Europe, who caninform us what each citizen of the Union annually contributes to the publiccharges of the nation. *m [Footnote l: Those who have attempted to draw acomparison between the expenses of France and America have at once perceivedthat no such comparison could be drawn between the total expenditure of the twocountries; but they have endeavored to contrast detached portions of thisexpenditure. It may readily be shown that this second system is not at all lessdefective than the first. If I attempt to compare the French budget with thebudget of the Union, it must be remembered that the latter embraces much fewerobjects than then central Government of the former country, and that theexpenditure must consequently be much smaller. If I contrast the budgets of theDepartments with those of the States which constitute the Union, it must beobserved that, as the power and control exercised by the States is much greaterthan that which is exercised by the Departments, their expenditure is also moreconsiderable. As for the budgets of the counties, nothing of the kind occurs inthe French system of finances; and it is, again, doubtful whether thecorresponding expenses should be referred to the budget of the State or tothose of the municipal divisions. Municipal expenses exist in both countries,but they are not always analogous. In America the townships discharge a varietyof offices which are reserved in France to the Departments or to the State. Itmay, moreover, be asked what is to be understood by the municipal expenses ofAmerica. The organization of the municipal bodies or townships differs in theseveral States. Are we to be guided by what occurs in New England or inGeorgia, in Pennsylvania or in the State of Illinois? A kind of analogy mayvery readily be perceived between certain budgets in the two countries; but asthe elements of which they are composed always differ more or less, no faircomparison can be instituted between them. [The same difficulty exists, perhapsto a greater degree at the present time, when the taxation of America haslargely increased.—1874.]]

m
[ Even if we knew the exact pecuniary contributions of every French andAmerican citizen to the coffers of the State, we should only come at a portionof the truth. Governments do not only demand supplies of money, but they callfor personal services, which may be looked upon as equivalent to a given sum.When a State raises an army, besides the pay of the troops, which is furnishedby the entire nation, each soldier must give up his time, the value of whichdepends on the use he might make of it if he were not in the service. The sameremark applies to the militia; the citizen who is in the militia devotes acertain portion of valuable time to the maintenance of the public peace, and hedoes in reality surrender to the State those earnings which he is preventedfrom gaining. Many other instances might be cited in addition to these. Thegovernments of France and of America both levy taxes of this kind, which weighupon the citizens; but who can estimate with accuracy their relative amount inthe two countries?

This, however, is not the last of the difficulties which prevent us fromcomparing the expenditure of the Union with that of France. The FrenchGovernment contracts certain obligations which do not exist in America, andvice versa. The French Government pays the clergy; in America the voluntaryprinciple prevails. In America there is a legal provision for the poor; inFrance they are abandoned to the charity of the public. The French publicofficers are paid by a fixed salary; in America they are allowed certainperquisites. In France contributions in kind take place on very few roads; inAmerica upon almost all the thoroughfares: in the former country the roads arefree to all travellers; in the latter turnpikes abound. All these differencesin the manner in which contributions are levied in the two countries enhancethe difficulty of comparing their expenditure; for there are certain expenseswhich the citizens would not be subject to, or which would at any rate be muchless considerable, if the State did not take upon itself to act in the name ofthe public.]

Hence we must conclude that it is no less difficult to compare the socialexpenditure than it is to estimate the relative wealth of France and America. Iwill even add that it would be dangerous to attempt this comparison; for whenstatistics are not based upon computations which are strictly accurate, theymislead instead of guiding aright. The mind is easily imposed upon by the falseaffectation of exactness, which prevails even in the misstatements of science,and it adopts with confidence errors which are dressed in the forms ofmathematical truth.

We abandon, therefore, our numerical investigation, with the hope of meetingwith data of another kind. In the absence of positive documents, we may form anopinion as to the proportion which the taxation of a people bears to its realprosperity, by observing whether its external appearance is flourishing;whether, after having discharged the calls of the State, the poor man retainsthe means of subsistence, and the rich the means of enjoyment; and whether bothclasses are contented with their position, seeking, however, to ameliorate itby perpetual exertions, so that industry is never in want of capital, norcapital unemployed by industry. The observer who draws his inferences fromthese signs will, undoubtedly, be led to the conclusion that the American ofthe United States contributes a much smaller portion of his income to the Statethan the citizen of France. Nor, indeed, can the result be otherwise.

A portion of the French debt is the consequence of two successive invasions;and the Union has no similar calamity to fear. A nation placed upon thecontinent of Europe is obliged to maintain a large standing army; the isolatedposition of the Union enables it to have only 6,000 soldiers. The French have afleet of 300 sail; the Americans have 52 vessels. *n How, then, can theinhabitants of the Union be called upon to contribute as largely as theinhabitants of France? No parallel can be drawn between the finances of twocountries so differently situated.

n
[ See the details in the Budget of the French Minister of Marine; and forAmerica, the National Calendar of 1833, p. 228. [But the public debt of theUnited States in 1870, caused by the Civil War, amounted to $2,480,672,427;that of France was more than doubled by the extravagance of the Second Empireand by the war of 1870.]]

It is by examining what actually takes place in the Union, and not by comparingthe Union with France, that we may discover whether the American Government isreally economical. On casting my eyes over the different republics which formthe confederation, I perceive that their Governments lack perseverance in theirundertakings, and that they exercise no steady control over the men whom theyemploy. Whence I naturally infer that they must often spend the money of thepeople to no purpose, or consume more of it than is really necessary to theirundertakings. Great efforts are made, in accordance with the democratic originof society, to satisfy the exigencies of the lower orders, to open the careerof power to their endeavors, and to diffuse knowledge and comfort amongst them.The poor are maintained, immense sums are annually devoted to publicinstruction, all services whatsoever are remunerated, and the most subordinateagents are liberally paid. If this kind of government appears to me to beuseful and rational, I am nevertheless constrained to admit that it isexpensive.

Wherever the poor direct public affairs and dispose of the national resources,it appears certain that, as they profit by the expenditure of the State, theyare apt to augment that expenditure.

I conclude, therefore, without having recourse to inaccurate computations, andwithout hazarding a comparison which might prove incorrect, that the democraticgovernment of the Americans is not a cheap government, as is sometimesasserted; and I have no hesitation in predicting that, if the people of theUnited States is ever involved in serious difficulties, its taxation willspeedily be increased to the rate of that which prevails in the greater part ofthe aristocracies and the monarchies of Europe. *o

o
[ [That is precisely what has since occurred.]]

Chapter XIII: Government OfThe Democracy In America—Part III

Corruption And Vices Of The Rulers In A Democracy, And Consequent Effects UponPublic Morality

In aristocracies rulers sometimes endeavor to corrupt the people—Indemocracies rulers frequently show themselves to be corrupt—In the formertheir vices are directly prejudicial to the morality of the people—In thelatter their indirect influence is still more pernicious.

A distinction must be made, when the aristocratic and the democratic principlesmutually inveigh against each other, as tending to facilitate corruption. Inaristocratic governments the individuals who are placed at the head of affairsare rich men, who are solely desirous of power. In democracies statesmen arepoor, and they have their fortunes to make. The consequence is that inaristocratic States the rulers are rarely accessible to corruption, and havevery little craving for money; whilst the reverse is the case in democraticnations.

But in aristocracies, as those who are desirous of arriving at the head ofaffairs are possessed of considerable wealth, and as the number of persons bywhose assistance they may rise is comparatively small, the government is, if Imay use the expression, put up to a sort of auction. In democracies, on thecontrary, those who are covetous of power are very seldom wealthy, and thenumber of citizens who confer that power is extremely great. Perhaps indemocracies the number of men who might be bought is by no means smaller, butbuyers are rarely to be met with; and, besides, it would be necessary to buy somany persons at once that the attempt is rendered nugatory.

Many of the men who have been in the administration in France during the lastforty years have been accused of making their fortunes at the expense of theState or of its allies; a reproach which was rarely addressed to the publiccharacters of the ancient monarchy. But in France the practice of bribingelectors is almost unknown, whilst it is notoriously and publicly carried on inEngland. In the United States I never heard a man accused of spending hiswealth in corrupting the populace; but I have often heard the probity of publicofficers questioned; still more frequently have I heard their successattributed to low intrigues and immoral practices.

If, then, the men who conduct the government of an aristocracy sometimesendeavor to corrupt the people, the heads of a democracy are themselvescorrupt. In the former case the morality of the people is directly assailed; inthe latter an indirect influence is exercised upon the people which is stillmore to be dreaded.

As the rulers of democratic nations are almost always exposed to the suspicionof dishonorable conduct, they in some measure lend the authority of theGovernment to the base practices of which they are accused. They thus afford anexample which must prove discouraging to the struggles of virtuousindependence, and must foster the secret calculations of a vicious ambition. Ifit be asserted that evil passions are displayed in all ranks of society, thatthey ascend the throne by hereditary right, and that despicable characters areto be met with at the head of aristocratic nations as well as in the sphere ofa democracy, this objection has but little weight in my estimation. Thecorruption of men who have casually risen to power has a coarse and vulgarinfection in it which renders it contagious to the multitude. On the contrary,there is a kind of aristocratic refinement and an air of grandeur in thedepravity of the great, which frequently prevent it from spreading abroad.

The people can never penetrate into the perplexing labyrinth of court intrigue,and it will always have difficulty in detecting the turpitude which lurks underelegant manners, refined tastes, and graceful language. But to pillage thepublic purse, and to vend the favors of the State, are arts which the meanestvillain may comprehend, and hope to practice in his turn.

In reality it is far less prejudicial to witness the immorality of the greatthan to witness that immorality which leads to greatness. In a democracyprivate citizens see a man of their own rank in life, who rises from thatobscure position, and who becomes possessed of riches and of power in a fewyears; the spectacle excites their surprise and their envy, and they are led toinquire how the person who was yesterday their equal is to-day their ruler. Toattribute his rise to his talents or his virtues is unpleasant; for it istacitly to acknowledge that they are themselves less virtuous and less talentedthan he was. They are therefore led (and not unfrequently their conjecture is acorrect one) to impute his success mainly to some one of his defects; and anodious mixture is thus formed of the ideas of turpitude and power, unworthinessand success, utility and dishonor.

Efforts Of Which A Democracy Is Capable

The Union has only had one struggle hitherto for its existence—Enthusiasmat the commencement of the war—Indifference towards itsclose—Difficulty of establishing military conscription or impressment ofseamen in America—Why a democratic people is less capable of sustainedeffort than another.

I here warn the reader that I speak of a government which implicitly followsthe real desires of a people, and not of a government which simply commands inits name. Nothing is so irresistible as a tyrannical power commanding in thename of the people, because, whilst it exercises that moral influence whichbelongs to the decision of the majority, it acts at the same time with thepromptitude and the tenacity of a single man.

It is difficult to say what degree of exertion a democratic government may becapable of making a crisis in the history of the nation. But no greatdemocratic republic has hitherto existed in the world. To style the oligarchywhich ruled over France in 1793 by that name would be to offer an insult to therepublican form of government. The United States afford the first example ofthe kind.

The American Union has now subsisted for half a century, in the course of whichtime its existence has only once been attacked, namely, during the War ofIndependence. At the commencement of that long war, various occurrences tookplace which betokened an extraordinary zeal for the service of the country. *pBut as the contest was prolonged, symptoms of private egotism began to showthemselves. No money was poured into the public treasury; few recruits could beraised to join the army; the people wished to acquire independence, but wasvery ill-disposed to undergo the privations by which alone it could beobtained. “Tax laws,” says Hamilton in the “Federalist”(No. 12), “have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce thecollection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformlydisappointed and the treasuries of the States have remained empty. The popularsystem of administration inherent in the nature of popular government,coinciding with the real scarcity of money incident to a languid and mutilatedstate of trade, has hitherto defeated every experiment for extensivecollections, and has at length taught the different legislatures the folly ofattempting them.”

p
[ One of the most singular of these occurrences was the resolution which theAmericans took of temporarily abandoning the use of tea. Those who know thatmen usually cling more to their habits than to their life will doubtless admirethis great though obscure sacrifice which was made by a whole people.]

The United States have not had any serious war to carry on ever since thatperiod. In order, therefore, to appreciate the sacrifices which democraticnations may impose upon themselves, we must wait until the American people isobliged to put half its entire income at the disposal of the Government, as wasdone by the English; or until it sends forth a twentieth part of its populationto the field of battle, as was done by France. *q

q
[ [The Civil War showed that when the necessity arose the American people, bothin the North and in the South, are capable of making the most enormoussacrifices, both in money and in men.]]

In America the use of conscription is unknown, and men are induced to enlist bybounties. The notions and habits of the people of the United States are soopposed to compulsory enlistment that I do not imagine it can ever besanctioned by the laws. What is termed the conscription in France is assuredlythe heaviest tax upon the population of that country; yet how could a greatcontinental war be carried on without it? The Americans have not adopted theBritish impressment of seamen, and they have nothing which corresponds to theFrench system of maritime conscription; the navy, as well as the merchantservice, is supplied by voluntary service. But it is not easy to conceive how apeople can sustain a great maritime war without having recourse to one or theother of these two systems. Indeed, the Union, which has fought with some honorupon the seas, has never possessed a very numerous fleet, and the equipment ofthe small number of American vessels has always been excessively expensive.

I have heard American statesmen confess that the Union will have greatdifficulty in maintaining its rank on the seas without adopting the system ofimpressment or of maritime conscription; but the difficulty is to induce thepeople, which exercises the supreme authority, to submit to impressment or anycompulsory system.

It is incontestable that in times of danger a free people displays far moreenergy than one which is not so. But I incline to believe that this is moreespecially the case in those free nations in which the democratic elementpreponderates. Democracy appears to me to be much better adapted for thepeaceful conduct of society, or for an occasional effort of remarkable vigor,than for the hardy and prolonged endurance of the storms which beset thepolitical existence of nations. The reason is very evident; it is enthusiasmwhich prompts men to expose themselves to dangers and privations, but they willnot support them long without reflection. There is more calculation, even inthe impulses of bravery, than is generally attributed to them; and although thefirst efforts are suggested by passion, perseverance is maintained by adistinct regard of the purpose in view. A portion of what we value is exposed,in order to save the remainder.

But it is this distinct perception of the future, founded upon a sound judgmentand an enlightened experience, which is most frequently wanting in democracies.The populace is more apt to feel than to reason; and if its present sufferingsare great, it is to be feared that the still greater sufferings attendant upondefeat will be forgotten.

Another cause tends to render the efforts of a democratic government lesspersevering than those of an aristocracy. Not only are the lower classes lessawakened than the higher orders to the good or evil chances of the future, butthey are liable to suffer far more acutely from present privations. The nobleexposes his life, indeed, but the chance of glory is equal to the chance ofharm. If he sacrifices a large portion of his income to the State, he depriveshimself for a time of the pleasures of affluence; but to the poor man death isembellished by no pomp or renown, and the imposts which are irksome to the richare fatal to him.

This relative impotence of democratic republics is, perhaps, the greatestobstacle to the foundation of a republic of this kind in Europe. In order thatsuch a State should subsist in one country of the Old World, it would benecessary that similar institutions should be introduced into all the othernations.

I am of opinion that a democratic government tends in the end to increase thereal strength of society; but it can never combine, upon a single point and ata given time, so much power as an aristocracy or a monarchy. If a democraticcountry remained during a whole century subject to a republican government, itwould probably at the end of that period be more populous and more prosperousthan the neighboring despotic States. But it would have incurred the risk ofbeing conquered much oftener than they would in that lapse of years.

Self-Control Of The American Democracy

The American people acquiesces slowly, or frequently does not acquiesce, inwhat is beneficial to its interests—The faults of the American democracyare for the most part reparable.

The difficulty which a democracy has in conquering the passions and in subduingthe exigencies of the moment, with a view to the future, is conspicuous in themost trivial occurrences of the United States. The people, which is surroundedby flatterers, has great difficulty in surmounting its inclinations, andwhenever it is solicited to undergo a privation or any kind of inconvenience,even to attain an end which is sanctioned by its own rational conviction, italmost always refuses to comply at first. The deference of the Americans to thelaws has been very justly applauded; but it must be added that in America thelegislation is made by the people and for the people. Consequently, in theUnited States the law favors those classes which are most interested in evadingit elsewhere. It may therefore be supposed that an offensive law, which shouldnot be acknowledged to be one of immediate utility, would either not be enactedor would not be obeyed.

In America there is no law against fraudulent bankruptcies; not because theyare few, but because there are a great number of bankruptcies. The dread ofbeing prosecuted as a bankrupt acts with more intensity upon the mind of themajority of the people than the fear of being involved in losses or ruin by thefailure of other parties, and a sort of guilty tolerance is extended by thepublic conscience to an offence which everyone condemns in his individualcapacity. In the new States of the Southwest the citizens generally takejustice into their own hands, and murders are of very frequent occurrence. Thisarises from the rude manners and the ignorance of the inhabitants of thosedeserts, who do not perceive the utility of investing the law with adequateforce, and who prefer duels to prosecutions.

Someone observed to me one day, in Philadelphia, that almost all crimes inAmerica are caused by the abuse of intoxicating liquors, which the lowerclasses can procure in great abundance, from their excessive cheapness.“How comes it,” said I, “that you do not put a duty uponbrandy?” “Our legislators,” rejoined my informant,“have frequently thought of this expedient; but the task of putting it inoperation is a difficult one; a revolt might be apprehended, and the memberswho should vote for a law of this kind would be sure of losing theirseats.” “Whence I am to infer,” replied I, “that thedrinking population constitutes the majority in your country, and thattemperance is somewhat unpopular.”

When these things are pointed out to the American statesmen, they contentthemselves with assuring you that time will operate the necessary change, andthat the experience of evil will teach the people its true interests. This isfrequently true, although a democracy is more liable to error than a monarch ora body of nobles; the chances of its regaining the right path when once it hasacknowledged its mistake, are greater also; because it is rarely embarrassed byinternal interests, which conflict with those of the majority, and resist theauthority of reason. But a democracy can only obtain truth as the result ofexperience, and many nations may forfeit their existence whilst they areawaiting the consequences of their errors.

The great privilege of the Americans does not simply consist in their beingmore enlightened than other nations, but in their being able to repair thefaults they may commit. To which it must be added, that a democracy cannotderive substantial benefit from past experience, unless it be arrived at acertain pitch of knowledge and civilization. There are tribes and peoples whoseeducation has been so vicious, and whose character presents so strange amixture of passion, of ignorance, and of erroneous notions upon all subjects,that they are unable to discern the causes of their own wretchedness, and theyfall a sacrifice to ills with which they are unacquainted.

I have crossed vast tracts of country that were formerly inhabited by powerfulIndian nations which are now extinct; I have myself passed some time in themidst of mutilated tribes, which witness the daily decline of their numericalstrength and of the glory of their independence; and I have heard these Indiansthemselves anticipate the impending doom of their race. Every European canperceive means which would rescue these unfortunate beings from inevitabledestruction. They alone are insensible to the expedient; they feel the woewhich year after year heaps upon their heads, but they will perish to a manwithout accepting the remedy. It would be necessary to employ force to inducethem to submit to the protection and the constraint of civilization.

The incessant revolutions which have convulsed the South American provinces forthe last quarter of a century have frequently been adverted to withastonishment, and expectations have been expressed that those nations wouldspeedily return to their natural state. But can it be affirmed that the turmoilof revolution is not actually the most natural state of the South AmericanSpaniards at the present time? In that country society is plunged intodifficulties from which all its efforts are insufficient to rescue it. Theinhabitants of that fair portion of the Western Hemisphere seem obstinatelybent on pursuing the work of inward havoc. If they fall into a momentary reposefrom the effects of exhaustion, that repose prepares them for a fresh state offrenzy. When I consider their condition, which alternates between misery andcrime, I should be inclined to believe that despotism itself would be a benefitto them, if it were possible that the words despotism and benefit could ever beunited in my mind.

Conduct Of Foreign Affairs By The American Democracy

Direction given to the foreign policy of the United States by Washington andJefferson—Almost all the defects inherent in democratic institutions arebrought to light in the conduct of foreign affairs—Their advantages areless perceptible.

We have seen that the Federal Constitution entrusts the permanent direction ofthe external interests of the nation to the President and the Senate, *r whichtends in some degree to detach the general foreign policy of the Union from thecontrol of the people. It cannot therefore be asserted with truth that theexternal affairs of State are conducted by the democracy.

r
[ “The President,” says the Constitution, Art. II, sect. 2, Section2, “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur.”The reader is reminded that the senators are returned for a term of six years,and that they are chosen by the legislature of each State.]

The policy of America owes its rise to Washington, and after him to Jefferson,who established those principles which it observes at the present day.Washington said in the admirable letter which he addressed to hisfellow-citizens, and which may be looked upon as his political bequest to thecountry: “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nationsis, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as littlepolitical connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements,let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has aset of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation.Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which areessentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in usto implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of herpolitics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships orenmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue adifferent course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, theperiod is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance;when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at anytime resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, underthe impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard thegiving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guidedby justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar asituation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweavingour destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperityin the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? Itis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion ofthe foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for letme not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existingengagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to privateaffairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it; therefore, letthose engagements be observed in their genuine sense; but in my opinion it isunnecessary, and would be unwise, to extend them. Taking care always to keepourselves, by suitable establishments, in a respectable defensive posture, wemay safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”In a previous part of the same letter Washington makes the following admirableand just remark: “The nation which indulges towards another an habitualhatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to itsanimosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astrayfrom its duty and its interest.”

The political conduct of Washington was always guided by these maxims. Hesucceeded in maintaining his country in a state of peace whilst all the othernations of the globe were at war; and he laid it down as a fundamentaldoctrine, that the true interest of the Americans consisted in a perfectneutrality with regard to the internal dissensions of the European Powers.

Jefferson went still further, and he introduced a maxim into the policy of theUnion, which affirms that “the Americans ought never to solicit anyprivileges from foreign nations, in order not to be obliged to grant similarprivileges themselves.”

These two principles, which were so plain and so just as to be adapted to thecapacity of the populace, have greatly simplified the foreign policy of theUnited States. As the Union takes no part in the affairs of Europe, it has,properly speaking, no foreign interests to discuss, since it has at present nopowerful neighbors on the American continent. The country is as much removedfrom the passions of the Old World by its position as by the line of policywhich it has chosen, and it is neither called upon to repudiate nor to espousethe conflicting interests of Europe; whilst the dissensions of the New Worldare still concealed within the bosom of the future.

The Union is free from all pre-existing obligations, and it is consequentlyenabled to profit by the experience of the old nations of Europe, without beingobliged, as they are, to make the best of the past, and to adapt it to theirpresent circ*mstances; or to accept that immense inheritance which they derivefrom their forefathers—an inheritance of glory mingled with calamities,and of alliances conflicting with national antipathies. The foreign policy ofthe United States is reduced by its very nature to await the chances of thefuture history of the nation, and for the present it consists more inabstaining from interference than in exerting its activity.

It is therefore very difficult to ascertain, at present, what degree ofsagacity the American democracy will display in the conduct of the foreignpolicy of the country; and upon this point its adversaries, as well as itsadvocates, must suspend their judgment. As for myself I have no hesitation inavowing my conviction, that it is most especially in the conduct of foreignrelations that democratic governments appear to me to be decidedly inferior togovernments carried on upon different principles. Experience, instruction, andhabit may almost always succeed in creating a species of practical discretionin democracies, and that science of the daily occurrences of life which iscalled good sense. Good sense may suffice to direct the ordinary course ofsociety; and amongst a people whose education has been provided for, theadvantages of democratic liberty in the internal affairs of the country maymore than compensate for the evils inherent in a democratic government. Butsuch is not always the case in the mutual relations of foreign nations.

Foreign politics demand scarcely any of those qualities which a democracypossesses; and they require, on the contrary, the perfect use of almost allthose faculties in which it is deficient. Democracy is favorable to theincrease of the internal resources of the State; it tends to diffuse a moderateindependence; it promotes the growth of public spirit, and fortifies therespect which is entertained for law in all classes of society; and these areadvantages which only exercise an indirect influence over the relations whichone people bears to another. But a democracy is unable to regulate the detailsof an important undertaking, to persevere in a design, and to work out itsexecution in the presence of serious obstacles. It cannot combine its measureswith secrecy, and it will not await their consequences with patience. These arequalities which more especially belong to an individual or to an aristocracy;and they are precisely the means by which an individual people attains to apredominant position.

If, on the contrary, we observe the natural defects of aristocracy, we shallfind that their influence is comparatively innoxious in the direction of theexternal affairs of a State. The capital fault of which aristocratic bodies maybe accused is that they are more apt to contrive their own advantage than thatof the mass of the people. In foreign politics it is rare for the interest ofthe aristocracy to be in any way distinct from that of the people.

The propensity which democracies have to obey the impulse of passion ratherthan the suggestions of prudence, and to abandon a mature design for thegratification of a momentary caprice, was very clearly seen in America on thebreaking out of the French Revolution. It was then as evident to the simplestcapacity as it is at the present time that the interest of the Americansforbade them to take any part in the contest which was about to deluge Europewith blood, but which could by no means injure the welfare of their owncountry. Nevertheless the sympathies of the people declared themselves with somuch violence in behalf of France that nothing but the inflexible character ofWashington, and the immense popularity which he enjoyed, could have preventedthe Americans from declaring war against England. And even then, the exertionswhich the austere reason of that great man made to repress the generous butimprudent passions of his fellow-citizens, very nearly deprived him of the solerecompense which he had ever claimed—that of his country’s love.The majority then reprobated the line of policy which he adopted, and which hassince been unanimously approved by the nation. *s If the Constitution and thefavor of the public had not entrusted the direction of the foreign affairs ofthe country to Washington, it is certain that the American nation would at thattime have taken the very measures which it now condemns.

s
[ See the fifth volume of Marshall’s “Life of Washington.” Ina government constituted like that of the United States, he says, “it isimpossible for the chief magistrate, however firm he may be, to oppose for anylength of time the torrent of popular opinion; and the prevalent opinion ofthat day seemed to incline to war. In fact, in the session of Congress held atthe time, it was frequently seen that Washington had lost the majority in theHouse of Representatives.” The violence of the language used against himin public was extreme, and in a political meeting they did not scruple tocompare him indirectly to the treacherous Arnold. “By theopposition,” says Marshall, “the friends of the administration weredeclared to be an aristocratic and corrupt faction, who, from a desire tointroduce monarchy, were hostile to France and under the influence of Britain;that they were a paper nobility, whose extreme sensibility at every measurewhich threatened the funds, induced a tame submission to injuries and insults,which the interests and honor of the nation required them to resist.”]

Almost all the nations which have ever exercised a powerful influence upon thedestinies of the world by conceiving, following up, and executing vastdesigns—from the Romans to the English—have been governed byaristocratic institutions. Nor will this be a subject of wonder when werecollect that nothing in the world has so absolute a fixity of purpose as anaristocracy. The mass of the people may be led astray by ignorance or passion;the mind of a king may be biased, and his perseverance in his designs may beshaken—besides which a king is not immortal—but an aristocraticbody is too numerous to be led astray by the blandishments of intrigue, and yetnot numerous enough to yield readily to the intoxicating influence ofunreflecting passion: it has the energy of a firm and enlightened individual,added to the power which it derives from perpetuity.

Chapter XIV: AdvantagesAmerican Society Derive From Democracy—Part I

What The Real Advantages Are Which American Society Derives From The GovernmentOf The Democracy

Before I enter upon the subject of the present chapter I am induced to remindthe reader of what I have more than once adverted to in the course of thisbook. The political institutions of the United States appear to me to be one ofthe forms of government which a democracy may adopt; but I do not regard theAmerican Constitution as the best, or as the only one, which a democraticpeople may establish. In showing the advantages which the Americans derive fromthe government of democracy, I am therefore very far from meaning, or frombelieving, that similar advantages can only be obtained from the same laws.

General Tendency Of The Laws Under The Rule Of The American Democracy, AndHabits Of Those Who Apply Them

Defects of a democratic government easy to be discovered—Its advantagesonly to be discerned by long observation—Democracy in America ofteninexpert, but the general tendency of the laws advantageous—In theAmerican democracy public officers have no permanent interests distinct fromthose of the majority—Result of this state of things.

The defects and the weaknesses of a democratic government may very readily bediscovered; they are demonstrated by the most flagrant instances, whilst itsbeneficial influence is less perceptibly exercised. A single glance suffices todetect its evil consequences, but its good qualities can only be discerned bylong observation. The laws of the American democracy are frequently defectiveor incomplete; they sometimes attack vested rights, or give a sanction toothers which are dangerous to the community; but even if they were good, thefrequent changes which they undergo would be an evil. How comes it, then, thatthe American republics prosper and maintain their position?

In the consideration of laws a distinction must be carefully observed betweenthe end at which they aim and the means by which they are directed to that end,between their absolute and their relative excellence. If it be the intention ofthe legislator to favor the interests of the minority at the expense of themajority, and if the measures he takes are so combined as to accomplish theobject he has in view with the least possible expense of time and exertion, thelaw may be well drawn up, although its purpose be bad; and the more efficaciousit is, the greater is the mischief which it causes.

Democratic laws generally tend to promote the welfare of the greatest possiblenumber; for they emanate from the majority of the citizens, who are subject toerror, but who cannot have an interest opposed to their own advantage. The lawsof an aristocracy tend, on the contrary, to concentrate wealth and power in thehands of the minority, because an aristocracy, by its very nature, constitutesa minority. It may therefore be asserted, as a general proposition, that thepurpose of a democracy in the conduct of its legislation is useful to a greaternumber of citizens than that of an aristocracy. This is, however, the sum totalof its advantages.

Aristocracies are infinitely more expert in the science of legislation thandemocracies ever can be. They are possessed of a self-control which protectsthem from the errors of temporary excitement, and they form lasting designswhich they mature with the assistance of favorable opportunities. Aristocraticgovernment proceeds with the dexterity of art; it understands how to make thecollective force of all its laws converge at the same time to a given point.Such is not the case with democracies, whose laws are almost always ineffectiveor inopportune. The means of democracy are therefore more imperfect than thoseof aristocracy, and the measures which it unwittingly adopts are frequentlyopposed to its own cause; but the object it has in view is more useful.

Let us now imagine a community so organized by nature, or by its constitution,that it can support the transitory action of bad laws, and that it can await,without destruction, the general tendency of the legislation: we shall then beable to conceive that a democratic government, notwithstanding its defects,will be most fitted to conduce to the prosperity of this community. This isprecisely what has occurred in the United States; and I repeat, what I havebefore remarked, that the great advantage of the Americans consists in theirbeing able to commit faults which they may afterward repair.

An analogous observation may be made respecting public officers. It is easy toperceive that the American democracy frequently errs in the choice of theindividuals to whom it entrusts the power of the administration; but it is moredifficult to say why the State prospers under their rule. In the first place itis to be remarked, that if in a democratic State the governors have lesshonesty and less capacity than elsewhere, the governed, on the other hand, aremore enlightened and more attentive to their interests. As the people indemocracies is more incessantly vigilant in its affairs and more jealous of itsrights, it prevents its representatives from abandoning that general line ofconduct which its own interest prescribes. In the second place, it must beremembered that if the democratic magistrate is more apt to misuse his power,he possesses it for a shorter period of time. But there is yet another reasonwhich is still more general and conclusive. It is no doubt of importance to thewelfare of nations that they should be governed by men of talents and virtue;but it is perhaps still more important that the interests of those men shouldnot differ from the interests of the community at large; for, if such were thecase, virtues of a high order might become useless, and talents might be turnedto a bad account. I say that it is important that the interests of the personsin authority should not conflict with or oppose the interests of the communityat large; but I do not insist upon their having the same interests as the wholepopulation, because I am not aware that such a state of things ever existed inany country.

No political form has hitherto been discovered which is equally favorable tothe prosperity and the development of all the classes into which society isdivided. These classes continue to form, as it were, a certain number ofdistinct nations in the same nation; and experience has shown that it is noless dangerous to place the fate of these classes exclusively in the hands ofany one of them than it is to make one people the arbiter of the destiny ofanother. When the rich alone govern, the interest of the poor is alwaysendangered; and when the poor make the laws, that of the rich incurs veryserious risks. The advantage of democracy does not consist, therefore, as hassometimes been asserted, in favoring the prosperity of all, but simply incontributing to the well-being of the greatest possible number.

The men who are entrusted with the direction of public affairs in the UnitedStates are frequently inferior, both in point of capacity and of morality, tothose whom aristocratic institutions would raise to power. But their interestis identified and confounded with that of the majority of theirfellow-citizens. They may frequently be faithless and frequently mistaken, butthey will never systematically adopt a line of conduct opposed to the will ofthe majority; and it is impossible that they should give a dangerous or anexclusive tendency to the government.

The mal-administration of a democratic magistrate is a mere isolated fact,which only occurs during the short period for which he is elected. Corruptionand incapacity do not act as common interests, which may connect menpermanently with one another. A corrupt or an incapable magistrate will notconcert his measures with another magistrate, simply because that individual isas corrupt and as incapable as himself; and these two men will never unitetheir endeavors to promote the corruption and inaptitude of their remoteposterity. The ambition and the manoeuvres of the one will serve, on thecontrary, to unmask the other. The vices of a magistrate, in democratic states,are usually peculiar to his own person.

But under aristocratic governments public men are swayed by the interest oftheir order, which, if it is sometimes confounded with the interests of themajority, is very frequently distinct from them. This interest is the commonand lasting bond which unites them together; it induces them to coalesce, andto combine their efforts in order to attain an end which does not always ensurethe greatest happiness of the greatest number; and it serves not only toconnect the persons in authority, but to unite them to a considerable portionof the community, since a numerous body of citizens belongs to the aristocracy,without being invested with official functions. The aristocratic magistrate istherefore constantly supported by a portion of the community, as well as by theGovernment of which he is a member.

The common purpose which connects the interest of the magistrates inaristocracies with that of a portion of their contemporaries identifies it withthat of future generations; their influence belongs to the future as much as tothe present. The aristocratic magistrate is urged at the same time toward thesame point by the passions of the community, by his own, and I may almost addby those of his posterity. Is it, then, wonderful that he does not resist suchrepeated impulses? And indeed aristocracies are often carried away by thespirit of their order without being corrupted by it; and they unconsciouslyfashion society to their own ends, and prepare it for their own descendants.

The English aristocracy is perhaps the most liberal which ever existed, and nobody of men has ever, uninterruptedly, furnished so many honorable andenlightened individuals to the government of a country. It cannot, however,escape observation that in the legislation of England the good of the poor hasbeen sacrificed to the advantage of the rich, and the rights of the majority tothe privileges of the few. The consequence is, that England, at the presentday, combines the extremes of fortune in the bosom of her society, and herperils and calamities are almost equal to her power and her renown. *a

a
[ [The legislation of England for the forty years is certainly not fairly opento this criticism, which was written before the Reform Bill of 1832, andaccordingly Great Britain has thus far escaped and surmounted the perils andcalamities to which she seemed to be exposed.]]

In the United States, where the public officers have no interests to promoteconnected with their caste, the general and constant influence of theGovernment is beneficial, although the individuals who conduct it arefrequently unskilful and sometimes contemptible. There is indeed a secrettendency in democratic institutions to render the exertions of the citizenssubservient to the prosperity of the community, notwithstanding their privatevices and mistakes; whilst in aristocratic institutions there is a secretpropensity which, notwithstanding the talents and the virtues of those whoconduct the government, leads them to contribute to the evils which oppresstheir fellow-creatures. In aristocratic governments public men may frequentlydo injuries which they do not intend, and in democratic states they produceadvantages which they never thought of.

Public Spirit In The United States

Patriotism of instinct—Patriotism of reflection—Their differentcharacteristics—Nations ought to strive to acquire the second when thefirst has disappeared—Efforts of the Americans to it—Interest ofthe individual intimately connected with that of the country.

There is one sort of patriotic attachment which principally arises from thatinstinctive, disinterested, and undefinable feeling which connects theaffections of man with his birthplace. This natural fondness is united to ataste for ancient customs, and to a reverence for ancestral traditions of thepast; those who cherish it love their country as they love the mansions oftheir fathers. They enjoy the tranquillity which it affords them; they cling tothe peaceful habits which they have contracted within its bosom; they areattached to the reminiscences which it awakens, and they are even pleased bythe state of obedience in which they are placed. This patriotism is sometimesstimulated by religious enthusiasm, and then it is capable of making the mostprodigious efforts. It is in itself a kind of religion; it does not reason, butit acts from the impulse of faith and of sentiment. By some nations the monarchhas been regarded as a personification of the country; and the fervor ofpatriotism being converted into the fervor of loyalty, they took a sympatheticpride in his conquests, and gloried in his power. At one time, under theancient monarchy, the French felt a sort of satisfaction in the sense of theirdependence upon the arbitrary pleasure of their king, and they were wont to saywith pride, “We are the subjects of the most powerful king in theworld.”

But, like all instinctive passions, this kind of patriotism is more apt toprompt transient exertion than to supply the motives of continuous endeavor. Itmay save the State in critical circ*mstances, but it will not unfrequentlyallow the nation to decline in the midst of peace. Whilst the manners of apeople are simple and its faith unshaken, whilst society is steadily based upontraditional institutions whose legitimacy has never been contested, thisinstinctive patriotism is wont to endure.

But there is another species of attachment to a country which is more rationalthan the one we have been describing. It is perhaps less generous and lessardent, but it is more fruitful and more lasting; it is coeval with the spreadof knowledge, it is nurtured by the laws, it grows by the exercise of civilrights, and, in the end, it is confounded with the personal interest of thecitizen. A man comprehends the influence which the prosperity of his countryhas upon his own welfare; he is aware that the laws authorize him to contributehis assistance to that prosperity, and he labors to promote it as a portion ofhis interest in the first place, and as a portion of his right in the second.

But epochs sometimes occur, in the course of the existence of a nation, atwhich the ancient customs of a people are changed, public morality destroyed,religious belief disturbed, and the spell of tradition broken, whilst thediffusion of knowledge is yet imperfect, and the civil rights of the communityare ill secured, or confined within very narrow limits. The country thenassumes a dim and dubious shape in the eyes of the citizens; they no longerbehold it in the soil which they inhabit, for that soil is to them a dullinanimate clod; nor in the usages of their forefathers, which they have beentaught to look upon as a debasing yoke; nor in religion, for of that theydoubt; nor in the laws, which do not originate in their own authority; nor inthe legislator, whom they fear and despise. The country is lost to theirsenses, they can neither discover it under its own nor under borrowed features,and they entrench themselves within the dull precincts of a narrow egotism.They are emancipated from prejudice without having acknowledged the empire ofreason; they are neither animated by the instinctive patriotism of monarchicalsubjects nor by the thinking patriotism of republican citizens; but they havestopped halfway between the two, in the midst of confusion and of distress.

In this predicament, to retreat is impossible; for a people cannot restore thevivacity of its earlier times, any more than a man can return to the innocenceand the bloom of childhood; such things may be regretted, but they cannot berenewed. The only thing, then, which remains to be done is to proceed, and toaccelerate the union of private with public interests, since the period ofdisinterested patriotism is gone by forever.

I am certainly very far from averring that, in order to obtain this result, theexercise of political rights should be immediately granted to all the membersof the community. But I maintain that the most powerful, and perhaps the only,means of interesting men in the welfare of their country which we still possessis to make them partakers in the Government. At the present time civic zealseems to me to be inseparable from the exercise of political rights; and I holdthat the number of citizens will be found to augment or to decrease in Europein proportion as those rights are extended.

In the United States the inhabitants were thrown but as yesterday upon the soilwhich they now occupy, and they brought neither customs nor traditions withthem there; they meet each other for the first time with no previousacquaintance; in short, the instinctive love of their country can scarcelyexist in their minds; but everyone takes as zealous an interest in the affairsof his township, his county, and of the whole State, as if they were his own,because everyone, in his sphere, takes an active part in the government ofsociety.

The lower orders in the United States are alive to the perception of theinfluence exercised by the general prosperity upon their own welfare; andsimple as this observation is, it is one which is but too rarely made by thepeople. But in America the people regards this prosperity as the result of itsown exertions; the citizen looks upon the fortune of the public as his privateinterest, and he co-operates in its success, not so much from a sense of prideor of duty, as from what I shall venture to term cupidity.

It is unnecessary to study the institutions and the history of the Americans inorder to discover the truth of this remark, for their manners render itsufficiently evident. As the American participates in all that is done in hiscountry, he thinks himself obliged to defend whatever may be censured; for itis not only his country which is attacked upon these occasions, but it ishimself. The consequence is, that his national pride resorts to a thousandartifices, and to all the petty tricks of individual vanity.

Nothing is more embarrassing in the ordinary intercourse of life than thisirritable patriotism of the Americans. A stranger may be very well inclined topraise many of the institutions of their country, but he begs permission toblame some of the peculiarities which he observes—a permission which is,however, inexorably refused. America is therefore a free country, in which,lest anybody should be hurt by your remarks, you are not allowed to speakfreely of private individuals, or of the State, of the citizens or of theauthorities, of public or of private undertakings, or, in short, of anything atall, except it be of the climate and the soil; and even then Americans will befound ready to defend either the one or the other, as if they had beencontrived by the inhabitants of the country.

In our times option must be made between the patriotism of all and thegovernment of a few; for the force and activity which the first confers areirreconcilable with the guarantees of tranquillity which the second furnishes.

Notion Of Rights In The United States

No great people without a notion of rights—How the notion of rights canbe given to people—Respect of rights in the United States—Whence itarises.

After the idea of virtue, I know no higher principle than that of right; or, tospeak more accurately, these two ideas are commingled in one. The idea of rightis simply that of virtue introduced into the political world. It is the idea ofright which enabled men to define anarchy and tyranny; and which taught them toremain independent without arrogance, as well as to obey without servility. Theman who submits to violence is debased by his compliance; but when he obeys themandate of one who possesses that right of authority which he acknowledges in afellow-creature, he rises in some measure above the person who delivers thecommand. There are no great men without virtue, and there are no greatnations—it may almost be added that there would be nosociety—without the notion of rights; for what is the condition of a massof rational and intelligent beings who are only united together by the bond offorce?

I am persuaded that the only means which we possess at the present time ofinculcating the notion of rights, and of rendering it, as it were, palpable tothe senses, is to invest all the members of the community with the peacefulexercise of certain rights: this is very clearly seen in children, who are menwithout the strength and the experience of manhood. When a child begins to movein the midst of the objects which surround him, he is instinctively led to turneverything which he can lay his hands upon to his own purposes; he has nonotion of the property of others; but as he gradually learns the value ofthings, and begins to perceive that he may in his turn be deprived of hispossessions, he becomes more circ*mspect, and he observes those rights inothers which he wishes to have respected in himself. The principle which thechild derives from the possession of his toys is taught to the man by theobjects which he may call his own. In America those complaints against propertyin general which are so frequent in Europe are never heard, because in Americathere are no paupers; and as everyone has property of his own to defend,everyone recognizes the principle upon which he holds it.

The same thing occurs in the political world. In America the lowest classeshave conceived a very high notion of political rights, because they exercisethose rights; and they refrain from attacking those of other people, in orderto ensure their own from attack. Whilst in Europe the same classes sometimesrecalcitrate even against the supreme power, the American submits without amurmur to the authority of the pettiest magistrate.

This truth is exemplified by the most trivial details of nationalpeculiarities. In France very few pleasures are exclusively reserved for thehigher classes; the poor are admitted wherever the rich are received, and theyconsequently behave with propriety, and respect whatever contributes to theenjoyments in which they themselves participate. In England, where wealth has amonopoly of amusem*nt as well as of power, complaints are made that wheneverthe poor happen to steal into the enclosures which are reserved for thepleasures of the rich, they commit acts of wanton mischief: can this bewondered at, since care has been taken that they should have nothing to lose?*b

b
[ [This, too, has been amended by much larger provisions for the amusem*nts ofthe people in public parks, gardens, museums, etc.; and the conduct of thepeople in these places of amusem*nt has improved in the same proportion.]]

The government of democracy brings the notion of political rights to the levelof the humblest citizens, just as the dissemination of wealth brings the notionof property within the reach of all the members of the community; and I confessthat, to my mind, this is one of its greatest advantages. I do not assert thatit is easy to teach men to exercise political rights; but I maintain that, whenit is possible, the effects which result from it are highly important; and Iadd that, if there ever was a time at which such an attempt ought to be made,that time is our own. It is clear that the influence of religious belief isshaken, and that the notion of divine rights is declining; it is evident thatpublic morality is vitiated, and the notion of moral rights is alsodisappearing: these are general symptoms of the substitution of argument forfaith, and of calculation for the impulses of sentiment. If, in the midst ofthis general disruption, you do not succeed in connecting the notion of rightswith that of personal interest, which is the only immutable point in the humanheart, what means will you have of governing the world except by fear? When Iam told that, since the laws are weak and the populace is wild, since passionsare excited and the authority of virtue is paralyzed, no measures must be takento increase the rights of the democracy, I reply, that it is for these veryreasons that some measures of the kind must be taken; and I am persuaded thatgovernments are still more interested in taking them than society at large,because governments are liable to be destroyed and society cannot perish.

I am not, however, inclined to exaggerate the example which America furnishes.In those States the people are invested with political rights at a time whenthey could scarcely be abused, for the citizens were few in number and simplein their manners. As they have increased, the Americans have not augmented thepower of the democracy, but they have, if I may use the expression, extendedits dominions. It cannot be doubted that the moment at which political rightsare granted to a people that had before been without them is a very critical,though it be a necessary one. A child may kill before he is aware of the valueof life; and he may deprive another person of his property before he is awarethat his own may be taken away from him. The lower orders, when first they areinvested with political rights, stand, in relation to those rights, in the sameposition as the child does to the whole of nature, and the celebrated adage maythen be applied to them, hom*o puer robustus. This truth may even be perceivedin America. The States in which the citizens have enjoyed their rights longestare those in which they make the best use of them.

It cannot be repeated too often that nothing is more fertile in prodigies thanthe art of being free; but there is nothing more arduous than theapprenticeship of liberty. Such is not the case with despotic institutions:despotism often promises to make amends for a thousand previous ills; itsupports the right, it protects the oppressed, and it maintains public order.The nation is lulled by the temporary prosperity which accrues to it, until itis roused to a sense of its own misery. Liberty, on the contrary, is generallyestablished in the midst of agitation, it is perfected by civil discord, andits benefits cannot be appreciated until it is already old.

Chapter XIV: AdvantagesAmerican Society Derive From Democracy—Part II

Respect For TheLaw In The United States

Respect of the Americans for the law—Parental affection which theyentertain for it—Personal interest of everyone to increase the authorityof the law.

It is not always feasible to consult the whole people, either directly orindirectly, in the formation of the law; but it cannot be denied that, whensuch a measure is possible the authority of the law is very much augmented.This popular origin, which impairs the excellence and the wisdom oflegislation, contributes prodigiously to increase its power. There is anamazing strength in the expression of the determination of a whole people, andwhen it declares itself the imagination of those who are most inclined tocontest it is overawed by its authority. The truth of this fact is very wellknown by parties, and they consequently strive to make out a majority wheneverthey can. If they have not the greater number of voters on their side, theyassert that the true majority abstained from voting; and if they are foiledeven there, they have recourse to the body of those persons who had no votes togive.

In the United States, except slaves, servants, and paupers in the receipt ofrelief from the townships, there is no class of persons who do not exercise theelective franchise, and who do not indirectly contribute to make the laws.Those who design to attack the laws must consequently either modify the opinionof the nation or trample upon its decision.

A second reason, which is still more weighty, may be further adduced; in theUnited States everyone is personally interested in enforcing the obedience ofthe whole community to the law; for as the minority may shortly rally themajority to its principles, it is interested in professing that respect for thedecrees of the legislator which it may soon have occasion to claim for its own.However irksome an enactment may be, the citizen of the United States complieswith it, not only because it is the work of the majority, but because itoriginates in his own authority, and he regards it as a contract to which he ishimself a party.

In the United States, then, that numerous and turbulent multitude does notexist which always looks upon the law as its natural enemy, and accordinglysurveys it with fear and with fear and with distrust. It is impossible, on theother hand, not to perceive that all classes display the utmost reliance uponthe legislation of their country, and that they are attached to it by a kind ofparental affection.

I am wrong, however, in saying all classes; for as in America the Europeanscale of authority is inverted, the wealthy are there placed in a positionanalogous to that of the poor in the Old World, and it is the opulent classeswhich frequently look upon the law with suspicion. I have already observed thatthe advantage of democracy is not, as has been sometimes asserted, that itprotects the interests of the whole community, but simply that it protectsthose of the majority. In the United States, where the poor rule, the rich havealways some reason to dread the abuses of their power. This natural anxiety ofthe rich may produce a sullen dissatisfaction, but society is not disturbed byit; for the same reason which induces the rich to withhold their confidence inthe legislative authority makes them obey its mandates; their wealth, whichprevents them from making the law, prevents them from withstanding it. Amongstcivilized nations revolts are rarely excited, except by such persons as havenothing to lose by them; and if the laws of a democracy are not always worthyof respect, at least they always obtain it; for those who usually infringe thelaws have no excuse for not complying with the enactments they have themselvesmade, and by which they are themselves benefited, whilst the citizens whoseinterests might be promoted by the infraction of them are induced, by theircharacter and their stations, to submit to the decisions of the legislature,whatever they may be. Besides which, the people in America obeys the law notonly because it emanates from the popular authority, but because that authoritymay modify it in any points which may prove vexatory; a law is observed becauseit is a self-imposed evil in the first place, and an evil of transient durationin the second.

Activity Which Pervades All The Branches Of The Body Politic In The UnitedStates; Influence Which It Exercises Upon Society

More difficult to conceive the political activity which pervades the UnitedStates than the freedom and equality which reign there—The great activitywhich perpetually agitates the legislative bodies is only an episode to thegeneral activity—Difficult for an American to confine himself to his ownbusiness—Political agitation extends to all socialintercourse—Commercial activity of the Americans partly attributable tothis cause—Indirect advantages which society derives from a democraticgovernment.

On passing from a country in which free institutions are established to onewhere they do not exist, the traveller is struck by the change; in the formerall is bustle and activity, in the latter everything is calm and motionless. Inthe one, amelioration and progress are the general topics of inquiry; in theother, it seems as if the community only aspired to repose in the enjoyment ofthe advantages which it has acquired. Nevertheless, the country which exertsitself so strenuously to promote its welfare is generally more wealthy and moreprosperous than that which appears to be so contented with its lot; and when wecompare them together, we can scarcely conceive how so many new wants are dailyfelt in the former, whilst so few seem to occur in the latter.

If this remark is applicable to those free countries in which monarchical andaristocratic institutions subsist, it is still more striking with regard todemocratic republics. In these States it is not only a portion of the peoplewhich is busied with the amelioration of its social condition, but the wholecommunity is engaged in the task; and it is not the exigencies and theconvenience of a single class for which a provision is to be made, but theexigencies and the convenience of all ranks of life.

