DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

By Alexis De Tocqueville

Translated by Henry Reeve

Book One

Introduction

Special Introduction By Hon. John T. Morgan

In the eleven years that separated the Declaration of the Independenceof the United States from the completion of that act in the ordinationof our written Constitution, the great minds of America were bent uponthe study of the principles of government that were essential to thepreservation of the liberties which had been won at great cost and withheroic labors and sacrifices. Their studies were conducted in view ofthe imperfections that experience had developed in the government of theConfederation, and they were, therefore, practical and thorough. 

When the Constitution was thus perfected and established, a new form ofgovernment was created, but it was neither speculative nor experimentalas to the principles on which it was based. If they were trueprinciples, as they were, the government founded upon them was destinedto a life and an influence that would continue while the liberties itwas intended to preserve should be valued by the human family. Thoseliberties had been wrung from reluctant monarchs in many contests, in many countries, and were grouped into creeds and established inordinances sealed with blood, in many great struggles of the people. They were not new to the people. They were consecrated theories, butno government had been previously established for the great purpose oftheir preservation and enforcement. That which was experimental in ourplan of government was the question whether democratic rule could be soorganized and conducted that it would not degenerate into license andresult in the tyranny of absolutism, without saving to the people thepower so often found necessary of repressing or destroying their enemy, when he was found in the person of a single despot. 

When, in 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville came to study Democracy in America, the trial of nearly a half-century of the working of our system had beenmade, and it had been proved, by many crucial tests, to be a governmentof "liberty regulated by law, " with such results in the development ofstrength, in population, wealth, and military and commercial power, asno age had ever witnessed. 

[See Alexis De Tocqueville]

De Tocqueville had a special inquiry to prosecute, in his visit toAmerica, in which his generous and faithful soul and the powers of hisgreat intellect were engaged in the patriotic effort to secure to thepeople of France the blessings that Democracy in America had ordainedand established throughout nearly the entire Western Hemisphere. He hadread the story of the French Revolution, much of which had been recentlywritten in the blood of men and women of great distinction who werehis progenitors; and had witnessed the agitations and terrors of theRestoration and of the Second Republic, fruitful in crime and sacrifice, and barren of any good to mankind. 

He had just witnessed the spread of republican government through allthe vast continental possessions of Spain in America, and the loss ofher great colonies. He had seen that these revolutions were accomplishedalmost without the shedding of blood, and he was filled with anxiety tolearn the causes that had placed republican government, in France, insuch contrast with Democracy in America. 

De Tocqueville was scarcely thirty years old when he began his studiesof Democracy in America. It was a bold effort for one who had no specialtraining in government, or in the study of political economy, but hehad the example of Lafayette in establishing the military foundation ofthese liberties, and of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton, all of whom were young men, in building upon the Independence of theUnited States that wisest and best plan of general government that wasever devised for a free people. 

He found that the American people, through their chosen representativeswho were instructed by their wisdom and experience and were supportedby their virtues--cultivated, purified and ennobled by self-reliance andthe love of God--had matured, in the excellent wisdom of their counsels, a new plan of government, which embraced every security for theirliberties and equal rights and privileges to all in the pursuit ofhappiness. He came as an honest and impartial student and his greatcommentary, like those of Paul, was written for the benefit of allnations and people and in vindication of truths that will stand fortheir deliverance from monarchical rule, while time shall last. 

A French aristocrat of the purest strain of blood and of the mosthonorable lineage, whose family influence was coveted by crowned heads;who had no quarrel with the rulers of the nation, and was secureagainst want by his inherited estates; was moved by the agitationsthat compelled France to attempt to grasp suddenly the liberties andhappiness we had gained in our revolution and, by his devout loveof France, to search out and subject to the test of reason thebasic principles of free government that had been embodied in ourConstitution. This was the mission of De Tocqueville, and no missionwas ever more honorably or justly conducted, or concluded with greatereclat, or better results for the welfare of mankind. 

His researches were logical and exhaustive. They included every phase ofevery question that then seemed to be apposite to the great inquiry hewas making. 

The judgment of all who have studied his commentaries seems to have beenunanimous, that his talents and learning were fully equal to his task. He began with the physical geography of this country, and examined thecharacteristics of the people, of all races and conditions, their socialand religious sentiments, their education and tastes; their industries, their commerce, their local governments, their passions and prejudices, and their ethics and literature; leaving nothing unnoticed that mightafford an argument to prove that our plan and form of government wasor was not adapted especially to a peculiar people, or that it would beimpracticable in any different country, or among any different people. 

The pride and comfort that the American people enjoy in the greatcommentaries of De Tocqueville are far removed from the selfishadulation that comes from a great and singular success. It is theconsciousness of victory over a false theory of government which hasafflicted mankind for many ages, that gives joy to the true American, asit did to De Tocqueville in his great triumph. 

When De Tocqueville wrote, we had lived less than fifty years under ourConstitution. In that time no great national commotion had occurred thattested its strength, or its power of resistance to internal strife, suchas had converted his beloved France into fields of slaughter torn bytempests of wrath. 

He had a strong conviction that no government could be ordained thatcould resist these internal forces, when, they are directed to itsdestruction by bad men, or unreasoning mobs, and many then believed, assome yet believe, that our government is unequal to such pressure, whenthe assault is thoroughly desperate. 

Had De Tocqueville lived to examine the history of the United Statesfrom 1860 to 1870, his misgivings as to this power of self-preservationwould, probably, have been cleared off. He would have seen that, atthe end of the most destructive civil war that ever occurred, whenanimosities of the bitterest sort had banished all good feeling fromthe hearts of our people, the States of the American Union, still incomplete organization and equipped with all their official entourage, aligned themselves in their places and took up the powers and duties oflocal government in perfect order and without embarrassment. This wouldhave dispelled his apprehensions, if he had any, about the power of theUnited States to withstand the severest shocks of civil war. Could hehave traced the further course of events until they open the portals ofthe twentieth century, he would have cast away his fears of ourability to restore peace, order, and prosperity, in the face of anydifficulties, and would have rejoiced to find in the Constitution of theUnited States the remedy that is provided for the healing of the nation. 

De Tocqueville examined, with the care that is worthy the importanceof the subject, the nature and value of the system of "localself-government, " as we style this most important feature of our plan, and (as has often happened) when this or any subject has become a matterof anxious concern, his treatment of the questions is found to have beenmasterly and his preconceptions almost prophetic. 

We are frequently indebted to him for able expositions and truedoctrines relating to subjects that have slumbered in the minds of thepeople until they were suddenly forced on our attention by unexpectedevents. 

In his introductory chapter, M. De Tocqueville says: "Amongst the novelobjects that attracted my attention during my stay in the UnitedStates, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality ofconditions. " He referred, doubtless, to social and political conditionsamong the people of the white race, who are described as "We, thepeople, " in the opening sentence of the Constitution. The last threeamendments of the Constitution have so changed this, that those who werethen negro slaves are clothed with the rights of citizenship, includingthe right of suffrage. This was a political party movement, intended tobe radical and revolutionary, but it will, ultimately, react because ithas not the sanction of public opinion. 

If M. De Tocqueville could now search for a law that would negative thisprovision in its effect upon social equality, he would fail to find it. But he would find it in the unwritten law of the natural aversion of theraces. He would find it in public opinion, which is the vital force inevery law in a free government. This is a subject that our Constitutionfailed to regulate, because it was not contemplated by its authors. Itis a question that will settle itself, without serious difficulty. Theequality in the suffrage, thus guaranteed to the negro race, alone--forit was not intended to include other colored races--creates a new phaseof political conditions that M. De Tocqueville could not foresee. Yet, in his commendation of the local town and county governments, he applauds and sustains that elementary feature of our politicalorganization which, in the end, will render harmless this wide departurefrom the original plan and purpose of American Democracy. "LocalSelf-Government, " independent of general control, except for generalpurposes, is the root and origin of all free republican government, andis the antagonist of all great political combinations that threaten therights of minorities. It is the public opinion formed in the independentexpressions of towns and other small civil districts that is thereal conservatism of free government. It is equally the enemy of thatdangerous evil, the corruption of the ballot-box, from which it is nowapprehended that one of our greatest troubles is to arise. 