It is not impossible to conceive the surpassing liberty which the Americansenjoy; some idea may likewise be formed of the extreme equality which subsistsamongst them, but the political activity which pervades the United States mustbe seen in order to be understood. No sooner do you set foot upon the Americansoil than you are stunned by a kind of tumult; a confused clamor is heard onevery side; and a thousand simultaneous voices demand the immediatesatisfaction of their social wants. Everything is in motion around you; here,the people of one quarter of a town are met to decide upon the building of achurch; there, the election of a representative is going on; a little furtherthe delegates of a district are posting to the town in order to consult uponsome local improvements; or in another place the laborers of a village quittheir ploughs to deliberate upon the project of a road or a public school.Meetings are called for the sole purpose of declaring their disapprobation ofthe line of conduct pursued by the Government; whilst in other assemblies thecitizens salute the authorities of the day as the fathers of their country.Societies are formed which regard drunkenness as the principal cause of theevils under which the State labors, and which solemnly bind themselves to givea constant example of temperance. *c

c
[ At the time of my stay in the United States the temperance societies alreadyconsisted of more than 270,000 members, and their effect had been to diminishthe consumption of fermented liquors by 500,000 gallons per annum in the Stateof Pennsylvania alone.]

The great political agitation of the American legislative bodies, which is theonly kind of excitement that attracts the attention of foreign countries, is amere episode or a sort of continuation of that universal movement whichoriginates in the lowest classes of the people and extends successively to allthe ranks of society. It is impossible to spend more efforts in the pursuit ofenjoyment.

The cares of political life engross a most prominent place in the occupation ofa citizen in the United States, and almost the only pleasure of which anAmerican has any idea is to take a part in the Government, and to discuss thepart he has taken. This feeling pervades the most trifling habits of life; eventhe women frequently attend public meetings and listen to political haranguesas a recreation after their household labors. Debating clubs are to a certainextent a substitute for theatrical entertainments: an American cannot converse,but he can discuss; and when he attempts to talk he falls into a dissertation.He speaks to you as if he was addressing a meeting; and if he should chance towarm in the course of the discussion, he will infallibly say,“Gentlemen,” to the person with whom he is conversing.

In some countries the inhabitants display a certain repugnance to availthemselves of the political privileges with which the law invests them; itwould seem that they set too high a value upon their time to spend it on theinterests of the community; and they prefer to withdraw within the exact limitsof a wholesome egotism, marked out by four sunk fences and a quickset hedge.But if an American were condemned to confine his activity to his own affairs,he would be robbed of one half of his existence; he would feel an immense voidin the life which he is accustomed to lead, and his wretchedness would beunbearable. *d I am persuaded that, if ever a despotic government isestablished in America, it will find it more difficult to surmount the habitswhich free institutions have engendered than to conquer the attachment of thecitizens to freedom.

d
[ The same remark was made at Rome under the first Caesars. Montesquieusomewhere alludes to the excessive despondency of certain Roman citizens who,after the excitement of political life, were all at once flung back into thestagnation of private life.]

This ceaseless agitation which democratic government has introduced into thepolitical world influences all social intercourse. I am not sure that upon thewhole this is not the greatest advantage of democracy. And I am much lessinclined to applaud it for what it does than for what it causes to be done. Itis incontestable that the people frequently conducts public business very ill;but it is impossible that the lower orders should take a part in publicbusiness without extending the circle of their ideas, and without quitting theordinary routine of their mental acquirements. The humblest individual who iscalled upon to co-operate in the government of society acquires a certaindegree of self-respect; and as he possesses authority, he can command theservices of minds much more enlightened than his own. He is canvassed by amultitude of applicants, who seek to deceive him in a thousand different ways,but who instruct him by their deceit. He takes a part in political undertakingswhich did not originate in his own conception, but which give him a taste forundertakings of the kind. New ameliorations are daily pointed out in theproperty which he holds in common with others, and this gives him the desire ofimproving that property which is more peculiarly his own. He is perhaps neitherhappier nor better than those who came before him, but he is better informedand more active. I have no doubt that the democratic institutions of the UnitedStates, joined to the physical constitution of the country, are the cause (notthe direct, as is so often asserted, but the indirect cause) of the prodigiouscommercial activity of the inhabitants. It is not engendered by the laws, butthe people learns how to promote it by the experience derived from legislation.

When the opponents of democracy assert that a single individual performs theduties which he undertakes much better than the government of the community, itappears to me that they are perfectly right. The government of an individual,supposing an equality of instruction on either side, is more consistent, morepersevering, and more accurate than that of a multitude, and it is much betterqualified judiciously to discriminate the characters of the men it employs. Ifany deny what I advance, they have certainly never seen a democraticgovernment, or have formed their opinion upon very partial evidence. It is truethat even when local circ*mstances and the disposition of the people allowdemocratic institutions to subsist, they never display a regular and methodicalsystem of government. Democratic liberty is far from accomplishing all theprojects it undertakes, with the skill of an adroit despotism. It frequentlyabandons them before they have borne their fruits, or risks them when theconsequences may prove dangerous; but in the end it produces more than anyabsolute government, and if it do fewer things well, it does a greater numberof things. Under its sway the transactions of the public administration are notnearly so important as what is done by private exertion. Democracy does notconfer the most skilful kind of government upon the people, but it producesthat which the most skilful governments are frequently unable to awaken,namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and anenergy which is inseparable from it, and which may, under favorablecirc*mstances, beget the most amazing benefits. These are the true advantagesof democracy.

In the present age, when the destinies of Christendom seem to be in suspense,some hasten to assail democracy as its foe whilst it is yet in its earlygrowth; and others are ready with their vows of adoration for this new deitywhich is springing forth from chaos: but both parties are very imperfectlyacquainted with the object of their hatred or of their desires; they strike inthe dark, and distribute their blows by mere chance.

We must first understand what the purport of society and the aim of governmentis held to be. If it be your intention to confer a certain elevation upon thehuman mind, and to teach it to regard the things of this world with generousfeelings, to inspire men with a scorn of mere temporal advantage, to give birthto living convictions, and to keep alive the spirit of honorable devotedness;if you hold it to be a good thing to refine the habits, to embellish themanners, to cultivate the arts of a nation, and to promote the love of poetry,of beauty, and of renown; if you would constitute a people not unfitted to actwith power upon all other nations, nor unprepared for those high enterpriseswhich, whatever be the result of its efforts, will leave a name forever famousin time—if you believe such to be the principal object of society, youmust avoid the government of democracy, which would be a very uncertain guideto the end you have in view.

But if you hold it to be expedient to divert the moral and intellectualactivity of man to the production of comfort, and to the acquirement of thenecessaries of life; if a clear understanding be more profitable to man thangenius; if your object be not to stimulate the virtues of heroism, but tocreate habits of peace; if you had rather witness vices than crimes and arecontent to meet with fewer noble deeds, provided offences be diminished in thesame proportion; if, instead of living in the midst of a brilliant state ofsociety, you are contented to have prosperity around you; if, in short, you areof opinion that the principal object of a Government is not to confer thegreatest possible share of power and of glory upon the body of the nation, butto ensure the greatest degree of enjoyment and the least degree of misery toeach of the individuals who compose it—if such be your desires, you canhave no surer means of satisfying them than by equalizing the conditions ofmen, and establishing democratic institutions.

But if the time be passed at which such a choice was possible, and if somesuperhuman power impel us towards one or the other of these two governmentswithout consulting our wishes, let us at least endeavor to make the best ofthat which is allotted to us; and let us so inquire into its good and its evilpropensities as to be able to foster the former and repress the latter to theutmost.

Chapter XV: Unlimited PowerOf Majority, And Its Consequences—Part I

Chapter Summary

Natural strength of the majority in democracies—Most of the AmericanConstitutions have increased this strength by artificial means—How thishas been done—Pledged delegates—Moral power of themajority—Opinion as to its infallibility—Respect for its rights,how augmented in the United States.

Unlimited Power Of The Majority In The United States, And Its Consequences

The very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute sovereigntyof the majority; for there is nothing in democratic States which is capable ofresisting it. Most of the American Constitutions have sought to increase thisnatural strength of the majority by artificial means. *a

a
[ We observed, in examining the Federal Constitution, that the efforts of thelegislators of the Union had been diametrically opposed to the presenttendency. The consequence has been that the Federal Government is moreindependent in its sphere than that of the States. But the Federal Governmentscarcely ever interferes in any but external affairs; and the governments ofthe State are in the governments of the States are in reality the authoritieswhich direct society in America.]

The legislature is, of all political institutions, the one which is most easilyswayed by the wishes of the majority. The Americans determined that the membersof the legislature should be elected by the people immediately, and for a verybrief term, in order to subject them, not only to the general convictions, buteven to the daily passion, of their constituents. The members of both housesare taken from the same class in society, and are nominated in the same manner;so that the modifications of the legislative bodies are almost as rapid andquite as irresistible as those of a single assembly. It is to a legislaturethus constituted that almost all the authority of the government has beenentrusted.

But whilst the law increased the strength of those authorities which ofthemselves were strong, it enfeebled more and more those which were naturallyweak. It deprived the representatives of the executive of all stability andindependence, and by subjecting them completely to the caprices of thelegislature, it robbed them of the slender influence which the nature of ademocratic government might have allowed them to retain. In several States thejudicial power was also submitted to the elective discretion of the majority,and in all of them its existence was made to depend on the pleasure of thelegislative authority, since the representatives were empowered annually toregulate the stipend of the judges.

Custom, however, has done even more than law. A proceeding which will in theend set all the guarantees of representative government at naught is becomingmore and more general in the United States; it frequently happens that theelectors, who choose a delegate, point out a certain line of conduct to him,and impose upon him a certain number of positive obligations which he ispledged to fulfil. With the exception of the tumult, this comes to the samething as if the majority of the populace held its deliberations in themarket-place.

Several other circ*mstances concur in rendering the power of the majority inAmerica not only preponderant, but irresistible. The moral authority of themajority is partly based upon the notion that there is more intelligence andmore wisdom in a great number of men collected together than in a singleindividual, and that the quantity of legislators is more important than theirquality. The theory of equality is in fact applied to the intellect of man: andhuman pride is thus assailed in its last retreat by a doctrine which theminority hesitate to admit, and in which they very slowly concur. Like allother powers, and perhaps more than all other powers, the authority of the manyrequires the sanction of time; at first it enforces obedience by constraint,but its laws are not respected until they have long been maintained.

The right of governing society, which the majority supposes itself to derivefrom its superior intelligence, was introduced into the United States by thefirst settlers, and this idea, which would be sufficient of itself to create afree nation, has now been amalgamated with the manners of the people and theminor incidents of social intercourse.

The French, under the old monarchy, held it for a maxim (which is still afundamental principle of the English Constitution) that the King could do nowrong; and if he did do wrong, the blame was imputed to his advisers. Thisnotion was highly favorable to habits of obedience, and it enabled the subjectto complain of the law without ceasing to love and honor the lawgiver. TheAmericans entertain the same opinion with respect to the majority.

The moral power of the majority is founded upon yet another principle, whichis, that the interests of the many are to be preferred to those of the few. Itwill readily be perceived that the respect here professed for the rights of themajority must naturally increase or diminish according to the state of parties.When a nation is divided into several irreconcilable factions, the privilege ofthe majority is often overlooked, because it is intolerable to comply with itsdemands.

If there existed in America a class of citizens whom the legislating majoritysought to deprive of exclusive privileges which they had possessed for ages,and to bring down from an elevated station to the level of the ranks of themultitude, it is probable that the minority would be less ready to comply withits laws. But as the United States were colonized by men holding equal rankamongst themselves, there is as yet no natural or permanent source ofdissension between the interests of its different inhabitants.

There are certain communities in which the persons who constitute the minoritycan never hope to draw over the majority to their side, because they must thengive up the very point which is at issue between them. Thus, an aristocracy cannever become a majority whilst it retains its exclusive privileges, and itcannot cede its privileges without ceasing to be an aristocracy.

In the United States political questions cannot be taken up in so general andabsolute a manner, and all parties are willing to recognize the right of themajority, because they all hope to turn those rights to their own advantage atsome future time. The majority therefore in that country exercises a prodigiousactual authority, and a moral influence which is scarcely less preponderant; noobstacles exist which can impede or so much as retard its progress, or whichcan induce it to heed the complaints of those whom it crushes upon its path.This state of things is fatal in itself and dangerous for the future.

How The Unlimited Power Of The Majority Increases In America The Instability OfLegislation And Administration Inherent In Democracy The Americans increase themutability of the laws which is inherent in democracy by changing thelegislature every year, and by investing it with unbounded authority—Thesame effect is produced upon the administration—In America socialamelioration is conducted more energetically but less perseveringly than inEurope.

I have already spoken of the natural defects of democratic institutions, andthey all of them increase at the exact ratio of the power of the majority. Tobegin with the most evident of them all; the mutability of the laws is an evilinherent in democratic government, because it is natural to democracies toraise men to power in very rapid succession. But this evil is more or lesssensible in proportion to the authority and the means of action which thelegislature possesses.

In America the authority exercised by the legislative bodies is supreme;nothing prevents them from accomplishing their wishes with celerity, and withirresistible power, whilst they are supplied by new representatives every year.That is to say, the circ*mstances which contribute most powerfully todemocratic instability, and which admit of the free application of caprice toevery object in the State, are here in full operation. In conformity with thisprinciple, America is, at the present day, the country in the world where lawslast the shortest time. Almost all the American constitutions have been amendedwithin the course of thirty years: there is therefore not a single AmericanState which has not modified the principles of its legislation in that lapse oftime. As for the laws themselves, a single glance upon the archives of thedifferent States of the Union suffices to convince one that in America theactivity of the legislator never slackens. Not that the American democracy isnaturally less stable than any other, but that it is allowed to follow itscapricious propensities in the formation of the laws. *b

b
[ The legislative acts promulgated by the State of Massachusetts alone, fromthe year 1780 to the present time, already fill three stout volumes; and itmust not be forgotten that the collection to which I allude was published in1823, when many old laws which had fallen into disuse were omitted. The Stateof Massachusetts, which is not more populous than a department of France, maybe considered as the most stable, the most consistent, and the most sagaciousin its undertakings of the whole Union.]

The omnipotence of the majority, and the rapid as well as absolute manner inwhich its decisions are executed in the United States, has not only the effectof rendering the law unstable, but it exercises the same influence upon theexecution of the law and the conduct of the public administration. As themajority is the only power which it is important to court, all its projects aretaken up with the greatest ardor, but no sooner is its attention distractedthan all this ardor ceases; whilst in the free States of Europe theadministration is at once independent and secure, so that the projects of thelegislature are put into execution, although its immediate attention may bedirected to other objects.

In America certain ameliorations are undertaken with much more zeal andactivity than elsewhere; in Europe the same ends are promoted by much lesssocial effort, more continuously applied.

Some years ago several pious individuals undertook to ameliorate the conditionof the prisons. The public was excited by the statements which they putforward, and the regeneration of criminals became a very popular undertaking.New prisons were built, and for the first time the idea of reforming as well asof punishing the delinquent formed a part of prison discipline. But this happyalteration, in which the public had taken so hearty an interest, and which theexertions of the citizens had irresistibly accelerated, could not be completedin a moment. Whilst the new penitentiaries were being erected (and it was thepleasure of the majority that they should be terminated with all possiblecelerity), the old prisons existed, which still contained a great number ofoffenders. These jails became more unwholesome and more corrupt in proportionas the new establishments were beautified and improved, forming a contrastwhich may readily be understood. The majority was so eagerly employed infounding the new prisons that those which already existed were forgotten; andas the general attention was diverted to a novel object, the care which hadhitherto been bestowed upon the others ceased. The salutary regulations ofdiscipline were first relaxed, and afterwards broken; so that in the immediateneighborhood of a prison which bore witness to the mild and enlightened spiritof our time, dungeons might be met with which reminded the visitor of thebarbarity of the Middle Ages.

Chapter XV: Unlimited PowerOf Majority, And Its Consequences—Part II

Tyranny Of TheMajority

How the principle of the sovereignty of the people is to beunderstood—Impossibility of conceiving a mixed government—Thesovereign power must centre somewhere—Precautions to be taken to controlits action—These precautions have not been taken in the UnitedStates—Consequences.

I hold it to be an impious and an execrable maxim that, politically speaking, apeople has a right to do whatsoever it pleases, and yet I have asserted thatall authority originates in the will of the majority. Am I then, incontradiction with myself?

A general law—which bears the name of Justice—has been made andsanctioned, not only by a majority of this or that people, but by a majority ofmankind. The rights of every people are consequently confined within the limitsof what is just. A nation may be considered in the light of a jury which isempowered to represent society at large, and to apply the great and general lawof justice. Ought such a jury, which represents society, to have more powerthan the society in which the laws it applies originate?

When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right which themajority has of commanding, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of thepeople to the sovereignty of mankind. It has been asserted that a people cannever entirely outstep the boundaries of justice and of reason in those affairswhich are more peculiarly its own, and that consequently, full power mayfearlessly be given to the majority by which it is represented. But thislanguage is that of a slave.

A majority taken collectively may be regarded as a being whose opinions, andmost frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another being, whichis styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man, possessing absolute power,may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not beliable to the same reproach? Men are not apt to change their characters byagglomeration; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increasewith the consciousness of their strength. *c And for these reasons I can neverwillingly invest any number of my fellow-creatures with that unlimitedauthority which I should refuse to any one of them.

c
[ No one will assert that a people cannot forcibly wrong another people; butparties may be looked upon as lesser nations within a greater one, and they arealiens to each other: if, therefore, it be admitted that a nation can acttyrannically towards another nation, it cannot be denied that a party may dothe same towards another party.]

I do not think that it is possible to combine several principles in the samegovernment, so as at the same time to maintain freedom, and really to opposethem to one another. The form of government which is usually termed mixed hasalways appeared to me to be a mere chimera. Accurately speaking there is nosuch thing as a mixed government (with the meaning usually given to that word),because in all communities some one principle of action may be discovered whichpreponderates over the others. England in the last century, which has been moreespecially cited as an example of this form of Government, was in point of factan essentially aristocratic State, although it comprised very powerful elementsof democracy; for the laws and customs of the country were such that thearistocracy could not but preponderate in the end, and subject the direction ofpublic affairs to its own will. The error arose from too much attention beingpaid to the actual struggle which was going on between the nobles and thepeople, without considering the probable issue of the contest, which was inreality the important point. When a community really has a mixed government,that is to say, when it is equally divided between two adverse principles, itmust either pass through a revolution or fall into complete dissolution.

I am therefore of opinion that some one social power must always be made topredominate over the others; but I think that liberty is endangered when thispower is checked by no obstacles which may retard its course, and force it tomoderate its own vehemence.

Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing; human beings are notcompetent to exercise it with discretion, and God alone can be omnipotent,because His wisdom and His justice are always equal to His power. But no powerupon earth is so worthy of honor for itself, or of reverential obedience to therights which it represents, that I would consent to admit its uncontrolled andall-predominant authority. When I see that the right and the means of absolutecommand are conferred on a people or upon a king, upon an aristocracy or ademocracy, a monarchy or a republic, I recognize the germ of tyranny, and Ijourney onward to a land of more hopeful institutions.

In my opinion the main evil of the present democratic institutions of theUnited States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from theirweakness, but from their overpowering strength; and I am not so much alarmed atthe excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the very inadequatesecurities which exist against tyranny.

When an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, to whom can heapply for redress? If to public opinion, public opinion constitutes themajority; if to the legislature, it represents the majority, and implicitlyobeys its injunctions; if to the executive power, it is appointed by themajority, and remains a passive tool in its hands; the public troops consist ofthe majority under arms; the jury is the majority invested with the right ofhearing judicial cases; and in certain States even the judges are elected bythe majority. However iniquitous or absurd the evil of which you complain maybe, you must submit to it as well as you can. *d

d
[ A striking instance of the excesses which may be occasioned by the despotismof the majority occurred at Baltimore in the year 1812. At that time the warwas very popular in Baltimore. A journal which had taken the other side of thequestion excited the indignation of the inhabitants by its opposition. Thepopulace assembled, broke the printing-presses, and attacked the houses of thenewspaper editors. The militia was called out, but no one obeyed the call; andthe only means of saving the poor wretches who were threatened by the frenzy ofthe mob was to throw them into prison as common malefactors. But even thisprecaution was ineffectual; the mob collected again during the night, themagistrates again made a vain attempt to call out the militia, the prison wasforced, one of the newspaper editors was killed upon the spot, and the otherswere left for dead; the guilty parties were acquitted by the jury when theywere brought to trial.

I said one day to an inhabitant of Pennsylvania, “Be so good as toexplain to me how it happens that in a State founded by Quakers, and celebratedfor its toleration, freed blacks are not allowed to exercise civil rights. Theypay the taxes; is it not fair that they should have a vote?”

“You insult us,” replied my informant, “if you imagine thatour legislators could have committed so gross an act of injustice andintolerance.”

“What! then the blacks possess the right of voting in this county?”

“Without the smallest doubt.”

“How comes it, then, that at the polling-booth this morning I did notperceive a single negro in the whole meeting?”

“This is not the fault of the law: the negroes have an undisputed rightof voting, but they voluntarily abstain from making their appearance.”

“A very pretty piece of modesty on their parts!” rejoined I.

“Why, the truth is, that they are not disinclined to vote, but they areafraid of being maltreated; in this country the law is sometimes unable tomaintain its authority without the support of the majority. But in this casethe majority entertains very strong prejudices against the blacks, and themagistrates are unable to protect them in the exercise of their legalprivileges.”

“What! then the majority claims the right not only of making the laws,but of breaking the laws it has made?”]

If, on the other hand, a legislative power could be so constituted as torepresent the majority without necessarily being the slave of its passions; anexecutive, so as to retain a certain degree of uncontrolled authority; and ajudiciary, so as to remain independent of the two other powers; a governmentwould be formed which would still be democratic without incurring any risk oftyrannical abuse.

I do not say that tyrannical abuses frequently occur in America at the presentday, but I maintain that no sure barrier is established against them, and thatthe causes which mitigate the government are to be found in the circ*mstancesand the manners of the country more than in its laws.

Effects Of The Unlimited Power Of The Majority Upon The Arbitrary Authority OfThe American Public Officers

Liberty left by the American laws to public officers within a certainsphere—Their power.

A distinction must be drawn between tyranny and arbitrary power. Tyranny may beexercised by means of the law, and in that case it is not arbitrary; arbitrarypower may be exercised for the good of the community at large, in which case itis not tyrannical. Tyranny usually employs arbitrary means, but, if necessary,it can rule without them.

In the United States the unbounded power of the majority, which is favorable tothe legal despotism of the legislature, is likewise favorable to the arbitraryauthority of the magistrate. The majority has an entire control over the lawwhen it is made and when it is executed; and as it possesses an equal authorityover those who are in power and the community at large, it considers publicofficers as its passive agents, and readily confides the task of serving itsdesigns to their vigilance. The details of their office and the privilegeswhich they are to enjoy are rarely defined beforehand; but the majority treatsthem as a master does his servants when they are always at work in his sight,and he has the power of directing or reprimanding them at every instant.

In general the American functionaries are far more independent than the Frenchcivil officers within the sphere which is prescribed to them. Sometimes, even,they are allowed by the popular authority to exceed those bounds; and as theyare protected by the opinion, and backed by the co-operation, of the majority,they venture upon such manifestations of their power as astonish a European. Bythis means habits are formed in the heart of a free country which may some dayprove fatal to its liberties.

Power Exercised By The Majority In America Upon Opinion

In America, when the majority has once irrevocably decided a question, alldiscussion ceases—Reason of this—Moral power exercised by themajority upon opinion—Democratic republics have deprived despotism of itsphysical instruments—Their despotism sways the minds of men.

It is in the examination of the display of public opinion in the United Statesthat we clearly perceive how far the power of the majority surpasses all thepowers with which we are acquainted in Europe. Intellectual principles exercisean influence which is so invisible, and often so inappreciable, that theybaffle the toils of oppression. At the present time the most absolute monarchsin Europe are unable to prevent certain notions, which are opposed to theirauthority, from circulating in secret throughout their dominions, and even intheir courts. Such is not the case in America; as long as the majority is stillundecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision is irrevocablypronounced, a submissive silence is observed, and the friends, as well as theopponents, of the measure unite in assenting to its propriety. The reason ofthis is perfectly clear: no monarch is so absolute as to combine all the powersof society in his own hands, and to conquer all opposition with the energy of amajority which is invested with the right of making and of executing the laws.

The authority of a king is purely physical, and it controls the actions of thesubject without subduing his private will; but the majority possesses a powerwhich is physical and moral at the same time; it acts upon the will as well asupon the actions of men, and it represses not only all contest, but allcontroversy. I know no country in which there is so little true independence ofmind and freedom of discussion as in America. In any constitutional state inEurope every sort of religious and political theory may be advocated andpropagated abroad; for there is no country in Europe so subdued by any singleauthority as not to contain citizens who are ready to protect the man whoraises his voice in the cause of truth from the consequences of his hardihood.If he is unfortunate enough to live under an absolute government, the people isupon his side; if he inhabits a free country, he may find a shelter behind theauthority of the throne, if he require one. The aristocratic part of societysupports him in some countries, and the democracy in others. But in a nationwhere democratic institutions exist, organized like those of the United States,there is but one sole authority, one single element of strength and of success,with nothing beyond it.

In America the majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty ofopinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever he pleases, but hewill repent it if he ever step beyond them. Not that he is exposed to theterrors of an auto-da-fe, but he is tormented by the slights and persecutionsof daily obloquy. His political career is closed forever, since he has offendedthe only authority which is able to promote his success. Every sort ofcompensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before he publishedhis opinions he imagined that he held them in common with many others; but nosooner has he declared them openly than he is loudly censured by hisoverbearing opponents, whilst those who think without having the courage tospeak, like him, abandon him in silence. He yields at length, oppressed by thedaily efforts he has been making, and he subsides into silence, as if he wastormented by remorse for having spoken the truth.

Fetters and headsmen were the coarse instruments which tyranny formerlyemployed; but the civilization of our age has refined the arts of despotismwhich seemed, however, to have been sufficiently perfected before. The excessesof monarchical power had devised a variety of physical means of oppression: thedemocratic republics of the present day have rendered it as entirely an affairof the mind as that will which it is intended to coerce. Under the absolutesway of an individual despot the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul,and the soul escaped the blows which were directed against it and rose superiorto the attempt; but such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democraticrepublics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved. The sovereigncan no longer say, “You shall think as I do on pain of death;” buthe says, “You are free to think differently from me, and to retain yourlife, your property, and all that you possess; but if such be yourdetermination, you are henceforth an alien among your people. You may retainyour civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never bechosen by your fellow-citizens if you solicit their suffrages, and they willaffect to scorn you if you solicit their esteem. You will remain among men, butyou will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow-creatures will shunyou like an impure being, and those who are most persuaded of your innocencewill abandon you too, lest they should be shunned in their turn. Go in peace! Ihave given you your life, but it is an existence in comparably worse thandeath.”

Monarchical institutions have thrown an odium upon despotism; let us bewarelest democratic republics should restore oppression, and should render it lessodious and less degrading in the eyes of the many, by making it still moreonerous to the few.

Works have been published in the proudest nations of the Old World expresslyintended to censure the vices and deride the follies of the times; Labruyereinhabited the palace of Louis XIV when he composed his chapter upon the Great,and Moliere criticised the courtiers in the very pieces which were acted beforethe Court. But the ruling power in the United States is not to be made game of;the smallest reproach irritates its sensibility, and the slightest joke whichhas any foundation in truth renders it indignant; from the style of itslanguage to the more solid virtues of its character, everything must be madethe subject of encomium. No writer, whatever be his eminence, can escape fromthis tribute of adulation to his fellow-citizens. The majority lives in theperpetual practice of self-applause, and there are certain truths which theAmericans can only learn from strangers or from experience.

If great writers have not at present existed in America, the reason is verysimply given in these facts; there can be no literary genius without freedom ofopinion, and freedom of opinion does not exist in America. The Inquisition hasnever been able to prevent a vast number of anti-religious books fromcirculating in Spain. The empire of the majority succeeds much better in theUnited States, since it actually removes the wish of publishing them.Unbelievers are to be met with in America, but, to say the truth, there is nopublic organ of infidelity. Attempts have been made by some governments toprotect the morality of nations by prohibiting licentious books. In the UnitedStates no one is punished for this sort of works, but no one is induced towrite them; not because all the citizens are immaculate in their manners, butbecause the majority of the community is decent and orderly.

In these cases the advantages derived from the exercise of this power areunquestionable, and I am simply discussing the nature of the power itself. Thisirresistible authority is a constant fact, and its judicious exercise is anaccidental occurrence.

Effects Of The Tyranny Of The Majority Upon The National Character Of TheAmericans

Effects of the tyranny of the majority more sensibly felt hitherto in themanners than in the conduct of society—They check the development ofleading characters—Democratic republics organized like the United Statesbring the practice of courting favor within the reach of the many—Proofsof this spirit in the United States—Why there is more patriotism in thepeople than in those who govern in its name.

The tendencies which I have just alluded to are as yet very slightlyperceptible in political society, but they already begin to exercise anunfavorable influence upon the national character of the Americans. I aminclined to attribute the singular paucity of distinguished politicalcharacters to the ever-increasing activity of the despotism of the majority inthe United States. When the American Revolution broke out they arose in greatnumbers, for public opinion then served, not to tyrannize over, but to directthe exertions of individuals. Those celebrated men took a full part in thegeneral agitation of mind common at that period, and they attained a highdegree of personal fame, which was reflected back upon the nation, but whichwas by no means borrowed from it.

In absolute governments the great nobles who are nearest to the throne flatterthe passions of the sovereign, and voluntarily truckle to his caprices. But themass of the nation does not degrade itself by servitude: it often submits fromweakness, from habit, or from ignorance, and sometimes from loyalty. Somenations have been known to sacrifice their own desires to those of thesovereign with pleasure and with pride, thus exhibiting a sort of independencein the very act of submission. These peoples are miserable, but they are notdegraded. There is a great difference between doing what one does not approveand feigning to approve what one does; the one is the necessary case of a weakperson, the other befits the temper of a lackey.

In free countries, where everyone is more or less called upon to give hisopinion in the affairs of state; in democratic republics, where public life isincessantly commingled with domestic affairs, where the sovereign authority isaccessible on every side, and where its attention can almost always beattracted by vociferation, more persons are to be met with who speculate uponits foibles and live at the cost of its passions than in absolute monarchies.Not because men are naturally worse in these States than elsewhere, but thetemptation is stronger, and of easier access at the same time. The result is afar more extensive debasem*nt of the characters of citizens.

Democratic republics extend the practice of currying favor with the many, andthey introduce it into a greater number of classes at once: this is one of themost serious reproaches that can be addressed to them. In democratic Statesorganized on the principles of the American republics, this is more especiallythe case, where the authority of the majority is so absolute and soirresistible that a man must give up his rights as a citizen, and almost abjurehis quality as a human being, if te intends to stray from the track which itlays down.

In that immense crowd which throngs the avenues to power in the United States Ifound very few men who displayed any of that manly candor and that masculineindependence of opinion which frequently distinguished the Americans in formertimes, and which constitutes the leading feature in distinguished characters,wheresoever they may be found. It seems, at first sight, as if all the minds ofthe Americans were formed upon one model, so accurately do they correspond intheir manner of judging. A stranger does, indeed, sometimes meet with Americanswho dissent from these rigorous formularies; with men who deplore the defectsof the laws, the mutability and the ignorance of democracy; who even go so faras to observe the evil tendencies which impair the national character, and topoint out such remedies as it might be possible to apply; but no one is thereto hear these things besides yourself, and you, to whom these secretreflections are confided, are a stranger and a bird of passage. They are veryready to communicate truths which are useless to you, but they continue to holda different language in public.

If ever these lines are read in America, I am well assured of two things: inthe first place, that all who peruse them will raise their voices to condemnme; and in the second place, that very many of them will acquit me at thebottom of their conscience.

I have heard of patriotism in the United States, and it is a virtue which maybe found among the people, but never among the leaders of the people. This maybe explained by analogy; despotism debases the oppressed much more than theoppressor: in absolute monarchies the king has often great virtues, but thecourtiers are invariably servile. It is true that the American courtiers do notsay “Sire,” or “Your Majesty”—a distinctionwithout a difference. They are forever talking of the natural intelligence ofthe populace they serve; they do not debate the question as to which of thevirtues of their master is pre-eminently worthy of admiration, for they assurehim that he possesses all the virtues under heaven without having acquiredthem, or without caring to acquire them; they do not give him their daughtersand their wives to be raised at his pleasure to the rank of his concubines,but, by sacrificing their opinions, they prostitute themselves. Moralists andphilosophers in America are not obliged to conceal their opinions under theveil of allegory; but, before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say,“We are aware that the people which we are addressing is too superior toall the weaknesses of human nature to lose the command of its temper for aninstant; and we should not hold this language if we were not speaking to menwhom their virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of freedom thanall the rest of the world.” It would have been impossible for thesycophants of Louis XIV to flatter more dexterously. For my part, I ampersuaded that in all governments, whatever their nature may be, servility willcower to force, and adulation will cling to power. The only means of preventingmen from degrading themselves is to invest no one with that unlimited authoritywhich is the surest method of debasing them.

The Greatest Dangers Of The American Republics Proceed From The Unlimited PowerOf The Majority

Democratic republics liable to perish from a misuse of their power, and not byimpotence—The Governments of the American republics are more centralizedand more energetic than those of the monarchies of Europe—Dangersresulting from this—Opinions of Hamilton and Jefferson upon this point.

Governments usually fall a sacrifice to impotence or to tyranny. In the formercase their power escapes from them; it is wrested from their grasp in thelatter. Many observers, who have witnessed the anarchy of democratic States,have imagined that the government of those States was naturally weak andimpotent. The truth is, that when once hostilities are begun between parties,the government loses its control over society. But I do not think that ademocratic power is naturally without force or without resources: say, rather,that it is almost always by the abuse of its force and the misemployment of itsresources that a democratic government fails. Anarchy is almost always producedby its tyranny or its mistakes, but not by its want of strength.

It is important not to confound stability with force, or the greatness of athing with its duration. In democratic republics, the power which directs *esociety is not stable; for it often changes hands and assumes a new direction.But whichever way it turns, its force is almost irresistible. The Governmentsof the American republics appear to me to be as much centralized as those ofthe absolute monarchies of Europe, and more energetic than they are. I do not,therefore, imagine that they will perish from weakness. *f

e
[ This power may be centred in an assembly, in which case it will be strongwithout being stable; or it may be centred in an individual, in which case itwill be less strong, but more stable.]

f
[ I presume that it is scarcely necessary to remind the reader here, as well asthroughout the remainder of this chapter, that I am speaking, not of theFederal Government, but of the several governments of each State, which themajority controls at its pleasure.]

If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may beattributed to the unlimited authority of the majority, which may at some futuretime urge the minorities to desperation, and oblige them to have recourse tophysical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been broughtabout by despotism.

Mr. Hamilton expresses the same opinion in the “Federalist,” No.51. “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard thesociety against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of thesociety against the injustice of the other part. Justice is the end ofgovernment. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be,pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In asociety, under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite andoppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state ofnature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of thestronger: and as in the latter state even the stronger individuals are promptedby the uncertainty of their condition to submit to a government which mayprotect the weak as well as themselves, so in the former state will the morepowerful factions be gradually induced by a like motive to wish for agovernment which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the morepowerful. It can be little doubted that, if the State of Rhode Island wasseparated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rightunder the popular form of government within such narrow limits would bedisplayed by such reiterated oppressions of the factious majorities, that somepower altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by thevoice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it.”

Jefferson has also thus expressed himself in a letter to Madison: *g “Theexecutive power in our Government is not the only, perhaps not even theprincipal, object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the Legislature is reallythe danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years tocome. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a moredistant period.” I am glad to cite the opinion of Jefferson upon thissubject rather than that of another, because I consider him to be the mostpowerful advocate democracy has ever sent forth.

g
[ March 15, 1789.]

Chapter XVI: CausesMitigating Tyranny In The United States—Part I

Chapter Summary

The national majority does not pretend to conduct all business—Is obligedto employ the town and county magistrates to execute its supreme decisions.

I have already pointed out the distinction which is to be made between acentralized government and a centralized administration. The former exists inAmerica, but the latter is nearly unknown there. If the directing power of theAmerican communities had both these instruments of government at its disposal,and united the habit of executing its own commands to the right of commanding;if, after having established the general principles of government, it descendedto the details of public business; and if, having regulated the great interestsof the country, it could penetrate into the privacy of individual interests,freedom would soon be banished from the New World.

But in the United States the majority, which so frequently displays the tastesand the propensities of a despot, is still destitute of the more perfectinstruments of tyranny. In the American republics the activity of the centralGovernment has never as yet been extended beyond a limited number of objectssufficiently prominent to call forth its attention. The secondary affairs ofsociety have never been regulated by its authority, and nothing has hithertobetrayed its desire of interfering in them. The majority is become more andmore absolute, but it has not increased the prerogatives of the centralgovernment; those great prerogatives have been confined to a certain sphere;and although the despotism of the majority may be galling upon one point, itcannot be said to extend to all. However the predominant party in the nationmay be carried away by its passions, however ardent it may be in the pursuit ofits projects, it cannot oblige all the citizens to comply with its desires inthe same manner and at the same time throughout the country. When the centralGovernment which represents that majority has issued a decree, it must entrustthe execution of its will to agents, over whom it frequently has no control,and whom it cannot perpetually direct. The townships, municipal bodies, andcounties may therefore be looked upon as concealed break-waters, which check orpart the tide of popular excitement. If an oppressive law were passed, theliberties of the people would still be protected by the means by which that lawwould be put in execution: the majority cannot descend to the details and (as Iwill venture to style them) the puerilities of administrative tyranny. Nor doesthe people entertain that full consciousness of its authority which wouldprompt it to interfere in these matters; it knows the extent of its naturalpowers, but it is unacquainted with the increased resources which the art ofgovernment might furnish.

This point deserves attention, for if a democratic republic similar to that ofthe United States were ever founded in a country where the power of a singleindividual had previously subsisted, and the effects of a centralizedadministration had sunk deep into the habits and the laws of the people, I donot hesitate to assert, that in that country a more insufferable despotismwould prevail than any which now exists in the monarchical States of Europe, orindeed than any which could be found on this side of the confines of Asia.

The Profession Of The Law In The United States Serves To Counterpoise TheDemocracy

Utility of discriminating the natural propensities of the members of the legalprofession—These men called upon to act a prominent part in futuresociety—In what manner the peculiar pursuits of lawyers give anaristocratic turn to their ideas—Accidental causes which may check thistendency—Ease with which the aristocracy coalesces with legalmen—Use of lawyers to a despot—The profession of the lawconstitutes the only aristocratic element with which the natural elements ofdemocracy will combine—Peculiar causes which tend to give an aristocraticturn of mind to the English and American lawyers—The aristocracy ofAmerica is on the bench and at the bar—Influence of lawyers upon Americansociety—Their peculiar magisterial habits affect the legislature, theadministration, and even the people.

In visiting the Americans and in studying their laws we perceive that theauthority they have entrusted to members of the legal profession, and theinfluence which these individuals exercise in the Government, is the mostpowerful existing security against the excesses of democracy. This effect seemsto me to result from a general cause which it is useful to investigate, sinceit may produce analogous consequences elsewhere.

The members of the legal profession have taken an important part in all thevicissitudes of political society in Europe during the last five hundred years.At one time they have been the instruments of those who were invested withpolitical authority, and at another they have succeeded in converting politicalauthorities into their instrument. In the Middle Ages they afforded a powerfulsupport to the Crown, and since that period they have exerted themselves to theutmost to limit the royal prerogative. In England they have contracted a closealliance with the aristocracy; in France they have proved to be the mostdangerous enemies of that class. It is my object to inquire whether, under allthese circ*mstances, the members of the legal profession have been swayed bysudden and momentary impulses; or whether they have been impelled by principleswhich are inherent in their pursuits, and which will always recur in history. Iam incited to this investigation by reflecting that this particular class ofmen will most likely play a prominent part in that order of things to which theevents of our time are giving birth.

Men who have more especially devoted themselves to legal pursuits derive fromthose occupations certain habits of order, a taste for formalities, and a kindof instinctive regard for the regular connection of ideas, which naturallyrender them very hostile to the revolutionary spirit and the unreflectingpassions of the multitude.

The special information which lawyers derive from their studies ensures them aseparate station in society, and they constitute a sort of privileged body inthe scale of intelligence. This notion of their superiority perpetually recursto them in the practice of their profession: they are the masters of a sciencewhich is necessary, but which is not very generally known; they serve asarbiters between the citizens; and the habit of directing the blind passions ofparties in litigation to their purpose inspires them with a certain contemptfor the judgment of the multitude. To this it may be added that they naturallyconstitute a body, not by any previous understanding, or by an agreement whichdirects them to a common end; but the analogy of their studies and theuniformity of their proceedings connect their minds together, as much as acommon interest could combine their endeavors.

A portion of the tastes and of the habits of the aristocracy may consequentlybe discovered in the characters of men in the profession of the law. Theyparticipate in the same instinctive love of order and of formalities; and theyentertain the same repugnance to the actions of the multitude, and the samesecret contempt of the government of the people. I do not mean to say that thenatural propensities of lawyers are sufficiently strong to sway themirresistibly; for they, like most other men, are governed by their privateinterests and the advantages of the moment.

In a state of society in which the members of the legal profession areprevented from holding that rank in the political world which they enjoy inprivate life, we may rest assured that they will be the foremost agents ofrevolution. But it must then be inquired whether the cause which induces themto innovate and to destroy is accidental, or whether it belongs to some lastingpurpose which they entertain. It is true that lawyers mainly contributed to theoverthrow of the French monarchy in 1789; but it remains to be seen whetherthey acted thus because they had studied the laws, or because they wereprohibited from co-operating in the work of legislation.

Five hundred years ago the English nobles headed the people, and spoke in itsname; at the present time the aristocracy supports the throne, and defends theroyal prerogative. But aristocracy has, notwithstanding this, its peculiarinstincts and propensities. We must be careful not to confound isolated membersof a body with the body itself. In all free governments, of whatsoever formthey may be, members of the legal profession will be found at the head of allparties. The same remark is also applicable to the aristocracy; for almost allthe democratic convulsions which have agitated the world have been directed bynobles.

A privileged body can never satisfy the ambition of all its members; it hasalways more talents and more passions to content and to employ than it can findplaces; so that a considerable number of individuals are usually to be met withwho are inclined to attack those very privileges which they find it impossibleto turn to their own account.

I do not, then, assert that all the members of the legal profession are at alltimes the friends of order and the opponents of innovation, but merely thatmost of them usually are so. In a community in which lawyers are allowed tooccupy, without opposition, that high station which naturally belongs to them,their general spirit will be eminently conservative and anti-democratic. Whenan aristocracy excludes the leaders of that profession from its ranks, itexcites enemies which are the more formidable to its security as they areindependent of the nobility by their industrious pursuits; and they feelthemselves to be its equal in point of intelligence, although they enjoy lessopulence and less power. But whenever an aristocracy consents to impart some ofits privileges to these same individuals, the two classes coalesce veryreadily, and assume, as it were, the consistency of a single order of familyinterests.

I am, in like manner, inclined to believe that a monarch will always be able toconvert legal practitioners into the most serviceable instruments of hisauthority. There is a far greater affinity between this class of individualsand the executive power than there is between them and the people; just asthere is a greater natural affinity between the nobles and the monarch thanbetween the nobles and the people, although the higher orders of society haveoccasionally resisted the prerogative of the Crown in concert with the lowerclasses.

Lawyers are attached to public order beyond every other consideration, and thebest security of public order is authority. It must not be forgotten that, ifthey prize the free institutions of their country much, they nevertheless valuethe legality of those institutions far more: they are less afraid of tyrannythan of arbitrary power; and provided that the legislature take upon itself todeprive men of their independence, they are not dissatisfied.

I am therefore convinced that the prince who, in presence of an encroachingdemocracy, should endeavor to impair the judicial authority in his dominions,and to diminish the political influence of lawyers, would commit a greatmistake. He would let slip the substance of authority to grasp at the shadow.He would act more wisely in introducing men connected with the law into thegovernment; and if he entrusted them with the conduct of a despotic power,bearing some marks of violence, that power would most likely assume theexternal features of justice and of legality in their hands.

The government of democracy is favorable to the political power of lawyers; forwhen the wealthy, the noble, and the prince are excluded from the government,they are sure to occupy the highest stations, in their own right, as it were,since they are the only men of information and sagacity, beyond the sphere ofthe people, who can be the object of the popular choice. If, then, they are ledby their tastes to combine with the aristocracy and to support the Crown, theyare naturally brought into contact with the people by their interests. Theylike the government of democracy, without participating in its propensities andwithout imitating its weaknesses; whence they derive a twofold authority, fromit and over it. The people in democratic states does not mistrust the membersof the legal profession, because it is well known that they are interested inserving the popular cause; and it listens to them without irritation, becauseit does not attribute to them any sinister designs. The object of lawyers isnot, indeed, to overthrow the institutions of democracy, but they constantlyendeavor to give it an impulse which diverts it from its real tendency, bymeans which are foreign to its nature. Lawyers belong to the people by birthand interest, to the aristocracy by habit and by taste, and they may be lookedupon as the natural bond and connecting link of the two great classes ofsociety.

The profession of the law is the only aristocratic element which can beamalgamated without violence with the natural elements of democracy, and whichcan be advantageously and permanently combined with them. I am not unacquaintedwith the defects which are inherent in the character of that body of men; butwithout this admixture of lawyer-like sobriety with the democratic principle, Iquestion whether democratic institutions could long be maintained, and I cannotbelieve that a republic could subsist at the present time if the influence oflawyers in public business did not increase in proportion to the power of thepeople.

This aristocratic character, which I hold to be common to the legal profession,is much more distinctly marked in the United States and in England than in anyother country. This proceeds not only from the legal studies of the English andAmerican lawyers, but from the nature of the legislation, and the positionwhich those persons occupy in the two countries. The English and the Americanshave retained the law of precedents; that is to say, they continue to foundtheir legal opinions and the decisions of their courts upon the opinions andthe decisions of their forefathers. In the mind of an English or Americanlawyer a taste and a reverence for what is old is almost always united to alove of regular and lawful proceedings.

This predisposition has another effect upon the character of the legalprofession and upon the general course of society. The English and Americanlawyers investigate what has been done; the French advocate inquires whatshould have been done; the former produce precedents, the latter reasons. AFrench observer is surprised to hear how often an English or an American lawyerquotes the opinions of others, and how little he alludes to his own; whilst thereverse occurs in France. There the most trifling litigation is never conductedwithout the introduction of an entire system of ideas peculiar to the counselemployed; and the fundamental principles of law are discussed in order toobtain a perch of land by the decision of the court. This abnegation of his ownopinion, and this implicit deference to the opinion of his forefathers, whichare common to the English and American lawyer, this subjection of thought whichhe is obliged to profess, necessarily give him more timid habits and moresluggish inclinations in England and America than in France.

The French codes are often difficult of comprehension, but they can be read byevery one; nothing, on the other hand, can be more impenetrable to theuninitiated than a legislation founded upon precedents. The indispensable wantof legal assistance which is felt in England and in the United States, and thehigh opinion which is generally entertained of the ability of the legalprofession, tend to separate it more and more from the people, and to place itin a distinct class. The French lawyer is simply a man extensively acquaintedwith the statutes of his country; but the English or American lawyer resemblesthe hierophants of Egypt, for, like them, he is the sole interpreter of anoccult science.

The station which lawyers occupy in England and America exercises no less aninfluence upon their habits and their opinions. The English aristocracy, whichhas taken care to attract to its sphere whatever is at all analogous to itself,has conferred a high degree of importance and of authority upon the members ofthe legal profession. In English society lawyers do not occupy the first rank,but they are contented with the station assigned to them; they constitute, asit were, the younger branch of the English aristocracy, and they are attachedto their elder brothers, although they do not enjoy all their privileges. TheEnglish lawyers consequently mingle the taste and the ideas of the aristocraticcircles in which they move with the aristocratic interests of their profession.

And indeed the lawyer-like character which I am endeavoring to depict is mostdistinctly to be met with in England: there laws are esteemed not so muchbecause they are good as because they are old; and if it be necessary to modifythem in any respect, or to adapt them the changes which time operates insociety, recourse is had to the most inconceivable contrivances in order touphold the traditionary fabric, and to maintain that nothing has been donewhich does not square with the intentions and complete the labors of formergenerations. The very individuals who conduct these changes disclaim allintention of innovation, and they had rather resort to absurd expedients thanplead guilty to so great a crime. This spirit appertains more especially to theEnglish lawyers; they seem indifferent to the real meaning of what they treat,and they direct all their attention to the letter, seeming inclined to infringethe rules of common sense and of humanity rather than to swerve one title fromthe law. The English legislation may be compared to the stock of an old tree,upon which lawyers have engrafted the most various shoots, with the hope that,although their fruits may differ, their foliage at least will be confoundedwith the venerable trunk which supports them all.

In America there are no nobles or men of letters, and the people is apt tomistrust the wealthy; lawyers consequently form the highest political class,and the most cultivated circle of society. They have therefore nothing to gainby innovation, which adds a conservative interest to their natural taste forpublic order. If I were asked where I place the American aristocracy, I shouldreply without hesitation that it is not composed of the rich, who are unitedtogether by no common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the bar.

The more we reflect upon all that occurs in the United States the more shall webe persuaded that the lawyers as a body form the most powerful, if not theonly, counterpoise to the democratic element. In that country we perceive howeminently the legal profession is qualified by its powers, and even by itsdefects, to neutralize the vices which are inherent in popular government. Whenthe American people is intoxicated by passion, or carried away by theimpetuosity of its ideas, it is checked and stopped by the almost invisibleinfluence of its legal counsellors, who secretly oppose their aristocraticpropensities to its democratic instincts, their superstitious attachment towhat is antique to its love of novelty, their narrow views to its immensedesigns, and their habitual procrastination to its ardent impatience.

The courts of justice are the most visible organs by which the legal professionis enabled to control the democracy. The judge is a lawyer, who, independentlyof the taste for regularity and order which he has contracted in the study oflegislation, derives an additional love of stability from his own inalienablefunctions. His legal attainments have already raised him to a distinguishedrank amongst his fellow-citizens; his political power completes the distinctionof his station, and gives him the inclinations natural to privileged classes.

Armed with the power of declaring the laws to be unconstitutional, *a theAmerican magistrate perpetually interferes in political affairs. He cannotforce the people to make laws, but at least he can oblige it not to disobey itsown enactments; or to act inconsistently with its own principles. I am awarethat a secret tendency to diminish the judicial power exists in the UnitedStates, and by most of the constitutions of the several States the Governmentcan, upon the demand of the two houses of the legislature, remove the judgesfrom their station. By some other constitutions the members of the tribunalsare elected, and they are even subjected to frequent re-elections. I venture topredict that these innovations will sooner or later be attended with fatalconsequences, and that it will be found out at some future period that theattack which is made upon the judicial power has affected the democraticrepublic itself.

a
[ See chapter VI. on the “Judicial Power in the United States.”]