The voter is selected, under our laws, because he has certain physicalqualifications--age and sex. His disqualifications, when any areimposed, relate to his education or property, and to the fact that hehas not been convicted of crime. Of all men he should be most directlyamenable to public opinion. 

The test of moral character and devotion to the duties of goodcitizenship are ignored in the laws, because the courts can seldom dealwith such questions in a uniform and satisfactory way, under rules thatapply alike to all. Thus the voter, selected by law to represent himselfand four other non-voting citizens, is often a person who is unfit forany public duty or trust. In a town government, having a small area ofjurisdiction, where the voice of the majority of qualified voters isconclusive, the fitness of the person who is to exercise that highrepresentative privilege can be determined by his neighbors andacquaintances, and, in the great majority of cases, it will be decidedhonestly and for the good of the country. In such meetings, there isalways a spirit of loyalty to the State, because that is loyalty tothe people, and a reverence for God that gives weight to the duties andresponsibilities of citizenship. 

M. De Tocqueville found in these minor local jurisdictions thetheoretical conservatism which, in the aggregate, is the safest relianceof the State. So we have found them, in practice, the true protectorsof the purity of the ballot, without which all free government willdegenerate into absolutism. 

In the future of the Republic, we must encounter many difficult anddangerous situations, but the principles established in the Constitutionand the check upon hasty or inconsiderate legislation, and uponexecutive action, and the supreme arbitrament of the courts, will befound sufficient for the safety of personal rights, and for the safetyof the government, and the prophetic outlook of M. De Tocqueville willbe fully realized through the influence of Democracy in America. Eachsucceeding generation of Americans will find in the pure and impartialreflections of De Tocqueville a new source of pride in our institutionsof government, and sound reasons for patriotic effort to preservethem and to inculcate their teachings. They have mastered the power ofmonarchical rule in the American Hemisphere, freeing religion from allshackles, and will spread, by a quiet but resistless influence, through the islands of the seas to other lands, where the appeals ofDe Tocqueville for human rights and liberties have already inspired thesouls of the people. 

Hon. John T. Morgan

Special Introduction By Hon. John J. Ingalls

Nearly two-thirds of a century has elapsed since the appearance of"Democracy in America, " by Alexis Charles Henri Clerel de Tocqueville, aFrench nobleman, born at Paris, July 29, 1805. 

Bred to the law, he exhibited an early predilection for philosophy andpolitical economy, and at twenty-two was appointed judge-auditor at thetribunal of Versailles. 

In 1831, commissioned ostensibly to investigate the penitentiary systemof the United States, he visited this country, with his friend, Gustavede Beaumont, travelling extensively through those parts of the Republicthen subdued to settlement, studying the methods of local, State, andnational administration, and observing the manners and habits, the dailylife, the business, the industries and occupations of the people. 

"Democracy in America, " the first of four volumes upon "AmericanInstitutions and their Influence, " was published in 1835. It wasreceived at once by the scholars and thinkers of Europe as a profound, impartial, and entertaining exposition of the principles of popular, representative self-government. 

Napoleon, "The mighty somnambulist of a vanished dream, " had abolishedfeudalism and absolutism, made monarchs and dynasties obsolete, andsubstituted for the divine right of kings the sovereignty of the people. 

Although by birth and sympathies an aristocrat, M. De Tocquevillesaw that the reign of tradition and privilege at last was ended. Heperceived that civilization, after many bloody centuries, had entered anew epoch. He beheld, and deplored, the excesses that had attended thegenesis of the democratic spirit in France, and while he loved liberty, he detested the crimes that had been committed in its name. Belongingneither to the class which regarded the social revolution as aninnovation to be resisted, nor to that which considered politicalequality the universal panacea for the evils of humanity, he resolvedby personal observation of the results of democracy in the New Worldto ascertain its natural consequences, and to learn what the nations ofEurope had to hope or fear from its final supremacy. 

That a youth of twenty-six should entertain a design so broad and boldimplies singular intellectual intrepidity. He had neither modelnor precedent. The vastness and novelty of the undertaking increaseadmiration for the remarkable ability with which the task was performed. 

Were literary excellence the sole claim of "Democracy in America" todistinction, the splendor of its composition alone would entitle it tohigh place among the masterpieces of the century. The first chapter, upon the exterior form of North America, as the theatre upon which thegreat drama is to be enacted, for graphic and picturesque descriptionof the physical characteristics of the continent is not surpassedin literature: nor is there any subdivision of the work in which theseverest philosophy is not invested with the grace of poetry, and thedriest statistics with the charm of romance. Western emigration seemedcommonplace and prosaic till M. De Tocqueville said, "This gradual andcontinuous progress of the European race toward the Rocky Mountains hasthe solemnity of a providential event; it is like a deluge of men risingunabatedly, and daily driven onward by the hand of God!"

The mind of M. De Tocqueville had the candor of the photographic camera. It recorded impressions with the impartiality of nature. The image wassometimes distorted, and the perspective was not always true, but hewas neither a panegyrist, nor an advocate, nor a critic. He observedAmerican phenomena as illustrations, not as proof nor arguments; andalthough it is apparent that the tendency of his mind was not whollyfavorable to the democratic principle, yet those who dissent from hisconclusions must commend the ability and courage with which they areexpressed. 

Though not originally written for Americans, "Democracy in America" mustalways remain a work of engrossing and constantly increasing interest tocitizens of the United States as the first philosophic and comprehensiveview of our society, institutions, and destiny. No one can rise evenfrom the most cursory perusal without clearer insight and more patrioticappreciation of the blessings of liberty protected by law, nor withoutencouragement for the stability and perpetuity of the Republic. Thecauses which appeared to M. De Tocqueville to menace both, have gone. The despotism of public opinion, the tyranny of majorities, the absenceof intellectual freedom which seemed to him to degrade administrationand bring statesmanship, learning, and literature to the level of thelowest, are no longer considered. The violence of party spirit hasbeen mitigated, and the judgment of the wise is not subordinated to theprejudices of the ignorant. 

Other dangers have come. Equality of conditions no longer exists. Prophets of evil predict the downfall of democracy, but the studentof M. De Tocqueville will find consolation and encouragement in thereflection that the same spirit which has vanquished the perils ofthe past, which he foresaw, will be equally prepared for theresponsibilities of the present and the future. 

The last of the four volumes of M. De Tocqueville's work upon Americaninstitutions appeared in 1840. 

In 1838 he was chosen member of the Academy of Moral and PoliticalSciences. In 1839 he was elected to the Chamber of Deputies. He becamea member of the French Academy in 1841. In 1848 he was in the Assembly, and from June 2nd to October 31st he was Minister of Foreign Affairs. The coup d'etat of December 2, 1851 drove him from the public service. In 1856 he published "The Old Regime and the Revolution. " He died atCannes, April 15, 1859, at the age of fifty-four. 

Hon. John J. Ingalls

Introductory Chapter

Amongst the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stayin the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the generalequality of conditions. I readily discovered the prodigious influencewhich this primary fact exercises on the whole course of society, bygiving a certain direction to public opinion, and a certain tenor tothe laws; by imparting new maxims to the governing powers, and peculiarhabits to the governed. I speedily perceived that the influence of thisfact extends far beyond the political character and the laws of thecountry, and that it has no less empire over civil society than overthe Government; it creates opinions, engenders sentiments, suggests theordinary practices of life, and modifies whatever it does not produce. The more I advanced in the study of American society, the more Iperceived that the equality of conditions is the fundamental fact fromwhich all others seem to be derived, and the central point at which allmy observations constantly terminated. 

I then turned my thoughts to our own hemisphere, where I imagined thatI discerned something analogous to the spectacle which the New Worldpresented to me. I observed that the equality of conditions is dailyprogressing towards those extreme limits which it seems to have reachedin the United States, and that the democracy which governs the Americancommunities appears to be rapidly rising into power in Europe. I henceconceived the idea of the book which is now before the reader. 