It must not, however, be supposed that the legal spirit of which I have beenspeaking has been confined, in the United States, to the courts of justice; itextends far beyond them. As the lawyers constitute the only enlightened classwhich the people does not mistrust, they are naturally called upon to occupymost of the public stations. They fill the legislative assemblies, and theyconduct the administration; they consequently exercise a powerful influenceupon the formation of the law, and upon its execution. The lawyers are,however, obliged to yield to the current of public opinion, which is too strongfor them to resist it, but it is easy to find indications of what their conductwould be if they were free to act as they chose. The Americans, who have madesuch copious innovations in their political legislation, have introduced verysparing alterations in their civil laws, and that with great difficulty,although those laws are frequently repugnant to their social condition. Thereason of this is, that in matters of civil law the majority is obliged todefer to the authority of the legal profession, and that the American lawyersare disinclined to innovate when they are left to their own choice.

It is curious for a Frenchman, accustomed to a very different state of things,to hear the perpetual complaints which are made in the United States againstthe stationary propensities of legal men, and their prejudices in favor ofexisting institutions.

The influence of the legal habits which are common in America extends beyondthe limits I have just pointed out. Scarcely any question arises in the UnitedStates which does not become, sooner or later, a subject of judicial debate;hence all parties are obliged to borrow the ideas, and even the language, usualin judicial proceedings in their daily controversies. As most public men are,or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs andtechnicalities of their profession into the affairs of the country. The juryextends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, insome measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in theschools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into thebosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that the wholepeople contracts the habits and the tastes of the magistrate. The lawyers ofthe United States form a party which is but little feared and scarcelyperceived, which has no badge peculiar to itself, which adapts itself withgreat flexibility to the exigencies of the time, and accommodates itself to allthe movements of the social body; but this party extends over the wholecommunity, and it penetrates into all classes of society; it acts upon thecountry imperceptibly, but it finally fashions it to suit its purposes.

Chapter XVI: CausesMitigating Tyranny In The United States—Part II

Trial By Jury InThe United States Considered As A Political Institution

Trial by jury, which is one of the instruments of the sovereignty of thepeople, deserves to be compared with the other laws which establish thatsovereignty—Composition of the jury in the United States—Effect oftrial by jury upon the national character—It educates the people—Ittends to establish the authority of the magistrates and to extend a knowledgeof law among the people.

Since I have been led by my subject to recur to the administration of justicein the United States, I will not pass over this point without adverting to theinstitution of the jury. Trial by jury may be considered in two separate pointsof view, as a judicial and as a political institution. If it entered into mypresent purpose to inquire how far trial by jury (more especially in civilcases) contributes to insure the best administration of justice, I admit thatit* utility might be contested. As the jury was first introduced at a time whensociety was in an uncivilized state, and when courts of justice were merelycalled upon to decide on the evidence of facts, it is not an easy task to adaptit to the wants of a highly civilized community when the mutual relations ofmen are multiplied to a surprising extent, and have assumed the enlightened andintellectual character of the age. *b

b
[ The investigation of trial by jury as a judicial institution, and theappreciation of its effects in the United States, together with the advantagesthe Americans have derived from it, would suffice to form a book, and a bookupon a very useful and curious subject. The State of Louisiana would inparticular afford the curious phenomenon of a French and English legislation,as well as a French and English population, which are gradually combining witheach other. See the “Digeste des Lois de la Louisiane,” in twovolumes; and the “Traite sur les Regles des Actions civiles,”printed in French and English at New Orleans in 1830.]

My present object is to consider the jury as a political institution, and anyother course would divert me from my subject. Of trial by jury, considered as ajudicial institution, I shall here say but very few words. When the Englishadopted trial by jury they were a semi-barbarous people; they are become, incourse of time, one of the most enlightened nations of the earth; and theirattachment to this institution seems to have increased with their increasingcultivation. They soon spread beyond their insular boundaries to every cornerof the habitable globe; some have formed colonies, others independent states;the mother-country has maintained its monarchical constitution; many of itsoffspring have founded powerful republics; but wherever the English have beenthey have boasted of the privilege of trial by jury. *c They have establishedit, or hastened to re-establish it, in all their settlements. A judicialinstitution which obtains the suffrages of a great people for so long a seriesof ages, which is zealously renewed at every epoch of civilization, in all theclimates of the earth and under every form of human government, cannot becontrary to the spirit of justice. *d

c
[ All the English and American jurists are unanimous upon this head. Mr. Story,judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, speaks, in his “Treatiseon the Federal Constitution,” of the advantages of trial by jury in civilcases:—“The inestimable privilege of a trial by jury in civilcases—a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal cases, which iscounted by all persons to be essential to political and civil liberty. . ..” (Story, book iii., chap. xxxviii.)]

d
[ If it were our province to point out the utility of the jury as a judicialinstitution in this place, much might be said, and the following argumentsmight be brought forward amongst others:—

By introducing the jury into the business of the courts you are enabled todiminish the number of judges, which is a very great advantage. When judges arevery numerous, death is perpetually thinning the ranks of the judicialfunctionaries, and laying places vacant for newcomers. The ambition of themagistrates is therefore continually excited, and they are naturally madedependent upon the will of the majority, or the individual who fills up thevacant appointments; the officers of the court then rise like the officers ofan army. This state of things is entirely contrary to the sound administrationof justice, and to the intentions of the legislator. The office of a judge ismade inalienable in order that he may remain independent: but of what advantageis it that his independence should be protected if he be tempted to sacrificeit of his own accord? When judges are very numerous many of them mustnecessarily be incapable of performing their important duties, for a greatmagistrate is a man of no common powers; and I am inclined to believe that ahalf-enlightened tribunal is the worst of all instruments for attaining thoseobjects which it is the purpose of courts of justice to accomplish. For my ownpart, I had rather submit the decision of a case to ignorant jurors directed bya skilful judge than to judges a majority of whom are imperfectly acquaintedwith jurisprudence and with the laws.]

I turn, however, from this part of the subject. To look upon the jury as a merejudicial institution is to confine our attention to a very narrow view of it;for however great its influence may be upon the decisions of the law courts,that influence is very subordinate to the powerful effects which it produces onthe destinies of the community at large. The jury is above all a politicalinstitution, and it must be regarded in this light in order to be dulyappreciated.

By the jury I mean a certain number of citizens chosen indiscriminately, andinvested with a temporary right of judging. Trial by jury, as applied to therepression of crime, appears to me to introduce an eminently republican elementinto the government upon the following grounds:—

The institution of the jury may be aristocratic or democratic, according to theclass of society from which the jurors are selected; but it always preservesits republican character, inasmuch as it places the real direction of societyin the hands of the governed, or of a portion of the governed, instead ofleaving it under the authority of the Government. Force is never more than atransient element of success; and after force comes the notion of right. Agovernment which should only be able to crush its enemies upon a field ofbattle would very soon be destroyed. The true sanction of political laws is tobe found in penal legislation, and if that sanction be wanting the law willsooner or later lose its cogency. He who punishes infractions of the law istherefore the real master of society. Now the institution of the jury raisesthe people itself, or at least a class of citizens, to the bench of judicialauthority. The institution of the jury consequently invests the people, or thatclass of citizens, with the direction of society. *e

e
[ An important remark must, however, be made. Trial by jury does unquestionablyinvest the people with a general control over the actions of citizens, but itdoes not furnish means of exercising this control in all cases, or with anabsolute authority. When an absolute monarch has the right of trying offencesby his representatives, the fate of the prisoner is, as it were, decidedbeforehand. But even if the people were predisposed to convict, the compositionand the non-responsibility of the jury would still afford some chancesfavorable to the protection of innocence.]

In England the jury is returned from the aristocratic portion of the nation; *fthe aristocracy makes the laws, applies the laws, and punishes all infractionsof the laws; everything is established upon a consistent footing, and Englandmay with truth be said to constitute an aristocratic republic. In the UnitedStates the same system is applied to the whole people. Every American citizenis qualified to be an elector, a juror, and is eligible to office. *g Thesystem of the jury, as it is understood in America, appears to me to be asdirect and as extreme a consequence of the sovereignty of the people asuniversal suffrage. These institutions are two instruments of equal power,which contribute to the supremacy of the majority. All the sovereigns who havechosen to govern by their own authority, and to direct society instead ofobeying its directions, have destroyed or enfeebled the institution of thejury. The monarchs of the House of Tudor sent to prison jurors who refused toconvict, and Napoleon caused them to be returned by his agents.

f
[ [This may be true to some extent of special juries, but not of common juries.The author seems not to have been aware that the qualifications of jurors inEngland vary exceedingly.]]

g
[ See Appendix, Q.]

However clear most of these truths may seem to be, they do not commanduniversal assent, and in France, at least, the institution of trial by jury isstill very imperfectly understood. If the question arises as to the properqualification of jurors, it is confined to a discussion of the intelligence andknowledge of the citizens who may be returned, as if the jury was merely ajudicial institution. This appears to me to be the least part of the subject.The jury is pre-eminently a political institution; it must be regarded as oneform of the sovereignty of the people; when that sovereignty is repudiated, itmust be rejected, or it must be adapted to the laws by which that sovereigntyis established. The jury is that portion of the nation to which the executionof the laws is entrusted, as the Houses of Parliament constitute that part ofthe nation which makes the laws; and in order that society may be governed withconsistency and uniformity, the list of citizens qualified to serve on juriesmust increase and diminish with the list of electors. This I hold to be thepoint of view most worthy of the attention of the legislator, and all thatremains is merely accessory.

I am so entirely convinced that the jury is pre-eminently a politicalinstitution that I still consider it in this light when it is applied in civilcauses. Laws are always unstable unless they are founded upon the manners of anation; manners are the only durable and resisting power in a people. When thejury is reserved for criminal offences, the people only witnesses itsoccasional action in certain particular cases; the ordinary course of life goeson without its interference, and it is considered as an instrument, but not asthe only instrument, of obtaining justice. This is true a fortiori when thejury is only applied to certain criminal causes.

When, on the contrary, the influence of the jury is extended to civil causes,its application is constantly palpable; it affects all the interests of thecommunity; everyone co-operates in its work: it thus penetrates into all theusages of life, it fashions the human mind to its peculiar forms, and isgradually associated with the idea of justice itself.

The institution of the jury, if confined to criminal causes, is always indanger, but when once it is introduced into civil proceedings it defies theaggressions of time and of man. If it had been as easy to remove the jury fromthe manners as from the laws of England, it would have perished under HenryVIII, and Elizabeth, and the civil jury did in reality, at that period, savethe liberties of the country. In whatever manner the jury be applied, it cannotfail to exercise a powerful influence upon the national character; but thisinfluence is prodigiously increased when it is introduced into civil causes.The jury, and more especially the jury in civil cases, serves to communicatethe spirit of the judges to the minds of all the citizens; and this spirit,with the habits which attend it, is the soundest preparation for freeinstitutions. It imbues all classes with a respect for the thing judged, andwith the notion of right. If these two elements be removed, the love ofindependence is reduced to a mere destructive passion. It teaches men topractice equity, every man learns to judge his neighbor as he would himself bejudged; and this is especially true of the jury in civil causes, for, whilstthe number of persons who have reason to apprehend a criminal prosecution issmall, every one is liable to have a civil action brought against him. The juryteaches every man not to recoil before the responsibility of his own actions,and impresses him with that manly confidence without which political virtuecannot exist. It invests each citizen with a kind of magistracy, it makes themall feel the duties which they are bound to discharge towards society, and thepart which they take in the Government. By obliging men to turn their attentionto affairs which are not exclusively their own, it rubs off that individualegotism which is the rust of society.

The jury contributes most powerfully to form the judgement and to increase thenatural intelligence of a people, and this is, in my opinion, its greatestadvantage. It may be regarded as a gratuitous public school ever open, in whichevery juror learns to exercise his rights, enters into daily communication withthe most learned and enlightened members of the upper classes, and becomespractically acquainted with the laws of his country, which are brought withinthe reach of his capacity by the efforts of the bar, the advice of the judge,and even by the passions of the parties. I think that the practicalintelligence and political good sense of the Americans are mainly attributableto the long use which they have made of the jury in civil causes. I do not knowwhether the jury is useful to those who are in litigation; but I am certain itis highly beneficial to those who decide the litigation; and I look upon it asone of the most efficacious means for the education of the people which societycan employ.

What I have hitherto said applies to all nations, but the remark I am now aboutto make is peculiar to the Americans and to democratic peoples. I have alreadyobserved that in democracies the members of the legal profession and themagistrates constitute the only aristocratic body which can check theirregularities of the people. This aristocracy is invested with no physicalpower, but it exercises its conservative influence upon the minds of men, andthe most abundant source of its authority is the institution of the civil jury.In criminal causes, when society is armed against a single individual, the juryis apt to look upon the judge as the passive instrument of social power, and tomistrust his advice. Moreover, criminal causes are entirely founded upon theevidence of facts which common sense can readily appreciate; upon this groundthe judge and the jury are equal. Such, however, is not the case in civilcauses; then the judge appears as a disinterested arbiter between theconflicting passions of the parties. The jurors look up to him with confidenceand listen to him with respect, for in this instance their intelligence iscompletely under the control of his learning. It is the judge who sums up thevarious arguments with which their memory has been wearied out, and who guidesthem through the devious course of the proceedings; he points their attentionto the exact question of fact which they are called upon to solve, and he putsthe answer to the question of law into their mouths. His influence upon theirverdict is almost unlimited.

If I am called upon to explain why I am but little moved by the argumentsderived from the ignorance of jurors in civil causes, I reply, that in theseproceedings, whenever the question to be solved is not a mere question of fact,the jury has only the semblance of a judicial body. The jury sanctions thedecision of the judge, they by the authority of society which they represent,and he by that of reason and of law. *h

h
[ See Appendix, R.]

In England and in America the judges exercise an influence upon criminal trialswhich the French judges have never possessed. The reason of this difference mayeasily be discovered; the English and American magistrates establish theirauthority in civil causes, and only transfer it afterwards to tribunals ofanother kind, where that authority was not acquired. In some cases (and theyare frequently the most important ones) the American judges have the right ofdeciding causes alone. *i Upon these occasions they are accidentally placed inthe position which the French judges habitually occupy, but they are investedwith far more power than the latter; they are still surrounded by thereminiscence of the jury, and their judgment has almost as much authority asthe voice of the community at large, represented by that institution. Theirinfluence extends beyond the limits of the courts; in the recreations ofprivate life as well as in the turmoil of public business, abroad and in thelegislative assemblies, the American judge is constantly surrounded by men whoare accustomed to regard his intelligence as superior to their own, and afterhaving exercised his power in the decision of causes, he continues to influencethe habits of thought and the characters of the individuals who took a part inhis judgment.

i
[ The Federal judges decide upon their own authority almost all the questionsmost important to the country.]

The jury, then, which seems to restrict the rights of magistracy, does inreality consolidate its power, and in no country are the judges so powerful asthere, where the people partakes their privileges. It is more especially bymeans of the jury in civil causes that the American magistrates imbue allclasses of society with the spirit of their profession. Thus the jury, which isthe most energetic means of making the people rule, is also the mostefficacious means of teaching it to rule well.

Chapter XVII: PrincipalCauses Maintaining The Democratic Republic—Part I

Principal Causes Which Tend To Maintain The Democratic Republic In The UnitedStates

A democratic republic subsists in the United States, and the principal objectof this book has been to account for the fact of its existence. Several of thecauses which contribute to maintain the institutions of America have beeninvoluntarily passed by or only hinted at as I was borne along by my subject.Others I have been unable to discuss, and those on which I have dwelt most are,as it were, buried in the details of the former parts of this work. I think,therefore, that before I proceed to speak of the future, I cannot do betterthan collect within a small compass the reasons which best explain the present.In this retrospective chapter I shall be succinct, for I shall take care toremind the reader very summarily of what he already knows; and I shall onlyselect the most prominent of those facts which I have not yet pointed out.

All the causes which contribute to the maintenance of the democratic republicin the United States are reducible to three heads:—

I. The peculiar and accidental situation in which Providence has placed theAmericans.

II. The laws.

III. The manners and customs of the people.

Accidental Or Providential Causes Which Contribute To The Maintenance Of TheDemocratic Republic In The United States The Union has no neighbors—Nometropolis—The Americans have had the chances of birth in theirfavor—America an empty country—How this circ*mstance contributespowerfully to the maintenance of the democratic republic in America—Howthe American wilds are peopled—Avidity of the Anglo-Americans in takingpossession of the solitudes of the New World—Influence of physicalprosperity upon the political opinions of the Americans.

A thousand circ*mstances, independent of the will of man, concur to facilitatethe maintenance of a democratic republic in the United States. Some of thesepeculiarities are known, the others may easily be pointed out; but I shallconfine myself to the most prominent amongst them.

The Americans have no neighbors, and consequently they have no great wars, orfinancial crises, or inroads, or conquest to dread; they require neither greattaxes, nor great armies, nor great generals; and they have nothing to fear froma scourge which is more formidable to republics than all these evils combined,namely, military glory. It is impossible to deny the inconceivable influencewhich military glory exercises upon the spirit of a nation. General Jackson,whom the Americans have twice elected to the head of their Government, is a manof a violent temper and mediocre talents; no one circ*mstance in the wholecourse of his career ever proved that he is qualified to govern a free people,and indeed the majority of the enlightened classes of the Union has always beenopposed to him. But he was raised to the Presidency, and has been maintained inthat lofty station, solely by the recollection of a victory which he gainedtwenty years ago under the walls of New Orleans, a victory which was, however,a very ordinary achievement, and which could only be remembered in a countrywhere battles are rare. Now the people which is thus carried away by theillusions of glory is unquestionably the most cold and calculating, the mostunmilitary (if I may use the expression), and the most prosaic of all thepeoples of the earth.

America has no great capital *a city, whose influence is directly or indirectlyfelt over the whole extent of the country, which I hold to be one of the firstcauses of the maintenance of republican institutions in the United States. Incities men cannot be prevented from concerting together, and from awakening amutual excitement which prompts sudden and passionate resolutions. Cities maybe looked upon as large assemblies, of which all the inhabitants are members;their populace exercises a prodigious influence upon the magistrates, andfrequently executes its own wishes without their intervention.

a
[ The United States have no metropolis, but they already contain several verylarge cities. Philadelphia reckoned 161,000 inhabitants and New York 202,000 inthe year 1830. The lower orders which inhabit these cities constitute a rabbleeven more formidable than the populace of European towns. They consist of freedblacks in the first place, who are condemned by the laws and by public opinionto a hereditary state of misery and degradation. They also contain a multitudeof Europeans who have been driven to the shores of the New World by theirmisfortunes or their misconduct; and these men inoculate the United States withall our vices, without bringing with them any of those interests whichcounteract their baneful influence. As inhabitants of a country where they haveno civil rights, they are ready to turn all the passions which agitate thecommunity to their own advantage; thus, within the last few months seriousriots have broken out in Philadelphia and in New York. Disturbances of thiskind are unknown in the rest of the country, which is nowise alarmed by them,because the population of the cities has hitherto exercised neither power norinfluence over the rural districts. Nevertheless, I look upon the size ofcertain American cities, and especially on the nature of their population, as areal danger which threatens the future security of the democratic republics ofthe New World; and I venture to predict that they will perish from thiscirc*mstance unless the government succeeds in creating an armed force, which,whilst it remains under the control of the majority of the nation, will beindependent of the town population, and able to repress its excesses.

[The population of the city of New York had risen, in 1870, to 942,292, andthat of Philadelphia to 674,022. Brooklyn, which may be said to form part ofNew York city, has a population of 396,099, in addition to that of New York.The frequent disturbances in the great cities of America, and the excessivecorruption of their local governments—over which there is no effectualcontrol—are amongst the greatest evils and dangers of the country.]]

To subject the provinces to the metropolis is therefore not only to place thedestiny of the empire in the hands of a portion of the community, which may bereprobated as unjust, but to place it in the hands of a populace acting underits own impulses, which must be avoided as dangerous. The preponderance ofcapital cities is therefore a serious blow upon the representative system, andit exposes modern republics to the same defect as the republics of antiquity,which all perished from not having been acquainted with that form ofgovernment.

It would be easy for me to adduce a great number of secondary causes which havecontributed to establish, and which concur to maintain, the democratic republicof the United States. But I discern two principal circ*mstances amongst thesefavorable elements, which I hasten to point out. I have already observed thatthe origin of the American settlements may be looked upon as the first and mostefficacious cause to which the present prosperity of the United States may beattributed. The Americans had the chances of birth in their favor, and theirforefathers imported that equality of conditions into the country whence thedemocratic republic has very naturally taken its rise. Nor was this all theydid; for besides this republican condition of society, the early settlerbequeathed to their descendants those customs, manners, and opinions whichcontribute most to the success of a republican form of government. When Ireflect upon the consequences of this primary circ*mstance, methinks I see thedestiny of America embodied in the first Puritan who landed on those shores,just as the human race was represented by the first man.

The chief circ*mstance which has favored the establishment and the maintenanceof a democratic republic in the United States is the nature of the territorywhich the American inhabit. Their ancestors gave them the love of equality andof freedom, but God himself gave them the means of remaining equal and free, byplacing them upon a boundless continent, which is open to their exertions.General prosperity is favorable to the stability of all governments, but moreparticularly of a democratic constitution, which depends upon the dispositionsof the majority, and more particularly of that portion of the community whichis most exposed to feel the pressure of want. When the people rules, it must berendered happy, or it will overturn the State, and misery is apt to stimulateit to those excesses to which ambition rouses kings. The physical causes,independent of the laws, which contribute to promote general prosperity, aremore numerous in America than they have ever been in any other country in theworld, at any other period of history. In the United States not only islegislation democratic, but nature herself favors the cause of the people.

In what part of human tradition can be found anything at all similar to thatwhich is occurring under our eyes in North America? The celebrated communitiesof antiquity were all founded in the midst of hostile nations, which they wereobliged to subjugate before they could flourish in their place. Even themoderns have found, in some parts of South America, vast regions inhabited by apeople of inferior civilization, but which occupied and cultivated the soil. Tofound their new states it was necessary to extirpate or to subdue a numerouspopulation, until civilization has been made to blush for their success. ButNorth America was only inhabited by wandering tribes, who took no thought ofthe natural riches of the soil, and that vast country was still, properlyspeaking, an empty continent, a desert land awaiting its inhabitants.

Everything is extraordinary in America, the social condition of theinhabitants, as well as the laws; but the soil upon which these institutionsare founded is more extraordinary than all the rest. When man was first placedupon the earth by the Creator, the earth was inexhaustible in its youth, butman was weak and ignorant; and when he had learned to explore the treasureswhich it contained, hosts of his fellow creatures covered its surface, and hewas obliged to earn an asylum for repose and for freedom by the sword. At thatsame period North America was discovered, as if it had been kept in reserve bythe Deity, and had just risen from beneath the waters of the deluge.

That continent still presents, as it did in the primeval time, rivers whichrise from never-failing sources, green and moist solitudes, and fields whichthe ploughshare of the husbandman has never turned. In this state it is offeredto man, not in the barbarous and isolated condition of the early ages, but to abeing who is already in possession of the most potent secrets of the naturalworld, who is united to his fellow-men, and instructed by the experience offifty centuries. At this very time thirteen millions of civilized Europeans arepeaceably spreading over those fertile plains, with whose resources and whoseextent they are not yet themselves accurately acquainted. Three or fourthousand soldiers drive the wandering races of the aborigines before them;these are followed by the pioneers, who pierce the woods, scare off the beastsof prey, explore the courses of the inland streams, and make ready thetriumphal procession of civilization across the waste.

The favorable influence of the temporal prosperity of America upon theinstitutions of that country has been so often described by others, andadverted to by myself, that I shall not enlarge upon it beyond the addition ofa few facts. An erroneous notion is generally entertained that the deserts ofAmerica are peopled by European emigrants, who annually disembark upon thecoasts of the New World, whilst the American population increases andmultiplies upon the soil which its forefathers tilled. The European settler,however, usually arrives in the United States without friends, and sometimeswithout resources; in order to subsist he is obliged to work for hire, and herarely proceeds beyond that belt of industrious population which adjoins theocean. The desert cannot be explored without capital or credit; and the bodymust be accustomed to the rigors of a new climate before it can be exposed tothe chances of forest life. It is the Americans themselves who daily quit thespots which gave them birth to acquire extensive domains in a remote country.Thus the European leaves his cottage for the trans-Atlantic shores; and theAmerican, who is born on that very coast, plunges in his turn into the wilds ofCentral America. This double emigration is incessant; it begins in the remotestparts of Europe, it crosses the Atlantic Ocean, and it advances over thesolitudes of the New World. Millions of men are marching at once towards thesame horizon; their language, their religion, their manners differ, theirobject is the same. The gifts of fortune are promised in the West, and to theWest they bend their course. *b

b
[ [The number of foreign immigrants into the United States in the last fiftyyears (from 1820 to 1871) is stated to be 7,556,007. Of these, 4,104,553 spokeEnglish—that is, they came from Great Britain, Ireland, or the Britishcolonies; 2,643,069 came from Germany or northern Europe; and about half amillion from the south of Europe.]]

No event can be compared with this continuous removal of the human race, exceptperhaps those irruptions which preceded the fall of the Roman Empire. Then, aswell as now, generations of men were impelled forwards in the same direction tomeet and struggle on the same spot; but the designs of Providence were not thesame; then, every newcomer was the harbinger of destruction and of death; now,every adventurer brings with him the elements of prosperity and of life. Thefuture still conceals from us the ulterior consequences of this emigration ofthe Americans towards the West; but we can readily apprehend its more immediateresults. As a portion of the inhabitants annually leave the States in whichthey were born, the population of these States increases very slowly, althoughthey have long been established: thus in Connecticut, which only containsfifty-nine inhabitants to the square mile, the population has not increased bymore than one-quarter in forty years, whilst that of England has been augmentedby one-third in the lapse of the same period. The European emigrant alwayslands, therefore, in a country which is but half full, and where hands are inrequest: he becomes a workman in easy circ*mstances; his son goes to seek hisfortune in unpeopled regions, and he becomes a rich landowner. The formeramasses the capital which the latter invests, and the stranger as well as thenative is unacquainted with want.

The laws of the United States are extremely favorable to the division ofproperty; but a cause which is more powerful than the laws prevents propertyfrom being divided to excess. *c This is very perceptible in the States whichare beginning to be thickly peopled; Massachusetts is the most populous part ofthe Union, but it contains only eighty inhabitants to the square mile, which ismust less than in France, where 162 are reckoned to the same extent of country.But in Massachusetts estates are very rarely divided; the eldest son takes theland, and the others go to seek their fortune in the desert. The law hasabolished the rights of primogeniture, but circ*mstances have concurred tore-establish it under a form of which none can complain, and by which no justrights are impaired.

c
[ In New England the estates are exceedingly small, but they are rarelysubjected to further division.]

A single fact will suffice to show the prodigious number of individuals wholeave New England, in this manner, to settle themselves in the wilds. We wereassured in 1830 that thirty-six of the members of Congress were born in thelittle State of Connecticut. The population of Connecticut, which constitutesonly one forty-third part of that of the United States, thus furnishedone-eighth of the whole body of representatives. The States of Connecticut,however, only sends five delegates to Congress; and the thirty-one others sitfor the new Western States. If these thirty-one individuals had remained inConnecticut, it is probable that instead of becoming rich landowners they wouldhave remained humble laborers, that they would have lived in obscurity withoutbeing able to rise into public life, and that, far from becoming useful membersof the legislature, they might have been unruly citizens.

These reflections do not escape the observation of the Americans any more thanof ourselves. “It cannot be doubted,” says Chancellor Kent in his“Treatise on American Law,” “that the division of landedestates must produce great evils when it is carried to such excess as that eachparcel of land is insufficient to support a family; but these disadvantageshave never been felt in the United States, and many generations must elapsebefore they can be felt. The extent of our inhabited territory, the abundanceof adjacent land, and the continual stream of emigration flowing from theshores of the Atlantic towards the interior of the country, suffice as yet, andwill long suffice, to prevent the parcelling out of estates.”

It is difficult to describe the rapacity with which the American rushes forwardto secure the immense booty which fortune proffers to him. In the pursuit hefearlessly braves the arrow of the Indian and the distempers of the forest; heis unimpressed by the silence of the woods; the approach of beasts of prey doesnot disturb him; for he is goaded onwards by a passion more intense than thelove of life. Before him lies a boundless continent, and he urges onwards as iftime pressed, and he was afraid of finding no room for his exertions. I havespoken of the emigration from the older States, but how shall I describe thatwhich takes place from the more recent ones? Fifty years have scarcely elapsedsince that of Ohio was founded; the greater part of its inhabitants were notborn within its confines; its capital has only been built thirty years, and itsterritory is still covered by an immense extent of uncultivated fields;nevertheless the population of Ohio is already proceeding westward, and most ofthe settlers who descend to the fertile savannahs of Illinois are citizens ofOhio. These men left their first country to improve their condition; they quittheir resting-place to ameliorate it still more; fortune awaits themeverywhere, but happiness they cannot attain. The desire of prosperity isbecome an ardent and restless passion in their minds which grows by what itgains. They early broke the ties which bound them to their natal earth, andthey have contracted no fresh ones on their way. Emigration was at firstnecessary to them as a means of subsistence; and it soon becomes a sort of gameof chance, which they pursue for the emotions it excites as much as for thegain it procures.

Sometimes the progress of man is so rapid that the desert reappears behind him.The woods stoop to give him a passage, and spring up again when he has passed.It is not uncommon in crossing the new States of the West to meet with deserteddwellings in the midst of the wilds; the traveller frequently discovers thevestiges of a log house in the most solitary retreats, which bear witness tothe power, and no less to the inconstancy of man. In these abandoned fields,and over these ruins of a day, the primeval forest soon scatters a freshvegetation, the beasts resume the haunts which were once their own, and Naturecovers the traces of man’s path with branches and with flowers, whichobliterate his evanescent track.

I remember that, in crossing one of the woodland districts which still coverthe State of New York, I reached the shores of a lake embosomed in forestscoeval with the world. A small island, covered with woods whose thick foliageconcealed its banks, rose from the centre of the waters. Upon the shores of thelake no object attested the presence of man except a column of smoke whichmight be seen on the horizon rising from the tops of the trees to the clouds,and seeming to hang from heaven rather than to be mounting to the sky. AnIndian shallop was hauled up on the sand, which tempted me to visit the isletthat had first attracted my attention, and in a few minutes I set foot upon itsbanks. The whole island formed one of those delicious solitudes of the NewWorld which almost lead civilized man to regret the haunts of the savage. Aluxuriant vegetation bore witness to the incomparable fruitfulness of the soil.The deep silence which is common to the wilds of North America was only brokenby the hoarse cooing of the wood-pigeon, and the tapping of the woodpecker uponthe bark of trees. I was far from supposing that this spot had ever beeninhabited, so completely did Nature seem to be left to her own caprices; butwhen I reached the centre of the isle I thought that I discovered some tracesof man. I then proceeded to examine the surrounding objects with care, and Isoon perceived that a European had undoubtedly been led to seek a refuge inthis retreat. Yet what changes had taken place in the scene of his labors! Thelogs which he had hastily hewn to build himself a shed had sprouted afresh; thevery props were intertwined with living verdure, and his cabin was transformedinto a bower. In the midst of these shrubs a few stones were to be seen,blackened with fire and sprinkled with thin ashes; here the hearth had no doubtbeen, and the chimney in falling had covered it with rubbish. I stood for sometime in silent admiration of the exuberance of Nature and the littleness ofman: and when I was obliged to leave that enchanting solitude, I exclaimed withmelancholy, “Are ruins, then, already here?”

In Europe we are wont to look upon a restless disposition, an unbounded desireof riches, and an excessive love of independence, as propensities veryformidable to society. Yet these are the very elements which ensure a long andpeaceful duration to the republics of America. Without these unquiet passionsthe population would collect in certain spots, and would soon be subject towants like those of the Old World, which it is difficult to satisfy; for suchis the present good fortune of the New World, that the vices of its inhabitantsare scarcely less favorable to society than their virtues. These circ*mstancesexercise a great influence on the estimation in which human actions are held inthe two hemispheres. The Americans frequently term what we should call cupiditya laudable industry; and they blame as faint-heartedness what we consider to bethe virtue of moderate desires.

In France, simple tastes, orderly manners, domestic affections, and theattachments which men feel to the place of their birth, are looked upon asgreat guarantees of the tranquillity and happiness of the State. But in Americanothing seems to be more prejudicial to society than these virtues. The FrenchCanadians, who have faithfully preserved the traditions of their pristinemanners, are already embarrassed for room upon their small territory; and thislittle community, which has so recently begun to exist, will shortly be a preyto the calamities incident to old nations. In Canada, the most enlightened,patriotic, and humane inhabitants make extraordinary efforts to render thepeople dissatisfied with those simple enjoyments which still content it. There,the seductions of wealth are vaunted with as much zeal as the charms of anhonest but limited income in the Old World, and more exertions are made toexcite the passions of the citizens there than to calm them elsewhere. If welisten to their eulogies, we shall hear that nothing is more praiseworthy thanto exchange the pure and homely pleasures which even the poor man tastes in hisown country for the dull delights of prosperity under a foreign sky; to leavethe patrimonial hearth and the turf beneath which his forefathers sleep; inshort, to abandon the living and the dead in quest of fortune.

At the present time America presents a field for human effort far moreextensive than any sum of labor which can be applied to work it. In America toomuch knowledge cannot be diffused; for all knowledge, whilst it may serve himwho possesses it, turns also to the advantage of those who are without it. Newwants are not to be feared, since they can be satisfied without difficulty; thegrowth of human passions need not be dreaded, since all passions may find aneasy and a legitimate object; nor can men be put in possession of too muchfreedom, since they are scarcely ever tempted to misuse their liberties.

The American republics of the present day are like companies of adventurersformed to explore in common the waste lands of the New World, and busied in aflourishing trade. The passions which agitate the Americans most deeply are nottheir political but their commercial passions; or, to speak more correctly,they introduce the habits they contract in business into their political life.They love order, without which affairs do not prosper; and they set an especialvalue upon a regular conduct, which is the foundation of a solid business; theyprefer the good sense which amasses large fortunes to that enterprising spiritwhich frequently dissipates them; general ideas alarm their minds, which areaccustomed to positive calculations, and they hold practice in more honor thantheory.

It is in America that one learns to understand the influence which physicalprosperity exercises over political actions, and even over opinions which oughtto acknowledge no sway but that of reason; and it is more especially amongststrangers that this truth is perceptible. Most of the European emigrants to theNew World carry with them that wild love of independence and of change whichour calamities are so apt to engender. I sometimes met with Europeans in theUnited States who had been obliged to leave their own country on account oftheir political opinions. They all astonished me by the language they held, butone of them surprised me more than all the rest. As I was crossing one of themost remote districts of Pennsylvania I was benighted, and obliged to beg forhospitality at the gate of a wealthy planter, who was a Frenchman by birth. Hebade me sit down beside his fire, and we began to talk with that freedom whichbefits persons who meet in the backwoods, two thousand leagues from theirnative country. I was aware that my host had been a great leveller and anardent demagogue forty years ago, and that his name was not unknown to fame. Iwas, therefore, not a little surprised to hear him discuss the rights ofproperty as an economist or a landowner might have done: he spoke of thenecessary gradations which fortune establishes among men, of obedience toestablished laws, of the influence of good morals in commonwealths, and of thesupport which religious opinions give to order and to freedom; he even went tofar as to quote an evangelical authority in corroboration of one of hispolitical tenets.

I listened, and marvelled at the feebleness of human reason. A proposition istrue or false, but no art can prove it to be one or the other, in the midst ofthe uncertainties of science and the conflicting lessons of experience, until anew incident disperses the clouds of doubt; I was poor, I become rich, and I amnot to expect that prosperity will act upon my conduct, and leave my judgmentfree; my opinions change with my fortune, and the happy circ*mstances which Iturn to my advantage furnish me with that decisive argument which was beforewanting. The influence of prosperity acts still more freely upon the Americanthan upon strangers. The American has always seen the connection of publicorder and public prosperity, intimately united as they are, go on before hiseyes; he does not conceive that one can subsist without the other; he hastherefore nothing to forget; nor has he, like so many Europeans, to unlearn thelessons of his early education.

Chapter XVII: PrincipalCauses Maintaining The Democratic Republic—Part II

Influence Of The Laws Upon The Maintenance Of The Democratic Republic In TheUnited States

Three principal causes of the maintenance of the democraticrepublic—Federal Constitutions—Municipalinstitutions—Judicial power.

The principal aim of this book has been to make known the laws of the UnitedStates; if this purpose has been accomplished, the reader is already enabled tojudge for himself which are the laws that really tend to maintain thedemocratic republic, and which endanger its existence. If I have not succeededin explaining this in the whole course of my work, I cannot hope to do sowithin the limits of a single chapter. It is not my intention to retrace thepath I have already pursued, and a very few lines will suffice to recapitulatewhat I have previously explained.

Three circ*mstances seem to me to contribute most powerfully to the maintenanceof the democratic republic in the United States.

The first is that Federal form of Government which the Americans have adopted,and which enables the Union to combine the power of a great empire with thesecurity of a small State.

The second consists in those municipal institutions which limit the despotismof the majority, and at the same time impart a taste for freedom and aknowledge of the art of being free to the people.

The third is to be met with in the constitution of the judicial power. I haveshown in what manner the courts of justice serve to repress the excesses ofdemocracy, and how they check and direct the impulses of the majority withoutstopping its activity.

Influence Of Manners Upon The Maintenance Of The Democratic Republic In TheUnited States

I have previously remarked that the manners of the people may be considered asone of the general causes to which the maintenance of a democratic republic inthe United States is attributable. I here used the word manners with themeaning which the ancients attached to the word mores, for I apply it not onlyto manners in their proper sense of what constitutes the character of socialintercourse, but I extend it to the various notions and opinions current amongmen, and to the mass of those ideas which constitute their character of mind. Icomprise, therefore, under this term the whole moral and intellectual conditionof a people. My intention is not to draw a picture of American manners, butsimply to point out such features of them as are favorable to the maintenanceof political institutions.

Religion Considered As A Political Institution, Which Powerfully Contributes ToThe Maintenance Of The Democratic Republic Amongst The Americans

North America peopled by men who professed a democratic and republicanChristianity—Arrival of the Catholics—For what reason the Catholicsform the most democratic and the most republican class at the present time.

Every religion is to be found in juxtaposition to a political opinion which isconnected with it by affinity. If the human mind be left to follow its ownbent, it will regulate the temporal and spiritual institutions of society uponone uniform principle; and man will endeavor, if I may use the expression, toharmonize the state in which he lives upon earth with the state which hebelieves to await him in heaven. The greatest part of British America waspeopled by men who, after having shaken off the authority of the Pope,acknowledged no other religious supremacy; they brought with them into the NewWorld a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling ita democratic and republican religion. This sect contributed powerfully to theestablishment of a democracy and a republic, and from the earliest settlementof the emigrants politics and religion contracted an alliance which has neverbeen dissolved.

About fifty years ago Ireland began to pour a Catholic population into theUnited States; on the other hand, the Catholics of America made proselytes, andat the present moment more than a million of Christians professing the truthsof the Church of Rome are to be met with in the Union. *d The Catholics arefaithful to the observances of their religion; they are fervent and zealous inthe support and belief of their doctrines. Nevertheless they constitute themost republican and the most democratic class of citizens which exists in theUnited States; and although this fact may surprise the observer at first, thecauses by which it is occasioned may easily be discovered upon reflection.

d
[ [It is difficult to ascertain with accuracy the amount of the Roman Catholicpopulation of the United States, but in 1868 an able writer in the“Edinburgh Review” (vol. cxxvii. p. 521) affirmed that the wholeCatholic population of the United States was then about 4,000,000, divided into43 dioceses, with 3,795 churches, under the care of 45 bishops and 2,317clergymen. But this rapid increase is mainly supported by immigration from theCatholic countries of Europe.]]

I think that the Catholic religion has erroneously been looked upon as thenatural enemy of democracy. Amongst the various sects of Christians,Catholicism seems to me, on the contrary, to be one of those which are mostfavorable to the equality of conditions. In the Catholic Church, the religiouscommunity is composed of only two elements, the priest and the people. Thepriest alone rises above the rank of his flock, and all below him are equal.

On doctrinal points the Catholic faith places all human capacities upon thesame level; it subjects the wise and ignorant, the man of genius and the vulgarcrowd, to the details of the same creed; it imposes the same observances uponthe rich and needy, it inflicts the same austerities upon the strong and theweak, it listens to no compromise with mortal man, but, reducing all the humanrace to the same standard, it confounds all the distinctions of society at thefoot of the same altar, even as they are confounded in the sight of God. IfCatholicism predisposes the faithful to obedience, it certainly does notprepare them for inequality; but the contrary may be said of Protestantism,which generally tends to make men independent, more than to render them equal.

Catholicism is like an absolute monarchy; if the sovereign be removed, all theother classes of society are more equal than they are in republics. It has notunfrequently occurred that the Catholic priest has left the service of thealtar to mix with the governing powers of society, and to take his placeamongst the civil gradations of men. This religious influence has sometimesbeen used to secure the interests of that political state of things to which hebelonged. At other times Catholics have taken the side of aristocracy from aspirit of religion.

But no sooner is the priesthood entirely separated from the government, as isthe case in the United States, than is found that no class of men are morenaturally disposed than the Catholics to transfuse the doctrine of the equalityof conditions into the political world. If, then, the Catholic citizens of theUnited States are not forcibly led by the nature of their tenets to adoptdemocratic and republican principles, at least they are not necessarily opposedto them; and their social position, as well as their limited number, obligesthem to adopt these opinions. Most of the Catholics are poor, and they have nochance of taking a part in the government unless it be open to all thecitizens. They constitute a minority, and all rights must be respected in orderto insure to them the free exercise of their own privileges. These two causesinduce them, unconsciously, to adopt political doctrines, which they wouldperhaps support with less zeal if they were rich and preponderant.

The Catholic clergy of the United States has never attempted to oppose thispolitical tendency, but it seeks rather to justify its results. The priests inAmerica have divided the intellectual world into two parts: in the one theyplace the doctrines of revealed religion, which command their assent; in theother they leave those truths which they believe to have been freely left opento the researches of political inquiry. Thus the Catholics of the United Statesare at the same time the most faithful believers and the most zealous citizens.

It may be asserted that in the United States no religious doctrine displays theslightest hostility to democratic and republican institutions. The clergy ofall the different sects hold the same language, their opinions are consonant tothe laws, and the human intellect flows onwards in one sole current.

I happened to be staying in one of the largest towns in the Union, when I wasinvited to attend a public meeting which had been called for the purpose ofassisting the Poles, and of sending them supplies of arms and money. I foundtwo or three thousand persons collected in a vast hall which had been preparedto receive them. In a short time a priest in his ecclesiastical robes advancedto the front of the hustings: the spectators rose, and stood uncovered, whilsthe spoke in the following terms:—

“Almighty God! the God of Armies! Thou who didst strengthen the heartsand guide the arms of our fathers when they were fighting for the sacred rightsof national independence; Thou who didst make them triumph over a hatefuloppression, and hast granted to our people the benefits of liberty and peace;Turn, O Lord, a favorable eye upon the other hemisphere; pitifully look downupon that heroic nation which is even now struggling as we did in the formertime, and for the same rights which we defended with our blood. Thou, who didstcreate Man in the likeness of the same image, let not tyranny mar Thy work, andestablish inequality upon the earth. Almighty God! do Thou watch over thedestiny of the Poles, and render them worthy to be free. May Thy wisdom directtheir councils, and may Thy strength sustain their arms! Shed forth Thy terrorover their enemies, scatter the powers which take counsel against them; andvouchsafe that the injustice which the world has witnessed for fifty years, benot consummated in our time. O Lord, who holdest alike the hearts of nationsand of men in Thy powerful hand; raise up allies to the sacred cause of right;arouse the French nation from the apathy in which its rulers retain it, that itgo forth again to fight for the liberties of the world.

“Lord, turn not Thou Thy face from us, and grant that we may always bethe most religious as well as the freest people of the earth. Almighty God,hear our supplications this day. Save the Poles, we beseech Thee, in the nameof Thy well-beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who died upon the cross for thesalvation of men. Amen.”

The whole meeting responded “Amen!” with devotion.

Indirect Influence Of Religious Opinions Upon Political Society In The UnitedStates

Christian morality common to all sects—Influence of religion upon themanners of the Americans—Respect for the marriage tie—In whatmanner religion confines the imagination of the Americans within certainlimits, and checks the passion of innovation—Opinion of the Americans onthe political utility of religion—Their exertions to extend and secureits predominance.

I have just shown what the direct influence of religion upon politics is in theUnited States, but its indirect influence appears to me to be still moreconsiderable, and it never instructs the Americans more fully in the art ofbeing free than when it says nothing of freedom.

The sects which exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ inrespect to the worship which is due from man to his Creator, but they all agreein respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores theDeity in its own peculiar manner, but all the sects preach the same moral lawin the name of God. If it be of the highest importance to man, as anindividual, that his religion should be true, the case of society is not thesame. Society has no future life to hope for or to fear; and provided thecitizens profess a religion, the peculiar tenets of that religion are of verylittle importance to its interests. Moreover, almost all the sects of theUnited States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, andChristian morality is everywhere the same.

It may be believed without unfairness that a certain number of Americans pursuea peculiar form of worship, from habit more than from conviction. In the UnitedStates the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must becommon; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christianreligion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; andthere can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to humannature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the mostenlightened and free nation of the earth.

I have remarked that the members of the American clergy in general, withouteven excepting those who do not admit religious liberty, are all in favor ofcivil freedom; but they do not support any particular political system. Theykeep aloof from parties and from public affairs. In the United States religionexercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of publicopinion, but it directs the manners of the community, and by regulatingdomestic life it regulates the State.

I do not question that the great austerity of manners which is observable inthe United States, arises, in the first instance, from religious faith.Religion is often unable to restrain man from the numberless temptations offortune; nor can it check that passion for gain which every incident of hislife contributes to arouse, but its influence over the mind of woman issupreme, and women are the protectors of morals. There is certainly no countryin the world where the tie of marriage is so much respected as in America, orwhere conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated. In Europealmost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities ofdomestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home,is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and the evil offluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions which frequentlydisturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience which thelegislative powers of the State exact. But when the American retires from theturmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image oforder and of peace. There his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys areinnocent and calm; and as he finds that an orderly life is the surest path tohappiness, he accustoms himself without difficulty to moderate his opinions aswell as his tastes. Whilst the European endeavors to forget his domestictroubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that loveof order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs.

In the United States the influence of religion is not confined to the manners,but it extends to the intelligence of the people. Amongst the Anglo-Americans,there are some who profess the doctrines of Christianity from a sincere beliefin them, and others who do the same because they are afraid to be suspected ofunbelief. Christianity, therefore, reigns without any obstacle, by universalconsent; the consequence is, as I have before observed, that every principle ofthe moral world is fixed and determinate, although the political world isabandoned to the debates and the experiments of men. Thus the human mind isnever left to wander across a boundless field; and, whatever may be itspretensions, it is checked from time to time by barriers which it cannotsurmount. Before it can perpetrate innovation, certain primal and immutableprinciples are laid down, and the boldest conceptions of human device aresubjected to certain forms which retard and stop their completion.

The imagination of the Americans, even in its greatest flights, is circ*mspectand undecided; its impulses are checked, and its works unfinished. These habitsof restraint recur in political society, and are singularly favorable both tothe tranquillity of the people and to the durability of the institutions it hasestablished. Nature and circ*mstances concurred to make the inhabitants of theUnited States bold men, as is sufficiently attested by the enterprising spiritwith which they seek for fortune. If the mind of the Americans were free fromall trammels, they would very shortly become the most daring innovators and themost implacable disputants in the world. But the revolutionists of America areobliged to profess an ostensible respect for Christian morality and equity,which does not easily permit them to violate the laws that oppose theirdesigns; nor would they find it easy to surmount the scruples of theirpartisans, even if they were able to get over their own. Hitherto no one in theUnited States has dared to advance the maxim, that everything is permissiblewith a view to the interests of society; an impious adage which seems to havebeen invented in an age of freedom to shelter all the tyrants of future ages.Thus whilst the law permits the Americans to do what they please, religionprevents them from conceiving, and forbids them to commit, what is rash orunjust.

Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but itmust nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions ofthat country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates theuse of free institutions. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that theinhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I donot know whether all the Americans have a sincere faith in their religion, forwho can search the human heart? but I am certain that they hold it to beindispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion isnot peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the wholenation, and to every rank of society.

In the United States, if a political character attacks a sect, this may notprevent even the partisans of that very sect from supporting him; but if heattacks all the sects together, everyone abandons him, and he remains alone.

Whilst I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes ofthe county of Chester (State of New York), declared that he did not believe inthe existence of God, or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused toadmit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand allthe confidence of the Court in what he was about to say. *e The newspapersrelated the fact without any further comment.

e
[ The New York “Spectator” of August 23, 1831, relates the fact inthe following terms:—“The Court of Common Pleas of Chester county(New York) a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief inthe existence of God. The presiding judge remarked that he had not before beenaware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God;that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court ofjustice, and that he knew of no cause in a Christian country where a witnesshad been permitted to testify without such belief.”]

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimatelyin their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without theother; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barrentraditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.

I have known of societies formed by the Americans to send out ministers of theGospel into the new Western States to found schools and churches there, lestreligion should be suffered to die away in those remote settlements, and therising States be less fitted to enjoy free institutions than the people fromwhich they emanated. I met with wealthy New Englanders who abandoned thecountry in which they were born in order to lay the foundations of Christianityand of freedom on the banks of the Missouri, or in the prairies of Illinois.Thus religious zeal is perpetually stimulated in the United States by theduties of patriotism. These men do not act from an exclusive consideration ofthe promises of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion tothe cause; and if you converse with these missionaries of Christiancivilization, you will be surprised to find how much value they set upon thegoods of this world, and that you meet with a politician where you expected tofind a priest. They will tell you that “all the American republics arecollectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were tofall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutionswhich now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in greatperil. It is, therefore, our interest that the new States should be religious,in order to maintain our liberties.”

Such are the opinions of the Americans, and if any hold that the religiousspirit which I admire is the very thing most amiss in America, and that theonly element wanting to the freedom and happiness of the human race is tobelieve in some blind cosmogony, or to assert with Cabanis the secretion ofthought by the brain, I can only reply that those who hold this language havenever been in America, and that they have never seen a religious or a freenation. When they return from their expedition, we shall hear what they have tosay.

There are persons in France who look upon republican institutions as atemporary means of power, of wealth, and distinction; men who are thecondottieri of liberty, and who fight for their own advantage, whatever be thecolors they wear: it is not to these that I address myself. But there areothers who look forward to the republican form of government as a tranquil andlasting state, towards which modern society is daily impelled by the ideas andmanners of the time, and who sincerely desire to prepare men to be free. Whenthese men attack religious opinions, they obey the dictates of their passionsto the prejudice of their interests. Despotism may govern without faith, butliberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they setforth in glowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; and it is moreneeded in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible thatsociety should escape destruction if the moral tie be not strengthened inproportion as the political tie is relaxed? and what can be done with a peoplewhich is its own master, if it be not submissive to the Divinity?

Chapter XVII: PrincipalCauses Maintaining The Democratic Republic—Part III

Principal Causes Which Render Religion Powerful In America Care taken by theAmericans to separate the Church from the State—The laws, public opinion,and even the exertions of the clergy concur to promote this end—Influenceof religion upon the mind in the United States attributable to thiscause—Reason of this—What is the natural state of men with regardto religion at the present time—What are the peculiar and incidentalcauses which prevent men, in certain countries, from arriving at this state.