It is evident to all alike that a great democratic revolution isgoing on amongst us; but there are two opinions as to its nature andconsequences. To some it appears to be a novel accident, which as suchmay still be checked; to others it seems irresistible, because it is themost uniform, the most ancient, and the most permanent tendency which isto be found in history. Let us recollect the situation of France sevenhundred years ago, when the territory was divided amongst a small numberof families, who were the owners of the soil and the rulers ofthe inhabitants; the right of governing descended with the familyinheritance from generation to generation; force was the only means bywhich man could act on man, and landed property was the sole source ofpower. Soon, however, the political power of the clergy was founded, andbegan to exert itself: the clergy opened its ranks to all classes, tothe poor and the rich, the villein and the lord; equality penetratedinto the Government through the Church, and the being who as a serf musthave vegetated in perpetual bondage took his place as a priest in themidst of nobles, and not infrequently above the heads of kings. 

The different relations of men became more complicated and more numerousas society gradually became more stable and more civilized. Thence thewant of civil laws was felt; and the order of legal functionaries soonrose from the obscurity of the tribunals and their dusty chambers, toappear at the court of the monarch, by the side of the feudal barons intheir ermine and their mail. Whilst the kings were ruining themselvesby their great enterprises, and the nobles exhausting their resourcesby private wars, the lower orders were enriching themselves by commerce. The influence of money began to be perceptible in State affairs. Thetransactions of business opened a new road to power, and the financierrose to a station of political influence in which he was at onceflattered and despised. Gradually the spread of mental acquirements, andthe increasing taste for literature and art, opened chances of successto talent; science became a means of government, intelligence led tosocial power, and the man of letters took a part in the affairs of theState. The value attached to the privileges of birth decreased in theexact proportion in which new paths were struck out to advancement. Inthe eleventh century nobility was beyond all price; in the thirteenthit might be purchased; it was conferred for the first time in 1270;and equality was thus introduced into the Government by the aristocracyitself. 

In the course of these seven hundred years it sometimes happened that inorder to resist the authority of the Crown, or to diminish the power oftheir rivals, the nobles granted a certain share of political rights tothe people. Or, more frequently, the king permitted the lower ordersto enjoy a degree of power, with the intention of repressing thearistocracy. In France the kings have always been the most active andthe most constant of levellers. When they were strong and ambitious theyspared no pains to raise the people to the level of the nobles; whenthey were temperate or weak they allowed the people to rise abovethemselves. Some assisted the democracy by their talents, others bytheir vices. Louis XI and Louis XIV reduced every rank beneath thethrone to the same subjection; Louis XV descended, himself and all hisCourt, into the dust. 

As soon as land was held on any other than a feudal tenure, andpersonal property began in its turn to confer influence and power, everyimprovement which was introduced in commerce or manufacture was a freshelement of the equality of conditions. Henceforward every new discovery, every new want which it engendered, and every new desire which cravedsatisfaction, was a step towards the universal level. The taste forluxury, the love of war, the sway of fashion, and the most superficialas well as the deepest passions of the human heart, co-operated toenrich the poor and to impoverish the rich. 

From the time when the exercise of the intellect became the source ofstrength and of wealth, it is impossible not to consider every additionto science, every fresh truth, and every new idea as a germ of powerplaced within the reach of the people. Poetry, eloquence, and memory, the grace of wit, the glow of imagination, the depth of thought, and allthe gifts which are bestowed by Providence with an equal hand, turnedto the advantage of the democracy; and even when they were in thepossession of its adversaries they still served its cause by throwinginto relief the natural greatness of man; its conquests spread, therefore, with those of civilization and knowledge, and literaturebecame an arsenal where the poorest and the weakest could always findweapons to their hand. 

In perusing the pages of our history, we shall scarcely meet with asingle great event, in the lapse of seven hundred years, which has notturned to the advantage of equality. The Crusades and the wars of theEnglish decimated the nobles and divided their possessions; the erectionof communities introduced an element of democratic liberty into thebosom of feudal monarchy; the invention of fire-arms equalized thevillein and the noble on the field of battle; printing opened the sameresources to the minds of all classes; the post was organized so as tobring the same information to the door of the poor man's cottage and tothe gate of the palace; and Protestantism proclaimed that all men arealike able to find the road to heaven. The discovery of America offereda thousand new paths to fortune, and placed riches and power withinthe reach of the adventurous and the obscure. If we examine what hashappened in France at intervals of fifty years, beginning with theeleventh century, we shall invariably perceive that a twofold revolutionhas taken place in the state of society. The noble has gone down on thesocial ladder, and the roturier has gone up; the one descends as theother rises. Every half century brings them nearer to each other, andthey will very shortly meet. 

Nor is this phenomenon at all peculiar to France. Whithersoever we turnour eyes we shall witness the same continual revolution throughout thewhole of Christendom. The various occurrences of national existence haveeverywhere turned to the advantage of democracy; all men have aided itby their exertions: those who have intentionally labored in its cause, and those who have served it unwittingly; those who have fought forit and those who have declared themselves its opponents, have allbeen driven along in the same track, have all labored to one end, someignorantly and some unwillingly; all have been blind instruments in thehands of God. 

The gradual development of the equality of conditions is therefore aprovidential fact, and it possesses all the characteristics of a divinedecree: it is universal, it is durable, it constantly eludes all humaninterference, and all events as well as all men contribute to itsprogress. Would it, then, be wise to imagine that a social impulse whichdates from so far back can be checked by the efforts of a generation? Isit credible that the democracy which has annihilated the feudal systemand vanquished kings will respect the citizen and the capitalist? Willit stop now that it has grown so strong and its adversaries so weak?None can say which way we are going, for all terms of comparison arewanting: the equality of conditions is more complete in the Christiancountries of the present day than it has been at any time or in any partof 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 writtenunder the impression of a kind of religious dread produced in theauthor's mind by the contemplation of so irresistible a revolution, which has advanced for centuries in spite of such amazing obstacles, andwhich is still proceeding in the midst of the ruins it has made. It isnot necessary that God himself should speak in order to disclose tous the unquestionable signs of His will; we can discern them in thehabitual course of nature, and in the invariable tendency of events: Iknow, without a special revelation, that the planets move in the orbitstraced by the Creator's finger. If the men of our time were led byattentive observation and by sincere reflection to acknowledge that thegradual and progressive development of social equality is at once thepast and future of their history, this solitary truth would confer thesacred character of a Divine decree upon the change. To attempt tocheck democracy would be in that case to resist the will of God; andthe nations would then be constrained to make the best of the social lotawarded 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 itcannot be stopped, but it is not yet so rapid that it cannot be guided:their fate is in their hands; yet a little while and it may be so nolonger. The first duty which is at this time imposed upon those whodirect our affairs is to educate the democracy; to warm its faith, if that be possible; to purify its morals; to direct its energies;to substitute a knowledge of business for its inexperience, and anacquaintance with its true interests for its blind propensities; toadapt its government to time and place, and to modify it in compliancewith the occurrences and the actors of the age. A new science ofpolitics is indispensable to a new world. This, however, is what wethink of least; launched in the middle of a rapid stream, we obstinatelyfix our eyes on the ruins which may still be described upon the shore wehave left, whilst the current sweeps us along, and drives us backwardstowards the gulf. 

In no country in Europe has the great social revolution which I havebeen describing made such rapid progress as in France; but it has alwaysbeen borne on by chance. The heads of the State have never had anyforethought for its exigencies, and its victories have been obtainedwithout their consent or without their knowledge. The most powerful, themost intelligent, and the most moral classes of the nation have neverattempted to connect themselves with it in order to guide it. The peoplehas consequently been abandoned to its wild propensities, and it hasgrown up like those outcasts who receive their education in thepublic streets, and who are unacquainted with aught but the vices andwretchedness of society. The existence of a democracy was seeminglyunknown, when on a sudden it took possession of the supreme power. Everything was then submitted to its caprices; it was worshipped as theidol of strength; until, when it was enfeebled by its own excesses, thelegislator conceived the rash project of annihilating its power, insteadof instructing it and correcting its vices; no attempt was made to fitit to govern, but all were bent 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 concomitantchange in laws, ideas, customs, and manners which was necessary torender such a revolution beneficial. We have gotten a democracy, butwithout the conditions which lessen its vices and render its naturaladvantages more prominent; and although we already perceive the evils itbrings, we are ignorant of the benefits it may confer. 