The philosophers of the eighteenth century explained the gradual decay ofreligious faith in a very simple manner. Religious zeal, said they, mustnecessarily fail, the more generally liberty is established and knowledgediffused. Unfortunately, facts are by no means in accordance with their theory.There are certain populations in Europe whose unbelief is only equalled bytheir ignorance and their debasem*nt, whilst in America one of the freest andmost enlightened nations in the world fulfils all the outward duties ofreligious fervor.

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country wasthe first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there themore did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this stateof things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen thespirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametricallyopposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united,and that they reigned in common over the same country. My desire to discoverthe causes of this phenomenon increased from day to day. In order to satisfy itI questioned the members of all the different sects; and I more especiallysought the society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of the differentpersuasions, and who are more especially interested in their duration. As amember of the Roman Catholic Church I was more particularly brought intocontact with several of its priests, with whom I became intimately acquainted.To each of these men I expressed my astonishment and I explained my doubts; Ifound that they differed upon matters of detail alone; and that they mainlyattributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country to the separationof Church and State. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in AmericaI did not meet with a single individual, of the clergy or of the laity, who wasnot of the same opinion upon this point.

This led me to examine more attentively than I had hitherto done, the stationwhich the American clergy occupy in political society. I learned with surprisethat they filled no public appointments; *f not one of them is to be met within the administration, and they are not even represented in the legislativeassemblies. In several States *g the law excludes them from political life,public opinion in all. And when I came to inquire into the prevailing spirit ofthe clergy I found that most of its members seemed to retire of their ownaccord from the exercise of power, and that they made it the pride of theirprofession to abstain from politics.

f
[ Unless this term be applied to the functions which many of them fill in theschools. Almost all education is entrusted to the clergy.]

g
[ See the Constitution of New York, art. 7, Section 4:— “Andwhereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to theservice of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from thegreat duties of their functions: therefore no minister of the gospel, or priestof any denomination whatsoever, shall at any time hereafter, under any pretenceor description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil ormilitary office or place within this State.”

See also the constitutions of North Carolina, art. 31; Virginia; SouthCarolina, art. I, Section 23; Kentucky, art. 2, Section 26; Tennessee, art. 8,Section I; Louisiana, art. 2, Section 22.]

I heard them inveigh against ambition and deceit, under whatever politicalopinions these vices might chance to lurk; but I learned from their discoursesthat men are not guilty in the eye of God for any opinions concerning politicalgovernment which they may profess with sincerity, any more than they are fortheir mistakes in building a house or in driving a furrow. I perceived thatthese ministers of the gospel eschewed all parties with the anxiety attendantupon personal interest. These facts convinced me that what I had been told wastrue; and it then became my object to investigate their causes, and to inquirehow it happened that the real authority of religion was increased by a state ofthings which diminished its apparent force: these causes did not long escape myresearches.

The short space of threescore years can never content the imagination of man;nor can the imperfect joys of this world satisfy his heart. Man alone, of allcreated beings, displays a natural contempt of existence, and yet a boundlessdesire to exist; he scorns life, but he dreads annihilation. These differentfeelings incessantly urge his soul to the contemplation of a future state, andreligion directs his musings thither. Religion, then, is simply another form ofhope; and it is no less natural to the human heart than hope itself. Men cannotabandon their religious faith without a kind of aberration of intellect, and asort of violent distortion of their true natures; but they are invinciblybrought back to more pious sentiments; for unbelief is an accident, and faithis the only permanent state of mankind. If we only consider religiousinstitutions in a purely human point of view, they may be said to derive aninexhaustible element of strength from man himself, since they belong to one ofthe constituent principles of human nature.

I am aware that at certain times religion may strengthen this influence, whichoriginates in itself, by the artificial power of the laws, and by the supportof those temporal institutions which direct society. Religions, intimatelyunited to the governments of the earth, have been known to exercise a sovereignauthority derived from the twofold source of terror and of faith; but when areligion contracts an alliance of this nature, I do not hesitate to affirm thatit commits the same error as a man who should sacrifice his future to hispresent welfare; and in obtaining a power to which it has no claim, it risksthat authority which is rightfully its own. When a religion founds its empireupon the desire of immortality which lives in every human heart, it may aspireto universal dominion; but when it connects itself with a government, it mustnecessarily adopt maxims which are only applicable to certain nations. Thus, informing an alliance with a political power, religion augments its authorityover a few, and forfeits the hope of reigning over all.

As long as a religion rests upon those sentiments which are the consolation ofall affliction, it may attract the affections of mankind. But if it be mixed upwith the bitter passions of the world, it may be constrained to defend allieswhom its interests, and not the principle of love, have given to it; or torepel as antagonists men who are still attached to its own spirit, howeveropposed they may be to the powers to which it is allied. The Church cannotshare the temporal power of the State without being the object of a portion ofthat animosity which the latter excites.

The political powers which seem to be most firmly established have frequentlyno better guarantee for their duration than the opinions of a generation, theinterests of the time, or the life of an individual. A law may modify thesocial condition which seems to be most fixed and determinate; and with thesocial condition everything else must change. The powers of society are more orless fugitive, like the years which we spend upon the earth; they succeed eachother with rapidity, like the fleeting cares of life; and no government hasever yet been founded upon an invariable disposition of the human heart, orupon an imperishable interest.

As long as a religion is sustained by those feelings, propensities, andpassions which are found to occur under the same forms, at all the differentperiods of history, it may defy the efforts of time; or at least it can only bedestroyed by another religion. But when religion clings to the interests of theworld, it becomes almost as fragile a thing as the powers of earth. It is theonly one of them all which can hope for immortality; but if it be connectedwith their ephemeral authority, it shares their fortunes, and may fall withthose transient passions which supported them for a day. The alliance whichreligion contracts with political powers must needs be onerous to itself; sinceit does not require their assistance to live, and by giving them its assistanceit may be exposed to decay.

The danger which I have just pointed out always exists, but it is not alwaysequally visible. In some ages governments seem to be imperishable; in others,the existence of society appears to be more precarious than the life of man.Some constitutions plunge the citizens into a lethargic somnolence, and othersrouse them to feverish excitement. When governments appear to be so strong, andlaws so stable, men do not perceive the dangers which may accrue from a unionof Church and State. When governments display so much weakness, and laws somuch inconstancy, the danger is self-evident, but it is no longer possible toavoid it; to be effectual, measures must be taken to discover its approach.

In proportion as a nation assumes a democratic condition of society, and ascommunities display democratic propensities, it becomes more and more dangerousto connect religion with political institutions; for the time is coming whenauthority will be bandied from hand to hand, when political theories willsucceed each other, and when men, laws, and constitutions will disappear, or bemodified from day to day, and this, not for a season only, but unceasingly.Agitation and mutability are inherent in the nature of democratic republics,just as stagnation and inertness are the law of absolute monarchies.

If the Americans, who change the head of the Government once in four years, whoelect new legislators every two years, and renew the provincial officers everytwelvemonth; if the Americans, who have abandoned the political world to theattempts of innovators, had not placed religion beyond their reach, where couldit abide in the ebb and flow of human opinions? where would that respect whichbelongs to it be paid, amidst the struggles of faction? and what would becomeof its immortality, in the midst of perpetual decay? The American clergy werethe first to perceive this truth, and to act in conformity with it. They sawthat they must renounce their religious influence, if they were to strive forpolitical power; and they chose to give up the support of the State, ratherthan to share its vicissitudes.

In America, religion is perhaps less powerful than it has been at certainperiods in the history of certain peoples; but its influence is more lasting.It restricts itself to its own resources, but of those none can deprive it: itscircle is limited to certain principles, but those principles are entirely itsown, and under its undisputed control.

On every side in Europe we hear voices complaining of the absence of religiousfaith, and inquiring the means of restoring to religion some remnant of itspristine authority. It seems to me that we must first attentively consider whatought to be the natural state of men with regard to religion at the presenttime; and when we know what we have to hope and to fear, we may discern the endto which our efforts ought to be directed.

The two great dangers which threaten the existence of religions are schism andindifference. In ages of fervent devotion, men sometimes abandon theirreligion, but they only shake it off in order to adopt another. Their faithchanges the objects to which it is directed, but it suffers no decline. The oldreligion then excites enthusiastic attachment or bitter enmity in either party;some leave it with anger, others cling to it with increased devotedness, andalthough persuasions differ, irreligion is unknown. Such, however, is not thecase when a religious belief is secretly undermined by doctrines which may betermed negative, since they deny the truth of one religion without affirmingthat of any other. Prodigious revolutions then take place in the human mind,without the apparent co-operation of the passions of man, and almost withouthis knowledge. Men lose the objects of their fondest hopes, as if throughforgetfulness. They are carried away by an imperceptible current which theyhave not the courage to stem, but which they follow with regret, since it bearsthem from a faith they love, to a scepticism that plunges them into despair.

In ages which answer to this description, men desert their religious opinionsfrom lukewarmness rather than from dislike; they do not reject them, but thesentiments by which they were once fostered disappear. But if the unbelieverdoes not admit religion to be true, he still considers it useful. Regardingreligious institutions in a human point of view, he acknowledges theirinfluence upon manners and legislation. He admits that they may serve to makemen live in peace with one another, and to prepare them gently for the hour ofdeath. He regrets the faith which he has lost; and as he is deprived of atreasure which he has learned to estimate at its full value, he scruples totake it from those who still possess it.

On the other hand, those who continue to believe are not afraid openly to avowtheir faith. They look upon those who do not share their persuasion as moreworthy of pity than of opposition; and they are aware that to acquire theesteem of the unbelieving, they are not obliged to follow their example. Theyare hostile to no one in the world; and as they do not consider the society inwhich they live as an arena in which religion is bound to face its thousanddeadly foes, they love their contemporaries, whilst they condemn theirweaknesses and lament their errors.

As those who do not believe, conceal their incredulity; and as those whobelieve, display their faith, public opinion pronounces itself in favor ofreligion: love, support, and honor are bestowed upon it, and it is only bysearching the human soul that we can detect the wounds which it has received.The mass of mankind, who are never without the feeling of religion, do notperceive anything at variance with the established faith. The instinctivedesire of a future life brings the crowd about the altar, and opens the heartsof men to the precepts and consolations of religion.

But this picture is not applicable to us: for there are men amongst us who haveceased to believe in Christianity, without adopting any other religion; otherswho are in the perplexities of doubt, and who already affect not to believe;and others, again, who are afraid to avow that Christian faith which they stillcherish in secret.

Amidst these lukewarm partisans and ardent antagonists a small number ofbelievers exist, who are ready to brave all obstacles and to scorn all dangersin defence of their faith. They have done violence to human weakness, in orderto rise superior to public opinion. Excited by the effort they have made, theyscarcely knew where to stop; and as they know that the first use which theFrench made of independence was to attack religion, they look upon theircontemporaries with dread, and they recoil in alarm from the liberty whichtheir fellow-citizens are seeking to obtain. As unbelief appears to them to bea novelty, they comprise all that is new in one indiscriminate animosity. Theyare at war with their age and country, and they look upon every opinion whichis put forth there as the necessary enemy of the faith.

Such is not the natural state of men with regard to religion at the presentday; and some extraordinary or incidental cause must be at work in France toprevent the human mind from following its original propensities and to drive itbeyond the limits at which it ought naturally to stop. I am intimatelyconvinced that this extraordinary and incidental cause is the close connectionof politics and religion. The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians astheir political opponents, rather than as their religious adversaries; theyhate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party, much more than as anerror of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are therepresentatives of the Divinity than because they are the allies of authority.

In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers of the earth.Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buried under their ruins.The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse ofsuperannuated polity: cut but the bonds which restrain it, and that which isalive will rise once more. I know not what could restore the Christian Churchof Europe to the energy of its earlier days; that power belongs to God alone;but it may be the effect of human policy to leave the faith in the fullexercise of the strength which it still retains.

How The Instruction, The Habits, And The Practical Experience Of The AmericansPromote The Success Of Their Democratic Institutions

What is to be understood by the instruction of the American people—Thehuman mind more superficially instructed in the United States than inEurope—No one completely uninstructed—Reason of this—Rapiditywith which opinions are diffused even in the uncultivated States of theWest—Practical experience more serviceable to the Americans thanbook-learning.

I have but little to add to what I have already said concerning the influencewhich the instruction and the habits of the Americans exercise upon themaintenance of their political institutions.

America has hitherto produced very few writers of distinction; it possesses nogreat historians, and not a single eminent poet. The inhabitants of thatcountry look upon what are properly styled literary pursuits with a kind ofdisapprobation; and there are towns of very second-rate importance in Europe inwhich more literary works are annually published than in the twenty-four Statesof the Union put together. The spirit of the Americans is averse to generalideas; and it does not seek theoretical discoveries. Neither politics normanufactures direct them to these occupations; and although new laws areperpetually enacted in the United States, no great writers have hithertoinquired into the general principles of their legislation. The Americans havelawyers and commentators, but no jurists; *h and they furnish examples ratherthan lessons to the world. The same observation applies to the mechanical arts.In America, the inventions of Europe are adopted with sagacity; they areperfected, and adapted with admirable skill to the wants of the country.Manufactures exist, but the science of manufacture is not cultivated; and theyhave good workmen, but very few inventors. Fulton was obliged to proffer hisservices to foreign nations for a long time before he was able to devote themto his own country.

h
[ [This cannot be said with truth of the country of Kent, Story, and Wheaton.]]

The observer who is desirous of forming an opinion on the state of instructionamongst the Anglo-Americans must consider the same object from two differentpoints of view. If he only singles out the learned, he will be astonished tofind how rare they are; but if he counts the ignorant, the American people willappear to be the most enlightened community in the world. The whole population,as I observed in another place, is situated between these two extremes. In NewEngland, every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; heis moreover taught the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the historyof his country, and the leading features of its Constitution. In the States ofConnecticut and Massachusetts, it is extremely rare to find a man imperfectlyacquainted with all these things, and a person wholly ignorant of them is asort of phenomenon.

When I compare the Greek and Roman republics with these American States; themanuscript libraries of the former, and their rude population, with theinnumerable journals and the enlightened people of the latter; when I rememberall the attempts which are made to judge the modern republics by the assistanceof those of antiquity, and to infer what will happen in our time from what tookplace two thousand years ago, I am tempted to burn my books, in order to applynone but novel ideas to so novel a condition of society.

What I have said of New England must not, however, be applied indistinctly tothe whole Union; as we advance towards the West or the South, the instructionof the people diminishes. In the States which are adjacent to the Gulf ofMexico, a certain number of individuals may be found, as in our own countries,who are devoid of the rudiments of instruction. But there is not a singledistrict in the United States sunk in complete ignorance; and for a very simplereason: the peoples of Europe started from the darkness of a barbarouscondition, to advance toward the light of civilization; their progress has beenunequal; some of them have improved apace, whilst others have loitered in theircourse, and some have stopped, and are still sleeping upon the way. *i

i
[ [In the Northern States the number of persons destitute of instruction isinconsiderable, the largest number being 241,152 in the State of New York(according to Spaulding’s “Handbook of American Statistics”for 1874); but in the South no less than 1,516,339 whites and 2,671,396 coloredpersons are returned as “illiterate.”]]

Such has not been the case in the United States. The Anglo-Americans settled ina state of civilization, upon that territory which their descendants occupy;they had not to begin to learn, and it was sufficient for them not to forget.Now the children of these same Americans are the persons who, year by year,transport their dwellings into the wilds; and with their dwellings theiracquired information and their esteem for knowledge. Education has taught themthe utility of instruction, and has enabled them to transmit that instructionto their posterity. In the United States society has no infancy, but it is bornin man’s estate.

The Americans never use the word “peasant,” because they have noidea of the peculiar class which that term denotes; the ignorance of moreremote ages, the simplicity of rural life, and the rusticity of the villagerhave not been preserved amongst them; and they are alike unacquainted with thevirtues, the vices, the coarse habits, and the simple graces of an early stageof civilization. At the extreme borders of the Confederate States, upon theconfines of society and of the wilderness, a population of bold adventurershave taken up their abode, who pierce the solitudes of the American woods, andseek a country there, in order to escape that poverty which awaited them intheir native provinces. As soon as the pioneer arrives upon the spot which isto serve him for a retreat, he fells a few trees and builds a loghouse. Nothingcan offer a more miserable aspect than these isolated dwellings. The travellerwho approaches one of them towards nightfall, sees the flicker of thehearth-flame through the chinks in the walls; and at night, if the wind rises,he hears the roof of boughs shake to and fro in the midst of the great foresttrees. Who would not suppose that this poor hut is the asylum of rudeness andignorance? Yet no sort of comparison can be drawn between the pioneer and thedwelling which shelters him. Everything about him is primitive and unformed,but he is himself the result of the labor and the experience of eighteencenturies. He wears the dress, and he speaks the language of cities; he isacquainted with the past, curious of the future, and ready for argument uponthe present; he is, in short, a highly civilized being, who consents, for atime, to inhabit the backwoods, and who penetrates into the wilds of the NewWorld with the Bible, an axe, and a file of newspapers.

It is difficult to imagine the incredible rapidity with which public opinioncirculates in the midst of these deserts. *j I do not think that so muchintellectual intercourse takes place in the most enlightened and populousdistricts of France. *k It cannot be doubted that, in the United States, theinstruction of the people powerfully contributes to the support of a democraticrepublic; and such must always be the case, I believe, where instruction whichawakens the understanding is not separated from moral education which amendsthe heart. But I by no means exaggerate this benefit, and I am still furtherfrom thinking, as so many people do think in Europe, that men can beinstantaneously made citizens by teaching them to read and write. Trueinformation is mainly derived from experience; and if the Americans had notbeen gradually accustomed to govern themselves, their book-learning would notassist them much at the present day.

j
[ I travelled along a portion of the frontier of the United States in a sort ofcart which was termed the mail. We passed, day and night, with great rapidityalong the roads which were scarcely marked out, through immense forests; whenthe gloom of the woods became impenetrable the coachman lighted branches offir, and we journeyed along by the light they cast. From time to time we cameto a hut in the midst of the forest, which was a post-office. The mail droppedan enormous bundle of letters at the door of this isolated dwelling, and wepursued our way at full gallop, leaving the inhabitants of the neighboring loghouses to send for their share of the treasure.

[When the author visited America the locomotive and the railroad were scarcelyinvented, and not yet introduced in the United States. It is superfluous topoint out the immense effect of those inventions in extending civilization anddeveloping the resources of that vast continent. In 1831 there were 51 miles ofrailway in the United States; in 1872 there were 60,000 miles of railway.]]

k
[ In 1832 each inhabitant of Michigan paid a sum equivalent to 1 fr. 22 cent.(French money) to the post-office revenue, and each inhabitant of the Floridaspaid 1 fr. 5 cent. (See “National Calendar,” 1833, p. 244.) In thesame year each inhabitant of the Departement du Nord paid 1 fr. 4 cent. to therevenue of the French post-office. (See the “Compte rendu del’administration des Finances,” 1833, p. 623.) Now the State ofMichigan only contained at that time 7 inhabitants per square league andFlorida only 5: the public instruction and the commercial activity of thesedistricts is inferior to that of most of the States in the Union, whilst theDepartement du Nord, which contains 3,400 inhabitants per square league, is oneof the most enlightened and manufacturing parts of France.]

I have lived a great deal with the people in the United States, and I cannotexpress how much I admire their experience and their good sense. An Americanshould never be allowed to speak of Europe; for he will then probably display avast deal of presumption and very foolish pride. He will take up with thosecrude and vague notions which are so useful to the ignorant all over the world.But if you question him respecting his own country, the cloud which dimmed hisintelligence will immediately disperse; his language will become as clear andas precise as his thoughts. He will inform you what his rights are, and by whatmeans he exercises them; he will be able to point out the customs which obtainin the political world. You will find that he is well acquainted with the rulesof the administration, and that he is familiar with the mechanism of the laws.The citizen of the United States does not acquire his practical science and hispositive notions from books; the instruction he has acquired may have preparedhim for receiving those ideas, but it did not furnish them. The American learnsto know the laws by participating in the act of legislation; and he takes alesson in the forms of government from governing. The great work of society isever going on beneath his eyes, and, as it were, under his hands.

In the United States politics are the end and aim of education; in Europe itsprincipal object is to fit men for private life. The interference of thecitizens in public affairs is too rare an occurrence for it to be anticipatedbeforehand. Upon casting a glance over society in the two hemispheres, thesedifferences are indicated even by its external aspect.

In Europe we frequently introduce the ideas and the habits of private life intopublic affairs; and as we pass at once from the domestic circle to thegovernment of the State, we may frequently be heard to discuss the greatinterests of society in the same manner in which we converse with our friends.The Americans, on the other hand, transfuse the habits of public life intotheir manners in private; and in their country the jury is introduced into thegames of schoolboys, and parliamentary forms are observed in the order of afeast.

Chapter XVII: PrincipalCauses Maintaining The Democratic Republic—Part IV

The Laws Contribute More To The Maintenance Of The Democratic Republic In TheUnited States Than The Physical Circ*mstances Of The Country, And The MannersMore Than The Laws

All the nations of America have a democratic state of society—Yetdemocratic institutions only subsist amongst the Anglo-Americans—TheSpaniards of South America, equally favored by physical causes as theAnglo-Americans, unable to maintain a democratic republic—Mexico, whichhas adopted the Constitution of the United States, in the samepredicament—The Anglo-Americans of the West less able to maintain it thanthose of the East—Reason of these different results.

I have remarked that the maintenance of democratic institutions in the UnitedStates is attributable to the circ*mstances, the laws, and the manners of thatcountry. *l Most Europeans are only acquainted with the first of these threecauses, and they are apt to give it a preponderating importance which it doesnot really possess.

l
[ I remind the reader of the general signification which I give to the word“manners,” namely, the moral and intellectual characteristics ofsocial man taken collectively.]

It is true that the Anglo-Saxons settled in the New World in a state of socialequality; the low-born and the noble were not to be found amongst them; andprofessional prejudices were always as entirely unknown as the prejudices ofbirth. Thus, as the condition of society was democratic, the empire ofdemocracy was established without difficulty. But this circ*mstance is by nomeans peculiar to the United States; almost all the trans-Atlantic colonieswere founded by men equal amongst themselves, or who became so by inhabitingthem. In no one part of the New World have Europeans been able to create anaristocracy. Nevertheless, democratic institutions prosper nowhere but in theUnited States.

The American Union has no enemies to contend with; it stands in the wilds likean island in the ocean. But the Spaniards of South America were no lessisolated by nature; yet their position has not relieved them from the charge ofstanding armies. They make war upon each other when they have no foreignenemies to oppose; and the Anglo-American democracy is the only one which hash*therto been able to maintain itself in peace. *m

m
[ [A remark which, since the great Civil War of 1861-65, ceases to beapplicable.]]

The territory of the Union presents a boundless field to human activity, andinexhaustible materials for industry and labor. The passion of wealth takes theplace of ambition, and the warmth of faction is mitigated by a sense ofprosperity. But in what portion of the globe shall we meet with more fertileplains, with mightier rivers, or with more unexplored and inexhaustible richesthan in South America?

Nevertheless, South America has been unable to maintain democraticinstitutions. If the welfare of nations depended on their being placed in aremote position, with an unbounded space of habitable territory before them,the Spaniards of South America would have no reason to complain of their fate.And although they might enjoy less prosperity than the inhabitants of theUnited States, their lot might still be such as to excite the envy of somenations in Europe. There are, however, no nations upon the face of the earthmore miserable than those of South America.

Thus, not only are physical causes inadequate to produce results analogous tothose which occur in North America, but they are unable to raise the populationof South America above the level of European States, where they act in acontrary direction. Physical causes do not, therefore, affect the destiny ofnations so much as has been supposed.

I have met with men in New England who were on the point of leaving a country,where they might have remained in easy circ*mstances, to go to seek theirfortune in the wilds. Not far from that district I found a French population inCanada, which was closely crowded on a narrow territory, although the samewilds were at hand; and whilst the emigrant from the United States purchased anextensive estate with the earnings of a short term of labor, the Canadian paidas much for land as he would have done in France. Nature offers the solitudesof the New World to Europeans; but they are not always acquainted with themeans of turning her gifts to account. Other peoples of America have the samephysical conditions of prosperity as the Anglo-Americans, but without theirlaws and their manners; and these peoples are wretched. The laws and manners ofthe Anglo-Americans are therefore that efficient cause of their greatness whichis the object of my inquiry.

I am far from supposing that the American laws are preeminently good inthemselves; I do not hold them to be applicable to all democratic peoples; andseveral of them seem to be dangerous, even in the United States. Nevertheless,it cannot be denied that the American legislation, taken collectively, isextremely well adapted to the genius of the people and the nature of thecountry which it is intended to govern. The American laws are therefore good,and to them must be attributed a large portion of the success which attends thegovernment of democracy in America: but I do not believe them to be theprincipal cause of that success; and if they seem to me to have more influenceupon the social happiness of the Americans than the nature of the country, onthe other hand there is reason to believe that their effect is still inferiorto that produced by the manners of the people.

The Federal laws undoubtedly constitute the most important part of thelegislation of the United States. Mexico, which is not less fortunatelysituated than the Anglo-American Union, has adopted the same laws, but isunable to accustom itself to the government of democracy. Some other cause istherefore at work, independently of those physical circ*mstances and peculiarlaws which enable the democracy to rule in the United States.

Another still more striking proof may be adduced. Almost all the inhabitants ofthe territory of the Union are the descendants of a common stock; they speakthe same language, they worship God in the same manner, they are affected bythe same physical causes, and they obey the same laws. Whence, then, do theircharacteristic differences arise? Why, in the Eastern States of the Union, doesthe republican government display vigor and regularity, and proceed with maturedeliberation? Whence does it derive the wisdom and the durability which markits acts, whilst in the Western States, on the contrary, society seems to beruled by the powers of chance? There, public business is conducted with anirregularity and a passionate and feverish excitement, which does not announcea long or sure duration.

I am no longer comparing the Anglo-American States to foreign nations; but I amcontrasting them with each other, and endeavoring to discover why they are sounlike. The arguments which are derived from the nature of the country and thedifference of legislation are here all set aside. Recourse must be had to someother cause; and what other cause can there be except the manners of thepeople?

It is in the Eastern States that the Anglo-Americans have been longestaccustomed to the government of democracy, and that they have adopted thehabits and conceived the notions most favorable to its maintenance. Democracyhas gradually penetrated into their customs, their opinions, and the forms ofsocial intercourse; it is to be found in all the details of daily life equallyas in the laws. In the Eastern States the instruction and practical educationof the people have been most perfected, and religion has been most thoroughlyamalgamated with liberty. Now these habits, opinions, customs, and convictionsare precisely the constituent elements of that which I have denominatedmanners.

In the Western States, on the contrary, a portion of the same advantages isstill wanting. Many of the Americans of the West were born in the woods, andthey mix the ideas and the customs of savage life with the civilization oftheir parents. Their passions are more intense; their religious morality lessauthoritative; and their convictions less secure. The inhabitants exercise nosort of control over their fellow-citizens, for they are scarcely acquaintedwith each other. The nations of the West display, to a certain extent, theinexperience and the rude habits of a people in its infancy; for although theyare composed of old elements, their assemblage is of recent date.

The manners of the Americans of the United States are, then, the real causewhich renders that people the only one of the American nations that is able tosupport a democratic government; and it is the influence of manners whichproduces the different degrees of order and of prosperity that may bedistinguished in the several Anglo-American democracies. Thus the effect whichthe geographical position of a country may have upon the duration of democraticinstitutions is exaggerated in Europe. Too much importance is attributed tolegislation, too little to manners. These three great causes serve, no doubt,to regulate and direct the American democracy; but if they were to be classedin their proper order, I should say that the physical circ*mstances are lessefficient than the laws, and the laws very subordinate to the manners of thepeople. I am convinced that the most advantageous situation and the bestpossible laws cannot maintain a constitution in spite of the manners of acountry; whilst the latter may turn the most unfavorable positions and theworst laws to some advantage. The importance of manners is a common truth towhich study and experience incessantly direct our attention. It may be regardedas a central point in the range of human observation, and the commontermination of all inquiry. So seriously do I insist upon this head, that if Ihave hitherto failed in making the reader feel the important influence which Iattribute to the practical experience, the habits, the opinions, in short, tothe manners of the Americans, upon the maintenance of their institutions, Ihave failed in the principal object of my work.

Whether Laws And Manners Are Sufficient To Maintain Democratic Institutions InOther Countries Besides America

The Anglo-Americans, if transported into Europe, would be obliged to modifytheir laws—Distinction to be made between democratic institutions andAmerican institutions—Democratic laws may be conceived better than, or atleast different from, those which the American democracy has adopted—Theexample of America only proves that it is possible to regulate democracy by theassistance of manners and legislation.

I have asserted that the success of democratic institutions in the UnitedStates is more intimately connected with the laws themselves, and the mannersof the people, than with the nature of the country. But does it follow that thesame causes would of themselves produce the same results, if they were put intooperation elsewhere; and if the country is no adequate substitute for laws andmanners, can laws and manners in their turn prove a substitute for the country?It will readily be understood that the necessary elements of a reply to thisquestion are wanting: other peoples are to be found in the New World besidesthe Anglo-Americans, and as these people are affected by the same physicalcirc*mstances as the latter, they may fairly be compared together. But thereare no nations out of America which have adopted the same laws and manners,being destitute of the physical advantages peculiar to the Anglo-Americans. Nostandard of comparison therefore exists, and we can only hazard an opinion uponthis subject.

It appears to me, in the first place, that a careful distinction must be madebetween the institutions of the United States and democratic institutions ingeneral. When I reflect upon the state of Europe, its mighty nations, itspopulous cities, its formidable armies, and the complex nature of its politics,I cannot suppose that even the Anglo-Americans, if they were transported to ourhemisphere, with their ideas, their religion, and their manners, could existwithout considerably altering their laws. But a democratic nation may beimagined, organized differently from the American people. It is not impossibleto conceive a government really established upon the will of the majority; butin which the majority, repressing its natural propensity to equality, shouldconsent, with a view to the order and the stability of the State, to invest afamily or an individual with all the prerogatives of the executive. Ademocratic society might exist, in which the forces of the nation would be morecentralized than they are in the United States; the people would exercise aless direct and less irresistible influence upon public affairs, and yet everycitizen invested with certain rights would participate, within his sphere, inthe conduct of the government. The observations I made amongst theAnglo-Americans induce me to believe that democratic institutions of this kind,prudently introduced into society, so as gradually to mix with the habits andto be interfused with the opinions of the people, might subsist in othercountries besides America. If the laws of the United States were the onlyimaginable democratic laws, or the most perfect which it is possible toconceive, I should admit that the success of those institutions affords noproof of the success of democratic institutions in general, in a country lessfavored by natural circ*mstances. But as the laws of America appear to me to bedefective in several respects, and as I can readily imagine others of the samegeneral nature, the peculiar advantages of that country do not prove thatdemocratic institutions cannot succeed in a nation less favored bycirc*mstances, if ruled by better laws.

If human nature were different in America from what it is elsewhere; or if thesocial condition of the Americans engendered habits and opinions amongst themdifferent from those which originate in the same social condition in the OldWorld, the American democracies would afford no means of predicting what mayoccur in other democracies. If the Americans displayed the same propensities asall other democratic nations, and if their legislators had relied upon thenature of the country and the favor of circ*mstances to restrain thosepropensities within due limits, the prosperity of the United States would beexclusively attributable to physical causes, and it would afford noencouragement to a people inclined to imitate their example, without sharingtheir natural advantages. But neither of these suppositions is borne out byfacts.

In America the same passions are to be met with as in Europe; some originatingin human nature, others in the democratic condition of society. Thus in theUnited States I found that restlessness of heart which is natural to men, whenall ranks are nearly equal and the chances of elevation are the same to all. Ifound the democratic feeling of envy expressed under a thousand differentforms. I remarked that the people frequently displayed, in the conduct ofaffairs, a consummate mixture of ignorance and presumption; and I inferred thatin America, men are liable to the same failings and the same absurdities asamongst ourselves. But upon examining the state of society more attentively, Ispeedily discovered that the Americans had made great and successful efforts tocounteract these imperfections of human nature, and to correct the naturaldefects of democracy. Their divers municipal laws appeared to me to be a meansof restraining the ambition of the citizens within a narrow sphere, and ofturning those same passions which might have worked havoc in the State, to thegood of the township or the parish. The American legislators have succeeded toa certain extent in opposing the notion of rights to the feelings of envy; thepermanence of the religious world to the continual shifting of politics; theexperience of the people to its theoretical ignorance; and its practicalknowledge of business to the impatience of its desires.

The Americans, then, have not relied upon the nature of their country tocounterpoise those dangers which originate in their Constitution and in theirpolitical laws. To evils which are common to all democratic peoples they haveapplied remedies which none but themselves had ever thought of before; andalthough they were the first to make the experiment, they have succeeded in it.

The manners and laws of the Americans are not the only ones which may suit ademocratic people; but the Americans have shown that it would be wrong todespair of regulating democracy by the aid of manners and of laws. If othernations should borrow this general and pregnant idea from the Americans,without however intending to imitate them in the peculiar application whichthey have made of it; if they should attempt to fit themselves for that socialcondition, which it seems to be the will of Providence to impose upon thegenerations of this age, and so to escape from the despotism or the anarchywhich threatens them; what reason is there to suppose that their efforts wouldnot be crowned with success? The organization and the establishment ofdemocracy in Christendom is the great political problem of the time. TheAmericans, unquestionably, have not resolved this problem, but they furnishuseful data to those who undertake the task.

Importance Of What Precedes With Respect To The State Of Europe

It may readily be discovered with what intention I undertook the foregoinginquiries. The question here discussed is interesting not only to the UnitedStates, but to the whole world; it concerns, not a nation, but all mankind. Ifthose nations whose social condition is democratic could only remain free aslong as they are inhabitants of the wilds, we could not but despair of thefuture destiny of the human race; for democracy is rapidly acquiring a moreextended sway, and the wilds are gradually peopled with men. If it were truethat laws and manners are insufficient to maintain democratic institutions,what refuge would remain open to the nations, except the despotism of a singleindividual? I am aware that there are many worthy persons at the present timewho are not alarmed at this latter alternative, and who are so tired of libertyas to be glad of repose, far from those storms by which it is attended. Butthese individuals are ill acquainted with the haven towards which they arebound. They are so deluded by their recollections, as to judge the tendency ofabsolute power by what it was formerly, and not by what it might become at thepresent time.

If absolute power were re-established amongst the democratic nations of Europe,I am persuaded that it would assume a new form, and appear under featuresunknown to our forefathers. There was a time in Europe when the laws and theconsent of the people had invested princes with almost unlimited authority; butthey scarcely ever availed themselves of it. I do not speak of the prerogativesof the nobility, of the authority of supreme courts of justice, of corporationsand their chartered rights, or of provincial privileges, which served to breakthe blows of the sovereign authority, and to maintain a spirit of resistance inthe nation. Independently of these political institutions—which, howeveropposed they might be to personal liberty, served to keep alive the love offreedom in the mind of the public, and which may be esteemed to have beenuseful in this respect—the manners and opinions of the nation confinedthe royal authority within barriers which were not less powerful, although theywere less conspicuous. Religion, the affections of the people, the benevolenceof the prince, the sense of honor, family pride, provincial prejudices, custom,and public opinion limited the power of kings, and restrained their authoritywithin an invisible circle. The constitution of nations was despotic at thattime, but their manners were free. Princes had the right, but they had neitherthe means nor the desire, of doing whatever they pleased.

But what now remains of those barriers which formerly arrested the aggressionsof tyranny? Since religion has lost its empire over the souls of men, the mostprominent boundary which divided good from evil is overthrown; the veryelements of the moral world are indeterminate; the princes and the peoples ofthe earth are guided by chance, and none can define the natural limits ofdespotism and the bounds of license. Long revolutions have forever destroyedthe respect which surrounded the rulers of the State; and since they have beenrelieved from the burden of public esteem, princes may henceforward surrenderthemselves without fear to the seductions of arbitrary power.

When kings find that the hearts of their subjects are turned towards them, theyare clement, because they are conscious of their strength, and they are charyof the affection of their people, because the affection of their people is thebulwark of the throne. A mutual interchange of good-will then takes placebetween the prince and the people, which resembles the gracious intercourse ofdomestic society. The subjects may murmur at the sovereign’s decree, butthey are grieved to displease him; and the sovereign chastises his subjectswith the light hand of parental affection.

But when once the spell of royalty is broken in the tumult of revolution; whensuccessive monarchs have crossed the throne, so as alternately to display tothe people the weakness of their right and the harshness of their power, thesovereign is no longer regarded by any as the Father of the State, and he isfeared by all as its master. If he be weak, he is despised; if he be strong, heis detested. He himself is full of animosity and alarm; he finds that he is asa stranger in his own country, and he treats his subjects like conqueredenemies.

When the provinces and the towns formed so many different nations in the midstof their common country, each of them had a will of its own, which was opposedto the general spirit of subjection; but now that all the parts of the sameempire, after having lost their immunities, their customs, their prejudices,their traditions, and their names, are subjected and accustomed to the samelaws, it is not more difficult to oppress them collectively than it wasformerly to oppress them singly.

Whilst the nobles enjoyed their power, and indeed long after that power waslost, the honor of aristocracy conferred an extraordinary degree of force upontheir personal opposition. They afford instances of men who, notwithstandingtheir weakness, still entertained a high opinion of their personal value, anddared to cope single-handed with the efforts of the public authority. But atthe present day, when all ranks are more and more confounded, when theindividual disappears in the throng, and is easily lost in the midst of acommon obscurity, when the honor of monarchy has almost lost its empire withoutbeing succeeded by public virtue, and when nothing can enable man to rise abovehimself, who shall say at what point the exigencies of power and the servilityof weakness will stop?

As long as family feeling was kept alive, the antagonist of oppression wasnever alone; he looked about him, and found his clients, his hereditaryfriends, and his kinsfolk. If this support was wanting, he was sustained by hisancestors and animated by his posterity. But when patrimonial estates aredivided, and when a few years suffice to confound the distinctions of a race,where can family feeling be found? What force can there be in the customs of acountry which has changed and is still perpetually changing its aspect; inwhich every act of tyranny has a precedent, and every crime an example; inwhich there is nothing so old that its antiquity can save it from destruction,and nothing so unparalleled that its novelty can prevent it from being done?What resistance can be offered by manners of so pliant a make that they havealready often yielded? What strength can even public opinion have retained,when no twenty persons are connected by a common tie; when not a man, nor afamily, nor chartered corporation, nor class, nor free institution, has thepower of representing or exerting that opinion; and when everycitizen—being equally weak, equally poor, and equally dependent—hasonly his personal impotence to oppose to the organized force of the government?

The annals of France furnish nothing analogous to the condition in which thatcountry might then be thrown. But it may more aptly be assimilated to the timesof old, and to those hideous eras of Roman oppression, when the manners of thepeople were corrupted, their traditions obliterated, their habits destroyed,their opinions shaken, and freedom, expelled from the laws, could find norefuge in the land; when nothing protected the citizens, and the citizens nolonger protected themselves; when human nature was the sport of man, andprinces wearied out the clemency of Heaven before they exhausted the patienceof their subjects. Those who hope to revive the monarchy of Henry IV or ofLouis XIV, appear to me to be afflicted with mental blindness; and when Iconsider the present condition of several European nations—a condition towhich all the others tend—I am led to believe that they will soon be leftwith no other alternative than democratic liberty, or the tyranny of theCaesars. *n

n
[ [This prediction of the return of France to imperial despotism, and of thetrue character of that despotic power, was written in 1832, and realized to theletter in 1852.]]

And indeed it is deserving of consideration, whether men are to be entirelyemancipated or entirely enslaved; whether their rights are to be made equal, orwholly taken away from them. If the rulers of society were reduced eithergradually to raise the crowd to their own level, or to sink the citizens belowthat of humanity, would not the doubts of many be resolved, the consciences ofmany be healed, and the community prepared to make great sacrifices with littledifficulty? In that case, the gradual growth of democratic manners andinstitutions should be regarded, not as the best, but as the only means ofpreserving freedom; and without liking the government of democracy, it might beadopted as the most applicable and the fairest remedy for the present ills ofsociety.

It is difficult to associate a people in the work of government; but it isstill more difficult to supply it with experience, and to inspire it with thefeelings which it requires in order to govern well. I grant that the capricesof democracy are perpetual; its instruments are rude; its laws imperfect. Butif it were true that soon no just medium would exist between the empire ofdemocracy and the dominion of a single arm, should we not rather inclinetowards the former than submit voluntarily to the latter? And if completeequality be our fate, is it not better to be levelled by free institutions thanby despotic power?

Those who, after having read this book, should imagine that my intention inwriting it has been to propose the laws and manners of the Anglo-Americans forthe imitation of all democratic peoples, would commit a very great mistake;they must have paid more attention to the form than to the substance of myideas. My aim has been to show, by the example of America, that laws, andespecially manners, may exist which will allow a democratic people to remainfree. But I am very far from thinking that we ought to follow the example ofthe American democracy, and copy the means which it has employed to attain itsends; for I am well aware of the influence which the nature of a country andits political precedents exercise upon a constitution; and I should regard itas a great misfortune for mankind if liberty were to exist all over the worldunder the same forms.

But I am of opinion that if we do not succeed in gradually introducingdemocratic institutions into France, and if we despair of imparting to thecitizens those ideas and sentiments which first prepare them for freedom, andafterwards allow them to enjoy it, there will be no independence at all, eitherfor the middling classes or the nobility, for the poor or for the rich, but anequal tyranny over all; and I foresee that if the peaceable empire of themajority be not founded amongst us in time, we shall sooner or later arrive atthe unlimited authority of a single despot.

Chapter XVIII: FutureCondition Of Three Races In The United States—Part I

The Present And Probable Future Condition Of The Three Races Which Inhabit TheTerritory Of The United States

The principal part of the task which I had imposed upon myself is nowperformed. I have shown, as far as I was able, the laws and the manners of theAmerican democracy. Here I might stop; but the reader would perhaps feel that Ihad not satisfied his expectations.

The absolute supremacy of democracy is not all that we meet with in America;the inhabitants of the New World may be considered from more than one point ofview. In the course of this work my subject has often led me to speak of theIndians and the Negroes; but I have never been able to stop in order to showwhat place these two races occupy in the midst of the democratic people whom Iwas engaged in describing. I have mentioned in what spirit, and according towhat laws, the Anglo-American Union was formed; but I could only glance at thedangers which menace that confederation, whilst it was equally impossible forme to give a detailed account of its chances of duration, independently of itslaws and manners. When speaking of the united republican States, I hazarded noconjectures upon the permanence of republican forms in the New World, and whenmaking frequent allusion to the commercial activity which reigns in the Union,I was unable to inquire into the future condition of the Americans as acommercial people.

These topics are collaterally connected with my subject without forming a partof it; they are American without being democratic; and to portray democracy hasbeen my principal aim. It was therefore necessary to postpone these questions,which I now take up as the proper termination of my work.

The territory now occupied or claimed by the American Union spreads from theshores of the Atlantic to those of the Pacific Ocean. On the east and west itslimits are those of the continent itself. On the south it advances nearly tothe tropic, and it extends upwards to the icy regions of the North. The humanbeings who are scattered over this space do not form, as in Europe, so manybranches of the same stock. Three races, naturally distinct, and, I mightalmost say, hostile to each other, are discoverable amongst them at the firstglance. Almost insurmountable barriers had been raised between them byeducation and by law, as well as by their origin and outward characteristics;but fortune has brought them together on the same soil, where, although theyare mixed, they do not amalgamate, and each race fulfils its destiny apart.

Amongst these widely differing families of men, the first which attractsattention, the superior in intelligence, in power and in enjoyment, is thewhite or European, the man pre-eminent; and in subordinate grades, the negroand the Indian. These two unhappy races have nothing in common; neither birth,nor features, nor language, nor habits. Their only resemblance lies in theirmisfortunes. Both of them occupy an inferior rank in the country they inhabit;both suffer from tyranny; and if their wrongs are not the same, they originate,at any rate, with the same authors.

If we reasoned from what passes in the world, we should almost say that theEuropean is to the other races of mankind, what man is to the loweranimals;—he makes them subservient to his use; and when he cannot subdue,he destroys them. Oppression has, at one stroke, deprived the descendants ofthe Africans of almost all the privileges of humanity. The negro of the UnitedStates has lost all remembrance of his country; the language which hisforefathers spoke is never heard around him; he abjured their religion andforgot their customs when he ceased to belong to Africa, without acquiring anyclaim to European privileges. But he remains half way between the twocommunities; sold by the one, repulsed by the other; finding not a spot in theuniverse to call by the name of country, except the faint image of a home whichthe shelter of his master’s roof affords.

The negro has no family; woman is merely the temporary companion of hispleasures, and his children are upon an equality with himself from the momentof their birth. Am I to call it a proof of God’s mercy or a visitation ofhis wrath, that man in certain states appears to be insensible to his extremewretchedness, and almost affects, with a depraved taste, the cause of hismisfortunes? The negro, who is plunged in this abyss of evils, scarcely feelshis own calamitous situation. Violence made him a slave, and the habit ofservitude gives him the thoughts and desires of a slave; he admires his tyrantsmore than he hates them, and finds his joy and his pride in the servileimitation of those who oppress him: his understanding is degraded to the levelof his soul.

The negro enters upon slavery as soon as he is born: nay, he may have beenpurchased in the womb, and have begun his slavery before he began hisexistence. Equally devoid of wants and of enjoyment, and useless to himself, helearns, with his first notions of existence, that he is the property ofanother, who has an interest in preserving his life, and that the care of itdoes not devolve upon himself; even the power of thought appears to him auseless gift of Providence, and he quietly enjoys the privileges of hisdebasem*nt. If he becomes free, independence is often felt by him to be aheavier burden than slavery; for having learned, in the course of his life, tosubmit to everything except reason, he is too much unacquainted with herdictates to obey them. A thousand new desires beset him, and he is destitute ofthe knowledge and energy necessary to resist them: these are masters which itis necessary to contend with, and he has learnt only to submit and obey. Inshort, he sinks to such a depth of wretchedness, that while servitudebrutalizes, liberty destroys him.

Oppression has been no less fatal to the Indian than to the negro race, but itseffects are different. Before the arrival of white men in the New World, theinhabitants of North America lived quietly in their woods, enduring thevicissitudes and practising the virtues and vices common to savage nations. TheEuropeans, having dispersed the Indian tribes and driven them into the deserts,condemned them to a wandering life full of inexpressible sufferings.

Savage nations are only controlled by opinion and by custom. When the NorthAmerican Indians had lost the sentiment of attachment to their country; whentheir families were dispersed, their traditions obscured, and the chain oftheir recollections broken; when all their habits were changed, and their wantsincreased beyond measure, European tyranny rendered them more disorderly andless civilized than they were before. The moral and physical condition of thesetribes continually grew worse, and they became more barbarous as they becamemore wretched. Nevertheless, the Europeans have not been able to metamorphosethe character of the Indians; and though they have had power to destroy them,they have never been able to make them submit to the rules of civilizedsociety.

The lot of the negro is placed on the extreme limit of servitude, while that ofthe Indian lies on the uttermost verge of liberty; and slavery does not producemore fatal effects upon the first, than independence upon the second. The negrohas lost all property in his own person, and he cannot dispose of his existencewithout committing a sort of fraud: but the savage is his own master as soon ashe is able to act; parental authority is scarcely known to him; he has neverbent his will to that of any of his kind, nor learned the difference betweenvoluntary obedience and a shameful subjection; and the very name of law isunknown to him. To be free, with him, signifies to escape from all the shacklesof society. As he delights in this barbarous independence, and would ratherperish than sacrifice the least part of it, civilization has little power overhim.

The negro makes a thousand fruitless efforts to insinuate himself amongst menwho repulse him; he conforms to the tastes of his oppressors, adopts theiropinions, and hopes by imitating them to form a part of their community. Havingbeen told from infancy that his race is naturally inferior to that of thewhites, he assents to the proposition and is ashamed of his own nature. In eachof his features he discovers a trace of slavery, and, if it were in his power,he would willingly rid himself of everything that makes him what he is.

The Indian, on the contrary, has his imagination inflated with the pretendednobility of his origin, and lives and dies in the midst of these dreams ofpride. Far from desiring to conform his habits to ours, he loves his savagelife as the distinguishing mark of his race, and he repels every advance tocivilization, less perhaps from the hatred which he entertains for it, thanfrom a dread of resembling the Europeans. *a While he has nothing to oppose toour perfection in the arts but the resources of the desert, to our tacticsnothing but undisciplined courage; whilst our well-digested plans are met bythe spontaneous instincts of savage life, who can wonder if he fails in thisunequal contest?

a
[ The native of North America retains his opinions and the most insignificantof his habits with a degree of tenacity which has no parallel in history. Formore than two hundred years the wandering tribes of North America have haddaily intercourse with the whites, and they have never derived from them eithera custom or an idea. Yet the Europeans have exercised a powerful influence overthe savages: they have made them more licentious, but not more European. In thesummer of 1831 I happened to be beyond Lake Michigan, at a place called GreenBay, which serves as the extreme frontier between the United States and theIndians on the north-western side. Here I became acquainted with an Americanofficer, Major H., who, after talking to me at length on the inflexibility ofthe Indian character, related the following fact:—“I formerly knewa young Indian,” said he, “who had been educated at a college inNew England, where he had greatly distinguished himself, and had acquired theexternal appearance of a member of civilized society. When the war broke outbetween ourselves and the English in 1810, I saw this young man again; he wasserving in our army, at the head of the warriors of his tribe, for the Indianswere admitted amongst the ranks of the Americans, upon condition that theywould abstain from their horrible custom of scalping their victims. On theevening of the battle of . . ., C. came and sat himself down by the fire of ourbivouac. I asked him what had been his fortune that day: he related hisexploits; and growing warm and animated by the recollection of them, heconcluded by suddenly opening the breast of his coat, saying, ‘You mustnot betray me—see here!’ And I actually beheld,” said theMajor, “between his body and his shirt, the skin and hair of an Englishhead, still dripping with gore.”]

The negro, who earnestly desires to mingle his race with that of the European,cannot effect if; while the Indian, who might succeed to a certain extent,disdains to make the attempt. The servility of the one dooms him to slavery,the pride of the other to death.

I remember that while I was travelling through the forests which still coverthe State of Alabama, I arrived one day at the log house of a pioneer. I didnot wish to penetrate into the dwelling of the American, but retired to restmyself for a while on the margin of a spring, which was not far off, in thewoods. While I was in this place (which was in the neighborhood of the Creekterritory), an Indian woman appeared, followed by a negress, and holding by thehand a little white girl of five or six years old, whom I took to be thedaughter of the pioneer. A sort of barbarous luxury set off the costume of theIndian; rings of metal were hanging from her nostrils and ears; her hair, whichwas adorned with glass beads, fell loosely upon her shoulders; and I saw thatshe was not married, for she still wore that necklace of shells which the bridealways deposits on the nuptial couch. The negress was clad in squalid Europeangarments. They all three came and seated themselves upon the banks of thefountain; and the young Indian, taking the child in her arms, lavished upon hersuch fond caresses as mothers give; while the negress endeavored by variouslittle artifices to attract the attention of the young Creole.