While the power of the Crown, supported by the aristocracy, peaceablygoverned the nations of Europe, society possessed, in the midst of itswretchedness, several different advantages which can now scarcely beappreciated or conceived. The power of a part of his subjects was aninsurmountable barrier to the tyranny of the prince; and the monarch, who felt the almost divine character which he enjoyed in the eyes ofthe multitude, derived a motive for the just use of his power from therespect which he inspired. High as they were placed above the people, the nobles could not but take that calm and benevolent interest inits fate which the shepherd feels towards his flock; and withoutacknowledging the poor as their equals, they watched over the destiny ofthose whose welfare Providence had entrusted to their care. The peoplenever having conceived the idea of a social condition different from itsown, and entertaining no expectation of ever ranking with its chiefs, received benefits from them without discussing their rights. It grewattached to them when they were clement and just, and it submittedwithout resistance or servility to their exactions, as to the inevitablevisitations of the arm of God. Custom, and the manners of the time, had moreover created a species of law in the midst of violence, andestablished certain limits to oppression. As the noble never suspectedthat anyone would attempt to deprive him of the privileges whichhe believed to be legitimate, and as the serf looked upon his owninferiority as a consequence of the immutable order of nature, it iseasy to imagine that a mutual exchange of good-will took place betweentwo classes so differently gifted by fate. Inequality and wretchednesswere then to be found in society; but the souls of neither rank of menwere degraded. Men are not corrupted by the exercise of power or debasedby the habit of obedience, but by the exercise of a power which theybelieve to be illegal and by obedience to a rule which they considerto be usurped and oppressive. On one side was wealth, strength, andleisure, accompanied by the refinements of luxury, the elegance oftaste, the pleasures of wit, and the religion of art. On the other waslabor and a rude ignorance; but in the midst of this coarse and ignorantmultitude it was not uncommon to meet with energetic passions, generoussentiments, profound religious convictions, and independent virtues. Thebody of a State thus organized might boast of its stability, its power, and, above all, of its glory. 

But the scene is now changed, and gradually the two ranks mingle; thedivisions which once severed mankind are lowered, property is divided, power is held in common, the light of intelligence spreads, and thecapacities of all classes are equally cultivated; the State becomesdemocratic, and the empire of democracy is slowly and peaceablyintroduced into the institutions and the manners of the nation. I canconceive a society in which all men would profess an equal attachmentand respect for the laws of which they are the common authors; in whichthe authority of the State would be respected as necessary, though notas divine; and the loyalty of the subject to its chief magistrate wouldnot be a passion, but a quiet and rational persuasion. Every individualbeing in the possession of rights which he is sure to retain, a kind ofmanly reliance and reciprocal courtesy would arise between all classes, alike removed from pride and meanness. The people, well acquaintedwith its true interests, would allow that in order to profit by theadvantages of society it is necessary to satisfy its demands. In thisstate of things the voluntary association of the citizens might supplythe individual exertions of the nobles, and the community would be alikeprotected from anarchy and from oppression. 

I admit that, in a democratic State thus constituted, society will notbe stationary; but the impulses of the social body may be regulated anddirected forwards; if there be less splendor than in the halls of anaristocracy, the contrast of misery will be less frequent also; thepleasures of enjoyment may be less excessive, but those of comfort willbe more general; the sciences may be less perfectly cultivated, butignorance will be less common; the impetuosity of the feelings will berepressed, and the habits of the nation softened; there will be morevices and fewer crimes. In the absence of enthusiasm and of anardent faith, great sacrifices may be obtained from the members of acommonwealth by an appeal to their understandings and their experience;each individual will feel the same necessity for uniting with hisfellow-citizens to protect his own weakness; and as he knows that ifthey are to assist he must co-operate, he will readily perceive that hispersonal interest is identified with the interest of the community. Thenation, taken as a whole, will be less brilliant, less glorious, andperhaps less strong; but the majority of the citizens will enjoy agreater degree of prosperity, and the people will remain quiet, notbecause it despairs of amelioration, but because it is conscious of theadvantages of its condition. If all the consequences of this state ofthings were not good or useful, society would at least have appropriatedall 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 whichwe have abandoned. The spell of royalty is broken, but it has not beensucceeded by the majesty of the laws; the people has learned to despiseall authority, but fear now extorts a larger tribute of obedience thanthat which was formerly paid by reverence and by love. 