The child displayed in her slightest gestures a consciousness of superioritywhich formed a strange contrast with her infantine weakness; as if she receivedthe attentions of her companions with a sort of condescension. The negress wasseated on the ground before her mistress, watching her smallest desires, andapparently divided between strong affection for the child and servile fear;whilst the savage displayed, in the midst of her tenderness, an air of freedomand of pride which was almost ferocious. I had approached the group, and Icontemplated them in silence; but my curiosity was probably displeasing to theIndian woman, for she suddenly rose, pushed the child roughly from her, andgiving me an angry look plunged into the thicket. I had often chanced to seeindividuals met together in the same place, who belonged to the three races ofmen which people North America. I had perceived from many different results thepreponderance of the whites. But in the picture which I have just beendescribing there was something peculiarly touching; a bond of affection hereunited the oppressors with the oppressed, and the effort of nature to bringthem together rendered still more striking the immense distance placed betweenthem by prejudice and by law.

The Present And Probable Future Condition Of The Indian Tribes Which InhabitThe Territory Possessed By The Union

Gradual disappearance of the native tribes—Manner in which it takesplace—Miseries accompanying the forced migrations of theIndians—The savages of North America had only two ways of escapingdestruction; war or civilization—They are no longer able to makewar—Reasons why they refused to become civilized when it was in theirpower, and why they cannot become so now that they desire it—Instance ofthe Creeks and Cherokees—Policy of the particular States towards theseIndians—Policy of the Federal Government.

None of the Indian tribes which formerly inhabited the territory of NewEngland—the Naragansetts, the Mohicans, the Pecots—have anyexistence but in the recollection of man. The Lenapes, who received WilliamPenn, a hundred and fifty years ago, upon the banks of the Delaware, havedisappeared; and I myself met with the last of the Iroquois, who were beggingalms. The nations I have mentioned formerly covered the country to thesea-coast; but a traveller at the present day must penetrate more than ahundred leagues into the interior of the continent to find an Indian. Not onlyhave these wild tribes receded, but they are destroyed; *b and as they give wayor perish, an immense and increasing people fills their place. There is noinstance upon record of so prodigious a growth, or so rapid a destruction: themanner in which the latter change takes place is not difficult to describe.

b
[ In the thirteen original States there are only 6,273 Indians remaining. (SeeLegislative Documents, 20th Congress, No. 117, p. 90.) [The decrease in now fargreater, and is verging on extinction. See page 360 of this volume.]]

When the Indians were the sole inhabitants of the wilds from whence they havesince been expelled, their wants were few. Their arms were of their ownmanufacture, their only drink was the water of the brook, and their clothesconsisted of the skins of animals, whose flesh furnished them with food.

The Europeans introduced amongst the savages of North America fire-arms, ardentspirits, and iron: they taught them to exchange for manufactured stuffs, therough garments which had previously satisfied their untutored simplicity.Having acquired new tastes, without the arts by which they could be gratified,the Indians were obliged to have recourse to the workmanship of the whites; butin return for their productions the savage had nothing to offer except the richfurs which still abounded in his woods. Hence the chase became necessary, notmerely to provide for his subsistence, but in order to procure the only objectsof barter which he could furnish to Europe. *c Whilst the wants of the nativeswere thus increasing, their resources continued to diminish.

c
[ Messrs. Clarke and Cass, in their Report to Congress on February 4, 1829, p.23, expressed themselves thus:—“The time when the Indians generallycould supply themselves with food and clothing, without any of the articles ofcivilized life, has long since passed away. The more remote tribes, beyond theMississippi, who live where immense herds of buffalo are yet to be found andwho follow those animals in their periodical migrations, could more easily thanany others recur to the habits of their ancestors, and live without the whiteman or any of his manufactures. But the buffalo is constantly receding. Thesmaller animals, the bear, the deer, the beaver, the otter, the muskrat, etc.,principally minister to the comfort and support of the Indians; and thesecannot be taken without guns, ammunition, and traps. Among the NorthwesternIndians particularly, the labor of supplying a family with food is excessive.Day after day is spent by the hunter without success, and during this intervalhis family must subsist upon bark or roots, or perish. Want and misery arearound them and among them. Many die every winter from actualstarvation.”

The Indians will not live as Europeans live, and yet they can neither subsistwithout them, nor exactly after the fashion of their fathers. This isdemonstrated by a fact which I likewise give upon official authority. SomeIndians of a tribe on the banks of Lake Superior had killed a European; theAmerican government interdicted all traffic with the tribe to which the guiltyparties belonged, until they were delivered up to justice. This measure had thedesired effect.]

From the moment when a European settlement is formed in the neighborhood of theterritory occupied by the Indians, the beasts of chase take the alarm. *dThousands of savages, wandering in the forests and destitute of any fixeddwelling, did not disturb them; but as soon as the continuous sounds ofEuropean labor are heard in their neighborhood, they begin to flee away, andretire to the West, where their instinct teaches them that they will finddeserts of immeasurable extent. “The buffalo is constantlyreceding,” say Messrs. Clarke and Cass in their Report of the year 1829;“a few years since they approached the base of the Alleghany; and a fewyears hence they may even be rare upon the immense plains which extend to thebase of the Rocky Mountains.” I have been assured that this effect of theapproach of the whites is often felt at two hundred leagues’ distancefrom their frontier. Their influence is thus exerted over tribes whose name isunknown to them; and who suffer the evils of usurpation long before they areacquainted with the authors of their distress. *e

d
[ “Five years ago,” (says Volney in his “Tableau desEtats-Unis,” p. 370) “in going from Vincennes to Kaskaskia, aterritory which now forms part of the State of Illinois, but which at the timeI mention was completely wild (1797), you could not cross a prairie withoutseeing herds of from four to five hundred buffaloes. There are now noneremaining; they swam across the Mississippi to escape from the hunters, andmore particularly from the bells of the American cows.”]

e
[ The truth of what I here advance may be easily proved by consulting thetabular statement of Indian tribes inhabiting the United States and theirterritories. (Legislative Documents, 20th Congress, No. 117, pp. 90-105.) It isthere shown that the tribes in the centre of America are rapidly decreasing,although the Europeans are still at a considerable distance from them.]

Bold adventurers soon penetrate into the country the Indians have deserted, andwhen they have advanced about fifteen or twenty leagues from the extremefrontiers of the whites, they begin to build habitations for civilized beingsin the midst of the wilderness. This is done without difficulty, as theterritory of a hunting-nation is ill-defined; it is the common property of thetribe, and belongs to no one in particular, so that individual interests arenot concerned in the protection of any part of it.

A few European families, settled in different situations at a considerabledistance from each other, soon drive away the wild animals which remain betweentheir places of abode. The Indians, who had previously lived in a sort ofabundance, then find it difficult to subsist, and still more difficult toprocure the articles of barter which they stand in need of.

To drive away their game is to deprive them of the means of existence, aseffectually as if the fields of our agriculturists were stricken withbarrenness; and they are reduced, like famished wolves, to prowl through theforsaken woods in quest of prey. Their instinctive love of their countryattaches them to the soil which gave them birth, *f even after it has ceased toyield anything but misery and death. At length they are compelled to acquiesce,and to depart: they follow the traces of the elk, the buffalo, and the beaver,and are guided by these wild animals in the choice of their future country.Properly speaking, therefore, it is not the Europeans who drive away the nativeinhabitants of America; it is famine which compels them to recede; a happydistinction which had escaped the casuists of former times, and for which weare indebted to modern discovery!

f
[ “The Indians,” say Messrs. Clarke and Cass in their Report toCongress, p. 15, “are attached to their country by the same feelingswhich bind us to ours; and, besides, there are certain superstitious notionsconnected with the alienation of what the Great Spirit gave to their ancestors,which operate strongly upon the tribes who have made few or no cessions, butwhich are gradually weakened as our intercourse with them is extended.‘We will not sell the spot which contains the bones of ourfathers,’ is almost always the first answer to a proposition for asale.”]

It is impossible to conceive the extent of the sufferings which attend theseforced emigrations. They are undertaken by a people already exhausted andreduced; and the countries to which the newcomers betake themselves areinhabited by other tribes which receive them with jealous hostility. Hunger isin the rear; war awaits them, and misery besets them on all sides. In the hopeof escaping from such a host of enemies, they separate, and each individualendeavors to procure the means of supporting his existence in solitude andsecrecy, living in the immensity of the desert like an outcast in civilizedsociety. The social tie, which distress had long since weakened, is thendissolved; they have lost their country, and their people soon desert them:their very families are obliterated; the names they bore in common areforgotten, their language perishes, and all traces of their origin disappear.Their nation has ceased to exist, except in the recollection of the antiquariesof America and a few of the learned of Europe.

I should be sorry to have my reader suppose that I am coloring the picture toohighly; I saw with my own eyes several of the cases of misery which I have beendescribing; and I was the witness of sufferings which I have not the power toportray.

At the end of the year 1831, whilst I was on the left bank of the Mississippiat a place named by Europeans, Memphis, there arrived a numerous band ofChoctaws (or Chactas, as they are called by the French in Louisiana). Thesesavages had left their country, and were endeavoring to gain the right bank ofthe Mississippi, where they hoped to find an asylum which had been promisedthem by the American government. It was then the middle of winter, and the coldwas unusually severe; the snow had frozen hard upon the ground, and the riverwas drifting huge masses of ice. The Indians had their families with them; andthey brought in their train the wounded and sick, with children newly born, andold men upon the verge of death. They possessed neither tents nor wagons, butonly their arms and some provisions. I saw them embark to pass the mightyriver, and never will that solemn spectacle fade from my remembrance. No cry,no sob was heard amongst the assembled crowd; all were silent. Their calamitieswere of ancient date, and they knew them to be irremediable. The Indians hadall stepped into the bark which was to carry them across, but their dogsremained upon the bank. As soon as these animals perceived that their masterswere finally leaving the shore, they set up a dismal howl, and, plunging alltogether into the icy waters of the Mississippi, they swam after the boat.

The ejectment of the Indians very often takes place at the present day, in aregular, and, as it were, a legal manner. When the European population beginsto approach the limit of the desert inhabited by a savage tribe, the governmentof the United States usually dispatches envoys to them, who assemble theIndians in a large plain, and having first eaten and drunk with them, accostthem in the following manner: “What have you to do in the land of yourfathers? Before long, you must dig up their bones in order to live. In whatrespect is the country you inhabit better than another? Are there no woods,marshes, or prairies, except where you dwell? And can you live nowhere butunder your own sun? Beyond those mountains which you see at the horizon, beyondthe lake which bounds your territory on the west, there lie vast countrieswhere beasts of chase are found in great abundance; sell your lands to us, andgo to live happily in those solitudes.” After holding this language, theyspread before the eyes of the Indians firearms, woollen garments, kegs ofbrandy, glass necklaces, bracelets of tinsel, earrings, and looking-glasses. *gIf, when they have beheld all these riches, they still hesitate, it isinsinuated that they have not the means of refusing their required consent, andthat the government itself will not long have the power of protecting them intheir rights. What are they to do? Half convinced, and half compelled, they goto inhabit new deserts, where the importunate whites will not let them remainten years in tranquillity. In this manner do the Americans obtain, at a verylow price, whole provinces, which the richest sovereigns of Europe could notpurchase. *h

g
[ See, in the Legislative Documents of Congress (Doc. 117), the narrative ofwhat takes place on these occasions. This curious passage is from theabove-mentioned report, made to Congress by Messrs. Clarke and Cass inFebruary, 1829. Mr. Cass is now the Secretary of War.

“The Indians,” says the report, “reach the treaty-ground poorand almost naked. Large quantities of goods are taken there by the traders, andare seen and examined by the Indians. The women and children become importunateto have their wants supplied, and their influence is soon exerted to induce asale. Their improvidence is habitual and unconquerable. The gratification ofhis immediate wants and desires is the ruling passion of an Indian. Theexpectation of future advantages seldom produces much effect. The experience ofthe past is lost, and the prospects of the future disregarded. It would beutterly hopeless to demand a cession of land, unless the means were at hand ofgratifying their immediate wants; and when their condition and circ*mstancesare fairly considered, it ought not to surprise us that they are so anxious torelieve themselves.”]

h
[ On May 19, 1830, Mr. Edward Everett affirmed before the House ofRepresentatives, that the Americans had already acquired by treaty, to the eastand west of the Mississippi, 230,000,000 of acres. In 1808 the Osages gave up48,000,000 acres for an annual payment of $1,000. In 1818 the Quapaws yieldedup 29,000,000 acres for $4,000. They reserved for themselves a territory of1,000,000 acres for a hunting-ground. A solemn oath was taken that it should berespected: but before long it was invaded like the rest. Mr. Bell, in hisReport of the Committee on Indian Affairs, February 24, 1830, has thesewords:—“To pay an Indian tribe what their ancient hunting-groundsare worth to them, after the game is fled or destroyed, as a mode ofappropriating wild lands claimed by Indians, has been found more convenient,and certainly it is more agreeable to the forms of justice, as well as moremerciful, than to assert the possession of them by the sword. Thus the practiceof buying Indian titles is but the substitute which humanity and expediencyhave imposed, in place of the sword, in arriving at the actual enjoyment ofproperty claimed by the right of discovery, and sanctioned by the naturalsuperiority allowed to the claims of civilized communities over those of savagetribes. Up to the present time so invariable has been the operation of certaincauses, first in diminishing the value of forest lands to the Indians, andsecondly in disposing them to sell readily, that the plan of buying their rightof occupancy has never threatened to retard, in any perceptible degree, theprosperity of any of the States.” (Legislative Documents, 21st Congress,No. 227, p. 6.)]

Chapter XVIII: FutureCondition Of Three Races—Part II

These are great evils; and it must be added that they appear to me to beirremediable. I believe that the Indian nations of North America are doomed toperish; and that whenever the Europeans shall be established on the shores ofthe Pacific Ocean, that race of men will be no more. *i The Indians had onlythe two alternatives of war or civilization; in other words, they must eitherhave destroyed the Europeans or become their equals.

i
[ This seems, indeed, to be the opinion of almost all American statesmen.“Judging of the future by the past,” says Mr. Cass, “wecannot err in anticipating a progressive diminution of their numbers, and theireventual extinction, unless our border should become stationary, and they beremoved beyond it, or unless some radical change should take place in theprinciples of our intercourse with them, which it is easier to hope for than toexpect.”]

At the first settlement of the colonies they might have found it possible, byuniting their forces, to deliver themselves from the small bodies of strangerswho landed on their continent. *j They several times attempted to do it, andwere on the point of succeeding; but the disproportion of their resources, atthe present day, when compared with those of the whites, is too great to allowsuch an enterprise to be thought of. Nevertheless, there do arise from time totime among the Indians men of penetration, who foresee the final destiny whichawaits the native population, and who exert themselves to unite all the tribesin common hostility to the Europeans; but their efforts are unavailing. Thosetribes which are in the neighborhood of the whites, are too much weakened tooffer an effectual resistance; whilst the others, giving way to that childishcarelessness of the morrow which characterizes savage life, wait for the nearapproach of danger before they prepare to meet it; some are unable, the othersare unwilling, to exert themselves.

j
[ Amongst other warlike enterprises, there was one of the Wampanaogs, and otherconfederate tribes, under Metacom in 1675, against the colonists of NewEngland; the English were also engaged in war in Virginia in 1622.]

It is easy to foresee that the Indians will never conform to civilization; orthat it will be too late, whenever they may be inclined to make the experiment.

Civilization is the result of a long social process which takes place in thesame spot, and is handed down from one generation to another, each oneprofiting by the experience of the last. Of all nations, those submit tocivilization with the most difficulty which habitually live by the chase.Pastoral tribes, indeed, often change their place of abode; but they follow aregular order in their migrations, and often return again to their oldstations, whilst the dwelling of the hunter varies with that of the animals hepursues.

Several attempts have been made to diffuse knowledge amongst the Indians,without controlling their wandering propensities; by the Jesuits in Canada, andby the Puritans in New England; *k but none of these endeavors were crowned byany lasting success. Civilization began in the cabin, but it soon retired toexpire in the woods. The great error of these legislators of the Indians wastheir not understanding that, in order to succeed in civilizing a people, it isfirst necessary to fix it; which cannot be done without inducing it tocultivate the soil; the Indians ought in the first place to have beenaccustomed to agriculture. But not only are they destitute of thisindispensable preliminary to civilization, they would even have greatdifficulty in acquiring it. Men who have once abandoned themselves to therestless and adventurous life of the hunter, feel an insurmountable disgust forthe constant and regular labor which tillage requires. We see this proved inthe bosom of our own society; but it is far more visible among peoples whosepartiality for the chase is a part of their national character.

k
[ See the “Histoire de la Nouvelle France,” by Charlevoix, and thework entitled “Lettres edifiantes.”]

Independently of this general difficulty, there is another, which appliespeculiarly to the Indians; they consider labor not merely as an evil, but as adisgrace; so that their pride prevents them from becoming civilized, as much astheir indolence. *l

l
[ “In all the tribes,” says Volney, in his “Tableau desEtats-Unis,” p. 423, “there still exists a generation of oldwarriors, who cannot forbear, when they see their countrymen using the hoe,from exclaiming against the degradation of ancient manners, and asserting thatthe savages owe their decline to these innovations; adding, that they have onlyto return to their primitive habits in order to recover their power and theirglory.”]

There is no Indian so wretched as not to retain under his hut of bark a loftyidea of his personal worth; he considers the cares of industry and labor asdegrading occupations; he compares the husbandman to the ox which traces thefurrow; and even in our most ingenious handicraft, he can see nothing but thelabor of slaves. Not that he is devoid of admiration for the power andintellectual greatness of the whites; but although the result of our effortssurprises him, he contemns the means by which we obtain it; and while heacknowledges our ascendancy, he still believes in his superiority. War andhunting are the only pursuits which appear to him worthy to be the occupationsof a man. *m The Indian, in the dreary solitude of his woods, cherishes thesame ideas, the same opinions as the noble of the Middle Ages in his castle,and he only requires to become a conqueror to complete the resemblance; thus,however strange it may seem, it is in the forests of the New World, and notamongst the Europeans who people its coasts, that the ancient prejudices ofEurope are still in existence.

m
[ The following description occurs in an official document: “Until ayoung man has been engaged with an enemy, and has performed some acts of valor,he gains no consideration, but is regarded nearly as a woman. In their greatwar-dances all the warriors in succession strike the post, as it is called, andrecount their exploits. On these occasions their auditory consists of thekinsmen, friends, and comrades of the narrator. The profound impression whichhis discourse produces on them is manifested by the silent attention itreceives, and by the loud shouts which hail its termination. The young man whofinds himself at such a meeting without anything to recount is very unhappy;and instances have sometimes occurred of young warriors, whose passions hadbeen thus inflamed, quitting the war-dance suddenly, and going off alone toseek for trophies which they might exhibit, and adventures which they might beallowed to relate.”]

More than once, in the course of this work, I have endeavored to explain theprodigious influence which the social condition appears to exercise upon thelaws and the manners of men; and I beg to add a few words on the same subject.

When I perceive the resemblance which exists between the political institutionsof our ancestors, the Germans, and of the wandering tribes of North America;between the customs described by Tacitus, and those of which I have sometimesbeen a witness, I cannot help thinking that the same cause has brought aboutthe same results in both hemispheres; and that in the midst of the apparentdiversity of human affairs, a certain number of primary facts may bediscovered, from which all the others are derived. In what we usually call theGerman institutions, then, I am inclined only to perceive barbarian habits; andthe opinions of savages in what we style feudal principles.

However strongly the vices and prejudices of the North American Indians may beopposed to their becoming agricultural and civilized, necessity sometimesobliges them to it. Several of the Southern nations, and amongst others theCherokees and the Creeks, *n were surrounded by Europeans, who had landed onthe shores of the Atlantic; and who, either descending the Ohio or proceedingup the Mississippi, arrived simultaneously upon their borders. These tribeshave not been driven from place to place, like their Northern brethren; butthey have been gradually enclosed within narrow limits, like the game withinthe thicket, before the huntsmen plunge into the interior. The Indians who werethus placed between civilization and death, found themselves obliged to live byignominious labor like the whites. They took to agriculture, and withoutentirely forsaking their old habits or manners, sacrificed only as much as wasnecessary to their existence.

n
[ These nations are now swallowed up in the States of Georgia, Tennessee,Alabama, and Mississippi. There were formerly in the South four great nations(remnants of which still exist), the Choctaws, the Chickasaws, the Creeks, andthe Cherokees. The remnants of these four nations amounted, in 1830, to about75,000 individuals. It is computed that there are now remaining in theterritory occupied or claimed by the Anglo-American Union about 300,000Indians. (See Proceedings of the Indian Board in the City of New York.) Theofficial documents supplied to Congress make the number amount to 313,130. Thereader who is curious to know the names and numerical strength of all thetribes which inhabit the Anglo-American territory should consult the documentsI refer to. (Legislative Documents, 20th Congress, No. 117, pp. 90-105.) [Inthe Census of 1870 it is stated that the Indian population of the United Statesis only 25,731, of whom 7,241 are in California.]]

The Cherokees went further; they created a written language; established apermanent form of government; and as everything proceeds rapidly in the NewWorld, before they had all of them clothes, they set up a newspaper. *o

o
[ I brought back with me to France one or two copies of this singularpublication.]

The growth of European habits has been remarkably accelerated among theseIndians by the mixed race which has sprung up. *p Deriving intelligence fromtheir father’s side, without entirely losing the savage customs of themother, the half-blood forms the natural link between civilization andbarbarism. Wherever this race has multiplied the savage state has becomemodified, and a great change has taken place in the manners of the people. *q

p
[ See in the Report of the Committee on Indian Affairs, 21st Congress, No. 227,p. 23, the reasons for the multiplication of Indians of mixed blood among theCherokees. The principal cause dates from the War of Independence. ManyAnglo-Americans of Georgia, having taken the side of England, were obliged toretreat among the Indians, where they married.]

q
[ Unhappily the mixed race has been less numerous and less influential in NorthAmerica than in any other country. The American continent was peopled by twogreat nations of Europe, the French and the English. The former were not slowin connecting themselves with the daughters of the natives, but there was anunfortunate affinity between the Indian character and their own: instead ofgiving the tastes and habits of civilized life to the savages, the French toooften grew passionately fond of the state of wild freedom they found them in.They became the most dangerous of the inhabitants of the desert, and won thefriendship of the Indian by exaggerating his vices and his virtues. M. deSenonville, the governor of Canada, wrote thus to Louis XIV in 1685: “Ithas long been believed that in order to civilize the savages we ought to drawthem nearer to us. But there is every reason to suppose we have been mistaken.Those which have been brought into contact with us have not become French, andthe French who have lived among them are changed into savages, affecting todress and live like them.” (“History of New France,” byCharlevoix, vol. ii., p. 345.) The Englishman, on the contrary, continuingobstinately attached to the customs and the most insignificant habits of hisforefathers, has remained in the midst of the American solitudes just what hewas in the bosom of European cities; he would not allow of any communicationwith savages whom he despised, and avoided with care the union of his race withtheirs. Thus while the French exercised no salutary influence over the Indians,the English have always remained alien from them.]

The success of the Cherokees proves that the Indians are capable ofcivilization, but it does not prove that they will succeed in it. Thisdifficulty which the Indians find in submitting to civilization proceeds fromthe influence of a general cause, which it is almost impossible for them toescape. An attentive survey of history demonstrates that, in general, barbarousnations have raised themselves to civilization by degrees, and by their ownefforts. Whenever they derive knowledge from a foreign people, they stoodtowards it in the relation of conquerors, and not of a conquered nation. Whenthe conquered nation is enlightened, and the conquerors are half savage, as inthe case of the invasion of Rome by the Northern nations or that of China bythe Mongols, the power which victory bestows upon the barbarian is sufficientto keep up his importance among civilized men, and permit him to rank as theirequal, until he becomes their rival: the one has might on his side, the otherhas intelligence; the former admires the knowledge and the arts of theconquered, the latter envies the power of the conquerors. The barbarians atlength admit civilized man into their palaces, and he in turn opens his schoolsto the barbarians. But when the side on which the physical force lies, alsopossesses an intellectual preponderance, the conquered party seldom becomecivilized; it retreats, or is destroyed. It may therefore be said, in a generalway, that savages go forth in arms to seek knowledge, but that they do notreceive it when it comes to them.

If the Indian tribes which now inhabit the heart of the continent could summonup energy enough to attempt to civilize themselves, they might possiblysucceed. Superior already to the barbarous nations which surround them, theywould gradually gain strength and experience, and when the Europeans shouldappear upon their borders, they would be in a state, if not to maintain theirindependence, at least to assert their right to the soil, and to incorporatethemselves with the conquerors. But it is the misfortune of Indians to bebrought into contact with a civilized people, which is also (it must be owned)the most avaricious nation on the globe, whilst they are still semi-barbarian:to find despots in their instructors, and to receive knowledge from the hand ofoppression. Living in the freedom of the woods, the North American Indian wasdestitute, but he had no feeling of inferiority towards anyone; as soon,however, as he desires to penetrate into the social scale of the whites, hetakes the lowest rank in society, for he enters, ignorant and poor, within thepale of science and wealth. After having led a life of agitation, beset withevils and dangers, but at the same time filled with proud emotions, *r he isobliged to submit to a wearisome, obscure, and degraded state; and to gain thebread which nourishes him by hard and ignoble labor; such are in his eyes theonly results of which civilization can boast: and even this much he is not sureto obtain.

r
[ There is in the adventurous life of the hunter a certain irresistible charm,which seizes the heart of man and carries him away in spite of reason andexperience. This is plainly shown by the memoirs of Tanner. Tanner is aEuropean who was carried away at the age of six by the Indians, and hasremained thirty years with them in the woods. Nothing can be conceived moreappalling that the miseries which he describes. He tells us of tribes without achief, families without a nation to call their own, men in a state ofisolation, wrecks of powerful tribes wandering at random amid the ice and snowand desolate solitudes of Canada. Hunger and cold pursue them; every day theirlife is in jeopardy. Amongst these men, manners have lost their empire,traditions are without power. They become more and more savage. Tanner sharedin all these miseries; he was aware of his European origin; he was not keptaway from the whites by force; on the contrary, he came every year to tradewith them, entered their dwellings, and witnessed their enjoyments; he knewthat whenever he chose to return to civilized life he was perfectly able to doso—and he remained thirty years in the deserts. When he came intocivilized society he declared that the rude existence which he described, had asecret charm for him which he was unable to define: he returned to it again andagain: at length he abandoned it with poignant regret; and when he was atlength fixed among the whites, several of his children refused to share histranquil and easy situation. I saw Tanner myself at the lower end of LakeSuperior; he seemed to me to be more like a savage than a civilized being. Hisbook is written without either taste or order; but he gives, evenunconsciously, a lively picture of the prejudices, the passions, the vices,and, above all, of the destitution in which he lived.]

When the Indians undertake to imitate their European neighbors, and to till theearth like the settlers, they are immediately exposed to a very formidablecompetition. The white man is skilled in the craft of agriculture; the Indianis a rough beginner in an art with which he is unacquainted. The former reapsabundant crops without difficulty, the latter meets with a thousand obstaclesin raising the fruits of the earth.

The European is placed amongst a population whose wants he knows and partakes.The savage is isolated in the midst of a hostile people, with whose manners,language, and laws he is imperfectly acquainted, but without whose assistancehe cannot live. He can only procure the materials of comfort by bartering hiscommodities against the goods of the European, for the assistance of hiscountrymen is wholly insufficient to supply his wants. When the Indian wishesto sell the produce of his labor, he cannot always meet with a purchaser,whilst the European readily finds a market; and the former can only produce ata considerable cost that which the latter vends at a very low rate. Thus theIndian has no sooner escaped those evils to which barbarous nations areexposed, than he is subjected to the still greater miseries of civilizedcommunities; and he finds is scarcely less difficult to live in the midst ofour abundance, than in the depth of his own wilderness.

He has not yet lost the habits of his erratic life; the traditions of hisfathers and his passion for the chase are still alive within him. The wildenjoyments which formerly animated him in the woods, painfully excite histroubled imagination; and his former privations appear to be less keen, hisformer perils less appalling. He contrasts the independence which he possessedamongst his equals with the servile position which he occupies in civilizedsociety. On the other hand, the solitudes which were so long his free home arestill at hand; a few hours’ march will bring him back to them once more.The whites offer him a sum, which seems to him to be considerable, for theground which he has begun to clear. This money of the Europeans may possiblyfurnish him with the means of a happy and peaceful subsistence in remoterregions; and he quits the plough, resumes his native arms, and returns to thewilderness forever. *s The condition of the Creeks and Cherokees, to which Ihave already alluded, sufficiently corroborates the truth of this deplorablepicture.

s
[ The destructive influence of highly civilized nations upon others which areless so, has been exemplified by the Europeans themselves. About a century agothe French founded the town of Vincennes up on the Wabash, in the middle of thedesert; and they lived there in great plenty until the arrival of the Americansettlers, who first ruined the previous inhabitants by their competition, andafterwards purchased their lands at a very low rate. At the time when M. deVolney, from whom I borrow these details, passed through Vincennes, the numberof the French was reduced to a hundred individuals, most of whom were about topass over to Louisiana or to Canada. These French settlers were worthy people,but idle and uninstructed: they had contracted many of the habits of savages.The Americans, who were perhaps their inferiors, in a moral point of view, wereimmeasurably superior to them in intelligence: they were industrious, wellinformed, rich, and accustomed to govern their own community.

I myself saw in Canada, where the intellectual difference between the two racesis less striking, that the English are the masters of commerce and manufacturein the Canadian country, that they spread on all sides, and confine the Frenchwithin limits which scarcely suffice to contain them. In like manner, inLouisiana, almost all activity in commerce and manufacture centres in the handsof the Anglo-Americans.

But the case of Texas is still more striking: the State of Texas is a part ofMexico, and lies upon the frontier between that country and the United States.In the course of the last few years the Anglo-Americans have penetrated intothis province, which is still thinly peopled; they purchase land, they producethe commodities of the country, and supplant the original population. It mayeasily be foreseen that if Mexico takes no steps to check this change, theprovince of Texas will very shortly cease to belong to that government.

If the different degrees—comparatively so slight—which exist inEuropean civilization produce results of such magnitude, the consequences whichmust ensue from the collision of the most perfect European civilization withIndian savages may readily be conceived.]

The Indians, in the little which they have done, have unquestionably displayedas much natural genius as the peoples of Europe in their most importantdesigns; but nations as well as men require time to learn, whatever may betheir intelligence and their zeal. Whilst the savages were engaged in the workof civilization, the Europeans continued to surround them on every side, and toconfine them within narrower limits; the two races gradually met, and they arenow in immediate juxtaposition to each other. The Indian is already superior tohis barbarous parent, but he is still very far below his white neighbor. Withtheir resources and acquired knowledge, the Europeans soon appropriated tothemselves most of the advantages which the natives might have derived from thepossession of the soil; they have settled in the country, they have purchasedland at a very low rate or have occupied it by force, and the Indians have beenruined by a competition which they had not the means of resisting. They wereisolated in their own country, and their race only constituted a colony oftroublesome aliens in the midst of a numerous and domineering people. *t

t
[ See in the Legislative Documents (21st Congress, No. 89) instances ofexcesses of every kind committed by the whites upon the territory of theIndians, either in taking possession of a part of their lands, until compelledto retire by the troops of Congress, or carrying off their cattle, burningtheir houses, cutting down their corn, and doing violence to their persons. Itappears, nevertheless, from all these documents that the claims of the nativesare constantly protected by the government from the abuse of force. The Unionhas a representative agent continually employed to reside among the Indians;and the report of the Cherokee agent, which is among the documents I havereferred to, is almost always favorable to the Indians. “The intrusion ofwhites,” he says, “upon the lands of the Cherokees would cause ruinto the poor, helpless, and inoffensive inhabitants.” And he furtherremarks upon the attempt of the State of Georgia to establish a division linefor the purpose of limiting the boundaries of the Cherokees, that the linedrawn having been made by the whites, and entirely upon ex parte evidence oftheir several rights, was of no validity whatever.]

Washington said in one of his messages to Congress, “We are moreenlightened and more powerful than the Indian nations, we are therefore boundin honor to treat them with kindness and even with generosity.” But thisvirtuous and high-minded policy has not been followed. The rapacity of thesettlers is usually backed by the tyranny of the government. Although theCherokees and the Creeks are established upon the territory which theyinhabited before the settlement of the Europeans, and although the Americanshave frequently treated with them as with foreign nations, the surroundingStates have not consented to acknowledge them as independent peoples, andattempts have been made to subject these children of the woods toAnglo-American magistrates, laws, and customs. *u Destitution had driven theseunfortunate Indians to civilization, and oppression now drives them back totheir former condition: many of them abandon the soil which they had begun toclear, and return to their savage course of life.

u
[ In 1829 the State of Alabama divided the Creek territory into counties, andsubjected the Indian population to the power of European magistrates.

In 1830 the State of Mississippi assimilated the Choctaws and Chickasaws to thewhite population, and declared that any of them that should take the title ofchief would be punished by a fine of $1,000 and a year’s imprisonment.When these laws were enforced upon the Choctaws, who inhabited that district,the tribe assembled, their chief communicated to them the intentions of thewhites, and read to them some of the laws to which it was intended that theyshould submit; and they unanimously declared that it was better at once toretreat again into the wilds.]

Chapter XVIII: FutureCondition Of Three Races—Part III

If we consider the tyrannical measures which have been adopted by thelegislatures of the Southern States, the conduct of their Governors, and thedecrees of their courts of justice, we shall be convinced that the entireexpulsion of the Indians is the final result to which the efforts of theirpolicy are directed. The Americans of that part of the Union look with jealousyupon the aborigines, *v they are aware that these tribes have not yet lost thetraditions of savage life, and before civilization has permanently fixed themto the soil, it is intended to force them to recede by reducing them todespair. The Creeks and Cherokees, oppressed by the several States, haveappealed to the central government, which is by no means insensible to theirmisfortunes, and is sincerely desirous of saving the remnant of the natives,and of maintaining them in the free possession of that territory, which theUnion is pledged to respect. *w But the several States oppose so formidable aresistance to the execution of this design, that the government is obliged toconsent to the extirpation of a few barbarous tribes in order not to endangerthe safety of the American Union.

v
[ The Georgians, who are so much annoyed by the proximity of the Indians,inhabit a territory which does not at present contain more than seveninhabitants to the square mile. In France there are one hundred and sixty-twoinhabitants to the same extent of country.]

w
[ In 1818 Congress appointed commissioners to visit the Arkansas Territory,accompanied by a deputation of Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws. Thisexpedition was commanded by Messrs. Kennerly, M’Coy, Wash Hood, and JohnBell. See the different reports of the commissioners, and their journal, in theDocuments of Congress, No. 87, House of Representatives.]

But the federal government, which is not able to protect the Indians, wouldfain mitigate the hardships of their lot; and, with this intention, proposalshave been made to transport them into more remote regions at the public cost.

Between the thirty-third and thirty-seventh degrees of north latitude, a vasttract of country lies, which has taken the name of Arkansas, from the principalriver that waters its extent. It is bounded on the one side by the confines ofMexico, on the other by the Mississippi. Numberless streams cross it in everydirection; the climate is mild, and the soil productive, but it is onlyinhabited by a few wandering hordes of savages. The government of the Unionwishes to transport the broken remnants of the indigenous population of theSouth to the portion of this country which is nearest to Mexico, and at a greatdistance from the American settlements.

We were assured, towards the end of the year 1831, that 10,000 Indians hadalready gone down to the shores of the Arkansas; and fresh detachments wereconstantly following them; but Congress has been unable to excite a unanimousdetermination in those whom it is disposed to protect. Some, indeed, arewilling to quit the seat of oppression, but the most enlightened members of thecommunity refuse to abandon their recent dwellings and their springing crops;they are of opinion that the work of civilization, once interrupted, will neverbe resumed; they fear that those domestic habits which have been so recentlycontracted, may be irrevocably lost in the midst of a country which is stillbarbarous, and where nothing is prepared for the subsistence of an agriculturalpeople; they know that their entrance into those wilds will be opposed byinimical hordes, and that they have lost the energy of barbarians, withoutacquiring the resources of civilization to resist their attacks. Moreover, theIndians readily discover that the settlement which is proposed to them ismerely a temporary expedient. Who can assure them that they will at length beallowed to dwell in peace in their new retreat? The United States pledgethemselves to the observance of the obligation; but the territory which they atpresent occupy was formerly secured to them by the most solemn oaths ofAnglo-American faith. *x The American government does not indeed rob them oftheir lands, but it allows perpetual incursions to be made on them. In a fewyears the same white population which now flocks around them, will track themto the solitudes of the Arkansas; they will then be exposed to the same evilswithout the same remedies, and as the limits of the earth will at last failthem, their only refuge is the grave.

x
[ The fifth article of the treaty made with the Creeks in August, 1790, is inthe following words:—“The United States solemnly guarantee to theCreek nation all their land within the limits of the United States.”

The seventh article of the treaty concluded in 1791 with the Cherokeessays:—“The United States solemnly guarantee to the Cherokee nationall their lands not hereby ceded.” The following article declared that ifany citizen of the United States or other settler not of the Indian race shouldestablish himself upon the territory of the Cherokees, the United States wouldwithdraw their protection from that individual, and give him up to be punishedas the Cherokee nation should think fit.]

The Union treats the Indians with less cupidity and rigor than the policy ofthe several States, but the two governments are alike destitute of good faith.The States extend what they are pleased to term the benefits of their laws tothe Indians, with a belief that the tribes will recede rather than submit; andthe central government, which promises a permanent refuge to these unhappybeings is well aware of its inability to secure it to them. *y

y
[ This does not prevent them from promising in the most solemn manner to do so.See the letter of the President addressed to the Creek Indians, March 23, 1829(Proceedings of the Indian Board, in the city of New York, p. 5): “Beyondthe great river Mississippi, where a part of your nation has gone, your fatherhas provided a country large enough for all of you, and he advises you toremove to it. There your white brothers will not trouble you; they will have noclaim to the land, and you can live upon it, you and all your children, as longas the grass grows, or the water runs, in peace and plenty. It will be yoursforever.”

The Secretary of War, in a letter written to the Cherokees, April 18, 1829,(see the same work, p. 6), declares to them that they cannot expect to retainpossession of the lands at that time occupied by them, but gives them the mostpositive assurance of uninterrupted peace if they would remove beyond theMississippi: as if the power which could not grant them protection then, wouldbe able to afford it them hereafter!]

Thus the tyranny of the States obliges the savages to retire, the Union, by itspromises and resources, facilitates their retreat; and these measures tend toprecisely the same end. *z “By the will of our Father in Heaven, theGovernor of the whole world,” said the Cherokees in their petition toCongress, *a “the red man of America has become small, and the white mangreat and renowned. When the ancestors of the people of these United Statesfirst came to the shores of America they found the red man strong: though hewas ignorant and savage, yet he received them kindly, and gave them dry land torest their weary feet. They met in peace, and shook hands in token offriendship. Whatever the white man wanted and asked of the Indian, the latterwillingly gave. At that time the Indian was the lord, and the white man thesuppliant. But now the scene has changed. The strength of the red man hasbecome weakness. As his neighbors increased in numbers his power became lessand less, and now, of the many and powerful tribes who once covered theseUnited States, only a few are to be seen—a few whom a sweeping pestilencehas left. The northern tribes, who were once so numerous and powerful, are nownearly extinct. Thus it has happened to the red man of America. Shall we, whoare remnants, share the same fate?”

z
[ To obtain a correct idea of the policy pursued by the several States and theUnion with respect to the Indians, it is necessary to consult, 1st, “TheLaws of the Colonial and State Governments relating to the IndianInhabitants.” (See the Legislative Documents, 21st Congress, No. 319.)2d, The Laws of the Union on the same subject, and especially that of March 30,1802. (See Story’s “Laws of the United States.”) 3d, TheReport of Mr. Cass, Secretary of War, relative to Indian Affairs, November 29,1823.]

a
[ December 18, 1829.]

“The land on which we stand we have received as an inheritance from ourfathers, who possessed it from time immemorial, as a gift from our commonFather in Heaven. They bequeathed it to us as their children, and we havesacredly kept it, as containing the remains of our beloved men. This right ofinheritance we have never ceded nor ever forfeited. Permit us to ask whatbetter right can the people have to a country than the right of inheritance andimmemorial peaceable possession? We know it is said of late by the State ofGeorgia and by the Executive of the United States, that we have forfeited thisright; but we think this is said gratuitously. At what time have we made theforfeit? What great crime have we committed, whereby we must forever bedivested of our country and rights? Was it when we were hostile to the UnitedStates, and took part with the King of Great Britain, during the struggle forindependence? If so, why was not this forfeiture declared in the first treatyof peace between the United States and our beloved men? Why was not such anarticle as the following inserted in the treaty:—‘The United Statesgive peace to the Cherokees, but, for the part they took in the late war,declare them to be but tenants at will, to be removed when the convenience ofthe States, within whose chartered limits they live, shall require it’?That was the proper time to assume such a possession. But it was not thoughtof, nor would our forefathers have agreed to any treaty whose tendency was todeprive them of their rights and their country.”

Such is the language of the Indians: their assertions are true, theirforebodings inevitable. From whichever side we consider the destinies of theaborigines of North America, their calamities appear to be irremediable: ifthey continue barbarous, they are forced to retire; if they attempt to civilizetheir manners, the contact of a more civilized community subjects them tooppression and destitution. They perish if they continue to wander from wasteto waste, and if they attempt to settle they still must perish; the assistanceof Europeans is necessary to instruct them, but the approach of Europeanscorrupts and repels them into savage life; they refuse to change their habitsas long as their solitudes are their own, and it is too late to change themwhen they are constrained to submit.

The Spaniards pursued the Indians with bloodhounds, like wild beasts; theysacked the New World with no more temper or compassion than a city taken bystorm; but destruction must cease, and frenzy be stayed; the remnant of theIndian population which had escaped the massacre mixed with its conquerors, andadopted in the end their religion and their manners. *b The conduct of theAmericans of the United States towards the aborigines is characterized, on theother hand, by a singular attachment to the formalities of law. Provided thatthe Indians retain their barbarous condition, the Americans take no part intheir affairs; they treat them as independent nations, and do not possessthemselves of their hunting grounds without a treaty of purchase; and if anIndian nation happens to be so encroached upon as to be unable to subsist uponits territory, they afford it brotherly assistance in transporting it to agrave sufficiently remote from the land of its fathers.

b
[ The honor of this result is, however, by no means due to the Spaniards. Ifthe Indian tribes had not been tillers of the ground at the time of the arrivalof the Europeans, they would unquestionably have been destroyed in South aswell as in North America.]

The Spaniards were unable to exterminate the Indian race by those unparalleledatrocities which brand them with indelible shame, nor did they even succeed inwholly depriving it of its rights; but the Americans of the United States haveaccomplished this twofold purpose with singular felicity; tranquilly, legally,philanthropically, without shedding blood, and without violating a single greatprinciple of morality in the eyes of the world. *c It is impossible to destroymen with more respect for the laws of humanity.

c
[ See, amongst other documents, the report made by Mr. Bell in the name of theCommittee on Indian Affairs, February 24, 1830, in which is most logicallyestablished and most learnedly proved, that “the fundamental principlethat the Indians had no right by virtue of their ancient possession either ofwill or sovereignty, has never been abandoned either expressly or byimplication.” In perusing this report, which is evidently drawn up by anexperienced hand, one is astonished at the facility with which the author getsrid of all arguments founded upon reason and natural right, which he designatesas abstract and theoretical principles. The more I contemplate the differencebetween civilized and uncivilized man with regard to the principles of justice,the more I observe that the former contests the justice of those rights whichthe latter simply violates.]

[I leave this chapter wholly unchanged, for it has always appeared to me to beone of the most eloquent and touching parts of this book. But it has ceased tobe prophetic; the destruction of the Indian race in the United States isalready consummated. In 1870 there remained but 25,731 Indians in the wholeterritory of the Union, and of these by far the largest part exist inCalifornia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Dakota, and New Mexico and Nevada. In NewEngland, Pennsylvania, and New York the race is extinct; and the predictions ofM. de Tocqueville are fulfilled. —Translator’s Note.]

Situation Of The Black Population In The United States, And Dangers With WhichIts Presence Threatens The Whites

Why it is more difficult to abolish slavery, and to efface all vestiges of itamongst the moderns than it was amongst the ancients—In the United Statesthe prejudices of the Whites against the Blacks seem to increase in proportionas slavery is abolished—Situation of the Negroes in the Northern andSouthern States—Why the Americans abolish slavery—Servitude, whichdebases the slave, impoverishes the master—Contrast between the left andthe right bank of the Ohio—To what attributable—The Black race, aswell as slavery, recedes towards the South—Explanation of thisfact—Difficulties attendant upon the abolition of slavery in theSouth—Dangers to come—General anxiety—Foundation of a Blackcolony in Africa—Why the Americans of the South increase the hardships ofslavery, whilst they are distressed at its continuance.

The Indians will perish in the same isolated condition in which they havelived; but the destiny of the negroes is in some measure interwoven with thatof the Europeans. These two races are attached to each other withoutintermingling, and they are alike unable entirely to separate or to combine.The most formidable of all the ills which threaten the future existence of theUnion arises from the presence of a black population upon its territory; and incontemplating the cause of the present embarrassments or of the future dangersof the United States, the observer is invariably led to consider this as aprimary fact.

The permanent evils to which mankind is subjected are usually produced by thevehement or the increasing efforts of men; but there is one calamity whichpenetrated furtively into the world, and which was at first scarcelydistinguishable amidst the ordinary abuses of power; it originated with anindividual whose name history has not preserved; it was wafted like someaccursed germ upon a portion of the soil, but it afterwards nurtured itself,grew without effort, and spreads naturally with the society to which itbelongs. I need scarcely add that this calamity is slavery. Christianitysuppressed slavery, but the Christians of the sixteenth century re-establishedit—as an exception, indeed, to their social system, and restricted to oneof the races of mankind; but the wound thus inflicted upon humanity, thoughless extensive, was at the same time rendered far more difficult of cure.

It is important to make an accurate distinction between slavery itself and itsconsequences. The immediate evils which are produced by slavery were verynearly the same in antiquity as they are amongst the moderns; but theconsequences of these evils were different. The slave, amongst the ancients,belonged to the same race as his master, and he was often the superior of thetwo in education *d and instruction. Freedom was the only distinction betweenthem; and when freedom was conferred they were easily confounded together. Theancients, then, had a very simple means of avoiding slavery and its evilconsequences, which was that of affranchisem*nt; and they succeeded as soon asthey adopted this measure generally. Not but, in ancient States, the vestigesof servitude subsisted for some time after servitude itself was abolished.There is a natural prejudice which prompts men to despise whomsoever has beentheir inferior long after he is become their equal; and the real inequalitywhich is produced by fortune or by law is always succeeded by an imaginaryinequality which is implanted in the manners of the people. Nevertheless, thissecondary consequence of slavery was limited to a certain term amongst theancients, for the freedman bore so entire a resemblance to those born free,that it soon became impossible to distinguish him from amongst them.

d
[ It is well known that several of the most distinguished authors of antiquity,and amongst them Aesop and Terence, were, or had been slaves. Slaves were notalways taken from barbarous nations, and the chances of war reduced highlycivilized men to servitude.]

The greatest difficulty in antiquity was that of altering the law; amongst themoderns it is that of altering the manners; and, as far as we are concerned,the real obstacles begin where those of the ancients left off. This arises fromthe circ*mstance that, amongst the moderns, the abstract and transient fact ofslavery is fatally united to the physical and permanent fact of color. Thetradition of slavery dishonors the race, and the peculiarity of the raceperpetuates the tradition of slavery. No African has ever voluntarily emigratedto the shores of the New World; whence it must be inferred, that all the blackswho are now to be found in that hemisphere are either slaves or freedmen. Thusthe negro transmits the eternal mark of his ignominy to all his descendants;and although the law may abolish slavery, God alone can obliterate the tracesof its existence.

The modern slave differs from his master not only in his condition, but in hisorigin. You may set the negro free, but you cannot make him otherwise than analien to the European. Nor is this all; we scarcely acknowledge the commonfeatures of mankind in this child of debasem*nt whom slavery has broughtamongst us. His physiognomy is to our eyes hideous, his understanding weak, histastes low; and we are almost inclined to look upon him as a being intermediatebetween man and the brutes. *e The moderns, then, after they have abolishedslavery, have three prejudices to contend against, which are less easy toattack and far less easy to conquer than the mere fact of servitude: theprejudice of the master, the prejudice of the race, and the prejudice of color.

e
[ To induce the whites to abandon the opinion they have conceived of the moraland intellectual inferiority of their former slaves, the negroes must change;but as long as this opinion subsists, to change is impossible.]

It is difficult for us, who have had the good fortune to be born amongst menlike ourselves by nature, and equal to ourselves by law, to conceive theirreconcilable differences which separate the negro from the European inAmerica. But we may derive some faint notion of them from analogy. France wasformerly a country in which numerous distinctions of rank existed, that hadbeen created by the legislation. Nothing can be more fictitious than a purelylegal inferiority; nothing more contrary to the instinct of mankind than thesepermanent divisions which had been established between beings evidentlysimilar. Nevertheless these divisions subsisted for ages; they still subsist inmany places; and on all sides they have left imaginary vestiges, which timealone can efface. If it be so difficult to root out an inequality which solelyoriginates in the law, how are those distinctions to be destroyed which seem tobe based upon the immutable laws of Nature herself? When I remember the extremedifficulty with which aristocratic bodies, of whatever nature they may be, arecommingled with the mass of the people; and the exceeding care which they taketo preserve the ideal boundaries of their caste inviolate, I despair of seeingan aristocracy disappear which is founded upon visible and indelible signs.Those who hope that the Europeans will ever mix with the negroes, appear to meto delude themselves; and I am not led to any such conclusion by my own reason,or by the evidence of facts.

Hitherto, wherever the whites have been the most powerful, they have maintainedthe blacks in a subordinate or a servile position; wherever the negroes havebeen strongest they have destroyed the whites; such has been the onlyretribution which has ever taken place between the two races.

I see that in a certain portion of the territory of the United States at thepresent day, the legal barrier which separated the two races is tending to fallaway, but not that which exists in the manners of the country; slavery recedes,but the prejudice to which it has given birth remains stationary. Whosoever hasinhabited the United States must have perceived that in those parts of theUnion in which the negroes are no longer slaves, they have in no wise drawnnearer to the whites. On the contrary, the prejudice of the race appears to bestronger in the States which have abolished slavery, than in those where itstill exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those States whereservitude has never been known.

It is true, that in the North of the Union, marriages may be legally contractedbetween negroes and whites; but public opinion would stigmatize a man whoshould connect himself with a negress as infamous, and it would be difficult tomeet with a single instance of such a union. The electoral franchise has beenconferred upon the negroes in almost all the States in which slavery has beenabolished; but if they come forward to vote, their lives are in danger. Ifoppressed, they may bring an action at law, but they will find none but whitesamongst their judges; and although they may legally serve as jurors, prejudicerepulses them from that office. The same schools do not receive the child ofthe black and of the European. In the theatres, gold cannot procure a seat forthe servile race beside their former masters; in the hospitals they lie apart;and although they are allowed to invoke the same Divinity as the whites, itmust be at a different altar, and in their own churches, with their own clergy.The gates of Heaven are not closed against these unhappy beings; but theirinferiority is continued to the very confines of the other world; when thenegro is defunct, his bones are cast aside, and the distinction of conditionprevails even in the equality of death. The negro is free, but he can shareneither the rights, nor the pleasures, nor the labor, nor the afflictions, northe tomb of him whose equal he has been declared to be; and he cannot meet himupon fair terms in life or in death.

In the South, where slavery still exists, the negroes are less carefully keptapart; they sometimes share the labor and the recreations of the whites; thewhites consent to intermix with them to a certain extent, and although thelegislation treats them more harshly, the habits of the people are moretolerant and compassionate. In the South the master is not afraid to raise hisslave to his own standing, because he knows that he can in a moment reduce himto the dust at pleasure. In the North the white no longer distinctly perceivesthe barrier which separates him from the degraded race, and he shuns the negrowith the more pertinacity, since he fears lest they should some day beconfounded together.

Amongst the Americans of the South, nature sometimes reasserts her rights, andrestores a transient equality between the blacks and the whites; but in theNorth pride restrains the most imperious of human passions. The American of theNorthern States would perhaps allow the negress to share his licentiouspleasures, if the laws of his country did not declare that she may aspire to bethe legitimate partner of his bed; but he recoils with horror from her whomight become his wife.

Thus it is, in the United States, that the prejudice which repels the negroesseems to increase in proportion as they are emancipated, and inequality issanctioned by the manners whilst it is effaced from the laws of the country.But if the relative position of the two races which inhabit the United Statesis such as I have described, it may be asked why the Americans have abolishedslavery in the North of the Union, why they maintain it in the South, and whythey aggravate its hardships there? The answer is easily given. It is not forthe good of the negroes, but for that of the whites, that measures are taken toabolish slavery in the United States.

The first negroes were imported into Virginia about the year 1621. *f InAmerica, therefore, as well as in the rest of the globe, slavery originated inthe South. Thence it spread from one settlement to another; but the number ofslaves diminished towards the Northern States, and the negro population wasalways very limited in New England. *g

f
[ See Beverley’s “History of Virginia.” See also inJefferson’s “Memoirs” some curious details concerning theintroduction of negroes into Virginia, and the first Act which prohibited theimportation of them in 1778.]

g
[ The number of slaves was less considerable in the North, but the advantagesresulting from slavery were not more contested there than in the South. In1740, the Legislature of the State of New York declared that the directimportation of slaves ought to be encouraged as much as possible, and smugglingseverely punished in order not to discourage the fair trader. (Kent’s“Commentaries,” vol. ii. p. 206.) Curious researches, by Belknap,upon slavery in New England, are to be found in the “HistoricalCollection of Massachusetts,” vol. iv. p. 193. It appears that negroeswere introduced there in 1630, but that the legislation and manners of thepeople were opposed to slavery from the first; see also, in the same work, themanner in which public opinion, and afterwards the laws, finally put an end toslavery.]

A century had scarcely elapsed since the foundation of the colonies, when theattention of the planters was struck by the extraordinary fact, that theprovinces which were comparatively destitute of slaves, increased inpopulation, in wealth, and in prosperity more rapidly than those whichcontained the greatest number of negroes. In the former, however, theinhabitants were obliged to cultivate the soil themselves, or by hiredlaborers; in the latter they were furnished with hands for which they paid nowages; yet although labor and expenses were on the one side, and ease witheconomy on the other, the former were in possession of the most advantageoussystem. This consequence seemed to be the more difficult to explain, since thesettlers, who all belonged to the same European race, had the same habits, thesame civilization, the same laws, and their shades of difference were extremelyslight.

Time, however, continued to advance, and the Anglo-Americans, spreading beyondthe coasts of the Atlantic Ocean, penetrated farther and farther into thesolitudes of the West; they met with a new soil and an unwonted climate; theobstacles which opposed them were of the most various character; their racesintermingled, the inhabitants of the South went up towards the North, those ofthe North descended to the South; but in the midst of all these causes, thesame result occurred at every step, and in general, the colonies in which therewere no slaves became more populous and more rich than those in which slaveryflourished. The more progress was made, the more was it shown that slavery,which is so cruel to the slave, is prejudicial to the master.

Chapter XVIII: FutureCondition Of Three Races—Part IV

But this truth was most satisfactorily demonstrated when civilization reachedthe banks of the Ohio. The stream which the Indians had distinguished by thename of Ohio, or Beautiful River, waters one of the most magnificent valleysthat has ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon bothshores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer;on either bank the air is wholesome and the climate mild, and each of themforms the extreme frontier of a vast State: That which follows the numerouswindings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky, that upon the rightbears the name of the river. These two States only differ in a single respect;Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the State of Ohio has prohibited theexistence of slaves within its borders. *h

h
[ Not only is slavery prohibited in Ohio, but no free negroes are allowed toenter the territory of that State, or to hold property in it. See the Statutesof Ohio.]

Thus the traveller who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot wherethat river falls into the Mississippi, may be said to sail between liberty andservitude; and a transient inspection of the surrounding objects will convincehim as to which of the two is most favorable to mankind. Upon the left bank ofthe stream the population is rare; from time to time one descries a troop ofslaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primaeval forest recurs atevery turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offersa scene of activity and of life. From the right bank, on the contrary, aconfused hum is heard which proclaims the presence of industry; the fields arecovered with abundant harvests, the elegance of the dwellings announces thetaste and activity of the laborer, and man appears to be in the enjoyment ofthat wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor. *i

i
[ The activity of Ohio is not confined to individuals, but the undertakings ofthe State are surprisingly great; a canal has been established between LakeErie and the Ohio, by means of which the valley of the Mississippi communicateswith the river of the North, and the European commodities which arrive at NewYork may be forwarded by water to New Orleans across five hundred leagues ofcontinent.]

The State of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the State of Ohio only twelve yearslater; but twelve years are more in America than half a century in Europe, and,at the present day, the population of Ohio exceeds that of Kentucky by twohundred and fifty thousand souls. *j These opposite consequences of slavery andfreedom may readily be understood, and they suffice to explain many of thedifferences which we remark between the civilization of antiquity and that ofour own time.

j
[ The exact numbers given by the census of 1830 were: Kentucky, 688,-844; Ohio,937,679. [In 1890 the population of Ohio was 3,672,316, that of Kentucky,1,858,635.]]

Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery,upon the right bank it is identified with that of prosperity and improvement;on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honored; on the formerterritory no white laborers can be found, for they would be afraid ofassimilating themselves to the negroes; on the latter no one is idle, for thewhite population extends its activity and its intelligence to every kind ofemployment. Thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich soil ofKentucky are ignorant and lukewarm; whilst those who are active and enlightenedeither do nothing or pass over into the State of Ohio, where they may workwithout dishonor.

It is true that in Kentucky the planters are not obliged to pay wages to theslaves whom they employ; but they derive small profits from their labor, whilstthe wages paid to free workmen would be returned with interest in the value oftheir services. The free workman is paid, but he does his work quicker than theslave, and rapidity of execution is one of the great elements of economy. Thewhite sells his services, but they are only purchased at the times at whichthey may be useful; the black can claim no remuneration for his toil, but theexpense of his maintenance is perpetual; he must be supported in his old age aswell as in the prime of manhood, in his profitless infancy as well as in theproductive years of youth. Payment must equally be made in order to obtain theservices of either class of men: the free workman receives his wages in money,the slave in education, in food, in care, and in clothing. The money which amaster spends in the maintenance of his slaves goes gradually and in detail, sothat it is scarcely perceived; the salary of the free workman is paid in around sum, which appears only to enrich the individual who receives it, but inthe end the slave has cost more than the free servant, and his labor is lessproductive. *k

k
[ Independently of these causes, which, wherever free workmen abound, rendertheir labor more productive and more economical than that of slaves, anothercause may be pointed out which is peculiar to the United States: the sugar-canehas hitherto been cultivated with success only upon the banks of theMississippi, near the mouth of that river in the Gulf of Mexico. In Louisianathe cultivation of the sugar-cane is exceedingly lucrative, and nowhere does alaborer earn so much by his work, and, as there is always a certain relationbetween the cost of production and the value of the produce, the price ofslaves is very high in Louisiana. But Louisiana is one of the confederatedStates, and slaves may be carried thither from all parts of the Union; theprice given for slaves in New Orleans consequently raises the value of slavesin all the other markets. The consequence of this is, that in the countrieswhere the land is less productive, the cost of slave labor is still veryconsiderable, which gives an additional advantage to the competition of freelabor.]

The influence of slavery extends still further; it affects the character of themaster, and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas and his tastes. Upon bothbanks of the Ohio, the character of the inhabitants is enterprising andenergetic; but this vigor is very differently exercised in the two States. Thewhite inhabitant of Ohio, who is obliged to subsist by his own exertions,regards temporal prosperity as the principal aim of his existence; and as thecountry which he occupies presents inexhaustible resources to his industry andever-varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses theordinary limits of human cupidity: he is tormented by the desire of wealth, andhe boldly enters upon every path which fortune opens to him; he becomes asailor, a pioneer, an artisan, or a laborer with the same indifference, and hesupports, with equal constancy, the fatigues and the dangers incidental tothese various professions; the resources of his intelligence are astonishing,and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a species of heroism.

But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor, but all the undertakings which laborpromotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes are those of an idleman; money loses a portion of its value in his eyes; he covets wealth much lessthan pleasure and excitement; and the energy which his neighbor devotes togain, turns with him to a passionate love of field sports and militaryexercises; he delights in violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the useof arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in singlecombat. Thus slavery not only prevents the whites from becoming opulent, buteven from desiring to become so.

As the same causes have been continually producing opposite effects for thelast two centuries in the British colonies of North America, they haveestablished a very striking difference between the commercial capacity of theinhabitants of the South and those of the North. At the present day it is onlythe Northern States which are in possession of shipping, manufactures,railroads, and canals. This difference is perceptible not only in comparing theNorth with the South, but in comparing the several Southern States. Almost allthe individuals who carry on commercial operations, or who endeavor to turnslave labor to account in the most Southern districts of the Union, haveemigrated from the North. The natives of the Northern States are constantlyspreading over that portion of the American territory where they have less tofear from competition; they discover resources there which escaped the noticeof the inhabitants; and, as they comply with a system which they do notapprove, they succeed in turning it to better advantage than those who firstfounded and who still maintain it.

Were I inclined to continue this parallel, I could easily prove that almost allthe differences which may be remarked between the characters of the Americansin the Southern and in the Northern States have originated in slavery; but thiswould divert me from my subject, and my present intention is not to point outall the consequences of servitude, but those effects which it has produced uponthe prosperity of the countries which have admitted it.

The influence of slavery upon the production of wealth must have been veryimperfectly known in antiquity, as slavery then obtained throughout thecivilized world; and the nations which were unacquainted with it werebarbarous. And indeed Christianity only abolished slavery by advocating theclaims of the slave; at the present time it may be attacked in the name of themaster, and, upon this point, interest is reconciled with morality.

As these truths became apparent in the United States, slavery receded beforethe progress of experience. Servitude had begun in the South, and had thencespread towards the North; but it now retires again. Freedom, which started fromthe North, now descends uninterruptedly towards the South. Amongst the greatStates, Pennsylvania now constitutes the extreme limit of slavery to the North:but even within those limits the slave system is shaken: Maryland, which isimmediately below Pennsylvania, is preparing for its abolition; and Virginia,which comes next to Maryland, is already discussing its utility and itsdangers. *l

l
[ A peculiar reason contributes to detach the two last-mentioned States fromthe cause of slavery. The former wealth of this part of the Union wasprincipally derived from the cultivation of tobacco. This cultivation isspecially carried on by slaves; but within the last few years the market-priceof tobacco has diminished, whilst the value of the slaves remains the same.Thus the ratio between the cost of production and the value of the produce ischanged. The natives of Maryland and Virginia are therefore more disposed thanthey were thirty years ago, to give up slave labor in the cultivation oftobacco, or to give up slavery and tobacco at the same time.]

No great change takes place in human institutions without involving amongst itscauses the law of inheritance. When the law of primogeniture obtained in theSouth, each family was represented by a wealthy individual, who was neithercompelled nor induced to labor; and he was surrounded, as by parasitic plants,by the other members of his family who were then excluded by law from sharingthe common inheritance, and who led the same kind of life as himself. The verysame thing then occurred in all the families of the South as still happens inthe wealthy families of some countries in Europe, namely, that the younger sonsremain in the same state of idleness as their elder brother, without being asrich as he is. This identical result seems to be produced in Europe and inAmerica by wholly analogous causes. In the South of the United States the wholerace of whites formed an aristocratic body, which was headed by a certainnumber of privileged individuals, whose wealth was permanent, and whose leisurewas hereditary. These leaders of the American nobility kept alive thetraditional prejudices of the white race in the body of which they were therepresentatives, and maintained the honor of inactive life. This aristocracycontained many who were poor, but none who would work; its members preferredwant to labor, consequently no competition was set on foot against negrolaborers and slaves, and, whatever opinion might be entertained as to theutility of their efforts, it was indispensable to employ them, since there wasno one else to work.

No sooner was the law of primogeniture abolished than fortunes began todiminish, and all the families of the country were simultaneously reduced to astate in which labor became necessary to procure the means of subsistence:several of them have since entirely disappeared, and all of them learned tolook forward to the time at which it would be necessary for everyone to providefor his own wants. Wealthy individuals are still to be met with, but they nolonger constitute a compact and hereditary body, nor have they been able toadopt a line of conduct in which they could persevere, and which they couldinfuse into all ranks of society. The prejudice which stigmatized labor was inthe first place abandoned by common consent; the number of needy men wasincreased, and the needy were allowed to gain a laborious subsistence withoutblushing for their exertions. Thus one of the most immediate consequences ofthe partible quality of estates has been to create a class of free laborers. Assoon as a competition was set on foot between the free laborer and the slave,the inferiority of the latter became manifest, and slavery was attacked in itsfundamental principle, which is the interest of the master.

As slavery recedes, the black population follows its retrograde course, andreturns with it towards those tropical regions from which it originally came.However singular this fact may at first appear to be, it may readily beexplained. Although the Americans abolish the principle of slavery, they do notset their slaves free. To illustrate this remark, I will quote the example ofthe State of New York. In 1788, the State of New York prohibited the sale ofslaves within its limits, which was an indirect method of prohibiting theimportation of blacks. Thenceforward the number of negroes could only increaseaccording to the ratio of the natural increase of population. But eight yearslater a more decisive measure was taken, and it was enacted that all childrenborn of slave parents after July 4, 1799, should be free. No increase couldthen take place, and although slaves still existed, slavery might be said to beabolished.

From the time at which a Northern State prohibited the importation of slaves,no slaves were brought from the South to be sold in its markets. On the otherhand, as the sale of slaves was forbidden in that State, an owner was no longerable to get rid of his slave (who thus became a burdensome possession)otherwise than by transporting him to the South. But when a Northern Statedeclared that the son of the slave should be born free, the slave lost a largeportion of his market value, since his posterity was no longer included in thebargain, and the owner had then a strong interest in transporting him to theSouth. Thus the same law prevents the slaves of the South from coming to theNorthern States, and drives those of the North to the South.

The want of free hands is felt in a State in proportion as the number of slavesdecreases. But in proportion as labor is performed by free hands, slave laborbecomes less productive; and the slave is then a useless or onerous possession,whom it is important to export to those Southern States where the samecompetition is not to be feared. Thus the abolition of slavery does not set theslave free, but it merely transfers him from one master to another, and fromthe North to the South.

The emancipated negroes, and those born after the abolition of slavery, do not,indeed, migrate from the North to the South; but their situation with regard tothe Europeans is not unlike that of the aborigines of America; they remain halfcivilized, and deprived of their rights in the midst of a population which isfar superior to them in wealth and in knowledge; where they are exposed to thetyranny of the laws *m and the intolerance of the people. On some accounts theyare still more to be pitied than the Indians, since they are haunted by thereminiscence of slavery, and they cannot claim possession of a single portionof the soil: many of them perish miserably, *n and the rest congregate in thegreat towns, where they perform the meanest offices, and lead a wretched andprecarious existence.

m
[ The States in which slavery is abolished usually do what they can to rendertheir territory disagreeable to the negroes as a place of residence; and as akind of emulation exists between the different States in this respect, theunhappy blacks can only choose the least of the evils which beset them.]

n
[ There is a very great difference between the mortality of the blacks and ofthe whites in the States in which slavery is abolished; from 1820 to 1831 onlyone out of forty-two individuals of the white population died in Philadelphia;but one negro out of twenty-one individuals of the black population died in thesame space of time. The mortality is by no means so great amongst the negroeswho are still slaves. (See Emerson’s “Medical Statistics,” p.28.)]

But even if the number of negroes continued to increase as rapidly as when theywere still in a state of slavery, as the number of whites augments with twofoldrapidity since the abolition of slavery, the blacks would soon be, as it were,lost in the midst of a strange population.

A district which is cultivated by slaves is in general more scantily peopledthan a district cultivated by free labor: moreover, America is still a newcountry, and a State is therefore not half peopled at the time when itabolishes slavery. No sooner is an end put to slavery than the want of freelabor is felt, and a crowd of enterprising adventurers immediately arrive fromall parts of the country, who hasten to profit by the fresh resources which arethen opened to industry. The soil is soon divided amongst them, and a family ofwhite settlers takes possession of each tract of country. Besides which,European emigration is exclusively directed to the free States; for what wouldbe the fate of a poor emigrant who crosses the Atlantic in search of ease andhappiness if he were to land in a country where labor is stigmatized asdegrading?

Thus the white population grows by its natural increase, and at the same timeby the immense influx of emigrants; whilst the black population receives noemigrants, and is upon its decline. The proportion which existed between thetwo races is soon inverted. The negroes constitute a scanty remnant, a poortribe of vagrants, which is lost in the midst of an immense people in fullpossession of the land; and the presence of the blacks is only marked by theinjustice and the hardships of which they are the unhappy victims.

In several of the Western States the negro race never made its appearance, andin all the Northern States it is rapidly declining. Thus the great question ofits future condition is confined within a narrow circle, where it becomes lessformidable, though not more easy of solution.

The more we descend towards the South, the more difficult does it become toabolish slavery with advantage: and this arises from several physical causeswhich it is important to point out.

The first of these causes is the climate; it is well known that in proportionas Europeans approach the tropics they suffer more from labor. Many of theAmericans even assert that within a certain latitude the exertions which anegro can make without danger are fatal to them; *o but I do not think thatthis opinion, which is so favorable to the indolence of the inhabitants ofsouthern regions, is confirmed by experience. The southern parts of the Unionare not hotter than the South of Italy and of Spain; *p and it may be asked whythe European cannot work as well there as in the two latter countries. Ifslavery has been abolished in Italy and in Spain without causing thedestruction of the masters, why should not the same thing take place in theUnion? I cannot believe that nature has prohibited the Europeans in Georgia andthe Floridas, under pain of death, from raising the means of subsistence fromthe soil, but their labor would unquestionably be more irksome and lessproductive to them than to the inhabitants of New England. As the free workmanthus loses a portion of his superiority over the slave in the Southern States,there are fewer inducements to abolish slavery.

o
[ This is true of the spots in which rice is cultivated; rice-grounds, whichare unwholesome in all countries, are particularly dangerous in those regionswhich are exposed to the beams of a tropical sun. Europeans would not find iteasy to cultivate the soil in that part of the New World if it must benecessarily be made to produce rice; but may they not subsist withoutrice-grounds?]

p
[ These States are nearer to the equator than Italy and Spain, but thetemperature of the continent of America is very much lower than that of Europe.

The Spanish Government formerly caused a certain number of peasants from theAcores to be transported into a district of Louisiana called Attakapas, by wayof experiment. These settlers still cultivate the soil without the assistanceof slaves, but their industry is so languid as scarcely to supply their mostnecessary wants.]

All the plants of Europe grow in the northern parts of the Union; the South hasspecial productions of its own. It has been observed that slave labor is a veryexpensive method of cultivating corn. The farmer of corn land in a countrywhere slavery is unknown habitually retains a small number of laborers in hisservice, and at seed-time and harvest he hires several additional hands, whoonly live at his cost for a short period. But the agriculturist in a slaveState is obliged to keep a large number of slaves the whole year round, inorder to sow his fields and to gather in his crops, although their services areonly required for a few weeks; but slaves are unable to wait till they arehired, and to subsist by their own labor in the mean time like free laborers;in order to have their services they must be bought. Slavery, independently ofits general disadvantages, is therefore still more inapplicable to countries inwhich corn is cultivated than to those which produce crops of a different kind.The cultivation of tobacco, of cotton, and especially of the sugar-cane,demands, on the other hand, unremitting attention: and women and children areemployed in it, whose services are of but little use in the cultivation ofwheat. Thus slavery is naturally more fitted to the countries from which theseproductions are derived. Tobacco, cotton, and the sugar-cane are exclusivelygrown in the South, and they form one of the principal sources of the wealth ofthose States. If slavery were abolished, the inhabitants of the South would beconstrained to adopt one of two alternatives: they must either change theirsystem of cultivation, and then they would come into competition with the moreactive and more experienced inhabitants of the North; or, if they continued tocultivate the same produce without slave labor, they would have to support thecompetition of the other States of the South, which might still retain theirslaves. Thus, peculiar reasons for maintaining slavery exist in the South whichdo not operate in the North.

But there is yet another motive which is more cogent than all the others: theSouth might indeed, rigorously speaking, abolish slavery; but how should it ridits territory of the black population? Slaves and slavery are driven from theNorth by the same law, but this twofold result cannot be hoped for in theSouth.

The arguments which I have adduced to show that slavery is more natural andmore advantageous in the South than in the North, sufficiently prove that thenumber of slaves must be far greater in the former districts. It was to thesouthern settlements that the first Africans were brought, and it is there thatthe greatest number of them have always been imported. As we advance towardsthe South, the prejudice which sanctions idleness increases in power. In theStates nearest to the tropics there is not a single white laborer; the negroesare consequently much more numerous in the South than in the North. And, as Ihave already observed, this disproportion increases daily, since the negroesare transferred to one part of the Union as soon as slavery is abolished in theother. Thus the black population augments in the South, not only by its naturalfecundity, but by the compulsory emigration of the negroes from the North; andthe African race has causes of increase in the South very analogous to thosewhich so powerfully accelerate the growth of the European race in the North.

In the State of Maine there is one negro in 300 inhabitants; in Massachusetts,one in 100; in New York, two in 100; in Pennsylvania, three in the same number;in Maryland, thirty-four; in Virginia, forty-two; and lastly, in South Carolina*q fifty-five per cent. Such was the proportion of the black population to thewhites in the year 1830. But this proportion is perpetually changing, as itconstantly decreases in the North and augments in the South.

q
[ We find it asserted in an American work, entitled “Letters on theColonization Society,” by Mr. Carey, 1833, “That for the last fortyyears the black race has increased more rapidly than the white race in theState of South Carolina; and that if we take the average population of the fiveStates of the South into which slaves were first introduced, viz., Maryland,Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia, we shall find that from1790 to 1830 the whites have augmented in the proportion of 80 to 100, and theblacks in that of 112 to 100.”

In the United States, in 1830, the population of the two races stood asfollows:—

States where slavery is abolished, 6,565,434 whites; 120,520 blacks. SlaveStates, 3,960,814 whites; 2,208,102 blacks. [In 1890 the United Statescontained a population of 54,983,890 whites, and 7,638,360 negroes.]]

It is evident that the most Southern States of the Union cannot abolish slaverywithout incurring very great dangers, which the North had no reason toapprehend when it emancipated its black population. We have already shown thesystem by which the Northern States secure the transition from slavery tofreedom, by keeping the present generation in chains, and setting theirdescendants free; by this means the negroes are gradually introduced intosociety; and whilst the men who might abuse their freedom are kept in a stateof servitude, those who are emancipated may learn the art of being free beforethey become their own masters. But it would be difficult to apply this methodin the South. To declare that all the negroes born after a certain period shallbe free, is to introduce the principle and the notion of liberty into the heartof slavery; the blacks whom the law thus maintains in a state of slavery fromwhich their children are delivered, are astonished at so unequal a fate, andtheir astonishment is only the prelude to their impatience and irritation.Thenceforward slavery loses, in their eyes, that kind of moral power which itderived from time and habit; it is reduced to a mere palpable abuse of force.The Northern States had nothing to fear from the contrast, because in them theblacks were few in number, and the white population was very considerable. Butif this faint dawn of freedom were to show two millions of men their trueposition, the oppressors would have reason to tremble. After havingaffranchised the children of their slaves the Europeans of the Southern Stateswould very shortly be obliged to extend the same benefit to the whole blackpopulation.

Chapter XVIII: FutureCondition Of Three Races—Part V

In the North, as I have already remarked, a twofold migration ensues upon theabolition of slavery, or even precedes that event when circ*mstances haverendered it probable; the slaves quit the country to be transported southwards;and the whites of the Northern States, as well as the emigrants from Europe,hasten to fill up their place. But these two causes cannot operate in the samemanner in the Southern States. On the one hand, the mass of slaves is too greatfor any expectation of their ever being removed from the country to beentertained; and on the other hand, the Europeans and Anglo-Americans of theNorth are afraid to come to inhabit a country in which labor has not yet beenreinstated in its rightful honors. Besides, they very justly look upon theStates in which the proportion of the negroes equals or exceeds that of thewhites, as exposed to very great dangers; and they refrain from turning theiractivity in that direction.

Thus the inhabitants of the South would not be able, like their Northerncountrymen, to initiate the slaves gradually into a state of freedom byabolishing slavery; they have no means of perceptibly diminishing the blackpopulation, and they would remain unsupported to repress its excesses. So thatin the course of a few years, a great people of free negroes would exist in theheart of a white nation of equal size.

The same abuses of power which still maintain slavery, would then become thesource of the most alarming perils which the white population of the Southmight have to apprehend. At the present time the descendants of the Europeansare the sole owners of the land; the absolute masters of all labor; and theonly persons who are possessed of wealth, knowledge, and arms. The black isdestitute of all these advantages, but he subsists without them because he is aslave. If he were free, and obliged to provide for his own subsistence, wouldit be possible for him to remain without these things and to support life? Orwould not the very instruments of the present superiority of the white, whilstslavery exists, expose him to a thousand dangers if it were abolished?

As long as the negro remains a slave, he may be kept in a condition not veryfar removed from that of the brutes; but, with his liberty, he cannot butacquire a degree of instruction which will enable him to appreciate hismisfortunes, and to discern a remedy for them. Moreover, there exists asingular principle of relative justice which is very firmly implanted in thehuman heart. Men are much more forcibly struck by those inequalities whichexist within the circle of the same class, than with those which may beremarked between different classes. It is more easy for them to admit slavery,than to allow several millions of citizens to exist under a load of eternalinfamy and hereditary wretchedness. In the North the population of freednegroes feels these hardships and resents these indignities; but its numbersand its powers are small, whilst in the South it would be numerous and strong.

As soon as it is admitted that the whites and the emancipated blacks are placedupon the same territory in the situation of two alien communities, it willreadily be understood that there are but two alternatives for the future; thenegroes and the whites must either wholly part or wholly mingle. I have alreadyexpressed the conviction which I entertain as to the latter event. *r I do notimagine that the white and black races will ever live in any country upon anequal footing. But I believe the difficulty to be still greater in the UnitedStates than elsewhere. An isolated individual may surmount the prejudices ofreligion, of his country, or of his race, and if this individual is a king hemay effect surprising changes in society; but a whole people cannot rise, as itwere, above itself. A despot who should subject the Americans and their formerslaves to the same yoke, might perhaps succeed in commingling their races; butas long as the American democracy remains at the head of affairs, no one willundertake so difficult a task; and it may be foreseen that the freer the whitepopulation of the United States becomes, the more isolated will it remain. *s

r
[ This opinion is sanctioned by authorities infinitely weightier than anythingthat I can say: thus, for instance, it is stated in the “Memoirs ofJefferson” (as collected by M. Conseil), “Nothing is more clearlywritten in the book of destiny than the emancipation of the blacks; and it isequally certain that the two races will never live in a state of equal freedomunder the same government, so insurmountable are the barriers which nature,habit, and opinions have established between them.”]

s
[ If the British West India planters had governed themselves, they wouldassuredly not have passed the Slave Emancipation Bill which the mother-countryhas recently imposed upon them.]

I have previously observed that the mixed race is the true bond of unionbetween the Europeans and the Indians; just so the mulattoes are the true meansof transition between the white and the negro; so that wherever mulattoesabound, the intermixture of the two races is not impossible. In some parts ofAmerica, the European and the negro races are so crossed by one another, thatit is rare to meet with a man who is entirely black, or entirely white: whenthey are arrived at this point, the two races may really be said to becombined; or rather to have been absorbed in a third race, which is connectedwith both without being identical with either.

Of all the Europeans the English are those who have mixed least with thenegroes. More mulattoes are to be seen in the South of the Union than in theNorth, but still they are infinitely more scarce than in any other Europeancolony: mulattoes are by no means numerous in the United States; they have noforce peculiar to themselves, and when quarrels originating in differences ofcolor take place, they generally side with the whites; just as the lackeys ofthe great, in Europe, assume the contemptuous airs of nobility to the lowerorders.

The pride of origin, which is natural to the English, is singularly augmentedby the personal pride which democratic liberty fosters amongst the Americans:the white citizen of the United States is proud of his race, and proud ofhimself. But if the whites and the negroes do not intermingle in the North ofthe Union, how should they mix in the South? Can it be supposed for an instant,that an American of the Southern States, placed, as he must forever be, betweenthe white man with all his physical and moral superiority and the negro, willever think of preferring the latter? The Americans of the Southern States havetwo powerful passions which will always keep them aloof; the first is the fearof being assimilated to the negroes, their former slaves; and the second thedread of sinking below the whites, their neighbors.

If I were called upon to predict what will probably occur at some future time,I should say, that the abolition of slavery in the South will, in the commoncourse of things, increase the repugnance of the white population for the menof color. I found this opinion upon the analogous observation which I alreadyhad occasion to make in the North. I there remarked that the white inhabitantsof the North avoid the negroes with increasing care, in proportion as the legalbarriers of separation are removed by the legislature; and why should not thesame result take place in the South? In the North, the whites are deterred fromintermingling with the blacks by the fear of an imaginary danger; in the South,where the danger would be real, I cannot imagine that the fear would be lessgeneral.

If, on the one hand, it be admitted (and the fact is unquestionable) that thecolored population perpetually accumulates in the extreme South, and that itincreases more rapidly than that of the whites; and if, on the other hand, itbe allowed that it is impossible to foresee a time at which the whites and theblacks will be so intermingled as to derive the same benefits from society;must it not be inferred that the blacks and the whites will, sooner or later,come to open strife in the Southern States of the Union? But if it be askedwhat the issue of the struggle is likely to be, it will readily be understoodthat we are here left to form a very vague surmise of the truth. The human mindmay succeed in tracing a wide circle, as it were, which includes the course offuture events; but within that circle a thousand various chances andcirc*mstances may direct it in as many different ways; and in every picture ofthe future there is a dim spot, which the eye of the understanding cannotpenetrate. It appears, however, to be extremely probable that in the WestIndian Islands the white race is destined to be subdued, and the blackpopulation to share the same fate upon the continent.

In the West India Islands the white planters are surrounded by an immense blackpopulation; on the continent, the blacks are placed between the ocean and aninnumerable people, which already extends over them in a dense mass, from theicy confines of Canada to the frontiers of Virginia, and from the banks of theMissouri to the shores of the Atlantic. If the white citizens of North Americaremain united, it cannot be supposed that the negroes will escape thedestruction with which they are menaced; they must be subdued by want or by thesword. But the black population which is accumulated along the coast of theGulf of Mexico, has a chance of success if the American Union is dissolved whenthe struggle between the two races begins. If the federal tie were broken, thecitizens of the South would be wrong to rely upon any lasting succor from theirNorthern countrymen. The latter are well aware that the danger can never reachthem; and unless they are constrained to march to the assistance of the Southby a positive obligation, it may be foreseen that the sympathy of color will beinsufficient to stimulate their exertions.

Yet, at whatever period the strife may break out, the whites of the South, evenif they are abandoned to their own resources, will enter the lists with animmense superiority of knowledge and of the means of warfare; but the blackswill have numerical strength and the energy of despair upon their side, andthese are powerful resources to men who have taken up arms. The fate of thewhite population of the Southern States will, perhaps, be similar to that ofthe Moors in Spain. After having occupied the land for centuries, it willperhaps be forced to retire to the country whence its ancestors came, and toabandon to the negroes the possession of a territory, which Providence seems tohave more peculiarly destined for them, since they can subsist and labor in itmore easily that the whites.

The danger of a conflict between the white and the black inhabitants of theSouthern States of the Union—a danger which, however remote it may be, isinevitable—perpetually haunts the imagination of the Americans. Theinhabitants of the North make it a common topic of conversation, although theyhave no direct injury to fear from the struggle; but they vainly endeavor todevise some means of obviating the misfortunes which they foresee. In theSouthern States the subject is not discussed: the planter does not allude tothe future in conversing with strangers; the citizen does not communicate hisapprehensions to his friends; he seeks to conceal them from himself; but thereis something more alarming in the tacit forebodings of the South, than in theclamorous fears of the Northern States.

This all-pervading disquietude has given birth to an undertaking which is butlittle known, but which may have the effect of changing the fate of a portionof the human race. From apprehension of the dangers which I have just beendescribing, a certain number of American citizens have formed a society for thepurpose of exporting to the coast of Guinea, at their own expense, such freenegroes as may be willing to escape from the oppression to which they aresubject. *t In 1820, the society to which I allude formed a settlement inAfrica, upon the seventh degree of north latitude, which bears the name ofLiberia. The most recent intelligence informs us that 2,500 negroes arecollected there; they have introduced the democratic institutions of Americainto the country of their forefathers; and Liberia has a representative systemof government, negro jurymen, negro magistrates, and negro priests; churcheshave been built, newspapers established, and, by a singular change in thevicissitudes of the world, white men are prohibited from sojourning within thesettlement. *u

t
[ This society assumed the name of “The Society for the Colonization ofthe Blacks.” See its annual reports; and more particularly the fifteenth.See also the pamphlet, to which allusion has already been made, entitled“Letters on the Colonization Society, and on its probable Results,”by Mr. Carey, Philadelphia, 1833.]

u
[ This last regulation was laid down by the founders of the settlement; theyapprehended that a state of things might arise in Africa similar to that whichexists on the frontiers of the United States, and that if the negroes, like theIndians, were brought into collision with a people more enlightened thanthemselves, they would be destroyed before they could be civilized.]

This is indeed a strange caprice of fortune. Two hundred years have now elapsedsince the inhabitants of Europe undertook to tear the negro from his family andhis home, in order to transport him to the shores of North America; at thepresent day, the European settlers are engaged in sending back the descendantsof those very negroes to the Continent from which they were originally taken;and the barbarous Africans have been brought into contact with civilization inthe midst of bondage, and have become acquainted with free politicalinstitutions in slavery. Up to the present time Africa has been closed againstthe arts and sciences of the whites; but the inventions of Europe will perhapspenetrate into those regions, now that they are introduced by Africansthemselves. The settlement of Liberia is founded upon a lofty and a mostfruitful idea; but whatever may be its results with regard to the Continent ofAfrica, it can afford no remedy to the New World.

In twelve years the Colonization Society has transported 2,500 negroes toAfrica; in the same space of time about 700,000 blacks were born in the UnitedStates. If the colony of Liberia were so situated as to be able to receivethousands of new inhabitants every year, and if the negroes were in a state tobe sent thither with advantage; if the Union were to supply the society withannual subsidies, *v and to transport the negroes to Africa in the vessels ofthe State, it would still be unable to counterpoise the natural increase ofpopulation amongst the blacks; and as it could not remove as many men in a yearas are born upon its territory within the same space of time, it would fail insuspending the growth of the evil which is daily increasing in the States. *wThe negro race will never leave those shores of the American continent, towhich it was brought by the passions and the vices of Europeans; and it willnot disappear from the New World as long as it continues to exist. Theinhabitants of the United States may retard the calamities which theyapprehend, but they cannot now destroy their efficient cause.

v
[ Nor would these be the only difficulties attendant upon the undertaking; ifthe Union undertook to buy up the negroes now in America, in order to transportthem to Africa, the price of slaves, increasing with their scarcity, would soonbecome enormous; and the States of the North would never consent to expend suchgreat sums for a purpose which would procure such small advantages tothemselves. If the Union took possession of the slaves in the Southern Statesby force, or at a rate determined by law, an insurmountable resistance wouldarise in that part of the country. Both alternatives are equally impossible.]

w
[ In 1830 there were in the United States 2,010,327 slaves and 319,439 freeblacks, in all 2,329,766 negroes: which formed about one-fifth of the totalpopulation of the United States at that time.]

I am obliged to confess that I do not regard the abolition of slavery as ameans of warding off the struggle of the two races in the United States. Thenegroes may long remain slaves without complaining; but if they are once raisedto the level of free men, they will soon revolt at being deprived of all theircivil rights; and as they cannot become the equals of the whites, they willspeedily declare themselves as enemies. In the North everything contributed tofacilitate the emancipation of the slaves; and slavery was abolished, withoutplacing the free negroes in a position which could become formidable, sincetheir number was too small for them ever to claim the exercise of their rights.But such is not the case in the South. The question of slavery was a questionof commerce and manufacture for the slave-owners in the North; for those of theSouth, it is a question of life and death. God forbid that I should seek tojustify the principle of negro slavery, as has been done by some Americanwriters! But I only observe that all the countries which formerly adopted thatexecrable principle are not equally able to abandon it at the present time.

When I contemplate the condition of the South, I can only discover twoalternatives which may be adopted by the white inhabitants of those States;viz., either to emancipate the negroes, and to intermingle with them; or,remaining isolated from them, to keep them in a state of slavery as long aspossible. All intermediate measures seem to me likely to terminate, and thatshortly, in the most horrible of civil wars, and perhaps in the extirpation ofone or other of the two races. Such is the view which the Americans of theSouth take of the question, and they act consistently with it. As they aredetermined not to mingle with the negroes, they refuse to emancipate them.

Not that the inhabitants of the South regard slavery as necessary to the wealthof the planter, for on this point many of them agree with their Northerncountrymen in freely admitting that slavery is prejudicial to their interest;but they are convinced that, however prejudicial it may be, they hold theirlives upon no other tenure. The instruction which is now diffused in the Southhas convinced the inhabitants that slavery is injurious to the slave-owner, butit has also shown them, more clearly than before, that no means exist ofgetting rid of its bad consequences. Hence arises a singular contrast; the morethe utility of slavery is contested, the more firmly is it established in thelaws; and whilst the principle of servitude is gradually abolished in theNorth, that self-same principle gives rise to more and more rigorousconsequences in the South.

The legislation of the Southern States with regard to slaves, presents at thepresent day such unparalleled atrocities as suffice to show how radically thelaws of humanity have been perverted, and to betray the desperate position ofthe community in which that legislation has been promulgated. The Americans ofthis portion of the Union have not, indeed, augmented the hardships of slavery;they have, on the contrary, bettered the physical condition of the slaves. Theonly means by which the ancients maintained slavery were fetters and death; theAmericans of the South of the Union have discovered more intellectualsecurities for the duration of their power. They have employed their despotismand their violence against the human mind. In antiquity, precautions were takento prevent the slave from breaking his chains; at the present day measures areadopted to deprive him even of the desire of freedom. The ancients kept thebodies of their slaves in bondage, but they placed no restraint upon the mindand no check upon education; and they acted consistently with their establishedprinciple, since a natural termination of slavery then existed, and one day orother the slave might be set free, and become the equal of his master. But theAmericans of the South, who do not admit that the negroes can ever becommingled with themselves, have forbidden them to be taught to read or towrite, under severe penalties; and as they will not raise them to their ownlevel, they sink them as nearly as possible to that of the brutes.

The hope of liberty had always been allowed to the slave to cheer the hardshipsof his condition. But the Americans of the South are well aware thatemancipation cannot but be dangerous, when the freed man can never beassimilated to his former master. To give a man his freedom, and to leave himin wretchedness and ignominy, is nothing less than to prepare a future chieffor a revolt of the slaves. Moreover, it has long been remarked that thepresence of a free negro vaguely agitates the minds of his less fortunatebrethren, and conveys to them a dim notion of their rights. The Americans ofthe South have consequently taken measures to prevent slave-owners fromemancipating their slaves in most cases; not indeed by a positive prohibition,but by subjecting that step to various forms which it is difficult to complywith. I happened to meet with an old man, in the South of the Union, who hadlived in illicit intercourse with one of his negresses, and had had severalchildren by her, who were born the slaves of their father. He had indeedfrequently thought of bequeathing to them at least their liberty; but years hadelapsed without his being able to surmount the legal obstacles to theiremancipation, and in the mean while his old age was come, and he was about todie. He pictured to himself his sons dragged from market to market, and passingfrom the authority of a parent to the rod of the stranger, until these horridanticipations worked his expiring imagination into frenzy. When I saw him hewas a prey to all the anguish of despair, and he made me feel how awful is theretribution of nature upon those who have broken her laws.

These evils are unquestionably great; but they are the necessary and foreseenconsequence of the very principle of modern slavery. When the Europeans chosetheir slaves from a race differing from their own, which many of themconsidered as inferior to the other races of mankind, and which they allrepelled with horror from any notion of intimate connection, they must havebelieved that slavery would last forever; since there is no intermediate statewhich can be durable between the excessive inequality produced by servitude andthe complete equality which originates in independence. The Europeans didimperfectly feel this truth, but without acknowledging it even to themselves.Whenever they have had to do with negroes, their conduct has either beendictated by their interest and their pride, or by their compassion. They firstviolated every right of humanity by their treatment of the negro and theyafterwards informed him that those rights were precious and inviolable. Theyaffected to open their ranks to the slaves, but the negroes who attempted topenetrate into the community were driven back with scorn; and they haveincautiously and involuntarily been led to admit of freedom instead of slavery,without having the courage to be wholly iniquitous, or wholly just.

If it be impossible to anticipate a period at which the Americans of the Southwill mingle their blood with that of the negroes, can they allow their slavesto become free without compromising their own security? And if they are obligedto keep that race in bondage in order to save their own families, may they notbe excused for availing themselves of the means best adapted to that end? Theevents which are taking place in the Southern States of the Union appear to meto be at once the most horrible and the most natural results of slavery. When Isee the order of nature overthrown, and when I hear the cry of humanity in itsvain struggle against the laws, my indignation does not light upon the men ofour own time who are the instruments of these outrages; but I reserve myexecration for those who, after a thousand years of freedom, brought backslavery into the world once more.

Whatever may be the efforts of the Americans of the South to maintain slavery,they will not always succeed. Slavery, which is now confined to a single tractof the civilized earth, which is attacked by Christianity as unjust, and bypolitical economy as prejudicial; and which is now contrasted with democraticliberties and the information of our age, cannot survive. By the choice of themaster, or by the will of the slave, it will cease; and in either case greatcalamities may be expected to ensue. If liberty be refused to the negroes ofthe South, they will in the end seize it for themselves by force; if it begiven, they will abuse it ere long. *x

x
[ [This chapter is no longer applicable to the condition of the negro race inthe United States, since the abolition of slavery was the result, though notthe object, of the great Civil War, and the negroes have been raised to thecondition not only of freedmen, but of citizens; and in some States theyexercise a preponderating political power by reason of their numericalmajority. Thus, in South Carolina there were in 1870, 289,667 whites and415,814 blacks. But the emancipation of the slaves has not solved the problem,how two races so different and so hostile are to live together in peace in onecountry on equal terms. That problem is as difficult, perhaps more difficultthan ever; and to this difficulty the author’s remarks are stillperfectly applicable.]]

Chapter XVIII: FutureCondition Of Three Races—Part VI

What Are The Chances In Favor Of The Duration Of The American Union, And WhatDangers Threaten It *y

y
[ [This chapter is one of the most curious and interesting portions of thework, because it embraces almost all the constitutional and social questionswhich were raised by the great secession of the South and decided by theresults of the Civil War. But it must be confessed that the sagacity of theauthor is sometimes at fault in these speculations, and did not save him fromconsiderable errors, which the course of events has since made apparent. Heheld that “the legislators of the Constitution of 1789 were not appointedto constitute the government of a single people, but to regulate theassociation of several States; that the Union was formed by the voluntaryagreement of the States, and in uniting together they have not forfeited theirnationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the samepeople.” Whence he inferred that “if one of the States chose towithdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove itsright of doing so; and that the Federal Government would have no means ofmaintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right.” This isthe Southern theory of the Constitution, and the whole case of the South infavor of secession. To many Europeans, and to some American (Northern) jurists,this view appeared to be sound; but it was vigorously resisted by the North,and crushed by force of arms.

The author of this book was mistaken in supposing that the “Union was avast body which presents no definite object to patriotic feeling.” Whenthe day of trial came, millions of men were ready to lay down their lives forit. He was also mistaken in supposing that the Federal Executive is so weakthat it requires the free consent of the governed to enable it to subsist, andthat it would be defeated in a struggle to maintain the Union against one ormore separate States. In 1861 nine States, with a population of 8,753,000,seceded, and maintained for four years a resolute but unequal contest forindependence, but they were defeated.

Lastly, the author was mistaken in supposing that a community of interestswould always prevail between North and South sufficiently powerful to bind themtogether. He overlooked the influence which the question of slavery must haveon the Union the moment that the majority of the people of the North declaredagainst it. In 1831, when the author visited America, the anti-slaveryagitation had scarcely begun; and the fact of Southern slavery was accepted bymen of all parties, even in the States where there were no slaves: and that wasunquestionably the view taken by all the States and by all American statesmenat the time of the adoption of the Constitution, in 1789. But in the course ofthirty years a great change took place, and the North refused to perpetuatewhat had become the “peculiar institution” of the South, especiallyas it gave the South a species of aristocratic preponderance. The result wasthe ratification, in December, 1865, of the celebrated 13th article oramendment of the Constitution, which declared that “neither slavery norinvoluntary servitude—except as a punishment for crime—shall existwithin the United States.” To which was soon afterwards added the 15tharticle, “The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridgedby the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previousservitude.” The emancipation of several millions of negro slaves withoutcompensation, and the transfer to them of political preponderance in the Statesin which they outnumber the white population, were acts of the North totallyopposed to the interests of the South, and which could only have been carriedinto effect by conquest.—Translator’s Note.]]

Reason for which the preponderating force lies in the States rather than in theUnion—The Union will only last as long as all the States choose to belongto it—Causes which tend to keep them united—Utility of the Union toresist foreign enemies, and to prevent the existence of foreigners inAmerica—No natural barriers between the several States—Noconflicting interests to divide them—Reciprocal interests of theNorthern, Southern, and Western States—Intellectual ties ofunion—Uniformity of opinions—Dangers of the Union resulting fromthe different characters and the passions of its citizens—Character ofthe citizens in the South and in the North—The rapid growth of the Unionone of its greatest dangers—Progress of the population to theNorthwest—Power gravitates in the same direction—Passionsoriginating from sudden turns of fortune—Whether the existing Governmentof the Union tends to gain strength, or to lose it—Various signs of itsdecrease—Internal improvements—Waste lands—Indians—TheBank—The Tariff—General Jackson.

The maintenance of the existing institutions of the several States depends insome measure upon the maintenance of the Union itself. It is thereforeimportant in the first instance to inquire into the probable fate of the Union.One point may indeed be assumed at once: if the present confederation weredissolved, it appears to me to be incontestable that the States of which it isnow composed would not return to their original isolated condition, but thatseveral unions would then be formed in the place of one. It is not my intentionto inquire into the principles upon which these new unions would probably beestablished, but merely to show what the causes are which may effect thedismemberment of the existing confederation.

With this object I shall be obliged to retrace some of the steps which I havealready taken, and to revert to topics which I have before discussed. I amaware that the reader may accuse me of repetition, but the importance of thematter which still remains to be treated is my excuse; I had rather say toomuch, than say too little to be thoroughly understood, and I prefer injuringthe author to slighting the subject.

The legislators who formed the Constitution of 1789 endeavored to confer adistinct and preponderating authority upon the federal power. But they wereconfined by the conditions of the task which they had undertaken to perform.They were not appointed to constitute the government of a single people, but toregulate the association of several States; and, whatever their inclinationsmight be, they could not but divide the exercise of sovereignty in the end.

In order to understand the consequences of this division, it is necessary tomake a short distinction between the affairs of the Government. There are someobjects which are national by their very nature, that is to say, which affectthe nation as a body, and can only be intrusted to the man or the assembly ofmen who most completely represent the entire nation. Amongst these may bereckoned war and diplomacy. There are other objects which are provincial bytheir very nature, that is to say, which only affect certain localities, andwhich can only be properly treated in that locality. Such, for instance, is thebudget of a municipality. Lastly, there are certain objects of a mixed nature,which are national inasmuch as they affect all the citizens who compose thenation, and which are provincial inasmuch as it is not necessary that thenation itself should provide for them all. Such are the rights which regulatethe civil and political condition of the citizens. No society can exist withoutcivil and political rights. These rights therefore interest all the citizensalike; but it is not always necessary to the existence and the prosperity ofthe nation that these rights should be uniform, nor, consequently, that theyshould be regulated by the central authority.

There are, then, two distinct categories of objects which are submitted to thedirection of the sovereign power; and these categories occur in allwell-constituted communities, whatever the basis of the political constitutionmay otherwise be. Between these two extremes the objects which I have termedmixed may be considered to lie. As these objects are neither exclusivelynational nor entirely provincial, they may be obtained by a national or by aprovincial government, according to the agreement of the contracting parties,without in any way impairing the contract of association.

The sovereign power is usually formed by the union of separate individuals, whocompose a people; and individual powers or collective forces, each representinga very small portion of the sovereign authority, are the sole elements whichare subjected to the general Government of their choice. In this case thegeneral Government is more naturally called upon to regulate, not only thoseaffairs which are of essential national importance, but those which are of amore local interest; and the local governments are reduced to that small shareof sovereign authority which is indispensable to their prosperity.

But sometimes the sovereign authority is composed of preorganized politicalbodies, by virtue of circ*mstances anterior to their union; and in this casethe provincial governments assume the control, not only of those affairs whichmore peculiarly belong to their province, but of all, or of a part of the mixedaffairs to which allusion has been made. For the confederate nations which wereindependent sovereign States before their union, and which still represent avery considerable share of the sovereign power, have only consented to cede tothe general Government the exercise of those rights which are indispensable tothe Union.

When the national Government, independently of the prerogatives inherent in itsnature, is invested with the right of regulating the affairs which relatepartly to the general and partly to the local interests, it possesses apreponderating influence. Not only are its own rights extensive, but all therights which it does not possess exist by its sufferance, and it may beapprehended that the provincial governments may be deprived of their naturaland necessary prerogatives by its influence.

When, on the other hand, the provincial governments are invested with the powerof regulating those same affairs of mixed interest, an opposite tendencyprevails in society. The preponderating force resides in the province, not inthe nation; and it may be apprehended that the national Government may in theend be stripped of the privileges which are necessary to its existence.

Independent nations have therefore a natural tendency to centralization, andconfederations to dismemberment.

It now only remains for us to apply these general principles to the AmericanUnion. The several States were necessarily possessed of the right of regulatingall exclusively provincial affairs. Moreover these same States retained therights of determining the civil and political competency of the citizens, orregulating the reciprocal relations of the members of the community, and ofdispensing justice; rights which are of a general nature, but which do notnecessarily appertain to the national Government. We have shown that theGovernment of the Union is invested with the power of acting in the name of thewhole nation in those cases in which the nation has to appear as a single andundivided power; as, for instance, in foreign relations, and in offering acommon resistance to a common enemy; in short, in conducting those affairswhich I have styled exclusively national.

In this division of the rights of sovereignty, the share of the Union seems atfirst sight to be more considerable than that of the States; but a moreattentive investigation shows it to be less so. The undertakings of theGovernment of the Union are more vast, but their influence is more rarely felt.Those of the provincial governments are comparatively small, but they areincessant, and they serve to keep alive the authority which they represent. TheGovernment of the Union watches the general interests of the country; but thegeneral interests of a people have a very questionable influence uponindividual happiness, whilst provincial interests produce a most immediateeffect upon the welfare of the inhabitants. The Union secures the independenceand the greatness of the nation, which do not immediately affect privatecitizens; but the several States maintain the liberty, regulate the rights,protect the fortune, and secure the life and the whole future prosperity ofevery citizen.

The Federal Government is very far removed from its subjects, whilst theprovincial governments are within the reach of them all, and are ready toattend to the smallest appeal. The central Government has upon its side thepassions of a few superior men who aspire to conduct it; but upon the side ofthe provincial governments are the interests of all those second-rateindividuals who can only hope to obtain power within their own State, and whonevertheless exercise the largest share of authority over the people becausethey are placed nearest to its level. The Americans have therefore much more tohope and to fear from the States than from the Union; and, in conformity withthe natural tendency of the human mind, they are more likely to attachthemselves to the former than to the latter. In this respect their habits andfeelings harmonize with their interests.

When a compact nation divides its sovereignty, and adopts a confederate form ofgovernment, the traditions, the customs, and the manners of the people are fora long time at variance with their legislation; and the former tend to give adegree of influence to the central government which the latter forbids. When anumber of confederate states unite to form a single nation, the same causesoperate in an opposite direction. I have no doubt that if France were to becomea confederate republic like that of the United States, the government would atfirst display more energy than that of the Union; and if the Union were toalter its constitution to a monarchy like that of France, I think that theAmerican Government would be a long time in acquiring the force which now rulesthe latter nation. When the national existence of the Anglo-Americans began,their provincial existence was already of long standing; necessary relationswere established between the townships and the individual citizens of the sameStates; and they were accustomed to consider some objects as common to themall, and to conduct other affairs as exclusively relating to their own specialinterests.

The Union is a vast body which presents no definite object to patrioticfeeling. The forms and limits of the State are distinct and circ*mscribed;since it represents a certain number of objects which are familiar to thecitizens and beloved by all. It is identified with the very soil, with theright of property and the domestic affections, with the recollections of thepast, the labors of the present, and the hopes of the future. Patriotism, then,which is frequently a mere extension of individual egotism, is still directedto the State, and is not excited by the Union. Thus the tendency of theinterests, the habits, and the feelings of the people is to centre politicalactivity in the States, in preference to the Union.

It is easy to estimate the different forces of the two governments, byremarking the manner in which they fulfil their respective functions. Wheneverthe government of a State has occasion to address an individual or an assemblyof individuals, its language is clear and imperative; and such is also the toneof the Federal Government in its intercourse with individuals, but no soonerhas it anything to do with a State than it begins to parley, to explain itsmotives and to justify its conduct, to argue, to advise, and, in short,anything but to command. If doubts are raised as to the limits of theconstitutional powers of each government, the provincial government prefers itsclaim with boldness, and takes prompt and energetic steps to support it. In themean while the Government of the Union reasons; it appeals to the interests, tothe good sense, to the glory of the nation; it temporizes, it negotiates, anddoes not consent to act until it is reduced to the last extremity. At firstsight it might readily be imagined that it is the provincial government whichis armed with the authority of the nation, and that Congress represents asingle State.

The Federal Government is, therefore, notwithstanding the precautions of thosewho founded it, naturally so weak that it more peculiarly requires the freeconsent of the governed to enable it to subsist. It is easy to perceive thatit* object is to enable the States to realize with facility their determinationof remaining united; and, as long as this preliminary condition exists, itsauthority is great, temperate, and effective. The Constitution fits theGovernment to control individuals, and easily to surmount such obstacles asthey may be inclined to offer; but it was by no means established with a viewto the possible separation of one or more of the States from the Union.

If the sovereignty of the Union were to engage in a struggle with that of theStates at the present day, its defeat may be confidently predicted; and it isnot probable that such a struggle would be seriously undertaken. As often as asteady resistance is offered to the Federal Government it will be found toyield. Experience has hitherto shown that whenever a State has demandedanything with perseverance and resolution, it has invariably succeeded; andthat if a separate government has distinctly refused to act, it was left to doas it thought fit. *z

z
[ See the conduct of the Northern States in the war of 1812. “During thatwar,” says Jefferson in a letter to General Lafayette, “four of theEastern States were only attached to the Union, like so many inanimate bodiesto living men.”]

But even if the Government of the Union had any strength inherent in itself,the physical situation of the country would render the exercise of thatstrength very difficult. *a The United States cover an immense territory; theyare separated from each other by great distances; and the population isdisseminated over the surface of a country which is still half a wilderness. Ifthe Union were to undertake to enforce the allegiance of the confederate Statesby military means, it would be in a position very analogous to that of Englandat the time of the War of Independence.

a
[ The profound peace of the Union affords no pretext for a standing army; andwithout a standing army a government is not prepared to profit by a favorableopportunity to conquer resistance, and take the sovereign power by surprise.[This note, and the paragraph in the text which precedes, have been shown bythe results of the Civil War to be a misconception of the writer.]]

However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from theconsequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of itsconstitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States;and, in uniting together, they have not forfeited their nationality, nor havethey been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of theStates chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult todisprove its right of doing so; and the Federal Government would have no meansof maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order toenable the Federal Government easily to conquer the resistance which may beoffered to it by any one of its subjects, it would be necessary that one ormore of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, ashas frequently been the case in the history of confederations.

If it be supposed that amongst the States which are united by the federal tiethere are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, orwhose prosperity depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionablethat they will always be ready to support the central Government in enforcingthe obedience of the others. But the Government would then be exerting a forcenot derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. Statesform confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; andin the case just alluded to, the Federal Government would derive its power fromthe unequal distribution of those benefits amongst the States.

If one of the confederate States have acquired a preponderance sufficientlygreat to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, itwill consider the other States as subject provinces, and it will cause its ownsupremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of theUnion. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal Government, butin reality that Government will have ceased to exist. *b In both these cases,the power which acts in the name of the confederation becomes stronger the moreit abandons the natural state and the acknowledged principles ofconfederations.

b
[ Thus the province of Holland in the republic of the Low Countries, and theEmperor in the Germanic Confederation, have sometimes put themselves in theplace of the union, and have employed the federal authority to their ownadvantage.]

In America the existing Union is advantageous to all the States, but it is notindispensable to any one of them. Several of them might break the federal tiewithout compromising the welfare of the others, although their own prosperitywould be lessened. As the existence and the happiness of none of the States arewholly dependent on the present Constitution, they would none of them bedisposed to make great personal sacrifices to maintain it. On the other hand,there is no State which seems hitherto to have its ambition much interested inthe maintenance of the existing Union. They certainly do not all exercise thesame influence in the federal councils, but no one of them can hope to domineerover the rest, or to treat them as its inferiors or as its subjects.

It appears to me unquestionable that if any portion of the Union seriouslydesired to separate itself from the other States, they would not be able, norindeed would they attempt, to prevent it; and that the present Union will onlylast as long as the States which compose it choose to continue members of theconfederation. If this point be admitted, the question becomes less difficult;and our object is, not to inquire whether the States of the existing Union arecapable of separating, but whether they will choose to remain united.

Amongst the various reasons which tend to render the existing Union useful tothe Americans, two principal causes are peculiarly evident to the observer.Although the Americans are, as it were, alone upon their continent, theircommerce makes them the neighbors of all the nations with which they trade.Notwithstanding their apparent isolation, the Americans require a certaindegree of strength, which they cannot retain otherwise than by remaining unitedto each other. If the States were to split, they would not only diminish thestrength which they are now able to display towards foreign nations, but theywould soon create foreign powers upon their own territory. A system of inlandcustom-houses would then be established; the valleys would be divided byimaginary boundary lines; the courses of the rivers would be confined byterritorial distinctions; and a multitude of hindrances would prevent theAmericans from exploring the whole of that vast continent which Providence hasallotted to them for a dominion. At present they have no invasion to fear, andconsequently no standing armies to maintain, no taxes to levy. If the Unionwere dissolved, all these burdensome measures might ere long be required. TheAmericans are then very powerfully interested in the maintenance of theirUnion. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to discover any sort ofmaterial interest which might at present tempt a portion of the Union toseparate from the other States.

When we cast our eyes upon the map of the United States, we perceive the chainof the Alleghany Mountains, running from the northeast to the southwest, andcrossing nearly one thousand miles of country; and we are led to imagine thatthe design of Providence was to raise between the valley of the Mississippi andthe coast of the Atlantic Ocean one of those natural barriers which break themutual intercourse of men, and form the necessary limits of different States.But the average height of the Alleghanies does not exceed 2,500 feet; theirgreatest elevation is not above 4,000 feet; their rounded summits, and thespacious valleys which they conceal within their passes, are of easy accessfrom several sides. Besides which, the principal rivers which fall into theAtlantic Ocean—the Hudson, the Susquehanna, and the Potomac—taketheir rise beyond the Alleghanies, in an open district, which borders upon thevalley of the Mississippi. These streams quit this tract of country, make theirway through the barrier which would seem to turn them westward, and as theywind through the mountains they open an easy and natural passage to man. Nonatural barrier exists in the regions which are now inhabited by theAnglo-Americans; the Alleghanies are so far from serving as a boundary toseparate nations, that they do not even serve as a frontier to the States. NewYork, Pennsylvania, and Virginia comprise them within their borders, and theyextend as much to the west as to the east of the line. The territory nowoccupied by the twenty-four States of the Union, and the three great districtswhich have not yet acquired the rank of States, although they already containinhabitants, covers a surface of 1,002,600 square miles, *c which is aboutequal to five times the extent of France. Within these limits the qualities ofthe soil, the temperature, and the produce of the country, are extremelyvarious. The vast extent of territory occupied by the Anglo-American republicshas given rise to doubts as to the maintenance of their Union. Here adistinction must be made; contrary interests sometimes arise in the differentprovinces of a vast empire, which often terminate in open dissensions; and theextent of the country is then most prejudicial to the power of the State. Butif the inhabitants of these vast regions are not divided by contrary interests,the extent of the territory may be favorable to their prosperity; for the unityof the government promotes the interchange of the different productions of thesoil, and increases their value by facilitating their consumption.

c
[ See “Darby’s View of the United States,” p. 435. [In 1890the number of States and Territories had increased to 51, the population to62,831,900, and the area of the States, 3,602,990 square miles. This does notinclude the Philippine Islands, Hawaii, or Porto Rico. A conservative estimateof the population of the Philippine Islands is 8,000,000; that of Hawaii, bythe census of 1897, was given at 109,020; and the present estimated populationof Porto Rico is 900,000. The area of the Philippine Islands is about 120,000square miles, that of Hawaii is 6,740 square miles, and the area of Porto Ricois about 3,600 square miles.]]

It is indeed easy to discover different interests in the different parts of theUnion, but I am unacquainted with any which are hostile to each other. TheSouthern States are almost exclusively agricultural. The Northern States aremore peculiarly commercial and manufacturing. The States of the West are at thesame time agricultural and manufacturing. In the South the crops consist oftobacco, of rice, of cotton, and of sugar; in the North and the West, of wheatand maize. These are different sources of wealth; but union is the means bywhich these sources are opened to all, and rendered equally advantageous to theseveral districts.

The North, which ships the produce of the Anglo-Americans to all parts of theworld, and brings back the produce of the globe to the Union, is evidentlyinterested in maintaining the confederation in its present condition, in orderthat the number of American producers and consumers may remain as large aspossible. The North is the most natural agent of communication between theSouth and the West of the Union on the one hand, and the rest of the world uponthe other; the North is therefore interested in the union and prosperity of theSouth and the West, in order that they may continue to furnish raw materialsfor its manufactures, and cargoes for its shipping.

The South and the West, on their side, are still more directly interested inthe preservation of the Union, and the prosperity of the North. The produce ofthe South is, for the most part, exported beyond seas; the South and the Westconsequently stand in need of the commercial resources of the North. They arelikewise interested in the maintenance of a powerful fleet by the Union, toprotect them efficaciously. The South and the West have no vessels, but theycannot refuse a willing subsidy to defray the expenses of the navy; for if thefleets of Europe were to blockade the ports of the South and the delta of theMississippi, what would become of the rice of the Carolinas, the tobacco ofVirginia, and the sugar and cotton which grow in the valley of the Mississippi?Every portion of the federal budget does therefore contribute to themaintenance of material interests which are common to all the confederateStates.

Independently of this commercial utility, the South and the West of the Unionderive great political advantages from their connection with the North. TheSouth contains an enormous slave population; a population which is alreadyalarming, and still more formidable for the future. The States of the West liein the remotest parts of a single valley; and all the rivers which intersecttheir territory rise in the Rocky Mountains or in the Alleghanies, and fallinto the Mississippi, which bears them onwards to the Gulf of Mexico. TheWestern States are consequently entirely cut off, by their position, from thetraditions of Europe and the civilization of the Old World. The inhabitants ofthe South, then, are induced to support the Union in order to avail themselvesof its protection against the blacks; and the inhabitants of the West in ordernot to be excluded from a free communication with the rest of the globe, andshut up in the wilds of central America. The North cannot but desire themaintenance of the Union, in order to remain, as it now is, the connecting linkbetween that vast body and the other parts of the world.

The temporal interests of all the several parts of the Union are, then,intimately connected; and the same assertion holds true respecting thoseopinions and sentiments which may be termed the immaterial interests of men.

Chapter XVIII: FutureCondition Of Three Races—Part VII

The inhabitants of the United States talk a great deal of their attachment totheir country; but I confess that I do not rely upon that calculatingpatriotism which is founded upon interest, and which a change in the interestsat stake may obliterate. Nor do I attach much importance to the language of theAmericans, when they manifest, in their daily conversations, the intention ofmaintaining the federal system adopted by their forefathers. A governmentretains its sway over a great number of citizens, far less by the voluntary andrational consent of the multitude, than by that instinctive, and to a certainextent involuntary agreement, which results from similarity of feelings andresemblances of opinion. I will never admit that men constitute a social body,simply because they obey the same head and the same laws. Society can onlyexist when a great number of men consider a great number of things in the samepoint of view; when they hold the same opinions upon many subjects, and whenthe same occurrences suggest the same thoughts and impressions to their minds.

The observer who examines the present condition of the United States upon thisprinciple, will readily discover, that although the citizens are divided intotwenty-four distinct sovereignties, they nevertheless constitute a singlepeople; and he may perhaps be led to think that the state of the Anglo-AmericanUnion is more truly a state of society than that of certain nations of Europewhich live under the same legislation and the same prince.

Although the Anglo-Americans have several religious sects, they all regardreligion in the same manner. They are not always agreed upon the measures whichare most conducive to good government, and they vary upon some of the forms ofgovernment which it is expedient to adopt; but they are unanimous upon thegeneral principles which ought to rule human society. From Maine to theFloridas, and from the Missouri to the Atlantic Ocean, the people is held to bethe legitimate source of all power. The same notions are entertained respectingliberty and equality, the liberty of the press, the right of association, thejury, and the responsibility of the agents of Government.

If we turn from their political and religious opinions to the moral andphilosophical principles which regulate the daily actions of life and governtheir conduct, we shall still find the same uniformity. The Anglo-Americans *dacknowledge the absolute moral authority of the reason of the community, asthey acknowledge the political authority of the mass of citizens; and they holdthat public opinion is the surest arbiter of what is lawful or forbidden, trueor false. The majority of them believe that a man will be led to do what isjust and good by following his own interest rightly understood. They hold thatevery man is born in possession of the right of self-government, and that noone has the right of constraining his fellow-creatures to be happy. They haveall a lively faith in the perfectibility of man; they are of opinion that theeffects of the diffusion of knowledge must necessarily be advantageous, and theconsequences of ignorance fatal; they all consider society as a body in a stateof improvement, humanity as a changing scene, in which nothing is, or ought tobe, permanent; and they admit that what appears to them to be good to-day maybe superseded by something better-to-morrow. I do not give all these opinionsas true, but I quote them as characteristic of the Americans.

d
[ It is scarcely necessary for me to observe that by the expressionAnglo-Americans, I only mean to designate the great majority of the nation; fora certain number of isolated individuals are of course to be met with holdingvery different opinions.]

The Anglo-Americans are not only united together by these common opinions, butthey are separated from all other nations by a common feeling of pride. For thelast fifty years no pains have been spared to convince the inhabitants of theUnited States that they constitute the only religious, enlightened, and freepeople. They perceive that, for the present, their own democratic institutionssucceed, whilst those of other countries fail; hence they conceive anoverweening opinion of their superiority, and they are not very remote frombelieving themselves to belong to a distinct race of mankind.

The dangers which threaten the American Union do not originate in the diversityof interests or of opinions, but in the various characters and passions of theAmericans. The men who inhabit the vast territory of the United States arealmost all the issue of a common stock; but the effects of the climate, andmore especially of slavery, have gradually introduced very striking differencesbetween the British settler of the Southern States and the British settler ofthe North. In Europe it is generally believed that slavery has rendered theinterests of one part of the Union contrary to those of another part; but I byno means remarked this to be the case: slavery has not created interests in theSouth contrary to those of the North, but it has modified the character andchanged the habits of the natives of the South.

I have already explained the influence which slavery has exercised upon thecommercial ability of the Americans in the South; and this same influenceequally extends to their manners. The slave is a servant who neverremonstrates, and who submits to everything without complaint. He may sometimesassassinate, but he never withstands, his master. In the South there are nofamilies so poor as not to have slaves. The citizen of the Southern States ofthe Union is invested with a sort of domestic dictatorship, from his earliestyears; the first notion he acquires in life is that he is born to command, andthe first habit which he contracts is that of being obeyed without resistance.His education tends, then, to give him the character of a supercilious and ahasty man; irascible, violent, and ardent in his desires, impatient ofobstacles, but easily discouraged if he cannot succeed upon his first attempt.

The American of the Northern States is surrounded by no slaves in hischildhood; he is even unattended by free servants, and is usually obliged toprovide for his own wants. No sooner does he enter the world than the idea ofnecessity assails him on every side: he soon learns to know exactly the naturallimit of his authority; he never expects to subdue those who withstand him, byforce; and he knows that the surest means of obtaining the support of hisfellow-creatures, is to win their favor. He therefore becomes patient,reflecting, tolerant, slow to act, and persevering in his designs.

In the Southern States the more immediate wants of life are always supplied;the inhabitants of those parts are not busied in the material cares of life,which are always provided for by others; and their imagination is diverted tomore captivating and less definite objects. The American of the South is fondof grandeur, luxury, and renown, of gayety, of pleasure, and above all ofidleness; nothing obliges him to exert himself in order to subsist; and as hehas no necessary occupations, he gives way to indolence, and does not evenattempt what would be useful.

But the equality of fortunes, and the absence of slavery in the North, plungethe inhabitants in those same cares of daily life which are disdained by thewhite population of the South. They are taught from infancy to combat want, andto place comfort above all the pleasures of the intellect or the heart. Theimagination is extinguished by the trivial details of life, and the ideasbecome less numerous and less general, but far more practical and more precise.As prosperity is the sole aim of exertion, it is excellently well attained;nature and mankind are turned to the best pecuniary advantage, and society isdexterously made to contribute to the welfare of each of its members, whilstindividual egotism is the source of general happiness.

The citizen of the North has not only experience, but knowledge: neverthelesshe sets but little value upon the pleasures of knowledge; he esteems it as themeans of attaining a certain end, and he is only anxious to seize its morelucrative applications. The citizen of the South is more given to act uponimpulse; he is more clever, more frank, more generous, more intellectual, andmore brilliant. The former, with a greater degree of activity, of common-sense,of information, and of general aptitude, has the characteristic good and evilqualities of the middle classes. The latter has the tastes, the prejudices, theweaknesses, and the magnanimity of all aristocracies. If two men are united insociety, who have the same interests, and to a certain extent the sameopinions, but different characters, different acquirements, and a differentstyle of civilization, it is probable that these men will not agree. The sameremark is applicable to a society of nations. Slavery, then, does not attackthe American Union directly in its interests, but indirectly in its manners.

e
[ Census of 1790, 3,929,328; 1830, 12,856,165; 1860, 31,443,321; 1870,38,555,983; 1890, 62,831,900.]

The States which gave their assent to the federal contract in 1790 werethirteen in number; the Union now consists of thirty-four members. Thepopulation, which amounted to nearly 4,000,000 in 1790, had more than tripledin the space of forty years; and in 1830 it amounted to nearly 13,000,000. *eChanges of such magnitude cannot take place without some danger.

A society of nations, as well as a society of individuals, derives itsprincipal chances of duration from the wisdom of its members, their individualweakness, and their limited number. The Americans who quit the coasts of theAtlantic Ocean to plunge into the western wilderness, are adventurers impatientof restraint, greedy of wealth, and frequently men expelled from the States inwhich they were born. When they arrive in the deserts they are unknown to eachother, and they have neither traditions, family feeling, nor the force ofexample to check their excesses. The empire of the laws is feeble amongst them;that of morality is still more powerless. The settlers who are constantlypeopling the valley of the Mississippi are, then, in every respect veryinferior to the Americans who inhabit the older parts of the Union.Nevertheless, they already exercise a great influence in its councils; and theyarrive at the government of the commonwealth before they have learnt to governthemselves. *f

f
[ This indeed is only a temporary danger. I have no doubt that in time societywill assume as much stability and regularity in the West as it has already doneupon the coast of the Atlantic Ocean.]

The greater the individual weakness of each of the contracting parties, thegreater are the chances of the duration of the contract; for their safety isthen dependent upon their union. When, in 1790, the most populous of theAmerican republics did not contain 500,000 inhabitants, *g each of them feltit* own insignificance as an independent people, and this feeling renderedcompliance with the federal authority more easy. But when one of theconfederate States reckons, like the State of New York, 2,000,000 ofinhabitants, and covers an extent of territory equal in surface to a quarter ofFrance, *h it feels its own strength; and although it may continue to supportthe Union as advantageous to its prosperity, it no longer regards that body asnecessary to its existence, and as it continues to belong to the federalcompact, it soon aims at preponderance in the federal assemblies. The probableunanimity of the States is diminished as their number increases. At present theinterests of the different parts of the Union are not at variance; but who isable to foresee the multifarious changes of the future, in a country in whichtowns are founded from day to day, and States almost from year to year?

g
[ Pennsylvania contained 431,373 inhabitants in 1790 [and 5,258,014 in 1890.]]

h
[ The area of the State of New York is 49,170 square miles. [See U. S. censusreport of 1890.]]

Since the first settlement of the British colonies, the number of inhabitantshas about doubled every twenty-two years. I perceive no causes which are likelyto check this progressive increase of the Anglo-American population for thenext hundred years; and before that space of time has elapsed, I believe thatthe territories and dependencies of the United States will be covered by morethan 100,000,000 of inhabitants, and divided into forty States. *i I admit thatthese 100,000,000 of men have no hostile interests. I suppose, on the contrary,that they are all equally interested in the maintenance of the Union; but I amstill of opinion that where there are 100,000,000 of men, and forty distinctnations, unequally strong, the continuance of the Federal Government can onlybe a fortunate accident.

i
[ If the population continues to double every twenty-two years, as it has donefor the last two hundred years, the number of inhabitants in the United Statesin 1852 will be twenty millions; in 1874, forty-eight millions; and in 1896,ninety-six millions. This may still be the case even if the lands on thewestern slope of the Rocky Mountains should be found to be unfit forcultivation. The territory which is already occupied can easily contain thisnumber of inhabitants. One hundred millions of men disseminated over thesurface of the twenty-four States, and the three dependencies, which constitutethe Union, would only give 762 inhabitants to the square league; this would befar below the mean population of France, which is 1,063 to the square league;or of England, which is 1,457; and it would even be below the population ofSwitzerland, for that country, notwithstanding its lakes and mountains,contains 783 inhabitants to the square league. See “Malte Brun,”vol. vi. p. 92.

[The actual result has fallen somewhat short of these calculations, in spite ofthe vast territorial acquisitions of the United States: but in 1899 thepopulation is probably about eighty-seven millions, including the population ofthe Philippines, Hawaii, and Porto Rico.]]

Whatever faith I may have in the perfectibility of man, until human nature isaltered, and men wholly transformed, I shall refuse to believe in the durationof a government which is called upon to hold together forty different peoples,disseminated over a territory equal to one-half of Europe in extent; to avoidall rivalry, ambition, and struggles between them, and to direct theirindependent activity to the accomplishment of the same designs.

But the greatest peril to which the Union is exposed by its increase arisesfrom the continual changes which take place in the position of its internalstrength. The distance from Lake Superior to the Gulf of Mexico extends fromthe 47th to the 30th degree of latitude, a distance of more than 1,200 miles asthe bird flies. The frontier of the United States winds along the whole of thisimmense line, sometimes falling within its limits, but more frequentlyextending far beyond it, into the waste. It has been calculated that the whitesadvance every year a mean distance of seventeen miles along the whole of hisvast boundary. *j Obstacles, such as an unproductive district, a lake or anIndian nation unexpectedly encountered, are sometimes met with. The advancingcolumn then halts for a while; its two extremities fall back upon themselves,and as soon as they are reunited they proceed onwards. This gradual andcontinuous progress of the European race towards the Rocky Mountains has thesolemnity of a providential event; it is like a deluge of men risingunabatedly, and daily driven onwards by the hand of God.

j
[ See Legislative Documents, 20th Congress, No. 117, p. 105.]

Within this first line of conquering settlers towns are built, and vast Statesfounded. In 1790 there were only a few thousand pioneers sprinkled along thevalleys of the Mississippi; and at the present day these valleys contain asmany inhabitants as were to be found in the whole Union in 1790. Theirpopulation amounts to nearly 4,000,000. *k The city of Washington was foundedin 1800, in the very centre of the Union; but such are the changes which havetaken place, that it now stands at one of the extremities; and the delegates ofthe most remote Western States are already obliged to perform a journey as longas that from Vienna to Paris. *l

k
[ 3,672,317—Census of 1830.]

l
[ The distance from Jefferson, the capital of the State of Missouri, toWashington is 1,019 miles. (“American Almanac,” 1831, p. 48.)]

All the States are borne onwards at the same time in the path of fortune, butof course they do not all increase and prosper in the same proportion. To theNorth of the Union the detached branches of the Alleghany chain, which extendas far as the Atlantic Ocean, form spacious roads and ports, which areconstantly accessible to vessels of the greatest burden. But from the Potomacto the mouth of the Mississippi the coast is sandy and flat. In this part ofthe Union the mouths of almost all the rivers are obstructed; and the fewharbors which exist amongst these lagoons afford much shallower water tovessels, and much fewer commercial advantages than those of the North.

This first natural cause of inferiority is united to another cause proceedingfrom the laws. We have already seen that slavery, which is abolished in theNorth, still exists in the South; and I have pointed out its fatal consequencesupon the prosperity of the planter himself.

The North is therefore superior to the South both in commerce *m andmanufacture; the natural consequence of which is the more rapid increase ofpopulation and of wealth within its borders. The States situate upon the shoresof the Atlantic Ocean are already half-peopled. Most of the land is held by anowner; and these districts cannot therefore receive so many emigrants as theWestern States, where a boundless field is still open to their exertions. Thevalley of the Mississippi is far more fertile than the coast of the AtlanticOcean. This reason, added to all the others, contributes to drive the Europeanswestward—a fact which may be rigorously demonstrated by figures. It isfound that the sum total of the population of all the United States has abouttripled in the course of forty years. But in the recent States adjacent to theMississippi, the population has increased thirty-one-fold, within the samespace of time. *n

m
[ The following statements will suffice to show the difference which existsbetween the commerce of the South and that of the North:—

In 1829 the tonnage of all the merchant vessels belonging to Virginia, the twoCarolinas, and Georgia (the four great Southern States), amounted to only 5,243tons. In the same year the tonnage of the vessels of the State of Massachusettsalone amounted to 17,322 tons. (See Legislative Documents, 21st Congress, 2dsession, No. 140, p. 244.) Thus the State of Massachusetts had three times asmuch shipping as the four above-mentioned States. Nevertheless the area of theState of Massachusetts is only 7,335 square miles, and its population amountsto 610,014 inhabitants [2,238,943 in 1890]; whilst the area of the four otherStates I have quoted is 210,000 square miles, and their population 3,047,767.Thus the area of the State of Massachusetts forms only one-thirtieth part ofthe area of the four States; and its population is five times smaller thantheirs. (See “Darby’s View of the United States.”) Slavery isprejudicial to the commercial prosperity of the South in several differentways; by diminishing the spirit of enterprise amongst the whites, and bypreventing them from meeting with as numerous a class of sailors as theyrequire. Sailors are usually taken from the lowest ranks of the population. Butin the Southern States these lowest ranks are composed of slaves, and it isvery difficult to employ them at sea. They are unable to serve as well as awhite crew, and apprehensions would always be entertained of their mutinying inthe middle of the ocean, or of their escaping in the foreign countries at whichthey might touch.]

n
[ “Darby’s View of the United States,” p. 444.]

The relative position of the central federal power is continually displaced.Forty years ago the majority of the citizens of the Union was established uponthe coast of the Atlantic, in the environs of the spot upon which Washingtonnow stands; but the great body of the people is now advancing inland and to thenorth, so that in twenty years the majority will unquestionably be on thewestern side of the Alleghanies. If the Union goes on to subsist, the basin ofthe Mississippi is evidently marked out, by its fertility and its extent, asthe future centre of the Federal Government. In thirty or forty years, thattract of country will have assumed the rank which naturally belongs to it. Itis easy to calculate that its population, compared to that of the coast of theAtlantic, will be, in round numbers, as 40 to 11. In a few years the Stateswhich founded the Union will lose the direction of its policy, and thepopulation of the valley of the Mississippi will preponderate in the federalassemblies.

This constant gravitation of the federal power and influence towards thenorthwest is shown every ten years, when a general census of the population ismade, and the number of delegates which each State sends to Congress is settledafresh. *o In 1790 Virginia had nineteen representatives in Congress. Thisnumber continued to increase until the year 1813, when it reached totwenty-three; from that time it began to decrease, and in 1833 Virginia electedonly twenty-one representatives. *p During the same period the State of NewYork progressed in the contrary direction: in 1790 it had ten representativesin Congress; in 1813, twenty-seven; in 1823, thirty-four; and in 1833, forty.The State of Ohio had only one representative in 1803, and in 1833 it hadalready nineteen.

o
[ It may be seen that in the course of the last ten years (1820-1830) thepopulation of one district, as, for instance, the State of Delaware, hasincreased in the proportion of five per cent.; whilst that of another, as theterritory of Michigan, has increased 250 per cent. Thus the population ofVirginia had augmented thirteen per cent., and that of the border State of Ohiosixty-one per cent., in the same space of time. The general table of thesechanges, which is given in the “National Calendar,” displays astriking picture of the unequal fortunes of the different States.]

p
[ It has just been said that in the course of the last term the population ofVirginia has increased thirteen per cent.; and it is necessary to explain howthe number of representatives for a State may decrease, when the population ofthat State, far from diminishing, is actually upon the increase. I take theState of Virginia, to which I have already alluded, as my term of comparison.The number of representatives of Virginia in 1823 was proportionate to thetotal number of the representatives of the Union, and to the relation which thepopulation bore to that of the whole Union: in 1833 the number ofrepresentatives of Virginia was likewise proportionate to the total number ofthe representatives of the Union, and to the relation which its population,augmented in the course of ten years, bore to the augmented population of theUnion in the same space of time. The new number of Virginian representativeswill then be to the old numver, on the one hand, as the new numver of all therepresentatives is to the old number; and, on the other hand, as theaugmentation of the population of Virginia is to that of the whole populationof the country. Thus, if the increase of the population of the lesser countrybe to that of the greater in an exact inverse ratio of the proportion betweenthe new and the old numbers of all the representatives, the number of therepresentatives of Virginia will remain stationary; and if the increase of theVirginian population be to that of the whole Union in a feeblerratio than thenew number of the representatives of the Union to the old number, the number ofthe representatives of Virginia must decrease. [Thus, to the 56th Congress in1899, Virginia and West Virginia send only fourteen representatives.]]

Chapter XVIII: FutureCondition Of Three Races—Part VIII

It is difficult to imagine a durable union of a people which is rich and strongwith one which is poor and weak, even if it were proved that the strength andwealth of the one are not the causes of the weakness and poverty of the other.But union is still more difficult to maintain at a time at which one party islosing strength, and the other is gaining it. This rapid and disproportionateincrease of certain States threatens the independence of the others. New Yorkmight perhaps succeed, with its 2,000,000 of inhabitants and its fortyrepresentatives, in dictating to the other States in Congress. But even if themore powerful States make no attempt to bear down the lesser ones, the dangerstill exists; for there is almost as much in the possibility of the act as inthe act itself. The weak generally mistrust the justice and the reason of thestrong. The States which increase less rapidly than the others look upon thosewhich are more favored by fortune with envy and suspicion. Hence arise thedeep-seated uneasiness and ill-defined agitation which are observable in theSouth, and which form so striking a contrast to the confidence and prosperitywhich are common to other parts of the Union. I am inclined to think that thehostile measures taken by the Southern provinces upon a recent occasion areattributable to no other cause. The inhabitants of the Southern States are, ofall the Americans, those who are most interested in the maintenance of theUnion; they would assuredly suffer most from being left to themselves; and yetthey are the only citizens who threaten to break the tie of confederation. Butit is easy to perceive that the South, which has given four Presidents,Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, to the Union, which perceives thatit is losing its federal influence, and that the number of its representativesin Congress is diminishing from year to year, whilst those of the Northern andWestern States are increasing; the South, which is peopled with ardent andirascible beings, is becoming more and more irritated and alarmed. The citizensreflect upon their present position and remember their past influence, with themelancholy uneasiness of men who suspect oppression: if they discover a law ofthe Union which is not unequivocally favorable to their interests, they protestagainst it as an abuse of force; and if their ardent remonstrances are notlistened to, they threaten to quit an association which loads them with burdenswhilst it deprives them of their due profits. “The tariff,” saidthe inhabitants of Carolina in 1832, “enriches the North, and ruins theSouth; for if this were not the case, to what can we attribute the continuallyincreasing power and wealth of the North, with its inclement skies and aridsoil; whilst the South, which may be styled the garden of America, is rapidlydeclining?” *q

q
[ See the report of its committee to the Convention which proclaimed thenullification of the tariff in South Carolina.]

If the changes which I have described were gradual, so that each generation atleast might have time to disappear with the order of things under which it hadlived, the danger would be less; but the progress of society in America isprecipitate, and almost revolutionary. The same citizen may have lived to seehis State take the lead in the Union, and afterwards become powerless in thefederal assemblies; and an Anglo-American republic has been known to grow asrapidly as a man passing from birth and infancy to maturity in the course ofthirty years. It must not be imagined, however, that the States which losetheir preponderance, also lose their population or their riches: no stop is putto their prosperity, and they even go on to increase more rapidly than anykingdom in Europe. *r But they believe themselves to be impoverished becausetheir wealth does not augment as rapidly as that of their neighbors; any theythink that their power is lost, because they suddenly come into collision witha power greater than their own: *s thus they are more hurt in their feelingsand their passions than in their interests. But this is amply sufficient toendanger the maintenance of the Union. If kings and peoples had only had theirtrue interests in view ever since the beginning of the world, the name of warwould scarcely be known among mankind.

r
[ The population of a country assuredly constitutes the first element of itswealth. In the ten years (1820-1830) during which Virginia lost two of itsrepresentatives in Congress, its population increased in the proportion of 13.7per cent.; that of Carolina in the proportion of fifteen per cent.; and that ofGeorgia, 15.5 per cent. (See the “American Almanac,” 1832, p. 162)But the population of Russia, which increases more rapidly than that of anyother European country, only augments in ten years at the rate of 9.5 percent.; in France, at the rate of seven per cent.; and in Europe in general, atthe rate of 4.7 per cent. (See “Malte Brun,” vol. vi. p. 95)]

s
[ It must be admitted, however, that the depreciation which has taken place inthe value of tobacco, during the last fifty years, has notably diminished theopulence of the Southern planters: but this circ*mstance is as independent ofthe will of their Northern brethren as it is of their own.]

Thus the prosperity of the United States is the source of the most seriousdangers that threaten them, since it tends to create in some of the confederateStates that over-excitement which accompanies a rapid increase of fortune; andto awaken in others those feelings of envy, mistrust, and regret which usuallyattend upon the loss of it. The Americans contemplate this extraordinary andhasty progress with exultation; but they would be wiser to consider it withsorrow and alarm. The Americans of the United States must inevitably become oneof the greatest nations in the world; their offset will cover almost the wholeof North America; the continent which they inhabit is their dominion, and itcannot escape them. What urges them to take possession of it so soon? Riches,power, and renown cannot fail to be theirs at some future time, but they rushupon their fortune as if but a moment remained for them to make it their own.

I think that I have demonstrated that the existence of the presentconfederation depends entirely on the continued assent of all the confederates;and, starting from this principle, I have inquired into the causes which mayinduce the several States to separate from the others. The Union may, however,perish in two different ways: one of the confederate States may choose toretire from the compact, and so forcibly to sever the federal tie; and it is tothis supposition that most of the remarks that I have made apply: or theauthority of the Federal Government may be progressively entrenched on by thesimultaneous tendency of the united republics to resume their independence. Thecentral power, successively stripped of all its prerogatives, and reduced toimpotence by tacit consent, would become incompetent to fulfil its purpose; andthe second Union would perish, like the first, by a sort of senile inaptitude.The gradual weakening of the federal tie, which may finally lead to thedissolution of the Union, is a distinct circ*mstance, that may produce avariety of minor consequences before it operates so violent a change. Theconfederation might still subsist, although its Government were reduced to sucha degree of inanition as to paralyze the nation, to cause internal anarchy, andto check the general prosperity of the country.

After having investigated the causes which may induce the Anglo-Americans todisunite, it is important to inquire whether, if the Union continues tosubsist, their Government will extend or contract its sphere of action, andwhether it will become more energetic or more weak.

The Americans are evidently disposed to look upon their future condition withalarm. They perceive that in most of the nations of the world the exercise ofthe rights of sovereignty tends to fall under the control of a few individuals,and they are dismayed by the idea that such will also be the case in their owncountry. Even the statesmen feel, or affect to feel, these fears; for, inAmerica, centralization is by no means popular, and there is no surer means ofcourting the majority than by inveighing against the encroachments of thecentral power. The Americans do not perceive that the countries in which thisalarming tendency to centralization exists are inhabited by a single people;whilst the fact of the Union being composed of different confederatecommunities is sufficient to baffle all the inferences which might be drawnfrom analogous circ*mstances. I confess that I am inclined to consider thefears of a great number of Americans as purely imaginary; and far fromparticipating in their dread of the consolidation of power in the hands of theUnion, I think that the Federal Government is visibly losing strength.

To prove this assertion I shall not have recourse to any remote occurrences,but to circ*mstances which I have myself witnessed, and which belong to our owntime.

An attentive examination of what is going on in the United States will easilyconvince us that two opposite tendencies exist in that country, like twodistinct currents flowing in contrary directions in the same channel. The Unionhas now existed for forty-five years, and in the course of that time a vastnumber of provincial prejudices, which were at first hostile to its power, havedied away. The patriotic feeling which attached each of the Americans to hisown native State is become less exclusive; and the different parts of the Unionhave become more intimately connected the better they have become acquaintedwith each other. The post, *t that great instrument of intellectualintercourse, now reaches into the backwoods; and steamboats have establisheddaily means of communication between the different points of the coast. Aninland navigation of unexampled rapidity conveys commodities up and down therivers of the country. *u And to these facilities of nature and art may beadded those restless cravings, that busy-mindedness, and love of pelf, whichare constantly urging the American into active life, and bringing him intocontact with his fellow-citizens. He crosses the country in every direction; hevisits all the various populations of the land; and there is not a province inFrance in which the natives are so well known to each other as the 13,000,000of men who cover the territory of the United States.

t
[ In 1832, the district of Michigan, which only contains 31,639 inhabitants,and is still an almost unexplored wilderness, possessed 940 miles ofmail-roads. The territory of Arkansas, which is still more uncultivated, wasalready intersected by 1,938 miles of mail-roads. (See the report of theGeneral Post Office, November 30, 1833.) The postage of newspapers alone in thewhole Union amounted to $254,796.]

u
[ In the course of ten years, from 1821 to 1831, 271 steamboats have beenlaunched upon the rivers which water the valley of the Mississippi alone. In1829 259 steamboats existed in the United States. (See Legislative Documents,No. 140, p. 274.)]

But whilst the Americans intermingle, they grow in resemblance of each other;the differences resulting from their climate, their origin, and theirinstitutions, diminish; and they all draw nearer and nearer to the common type.Every year, thousands of men leave the North to settle in different parts ofthe Union: they bring with them their faith, their opinions, and their manners;and as they are more enlighthned than the men amongst whom they are about todwell, they soon rise to the head of affairs, and they adapt society to theirown advantage. This continual emigration of the North to the South ispeculiarly favorable to the fusion of all the different provincial charactersinto one national character. The civilization of the North appears to be thecommon standard, to which the whole nation will one day be assimilated.

The commercial ties which unite the confederate States are strengthened by theincreasing manufactures of the Americans; and the union which began to exist intheir opinions, gradually forms a part of their habits: the course of time hasswept away the bugbear thoughts which haunted the imaginations of the citizensin 1789. The federal power is not become oppressive; it has not destroyed theindependence of the States; it has not subjected the confederates to monarchialinstitutions; and the Union has not rendered the lesser States dependent uponthe larger ones; but the confederation has continued to increase in population,in wealth, and in power. I am therefore convinced that the natural obstacles tothe continuance of the American Union are not so powerful at the present timeas they were in 1789; and that the enemies of the Union are not so numerous.

Nevertheless, a careful examination of the history of the United States for thelast forty-five years will readily convince us that the federal power isdeclining; nor is it difficult to explain the causes of this phenomenon. *vWhen the Constitution of 1789 was promulgated, the nation was a prey toanarchy; the Union, which succeeded this confusion, excited much dread and muchanimosity; but it was warmly supported because it satisfied an imperious want.Thus, although it was more attacked than it is now, the federal power soonreached the maximum of its authority, as is usually the case with a governmentwhich triumphs after having braced its strength by the struggle. At that timethe interpretation of the Constitution seemed to extend, rather than torepress, the federal sovereignty; and the Union offered, in several respects,the appearance of a single and undivided people, directed in its foreign andinternal policy by a single Government. But to attain this point the people hadrisen, to a certain extent, above itself.

v
[ [Since 1861 the movement is certainly in the opposite direction, and thefederal power has largely increased, and tends to further increase.]]

The Constitution had not destroyed the distinct sovereignty of the States; andall communities, of whatever nature they may be, are impelled by a secretpropensity to assert their independence. This propensity is still more decidedin a country like America, in which every village forms a sort of republicaccustomed to conduct its own affairs. It therefore cost the States an effortto submit to the federal supremacy; and all efforts, however successful theymay be, necessarily subside with the causes in which they originated.

As the Federal Government consolidated its authority, America resumed its rankamongst the nations, peace returned to its frontiers, and public credit wasrestored; confusion was succeeded by a fixed state of things, which wasfavorable to the full and free exercise of industrious enterprise. It was thisvery prosperity which made the Americans forget the cause to which it wasattributable; and when once the danger was passed, the energy and thepatriotism which had enabled them to brave it disappeared from amongst them. Nosooner were they delivered from the cares which oppressed them, than theyeasily returned to their ordinary habits, and gave themselves up withoutresistance to their natural inclinations. When a powerful Government no longerappeared to be necessary, they once more began to think it irksome. The Unionencouraged a general prosperity, and the States were not inclined to abandonthe Union; but they desired to render the action of the power which representedthat body as light as possible. The general principle of Union was adopted, butin every minor detail there was an actual tendency to independence. Theprinciple of confederation was every day more easily admitted, and more rarelyapplied; so that the Federal Government brought about its own decline, whilstit was creating order and peace.

As soon as this tendency of public opinion began to be manifested externally,the leaders of parties, who live by the passions of the people, began to workit to their own advantage. The position of the Federal Government then becameexceedingly critical. Its enemies were in possession of the popular favor; andthey obtained the right of conducting its policy by pledging themselves tolessen its influence. From that time forwards the Government of the Union hasinvariably been obliged to recede, as often as it has attempted to enter thelists with the governments of the States. And whenever an interpretation of theterms of the Federal Constitution has been called for, that interpretation hasmost frequently been opposed to the Union, and favorable to the States.

The Constitution invested the Federal Government with the right of providingfor the interests of the nation; and it had been held that no other authoritywas so fit to superintend the “internal improvements” whichaffected the prosperity of the whole Union; such, for instance, as the cuttingof canals. But the States were alarmed at a power, distinct from their own,which could thus dispose of a portion of their territory; and they were afraidthat the central Government would, by this means, acquire a formidable extentof patronage within their own confines, and exercise a degree of influencewhich they intended to reserve exclusively to their own agents. The Democraticparty, which has constantly been opposed to the increase of the federalauthority, then accused the Congress of usurpation, and the Chief Magistrate ofambition. The central Government was intimidated by the opposition; and it soonacknowledged its error, promising exactly to confine its influence for thefuture within the circle which was prescribed to it.

The Constitution confers upon the Union the right of treating with foreignnations. The Indian tribes, which border upon the frontiers of the UnitedStates, had usually been regarded in this light. As long as these savagesconsented to retire before the civilized settlers, the federal right was notcontested: but as soon as an Indian tribe attempted to fix its dwelling upon agiven spot, the adjacent States claimed possession of the lands and the rightsof sovereignty over the natives. The central Government soon recognized boththese claims; and after it had concluded treaties with the Indians asindependent nations, it gave them up as subjects to the legislative tyranny ofthe States. *w

w
[ See in the Legislative Documents, already quoted in speaking of the Indians,the letter of the President of the United States to the Cherokees, hiscorrespondence on this subject with his agents, and his messages to Congress.]

Some of the States which had been founded upon the coast of the Atlantic,extended indefinitely to the West, into wild regions where no European had everpenetrated. The States whose confines were irrevocably fixed, looked with ajealous eye upon the unbounded regions which the future would enable theirneighbors to explore. The latter then agreed, with a view to conciliate theothers, and to facilitate the act of union, to lay down their own boundaries,and to abandon all the territory which lay beyond those limits to theconfederation at large. *x Thenceforward the Federal Government became theowner of all the uncultivated lands which lie beyond the borders of thethirteen States first confederated. It was invested with the right ofparcelling and selling them, and the sums derived from this source wereexclusively reserved to the public treasure of the Union, in order to furnishsupplies for purchasing tracts of country from the Indians, for opening roadsto the remote settlements, and for accelerating the increase of civilization asmuch as possible. New States have, however, been formed in the course of time,in the midst of those wilds which were formerly ceded by the inhabitants of theshores of the Atlantic. Congress has gone on to sell, for the profit of thenation at large, the uncultivated lands which those new States contained. Butthe latter at length asserted that, as they were now fully constituted, theyought to enjoy the exclusive right of converting the produce of these sales totheir own use. As their remonstrances became more and more threatening,Congress thought fit to deprive the Union of a portion of the privileges whichit had hitherto enjoyed; and at the end of 1832 it passed a law by which thegreatest part of the revenue derived from the sale of lands was made over tothe new western republics, although the lands themselves were not ceded tothem. *y

x
[ The first act of session was made by the State of New York in 1780; Virginia,Massachusetts, Connecticut, South and North Carolina, followed this example atdifferent times, and lastly, the act of cession of Georgia was made as recentlyas 1802.]

y
[ It is true that the President refused his assent to this law; but hecompletely adopted it in principle. (See Message of December 8, 1833.)]

The slightest observation in the United States enables one to appreciate theadvantages which the country derives from the bank. These advantages are ofseveral kinds, but one of them is peculiarly striking to the stranger. Thebanknotes of the United States are taken upon the borders of the desert for thesame value as at Philadelphia, where the bank conducts its operations. *z

z
[ The present Bank of the United States was established in 1816, with a capitalof $35,000,000; its charter expires in 1836. Last year Congress passed a law torenew it, but the President put his veto upon the bill. The struggle is stillgoing on with great violence on either side, and the speedy fall of the bankmay easily be foreseen. [It was soon afterwards extinguished by GeneralJackson.]]

The Bank of the United States is nevertheless the object of great animosity.Its directors have proclaimed their hostility to the President: and they areaccused, not without some show of probability, of having abused their influenceto thwart his election. The President therefore attacks the establishment whichthey represent with all the warmth of personal enmity; and he is encouraged inthe pursuit of his revenge by the conviction that he is supported by the secretpropensities of the majority. The bank may be regarded as the great monetarytie of the Union, just as Congress is the great legislative tie; and the samepassions which tend to render the States independent of the central power,contribute to the overthrow of the bank.

The Bank of the United States always holds a great number of the notes issuedby the provincial banks, which it can at any time oblige them to convert intocash. It has itself nothing to fear from a similar demand, as the extent of itsresources enables it to meet all claims. But the existence of the provincialbanks is thus threatened, and their operations are restricted, since they areonly able to issue a quantity of notes duly proportioned to their capital. Theysubmit with impatience to this salutary control. The newspapers which they havebought over, and the President, whose interest renders him their instrument,attack the bank with the greatest vehemence. They rouse the local passions andthe blind democratic instinct of the country to aid their cause; and theyassert that the bank directors form a permanent aristocratic body, whoseinfluence must ultimately be felt in the Government, and must affect thoseprinciples of equality upon which society rests in America.

The contest between the bank and its opponents is only an incident in the greatstruggle which is going on in America between the provinces and the centralpower; between the spirit of democratic independence and the spirit ofgradation and subordination. I do not mean that the enemies of the bank areidentically the same individuals who, on other points, attack the FederalGovernment; but I assert that the attacks directed against the bank of theUnited States originate in the same propensities which militate against theFederal Government; and that the very numerous opponents of the former afford adeplorable symptom of the decreasing support of the latter.

The Union has never displayed so much weakness as in the celebrated question ofthe tariff. *a The wars of the French Revolution and of 1812 had createdmanufacturing establishments in the North of the Union, by cutting off all freecommunication between America and Europe. When peace was concluded, and thechannel of intercourse reopened by which the produce of Europe was transmittedto the New World, the Americans thought fit to establish a system of importduties, for the twofold purpose of protecting their incipient manufactures andof paying off the amount of the debt contracted during the war. The SouthernStates, which have no manufactures to encourage, and which are exclusivelyagricultural, soon complained of this measure. Such were the simple facts, andI do not pretend to examine in this place whether their complaints were wellfounded or unjust.

a
[ See principally for the details of this affair, the Legislative Documents,22d Congress, 2d Session, No. 30.]

As early as the year 1820, South Carolina declared, in a petition to Congress,that the tariff was “unconstitutional, oppressive, and unjust.” Andthe States of Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippisubsequently remonstrated against it with more or less vigor. But Congress, farfrom lending an ear to these complaints, raised the scale of tariff duties inthe years 1824 and 1828, and recognized anew the principle on which it wasfounded. A doctrine was then proclaimed, or rather revived, in the South, whichtook the name of Nullification.

I have shown in the proper place that the object of the Federal Constitutionwas not to form a league, but to create a national government. The Americans ofthe United States form a sole and undivided people, in all the cases which arespecified by that Constitution; and upon these points the will of the nation isexpressed, as it is in all constitutional nations, by the voice of themajority. When the majority has pronounced its decision, it is the duty of theminority to submit. Such is the sound legal doctrine, and the only one whichagrees with the text of the Constitution, and the known intention of those whoframed it.

The partisans of Nullification in the South maintain, on the contrary, that theintention of the Americans in uniting was not to reduce themselves to thecondition of one and the same people; that they meant to constitute a league ofindependent States; and that each State, consequently retains its entiresovereignty, if not de facto, at least de jure; and has the right of puttingits own construction upon the laws of Congress, and of suspending theirexecution within the limits of its own territory, if they are held to beunconstitutional and unjust.

The entire doctrine of Nullification is comprised in a sentence uttered byVice-President Calhoun, the head of that party in the South, before the Senateof the United States, in the year 1833: “The Constitution is acompact to which the States were parties in their sovereign capacity; now,whenever a compact is entered into by parties which acknowledge no tribunalabove their authority to decide in the last resort, each of them has a right tojudge for itself in relation to the nature, extent, and obligations of theinstrument.” It is evident that a similar doctrine destroys the verybasis of the Federal Constitution, and brings back all the evils of the oldconfederation, from which the Americans were supposed to have had a safedeliverance.

When South Carolina perceived that Congress turned a deaf ear to itsremonstrances, it threatened to apply the doctrine of nullification to thefederal tariff bill. Congress persisted in its former system; and at length thestorm broke out. In the course of 1832 the citizens of South Carolina, *b nameda national Convention, to consult upon the extraordinary measures which theywere called upon to take; and on November 24th of the same year this Conventionpromulgated a law, under the form of a decree, which annulled the federal lawof the tariff, forbade the levy of the imposts which that law commands, andrefused to recognize the appeal which might be made to the federal courts oflaw. *c This decree was only to be put in execution in the ensuing month ofFebruary, and it was intimated, that if Congress modified the tariff beforethat period, South Carolina might be induced to proceed no further with hermenaces; and a vague desire was afterwards expressed of submitting the questionto an extraordinary assembly of all the confederate States.

b
[ That is to say, the majority of the people; for the opposite party, calledthe Union party, always formed a very strong and active minority. Carolina maycontain about 47,000 electors; 30,000 were in favor of nullification, and17,000 opposed to it.]

c
[ This decree was preceded by a report of the committee by which it was framed,containing the explanation of the motives and object of the law. The followingpassage occurs in it, p. 34:—“When the rights reserved by theConstitution to the different States are deliberately violated, it is the dutyand the right of those States to interfere, in order to check the progress ofthe evil; to resist usurpation, and to maintain, within their respectivelimits, those powers and privileges which belong to them as independentsovereign States. If they were destitute of this right, they would not besovereign. South Carolina declares that she acknowledges no tribunal upon earthabove her authority. She has indeed entered into a solemn compact of union withthe other States; but she demands, and will exercise, the right of putting herown construction upon it; and when this compact is violated by her sisterStates, and by the Government which they have created, she is determined toavail herself of the unquestionable right of judging what is the extent of theinfraction, and what are the measures best fitted to obtain justice.”]

Chapter XVIII: FutureCondition Of Three Races—Part IX

In the meantime South Carolina armed her militia, and prepared for war. ButCongress, which had slighted its suppliant subjects, listened to theircomplaints as soon as they were found to have taken up arms. *d A law waspassed, by which the tariff duties were to be progressively reduced for tenyears, until they were brought so low as not to exceed the amount of suppliesnecessary to the Government. *e Thus Congress completely abandoned theprinciple of the tariff; and substituted a mere fiscal impost to a system ofprotective duties. *f The Government of the Union, in order to conceal itsdefeat, had recourse to an expedient which is very much in vogue with feeblegovernments. It yielded the point de facto, but it remained inflexible upon theprinciples in question; and whilst Congress was altering the tariff law, itpassed another bill, by which the President was invested with extraordinarypowers, enabling him to overcome by force a resistance which was then no longerto be apprehended.

d
[ Congress was finally decided to take this step by the conduct of the powerfulState of Virginia, whose legislature offered to serve as mediator between theUnion and South Carolina. Hitherto the latter State had appeared to be entirelyabandoned, even by the States which had joined in her remonstrances.]

e
[ This law was passed on March 2, 1833.]

f
[ This bill was brought in by Mr. Clay, and it passed in four days through bothHouses of Congress by an immense majority.]

But South Carolina did not consent to leave the Union in the enjoyment of thesescanty trophies of success: the same national Convention which had annulled thetariff bill, met again, and accepted the proffered concession; but at the sametime it declared its unabated perseverance in the doctrine of Nullification: andto prove what it said, it annulled the law investing the President withextraordinary powers, although it was very certain that the clauses of that lawwould never be carried into effect.

Almost all the controversies of which I have been speaking have taken placeunder the Presidency of General Jackson; and it cannot be denied that in thequestion of the tariff he has supported the claims of the Union with vigor andwith skill. I am, however, of opinion that the conduct of the individual whonow represents the Federal Government may be reckoned as one of the dangerswhich threaten its continuance.

Some persons in Europe have formed an opinion of the possible influence ofGeneral Jackson upon the affairs of his country, which appears highlyextravagant to those who have seen more of the subject. We have been told thatGeneral Jackson has won sundry battles, that he is an energetic man, prone bynature and by habit to the use of force, covetous of power, and a despot bytaste. All this may perhaps be true; but the inferences which have been drawnfrom these truths are exceedingly erroneous. It has been imagined that GeneralJackson is bent on establishing a dictatorship in America, on introducing amilitary spirit, and on giving a degree of influence to the central authoritywhich cannot but be dangerous to provincial liberties. But in America the timefor similar undertakings, and the age for men of this kind, is not yet come: ifGeneral Jackson had entertained a hope of exercising his authority in thismanner, he would infallibly have forfeited his political station, andcompromised his life; accordingly he has not been so imprudent as to make anysuch attempt.

Far from wishing to extend the federal power, the President belongs to theparty which is desirous of limiting that power to the bare and precise letterof the Constitution, and which never puts a construction upon that actfavorable to the Government of the Union; far from standing forth as thechampion of centralization, General Jackson is the agent of all the jealousiesof the States; and he was placed in the lofty station he occupies by thepassions of the people which are most opposed to the central Government. It isby perpetually flattering these passions that he maintains his station and hispopularity. General Jackson is the slave of the majority: he yields to itswishes, its propensities, and its demands; say rather, that he anticipates andforestalls them.

Whenever the governments of the States come into collision with that of theUnion, the President is generally the first to question his own rights: healmost always outstrips the legislature; and when the extent of the federalpower is controverted, he takes part, as it were, against himself; he concealshis official interests, and extinguishes his own natural inclinations. Notindeed that he is naturally weak or hostile to the Union; for when the majoritydecided against the claims of the partisans of nullification, he put himself atit* head, asserted the doctrines which the nation held distinctly andenergetically, and was the first to recommend forcible measures; but GeneralJackson appears to me, if I may use the American expressions, to be aFederalist by taste, and a Republican by calculation.

General Jackson stoops to gain the favor of the majority, but when he feelsthat his popularity is secure, he overthrows all obstacles in the pursuit ofthe objects which the community approves, or of those which it does not lookupon with a jealous eye. He is supported by a power with which his predecessorswere unacquainted; and he tramples on his personal enemies whenever they crosshis path with a facility which no former President ever enjoyed; he takes uponhimself the responsibility of measures which no one before him would haveventured to attempt: he even treats the national representatives with disdainapproaching to insult; he puts his veto upon the laws of Congress, andfrequently neglects to reply to that powerful body. He is a favorite whosometimes treats his master roughly. The power of General Jackson perpetuallyincreases; but that of the President declines; in his hands the FederalGovernment is strong, but it will pass enfeebled into the hands of hissuccessor.

I am strangely mistaken if the Federal Government of the United States be notconstantly losing strength, retiring gradually from public affairs, andnarrowing its circle of action more and more. It is naturally feeble, but itnow abandons even its pretensions to strength. On the other hand, I thoughtthat I remarked a more lively sense of independence, and a more decidedattachment to provincial government in the States. The Union is to subsist, butto subsist as a shadow; it is to be strong in certain cases, and weak in allothers; in time of warfare, it is to be able to concentrate all the forces ofthe nation and all the resources of the country in its hands; and in time ofpeace its existence is to be scarcely perceptible: as if this alternatedebility and vigor were natural or possible.

I do not foresee anything for the present which may be able to check thisgeneral impulse of public opinion; the causes in which it originated do notcease to operate with the same effect. The change will therefore go on, and itmay be predicted that, unless some extraordinary event occurs, the Governmentof the Union will grow weaker and weaker every day.

I think, however, that the period is still remote at which the federal powerwill be entirely extinguished by its inability to protect itself and tomaintain peace in the country. The Union is sanctioned by the manners anddesires of the people; its results are palpable, its benefits visible. When itis perceived that the weakness of the Federal Government compromises theexistence of the Union, I do not doubt that a reaction will take place with aview to increase its strength.

The Government of the United States is, of all the federal governments whichhave hitherto been established, the one which is most naturally destined toact. As long as it is only indirectly assailed by the interpretation of itslaws, and as long as its substance is not seriously altered, a change ofopinion, an internal crisis, or a war, may restore all the vigor which itrequires. The point which I have been most anxious to put in a clear light issimply this: Many people, especially in France, imagine that a change inopinion is going on in the United States, which is favorable to acentralization of power in the hands of the President and the Congress. I holdthat a contrary tendency may distinctly be observed. So far is the FederalGovernment from acquiring strength, and from threatening the sovereignty of theStates, as it grows older, that I maintain it to be growing weaker and weaker,and that the sovereignty of the Union alone is in danger. Such are the factswhich the present time discloses. The future conceals the final result of thistendency, and the events which may check, retard, or accelerate the changes Ihave described; but I do not affect to be able to remove the veil which hidesthem from our sight.

Of The Republican Institutions Of The United States, And What Their Chances OfDuration Are

The Union is accidental—The Republican institutions have more prospect ofpermanence—A republic for the present the natural state of theAnglo-Americans—Reason of this—In order to destroy it, all the lawsmust be changed at the same time, and a great alteration take place inmanners—Difficulties experienced by the Americans in creating anaristocracy.

The dismemberment of the Union, by the introduction of war into the heart ofthose States which are now confederate, with standing armies, a dictatorship,and a heavy taxation, might, eventually, compromise the fate of the republicaninstitutions. But we ought not to confound the future prospects of the republicwith those of the Union. The Union is an accident, which will only last as longas circ*mstances are favorable to its existence; but a republican form ofgovernment seems to me to be the natural state of the Americans; which nothingbut the continued action of hostile causes, always acting in the samedirection, could change into a monarchy. The Union exists principally in thelaw which formed it; one revolution, one change in public opinion, mightdestroy it forever; but the republic has a much deeper foundation to rest upon.

What is understood by a republican government in the United States is the slowand quiet action of society upon itself. It is a regular state of things reallyfounded upon the enlightened will of the people. It is a conciliatorygovernment under which resolutions are allowed time to ripen; and in which theyare deliberately discussed, and executed with mature judgment. The republicansin the United States set a high value upon morality, respect religious belief,and acknowledge the existence of rights. They profess to think that a peopleought to be moral, religious, and temperate, in proportion as it is free. Whatis called the republic in the United States, is the tranquil rule of themajority, which, after having had time to examine itself, and to give proof ofits existence, is the common source of all the powers of the State. But thepower of the majority is not of itself unlimited. In the moral world humanity,justice, and reason enjoy an undisputed supremacy; in the political worldvested rights are treated with no less deference. The majority recognizes thesetwo barriers; and if it now and then overstep them, it is because, likeindividuals, it has passions, and, like them, it is prone to do what is wrong,whilst it discerns what is right.

But the demagogues of Europe have made strange discoveries. A republic is not,according to them, the rule of the majority, as has hitherto been thought, butthe rule of those who are strenuous partisans of the majority. It is not thepeople who preponderates in this kind of government, but those who are bestversed in the good qualities of the people. A happy distinction, which allowsmen to act in the name of nations without consulting them, and to claim theirgratitude whilst their rights are spurned. A republican government, moreover,is the only one which claims the right of doing whatever it chooses, anddespising what men have hitherto respected, from the highest moral obligationsto the vulgar rules of common-sense. It had been supposed, until our time, thatdespotism was odious, under whatever form it appeared. But it is a discovery ofmodern days that there are such things as legitimate tyranny and holyinjustice, provided they are exercised in the name of the people.

The ideas which the Americans have adopted respecting the republican form ofgovernment, render it easy for them to live under it, and insure its duration.If, in their country, this form be often practically bad, at least it istheoretically good; and, in the end, the people always acts in conformity toit.

It was impossible at the foundation of the States, and it would still bedifficult, to establish a central administration in America. The inhabitantsare dispersed over too great a space, and separated by too many naturalobstacles, for one man to undertake to direct the details of their existence.America is therefore pre-eminently the country of provincial and municipalgovernment. To this cause, which was plainly felt by all the Europeans of theNew World, the Anglo-Americans added several others peculiar to themselves.

At the time of the settlement of the North American colonies, municipal libertyhad already penetrated into the laws as well as the manners of the English; andthe emigrants adopted it, not only as a necessary thing, but as a benefit whichthey knew how to appreciate. We have already seen the manner in which thecolonies were founded: every province, and almost every district, was peopledseparately by men who were strangers to each other, or who associated with verydifferent purposes. The English settlers in the United States, therefore, earlyperceived that they were divided into a great number of small and distinctcommunities which belonged to no common centre; and that it was needful foreach of these little communities to take care of its own affairs, since theredid not appear to be any central authority which was naturally bound and easilyenabled to provide for them. Thus, the nature of the country, the manner inwhich the British colonies were founded, the habits of the first emigrants, inshort everything, united to promote, in an extraordinary degree, municipal andprovincial liberties.

In the United States, therefore, the mass of the institutions of the country isessentially republican; and in order permanently to destroy the laws which formthe basis of the republic, it would be necessary to abolish all the laws atonce. At the present day it would be even more difficult for a party to succeedin founding a monarchy in the United States than for a set of men to proclaimthat France should henceforward be a republic. Royalty would not find a systemof legislation prepared for it beforehand; and a monarchy would then exist,really surrounded by republican institutions. The monarchical principle wouldlikewise have great difficulty in penetrating into the manners of theAmericans.

In the United States, the sovereignty of the people is not an isolated doctrinebearing no relation to the prevailing manners and ideas of the people: it may,on the contrary, be regarded as the last link of a chain of opinions whichbinds the whole Anglo-American world. That Providence has given to every humanbeing the degree of reason necessary to direct himself in the affairs whichinterest him exclusively—such is the grand maxim upon which civil andpolitical society rests in the United States. The father of a family applies itto his children; the master to his servants; the township to its officers; theprovince to its townships; the State to its provinces; the Union to the States;and when extended to the nation, it becomes the doctrine of the sovereignty ofthe people.

Thus, in the United States, the fundamental principle of the republic is thesame which governs the greater part of human actions; republican notionsinsinuate themselves into all the ideas, opinions, and habits of the Americans,whilst they are formerly recognized by the legislation: and before thislegislation can be altered the whole community must undergo very seriouschanges. In the United States, even the religion of most of the citizens isrepublican, since it submits the truths of the other world to private judgment:as in politics the care of its temporal interests is abandoned to the goodsense of the people. Thus every man is allowed freely to take that road whichhe thinks will lead him to heaven; just as the law permits every citizen tohave the right of choosing his government.

It is evident that nothing but a long series of events, all having the sametendency, can substitute for this combination of laws, opinions, and manners, amass of opposite opinions, manners, and laws.

If republican principles are to perish in America, they can only yield after alaborious social process, often interrupted, and as often resumed; they willhave many apparent revivals, and will not become totally extinct until anentirely new people shall have succeeded to that which now exists. Now, it mustbe admitted that there is no symptom or presage of the approach of such arevolution. There is nothing more striking to a person newly arrived in theUnited States, than the kind of tumultuous agitation in which he findspolitical society. The laws are incessantly changing, and at first sight itseems impossible that a people so variable in its desires should avoidadopting, within a short space of time, a completely new form of government.Such apprehensions are, however, premature; the instability which affectspolitical institutions is of two kinds, which ought not to be confounded: thefirst, which modifies secondary laws, is not incompatible with a very settledstate of society; the other shakes the very foundations of the Constitution,and attacks the fundamental principles of legislation; this species ofinstability is always followed by troubles and revolutions, and the nationwhich suffers under it is in a state of violent transition.

Experience shows that these two kinds of legislative instability have nonecessary connection; for they have been found united or separate, according totimes and circ*mstances. The first is common in the United States, but not thesecond: the Americans often change their laws, but the foundation of theConstitution is respected.

In our days the republican principle rules in America, as the monarchicalprinciple did in France under Louis XIV. The French of that period were notonly friends of the monarchy, but they thought it impossible to put anything inits place; they received it as we receive the rays of the sun and the return ofthe seasons. Amongst them the royal power had neither advocates nor opponents.In like manner does the republican government exist in America, withoutcontention or opposition; without proofs and arguments, by a tacit agreement, asort of consensus universalis. It is, however, my opinion that by changingtheir administrative forms as often as they do, the inhabitants of the UnitedStates compromise the future stability of their government.

It may be apprehended that men, perpetually thwarted in their designs by themutability of the legislation, will learn to look upon republican institutionsas an inconvenient form of society; the evil resulting from the instability ofthe secondary enactments might then raise a doubt as to the nature of thefundamental principles of the Constitution, and indirectly bring about arevolution; but this epoch is still very remote.

It may, however, be foreseen even now, that when the Americans lose theirrepublican institutions they will speedily arrive at a despotic government,without a long interval of limited monarchy. Montesquieu remarked, that nothingis more absolute than the authority of a prince who immediately succeeds arepublic, since the powers which had fearlessly been intrusted to an electedmagistrate are then transferred to a hereditary sovereign. This is true ingeneral, but it is more peculiarly applicable to a democratic republic. In theUnited States, the magistrates are not elected by a particular class ofcitizens, but by the majority of the nation; they are the immediaterepresentatives of the passions of the multitude; and as they are whollydependent upon its pleasure, they excite neither hatred nor fear: hence, as Ihave already shown, very little care has been taken to limit their influence,and they are left in possession of a vast deal of arbitrary power. This stateof things has engendered habits which would outlive itself; the Americanmagistrate would retain his power, but he would cease to be responsible for theexercise of it; and it is impossible to say what bounds could then be set totyranny.

Some of our European politicians expect to see an aristocracy arise in America,and they already predict the exact period at which it will be able to assumethe reins of government. I have previously observed, and I repeat my assertion,that the present tendency of American society appears to me to become more andmore democratic. Nevertheless, I do not assert that the Americans will not, atsome future time, restrict the circle of political rights in their country, orconfiscate those rights to the advantage of a single individual; but I cannotimagine that they will ever bestow the exclusive exercise of them upon aprivileged class of citizens, or, in other words, that they will ever found anaristocracy.

An aristocratic body is composed of a certain number of citizens who, withoutbeing very far removed from the mass of the people, are, nevertheless,permanently stationed above it: a body which it is easy to touch and difficultto strike; with which the people are in daily contact, but with which they cannever combine. Nothing can be imagined more contrary to nature and to thesecret propensities of the human heart than a subjection of this kind; and menwho are left to follow their own bent will always prefer the arbitrary power ofa king to the regular administration of an aristocracy. Aristocraticinstitutions cannot subsist without laying down the inequality of men as afundamental principle, as a part and parcel of the legislation, affecting thecondition of the human family as much as it affects that of society; but theseare things so repugnant to natural equity that they can only be extorted frommen by constraint.

I do not think a single people can be quoted, since human society began toexist, which has, by its own free will and by its own exertions, created anaristocracy within its own bosom. All the aristocracies of the Middle Ages werefounded by military conquest; the conqueror was the noble, the vanquishedbecame the serf. Inequality was then imposed by force; and after it had beenintroduced into the manners of the country it maintained its own authority, andwas sanctioned by the legislation. Communities have existed which werearistocratic from their earliest origin, owing to circ*mstances anterior tothat event, and which became more democratic in each succeeding age. Such wasthe destiny of the Romans, and of the barbarians after them. But a people,having taken its rise in civilization and democracy, which should graduallyestablish an inequality of conditions, until it arrived at inviolableprivileges and exclusive castes, would be a novelty in the world; and nothingintimates that America is likely to furnish so singular an example.

Reflection On The Causes Of The Commercial Prosperity Of The Of The UnitedStates

The Americans destined by Nature to be a great maritime people—Extent oftheir coasts—Depth of their ports—Size of their rivers—Thecommercial superiority of the Anglo-Americans less attributable, however, tophysical circ*mstances than to moral and intellectual causes—Reason ofthis opinion—Future destiny of the Anglo-Americans as a commercialnation—The dissolution of the Union would not check the maritime vigor ofthe States—Reason of this—Anglo-Americans will naturally supply thewants of the inhabitants of South America—They will become, like theEnglish, the factors of a great portion of the world.

The coast of the United States, from the Bay of Fundy to the Sabine River inthe Gulf of Mexico, is more than two thousand miles in extent. These shoresform an unbroken line, and they are all subject to the same government. Nonation in the world possesses vaster, deeper, or more secure ports for shippingthan the Americans.

The inhabitants of the United States constitute a great civilized people, whichfortune has placed in the midst of an uncultivated country at a distance ofthree thousand miles from the central point of civilization. Americaconsequently stands in daily need of European trade. The Americans will, nodoubt, ultimately succeed in producing or manufacturing at home most of thearticles which they require; but the two continents can never be independent ofeach other, so numerous are the natural ties which exist between their wants,their ideas, their habits, and their manners.

The Union produces peculiar commodities which are now become necessary to us,but which cannot be cultivated, or can only be raised at an enormous expense,upon the soil of Europe. The Americans only consume a small portion of thisproduce, and they are willing to sell us the rest. Europe is therefore themarket of America, as America is the market of Europe; and maritime commerce isno less necessary to enable the inhabitants of the United States to transporttheir raw materials to the ports of Europe, than it is to enable us to supplythem with our manufactured produce. The United States were thereforenecessarily reduced to the alternative of increasing the business of othermaritime nations to a great extent, if they had themselves declined to enterinto commerce, as the Spaniards of Mexico have hitherto done; or, in the secondplace, of becoming one of the first trading powers of the globe.

The Anglo-Americans have always displayed a very decided taste for the sea. TheDeclaration of Independence broke the commercial restrictions which united themto England, and gave a fresh and powerful stimulus to their maritime genius.Ever since that time, the shipping of the Union has increased in almost thesame rapid proportion as the number of its inhabitants. The Americansthemselves now transport to their own shores nine-tenths of the Europeanproduce which they consume. *g And they also bring three-quarters of theexports of the New World to the European consumer. *h The ships of the UnitedStates fill the docks of Havre and of Liverpool; whilst the number of Englishand French vessels which are to be seen at New York is comparatively small. *i

g
[ The total value of goods imported during the year which ended on September30, 1832, was $101,129,266. The value of the cargoes of foreign vessels did notamount to $10,731,039, or about one-tenth of the entire sum.]

h
[ The value of goods exported during the same year amounted to $87,176,943; thevalue of goods exported by foreign vessels amounted to $21,036,183, or aboutone quarter of the whole sum. (Williams’s “Register,” 1833,p. 398.)]

i
[ The tonnage of the vessels which entered all the ports of the Union in theyears 1829, 1830, and 1831, amounted to 3,307,719 tons, of which 544,571 tonswere foreign vessels; they stood, therefore, to the American vessels in a ratioof about 16 to 100. (“National Calendar,” 1833, p. 304.) Thetonnage of the English vessels which entered the ports of London, Liverpool,and Hull, in the years 1820, 1826, and 1831, amounted to 443,800 tons. Theforeign vessels which entered the same ports during the same years amounted to159,431 tons. The ratio between them was, therefore, about 36 to 100.(“Companion to the Almanac,” 1834, p. 169.) In the year 1832 theratio between the foreign and British ships which entered the ports of GreatBritain was 29 to 100. [These statements relate to a condition of affairs whichhas ceased to exist; the Civil War and the heavy taxation of the United Statesentirely altered the trade and navigation of the country.]]

Thus, not only does the American merchant face the competition of his owncountrymen, but he even supports that of foreign nations in their own portswith success. This is readily explained by the fact that the vessels of theUnited States can cross the seas at a cheaper rate than any other vessels inthe world. As long as the mercantile shipping of the United States preservesthis superiority, it will not only retain what it has acquired, but it willconstantly increase in prosperity.

Chapter XVIII: FutureCondition Of Three Races—Part X

It is difficult to say for what reason the Americans can trade at a lower ratethan other nations; and one is at first led to attribute this circ*mstance tothe physical or natural advantages which are within their reach; but thissupposition is erroneous. The American vessels cost almost as much to build asour own; *j they are not better built, and they generally last for a shortertime. The pay of the American sailor is more considerable than the pay on boardEuropean ships; which is proved by the great number of Europeans who are to bemet with in the merchant vessels of the United States. But I am of opinion thatthe true cause of their superiority must not be sought for in physicaladvantages, but that it is wholly attributable to their moral and intellectualqualities.

j
[ Materials are, generally speaking, less expensive in America than in Europe,but the price of labor is much higher.]

The following comparison will illustrate my meaning. During the campaigns ofthe Revolution the French introduced a new system of tactics into the art ofwar, which perplexed the oldest generals, and very nearly destroyed the mostancient monarchies in Europe. They undertook (what had never before beenattempted) to make shift without a number of things which had always been heldto be indispensable in warfare; they required novel exertions on the part oftheir troops which no civilized nations had ever thought of; they achievedgreat actions in an incredibly short space of time; and they risked human lifewithout hesitation to obtain the object in view. The French had less money andfewer men than their enemies; their resources were infinitely inferior;nevertheless they were constantly victorious, until their adversaries chose toimitate their example.

The Americans have introduced a similar system into their commercialspeculations; and they do for cheapness what the French did for conquest. TheEuropean sailor navigates with prudence; he only sets sail when the weather isfavorable; if an unforseen accident befalls him, he puts into port; at night hefurls a portion of his canvas; and when the whitening billows intimate thevicinity of land, he checks his way, and takes an observation of the sun. Butthe American neglects these precautions and braves these dangers. He weighsanchor in the midst of tempestuous gales; by night and by day he spreads hissheets to the wind; he repairs as he goes along such damage as his vessel mayhave sustained from the storm; and when he at last approaches the term of hisvoyage, he darts onward to the shore as if he already descried a port. TheAmericans are often shipwrecked, but no trader crosses the seas so rapidly. Andas they perform the same distance in a shorter time, they can perform it at acheaper rate.

The European touches several times at different ports in the course of a longvoyage; he loses a good deal of precious time in making the harbor, or inwaiting for a favorable wind to leave it; and he pays daily dues to be allowedto remain there. The American starts from Boston to go to purchase tea inChina; he arrives at Canton, stays there a few days, and then returns. In lessthan two years he has sailed as far as the entire circumference of the globe,and he has seen land but once. It is true that during a voyage of eight or tenmonths he has drunk brackish water and lived upon salt meat; that he has beenin a continual contest with the sea, with disease, and with a tediousexistence; but upon his return he can sell a pound of his tea for a half-pennyless than the English merchant, and his purpose is accomplished.

I cannot better explain my meaning than by saying that the Americans affect asort of heroism in their manner of trading. But the European merchant willalways find it very difficult to imitate his American competitor, who, inadopting the system which I have just described, follows not only a calculationof his gain, but an impulse of his nature.

The inhabitants of the United States are subject to all the wants and all thedesires which result from an advanced stage of civilization; but as they arenot surrounded by a community admirably adapted, like that of Europe, tosatisfy their wants, they are often obliged to procure for themselves thevarious articles which education and habit have rendered necessaries. InAmerica it sometimes happens that the same individual tills his field, buildshis dwelling, contrives his tools, makes his shoes, and weaves the coarse stuffof which his dress is composed. This circ*mstance is prejudicial to theexcellence of the work; but it powerfully contributes to awaken theintelligence of the workman. Nothing tends to materialize man, and to deprivehis work of the faintest trace of mind, more than extreme division of labor. Ina country like America, where men devoted to special occupations are rare, along apprenticeship cannot be required from anyone who embraces a profession.The Americans, therefore, change their means of gaining a livelihood veryreadily; and they suit their occupations to the exigencies of the moment, inthe manner most profitable to themselves. Men are to be met with who havesuccessively been barristers, farmers, merchants, ministers of the gospel, andphysicians. If the American be less perfect in each craft than the European, atleast there is scarcely any trade with which he is utterly unacquainted. Hiscapacity is more general, and the circle of his intelligence is enlarged.

The inhabitants of the United States are never fettered by the axioms of theirprofession; they escape from all the prejudices of their present station; theyare not more attached to one line of operation than to another; they are notmore prone to employ an old method than a new one; they have no rooted habits,and they easily shake off the influence which the habits of other nations mightexercise upon their minds from a conviction that their country is unlike anyother, and that its situation is without a precedent in the world. America is aland of wonders, in which everything is in constant motion, and every movementseems an improvement. The idea of novelty is there indissolubly connected withthe idea of amelioration. No natural boundary seems to be set to the efforts ofman; and what is not yet done is only what he has not yet attempted to do.

This perpetual change which goes on in the United States, these frequentvicissitudes of fortune, accompanied by such unforeseen fluctuations in privateand in public wealth, serve to keep the minds of the citizens in a perpetualstate of feverish agitation, which admirably invigorates their exertions, andkeeps them in a state of excitement above the ordinary level of mankind. Thewhole life of an American is passed like a game of chance, a revolutionarycrisis, or a battle. As the same causes are continually in operation throughoutthe country, they ultimately impart an irresistible impulse to the nationalcharacter. The American, taken as a chance specimen of his countrymen, mustthen be a man of singular warmth in his desires, enterprising, fond ofadventure, and, above all, of innovation. The same bent is manifest in all thathe does; he introduces it into his political laws, his religious doctrines, histheories of social economy, and his domestic occupations; he bears it with himin the depths of the backwoods, as well as in the business of the city. It isthis same passion, applied to maritime commerce, which makes him the cheapestand the quickest trader in the world.

As long as the sailors of the United States retain these inspiritingadvantages, and the practical superiority which they derive from them, theywill not only continue to supply the wants of the producers and consumers oftheir own country, but they will tend more and more to become, like theEnglish, the factors of all other peoples. *k This prediction has already begunto be realized; we perceive that the American traders are introducingthemselves as intermediate agents in the commerce of several European nations;*l and America will offer a still wider field to their enterprise.

k
[ It must not be supposed that English vessels are exclusively employed intransporting foreign produce into England, or British produce to foreigncountries; at the present day the merchant shipping of England may be regardedin the light of a vast system of public conveyances, ready to serve all theproducers of the world, and to open communications between all peoples. Themaritime genius of the Americans prompts them to enter into competition withthe English.]

l
[ Part of the commerce of the Mediterranean is already carried on by Americanvessels.]

The great colonies which were founded in South America by the Spaniards and thePortuguese have since become empires. Civil war and oppression now lay wastethose extensive regions. Population does not increase, and the thinly scatteredinhabitants are too much absorbed in the cares of self-defense even to attemptany amelioration of their condition. Such, however, will not always be thecase. Europe has succeeded by her own efforts in piercing the gloom of theMiddle Ages; South America has the same Christian laws and Christian manners aswe have; she contains all the germs of civilization which have grown amidst thenations of Europe or their offsets, added to the advantages to be derived fromour example: why then should she always remain uncivilized? It is clear thatthe question is simply one of time; at some future period, which may be more orless remote, the inhabitants of South America will constitute flourishing andenlightened nations.

But when the Spaniards and Portuguese of South America begin to feel the wantscommon to all civilized nations, they will still be unable to satisfy thosewants for themselves; as the youngest children of civilization, they mustperforce admit the superiority of their elder brethren. They will beagriculturists long before they succeed in manufactures or commerce, and theywill require the mediation of strangers to exchange their produce beyond seasfor those articles for which a demand will begin to be felt.

It is unquestionable that the Americans of the North will one day supply thewants of the Americans of the South. Nature has placed them in contiguity, andhas furnished the former with every means of knowing and appreciating thosedemands, of establishing a permanent connection with those States, and ofgradually filling their markets. The merchants of the United States could onlyforfeit these natural advantages if he were very inferior to the merchant ofEurope; to whom he is, on the contrary, superior in several respects. TheAmericans of the United States already exercise a very considerable moralinfluence upon all the peoples of the New World. They are the source ofintelligence, and all the nations which inhabit the same continent are alreadyaccustomed to consider them as the most enlightened, the most powerful, and themost wealthy members of the great American family. All eyes are thereforeturned towards the Union; and the States of which that body is composed are themodels which the other communities try to imitate to the best of their power;it is from the United States that they borrow their political principles andtheir laws.

The Americans of the United States stand in precisely the same position withregard to the peoples of South America as their fathers, the English, occupywith regard to the Italians, the Spaniards, the Portuguese, and all thosenations of Europe which receive their articles of daily consumption fromEngland, because they are less advanced in civilization and trade. England isat this time the natural emporium of almost all the nations which are withinits reach; the American Union will perform the same part in the otherhemisphere; and every community which is founded, or which prospers in the NewWorld, is founded and prospers to the advantage of the Anglo-Americans.

If the Union were to be dissolved, the commerce of the States which now composeit would undoubtedly be checked for a time; but this consequence would be lessperceptible than is generally supposed. It is evident that, whatever mayhappen, the commercial States will remain united. They are all contiguous toeach other; they have identically the same opinions, interests, and manners;and they are alone competent to form a very great maritime power. Even if theSouth of the Union were to become independent of the North, it would stillrequire the services of those States. I have already observed that the South isnot a commercial country, and nothing intimates that it is likely to become so.The Americans of the South of the United States will therefore be obliged, fora long time to come, to have recourse to strangers to export their produce, andto supply them with the commodities which are requisite to satisfy their wants.But the Northern States are undoubtedly able to act as their intermediateagents cheaper than any other merchants. They will therefore retain thatemployment, for cheapness is the sovereign law of commerce. National claims andnational prejudices cannot resist the influence of cheapness. Nothing can bemore virulent than the hatred which exists between the Americans of the UnitedStates and the English. But notwithstanding these inimical feelings, theAmericans derive the greater part of their manufactured commodities fromEngland, because England supplies them at a cheaper rate than any other nation.Thus the increasing prosperity of America turns, notwithstanding the grudges ofthe Americans, to the advantage of British manufactures.

Reason shows and experience proves that no commercial prosperity can be durableif it cannot be united, in case of need, to naval force. This truth is as wellunderstood in the United States as it can be anywhere else: the Americans arealready able to make their flag respected; in a few years they will be able tomake it feared. I am convinced that the dismemberment of the Union would nothave the effect of diminishing the naval power of the Americans, but that itwould powerfully contribute to increase it. At the present time the commercialStates are connected with others which have not the same interests, and whichfrequently yield an unwilling consent to the increase of a maritime power bywhich they are only indirectly benefited. If, on the contrary, the commercialStates of the Union formed one independent nation, commerce would become theforemost of their national interests; they would consequently be willing tomake very great sacrifices to protect their shipping, and nothing would preventthem from pursuing their designs upon this point.

Nations, as well as men, almost always betray the most prominent features oftheir future destiny in their earliest years. When I contemplate the ardor withwhich the Anglo-Americans prosecute commercial enterprise, the advantages whichbefriend them, and the success of their undertakings, I cannot refrain frombelieving that they will one day become the first maritime power of the globe.They are born to rule the seas, as the Romans were to conquer the world.

Conclusion

I have now nearly reached the close of my inquiry; hitherto, in speaking of thefuture destiny of the United States, I have endeavored to divide my subjectinto distinct portions, in order to study each of them with more attention. Mypresent object is to embrace the whole from one single point; the remarks Ishall make will be less detailed, but they will be more sure. I shall perceiveeach object less distinctly, but I shall descry the principal facts with morecertainty. A traveller who has just left the walls of an immense city, climbsthe neighboring hill; as he goes father off he loses sight of the men whom hehas so recently quitted; their dwellings are confused in a dense mass; he canno longer distinguish the public squares, and he can scarcely trace out thegreat thoroughfares; but his eye has less difficulty in following theboundaries of the city, and for the first time he sees the shape of the vastwhole. Such is the future destiny of the British race in North America to myeye; the details of the stupendous picture are overhung with shade, but Iconceive a clear idea of the entire subject.

The territory now occupied or possessed by the United States of America formsabout one-twentieth part of the habitable earth. But extensive as theseconfines are, it must not be supposed that the Anglo-American race will alwaysremain within them; indeed, it has already far overstepped them.

There was once a time at which we also might have created a great French nationin the American wilds, to counterbalance the influence of the English upon thedestinies of the New World. France formerly possessed a territory in NorthAmerica, scarcely less extensive than the whole of Europe. The three greatestrivers of that continent then flowed within her dominions. The Indian tribeswhich dwelt between the mouth of the St. Lawrence and the delta of theMississippi were unaccustomed to any other tongue but ours; and all theEuropean settlements scattered over that immense region recalled the traditionsof our country. Louisbourg, Montmorency, Duquesne, St. Louis, Vincennes, NewOrleans (for such were the names they bore) are words dear to France andfamiliar to our ears.

But a concourse of circ*mstances, which it would be tedious to enumerate, *mhave deprived us of this magnificent inheritance. Wherever the French settlerswere numerically weak and partially established, they have disappeared: thosewho remain are collected on a small extent of country, and are now subject toother laws. The 400,000 French inhabitants of Lower Canada constitute, at thepresent time, the remnant of an old nation lost in the midst of a new people. Aforeign population is increasing around them unceasingly and on all sides,which already penetrates amongst the ancient masters of the country,predominates in their cities and corrupts their language. This population isidentical with that of the United States; it is therefore with truth that Iasserted that the British race is not confined within the frontiers of theUnion, since it already extends to the northeast.

m
[ The foremost of these circ*mstances is, that nations which are accustomed tofree institutions and municipal government are better able than any others tofound prosperous colonies. The habit of thinking and governing for oneself isindispensable in a new country, where success necessarily depends, in a greatmeasure, upon the individual exertions of the settlers.]

To the northwest nothing is to be met with but a few insignificant Russiansettlements; but to the southwest, Mexico presents a barrier to theAnglo-Americans. Thus, the Spaniards and the Anglo-Americans are, properlyspeaking, the only two races which divide the possession of the New World. Thelimits of separation between them have been settled by a treaty; but althoughthe conditions of that treaty are exceedingly favorable to the Anglo-Americans,I do not doubt that they will shortly infringe this arrangement. Vastprovinces, extending beyond the frontiers of the Union towards Mexico, arestill destitute of inhabitants. The natives of the United States will forestallthe rightful occupants of these solitary regions. They will take possession ofthe soil, and establish social institutions, so that when the legal ownerarrives at length, he will find the wilderness under cultivation, and strangersquietly settled in the midst of his inheritance. *n

n
[ [This was speedily accomplished, and ere long both Texas and Californiaformed part of the United States. The Russian settlements were acquired bypurchase.]]

The lands of the New World belong to the first occupant, and they are thenatural reward of the swiftest pioneer. Even the countries which are alreadypeopled will have some difficulty in securing themselves from this invasion. Ihave already alluded to what is taking place in the province of Texas. Theinhabitants of the United States are perpetually migrating to Texas, where theypurchase land; and although they conform to the laws of the country, they aregradually founding the empire of their own language and their own manners. Theprovince of Texas is still part of the Mexican dominions, but it will sooncontain no Mexicans; the same thing has occurred whenever the Anglo-Americanshave come into contact with populations of a different origin.

It cannot be denied that the British race has acquired an amazing preponderanceover all the other European races in the New World; and that it is verysuperior to them in civilization, in industry, and in power. As long as it isonly surrounded by desert or thinly peopled countries, as long as it encountersno dense populations upon its route, through which it cannot work its way, itwill assuredly continue to spread. The lines marked out by treaties will notstop it; but it will everywhere transgress these imaginary barriers.

The geographical position of the British race in the New World is peculiarlyfavorable to its rapid increase. Above its northern frontiers the icy regionsof the Pole extend; and a few degrees below its southern confines lies theburning climate of the Equator. The Anglo-Americans are, therefore, placed inthe most temperate and habitable zone of the continent.

It is generally supposed that the prodigious increase of population in theUnited States is posterior to their Declaration of Independence. But this is anerror: the population increased as rapidly under the colonial system as it doesat the present day; that is to say, it doubled in about twenty-two years. Butthis proportion which is now applied to millions, was then applied to thousandsof inhabitants; and the same fact which was scarcely noticeable a century ago,is now evident to every observer.

The British subjects in Canada, who are dependent on a king, augment and spreadalmost as rapidly as the British settlers of the United States, who live undera republican government. During the war of independence, which lasted eightyears, the population continued to increase without intermission in the sameratio. Although powerful Indian nations allied with the English existed at thattime upon the western frontiers, the emigration westward was never checked.Whilst the enemy laid waste the shores of the Atlantic, Kentucky, the westernparts of Pennsylvania, and the States of Vermont and of Maine were filling withinhabitants. Nor did the unsettled state of the Constitution, which succeededthe war, prevent the increase of the population, or stop its progress acrossthe wilds. Thus, the difference of laws, the various conditions of peace andwar, of order and of anarchy, have exercised no perceptible influence upon thegradual development of the Anglo-Americans. This may be readily understood; forthe fact is, that no causes are sufficiently general to exercise a simultaneousinfluence over the whole of so extensive a territory. One portion of thecountry always offers a sure retreat from the calamities which afflict anotherpart; and however great may be the evil, the remedy which is at hand is greaterstill.

It must not, then, be imagined that the impulse of the British race in the NewWorld can be arrested. The dismemberment of the Union, and the hostilitieswhich might ensure, the abolition of republican institutions, and thetyrannical government which might succeed it, may retard this impulse, but theycannot prevent it from ultimately fulfilling the destinies to which that raceis reserved. No power upon earth can close upon the emigrants that fertilewilderness which offers resources to all industry, and a refuge from all want.Future events, of whatever nature they may be, will not deprive the Americansof their climate or of their inland seas, of their great rivers or of theirexuberant soil. Nor will bad laws, revolutions, and anarchy be able toobliterate that love of prosperity and that spirit of enterprise which seem tobe the distinctive characteristics of their race, or to extinguish thatknowledge which guides them on their way.

Thus, in the midst of the uncertain future, one event at least is sure. At aperiod which may be said to be near (for we are speaking of the life of anation), the Anglo-Americans will alone cover the immense space containedbetween the polar regions and the tropics, extending from the coasts of theAtlantic to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. The territory which will probablybe occupied by the Anglo-Americans at some future time, may be computed toequal three-quarters of Europe in extent. *o The climate of the Union is uponthe whole preferable to that of Europe, and its natural advantages are not lessgreat; it is therefore evident that its population will at some future time beproportionate to our own. Europe, divided as it is between so many differentnations, and torn as it has been by incessant wars and the barbarous manners ofthe Middle Ages, has notwithstanding attained a population of 410 inhabitantsto the square league. *p What cause can prevent the United States from havingas numerous a population in time?

o
[ The United States already extend over a territory equal to one-half ofEurope. The area of Europe is 500,000 square leagues, and its population205,000,000 of inhabitants. (“Malte Brun,” liv. 114. vol. vi. p.4.)

[This computation is given in French leagues, which were in use when the authorwrote. Twenty years later, in 1850, the superficial area of the United Stateshad been extended to 3,306,865 square miles of territory, which is about thearea of Europe.]]

p
[ See “Malte Brun,” liv. 116, vol. vi. p. 92.]

Many ages must elapse before the divers offsets of the British race in Americacease to present the same hom*ogeneous characteristics: and the time cannot beforeseen at which a permanent inequality of conditions will be established inthe New World. Whatever differences may arise, from peace or from war, fromfreedom or oppression, from prosperity or want, between the destinies of thedifferent descendants of the great Anglo-American family, they will at leastpreserve an analogous social condition, and they will hold in common thecustoms and the opinions to which that social condition has given birth.

In the Middle Ages, the tie of religion was sufficiently powerful to imbue allthe different populations of Europe with the same civilization. The British ofthe New World have a thousand other reciprocal ties; and they live at a timewhen the tendency to equality is general amongst mankind. The Middle Ages werea period when everything was broken up; when each people, each province, eachcity, and each family, had a strong tendency to maintain its distinctindividuality. At the present time an opposite tendency seems to prevail, andthe nations seem to be advancing to unity. Our means of intellectualintercourse unite the most remote parts of the earth; and it is impossible formen to remain strangers to each other, or to be ignorant of the events whichare taking place in any corner of the globe. The consequence is that there isless difference, at the present day, between the Europeans and theirdescendants in the New World, than there was between certain towns in thethirteenth century which were only separated by a river. If this tendency toassimilation brings foreign nations closer to each other, it must a fortioriprevent the descendants of the same people from becoming aliens to each other.

The time will therefore come when one hundred and fifty millions of men will beliving in North America, *q equal in condition, the progeny of one race, owingtheir origin to the same cause, and preserving the same civilization, the samelanguage, the same religion, the same habits, the same manners, and imbued withthe same opinions, propagated under the same forms. The rest is uncertain, butthis is certain; and it is a fact new to the world—a fact fraught withsuch portentous consequences as to baffle the efforts even of the imagination.

q
[ This would be a population proportionate to that of Europe, taken at a meanrate of 410 inhabitants to the square league.]

There are, at the present time, two great nations in the world which seem totend towards the same end, although they started from different points: Iallude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed;and whilst the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they have suddenlyassumed a most prominent place amongst the nations; and the world learned theirexistence and their greatness at almost the same time.

All other nations seem to have nearly reached their natural limits, and only tobe charged with the maintenance of their power; but these are still in the actof growth; *r all the others are stopped, or continue to advance with extremedifficulty; these are proceeding with ease and with celerity along a path towhich the human eye can assign no term. The American struggles against thenatural obstacles which oppose him; the adversaries of the Russian are men; theformer combats the wilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization withall its weapons and its arts: the conquests of the one are therefore gained bythe ploughshare; those of the other by the sword. The Anglo-American reliesupon personal interest to accomplish his ends, and gives free scope to theunguided exertions and common-sense of the citizens; the Russian centres allthe authority of society in a single arm: the principal instrument of theformer is freedom; of the latter servitude. Their starting-point is different,and their courses are not the same; yet each of them seems to be marked out bythe will of Heaven to sway the destinies of half the globe.

r
[ Russia is the country in the Old World in which population increases mostrapidly in proportion.]

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions willbe renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyrightlaw means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the UnitedStates without permission and without paying copyrightroyalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use partof this license, apply to copying and distributing ProjectGutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by followingthe terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for useof the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything forcopies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is veryeasy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creationof derivative works, reports, performances and research. ProjectGutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you maydo practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protectedby U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademarklicense, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the freedistribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “ProjectGutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the FullProject Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online atwww.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree toand accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by allthe terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return ordestroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in yourpossession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to aProject Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be boundby the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the personor entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only beused on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people whoagree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a fewthings that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic workseven without complying with the full terms of this agreement. Seeparagraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with ProjectGutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of thisagreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“theFoundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collectionof Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individualworks in the collection are in the public domain in the UnitedStates. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in theUnited States and you are located in the United States, we do notclaim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long asall references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hopethat you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promotingfree access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping theProject Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easilycomply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in thesame format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License whenyou share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also governwhat you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries arein a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of thisagreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or anyother Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes norepresentations concerning the copyright status of any work in anycountry other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or otherimmediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appearprominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any workon which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which thephrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work isderived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does notcontain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of thecopyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone inthe United States without paying any fees or charges. If you areredistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “ProjectGutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must complyeither with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 orobtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is postedwith the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distributionmust comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and anyadditional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional termswill be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all worksposted with the permission of the copyright holder found at thebeginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of thiswork or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute thiselectronic work, or any part of this electronic work, withoutprominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 withactive links or immediate access to the full terms of the ProjectGutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, includingany word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide accessto or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a formatother than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the officialversion posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expenseto the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a meansof obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “PlainVanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include thefull Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ worksunless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providingaccess to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic worksprovided that:

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a ProjectGutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms thanare set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writingfrom the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager ofthe Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as setforth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerableeffort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofreadworks not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the ProjectGutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, maycontain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurateor corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or otherintellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk orother medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage orcannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Rightof Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the ProjectGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the ProjectGutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a ProjectGutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim allliability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legalfees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICTLIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSEPROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THETRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BELIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE ORINCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCHDAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover adefect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you canreceive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending awritten explanation to the person you received the work from. If youreceived the work on a physical medium, you must return the mediumwith your written explanation. The person or entity that provided youwith the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy inlieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the personor entity providing it to you may choose to give you a secondopportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. Ifthe second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writingwithout further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forthin paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NOOTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain impliedwarranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types ofdamages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreementviolates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, theagreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer orlimitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity orunenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void theremaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, thetrademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyoneproviding copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works inaccordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with theproduction, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any ofthe following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of thisor any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, oradditions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) anyDefect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution ofelectronic works in formats readable by the widest variety ofcomputers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. Itexists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donationsfrom people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with theassistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’sgoals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection willremain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the ProjectGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secureand permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and futuregenerations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, seeSections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of thestate of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the InternalRevenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identificationnumber is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted byU.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and upto date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s websiteand official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespreadpublic support and donations to carry out its mission ofincreasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can befreely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widestarray of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exemptstatus with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulatingcharities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the UnitedStates. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes aconsiderable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep upwith these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locationswhere we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SENDDONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular statevisit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where wehave not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibitionagainst accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states whoapproach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot makeany statements concerning tax treatment of donations received fromoutside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donationmethods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of otherways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. Todonate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the ProjectGutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could befreely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced anddistributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network ofvolunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printededitions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright inthe U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do notnecessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paperedition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG searchfacility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg LiteraryArchive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how tosubscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.