I perceive that we have destroyed those independent beings which wereable to cope with tyranny single-handed; but it is the Governmentthat has inherited the privileges of which families, corporations, andindividuals have been deprived; the weakness of the whole community hastherefore succeeded that influence of a small body of citizens, which, if it was sometimes oppressive, was often conservative. The divisionof property has lessened the distance which separated the rich from thepoor; but it would seem that the nearer they draw to each other, thegreater is their mutual hatred, and the more vehement the envy and thedread with which they resist each other's claims to power; the notion ofRight is alike insensible to both classes, and Force affords to both theonly argument for the present, and the only guarantee for the future. The poor man retains the prejudices of his forefathers without theirfaith, and their ignorance without their virtues; he has adoptedthe doctrine of self-interest as the rule of his actions, withoutunderstanding the science which controls it, and his egotism is no lessblind than his devotedness was formerly. If society is tranquil, it isnot because it relies upon its strength and its well-being, but becauseit knows its weakness and its infirmities; a single effort may cost itits life; everybody feels the evil, but no one has courage or energyenough to seek the cure; the desires, the regret, the sorrows, and thejoys of the time produce nothing that is visible or permanent, like thepassions of old men which terminate in impotence. 

We have, then, abandoned whatever advantages the old state of thingsafforded, without receiving any compensation from our present condition;we have destroyed an aristocracy, and we seem inclined to survey itsruins with complacency, and to fix our abode in the midst of them. 

The phenomena which the intellectual world presents are not lessdeplorable. The democracy of France, checked in its course or abandonedto its lawless passions, has overthrown whatever crossed its path, andhas shaken all that it has not destroyed. Its empire on society hasnot been gradually introduced or peaceably established, but it hasconstantly advanced in the midst of disorder and the agitation of aconflict. In the heat of the struggle each partisan is hurried beyondthe limits of his opinions by the opinions and the excesses of hisopponents, until he loses sight of the end of his exertions, and holds alanguage which disguises his real sentiments or secret instincts. Hencearises the strange confusion which we are witnessing. I cannot recall tomy mind a passage in history more worthy of sorrow and of pity than thescenes which are happening under our eyes; it is as if the natural bondwhich unites the opinions of man to his tastes and his actions tohis principles was now broken; the sympathy which has always beenacknowledged between the feelings and the ideas of mankind appears tobe dissolved, and all the laws of moral analogy to be dissolved, and allthe laws of moral analogy to be abolished. 

Zealous Christians may be found amongst us whose minds are nurtured inthe love and knowledge of a future life, and who readily espousethe cause of human liberty as the source of all moral greatness. Christianity, which has declared that all men are equal in the sight ofGod, will not refuse to acknowledge that all citizens are equal in theeye of the law. But, by a singular concourse of events, religion isentangled in those institutions which democracy assails, and it is notunfrequently brought to reject the equality it loves, and to curse thatcause of liberty as a foe which it might hallow by its alliance. 

By the side of these religious men I discern others whose looks areturned to the earth more than to Heaven; they are the partisans ofliberty, not only as the source of the noblest virtues, but moreespecially as the root of all solid advantages; and they sincerelydesire to extend its sway, and to impart its blessings to mankind. Itis natural that they should hasten to invoke the assistance of religion, for they must know that liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith; but they have seen religion in the ranks oftheir adversaries, and they inquire no further; some of them attack itopenly, and the remainder are afraid to defend it. 

In former ages slavery has been advocated by the venal andslavish-minded, whilst the independent and the warm-hearted werestruggling without hope to save the liberties of mankind. But men ofhigh and generous characters are now to be met with, whose opinions areat variance with their inclinations, and who praise that servility whichthey have themselves never known. Others, on the contrary, speak inthe name of liberty, as if they were able to feel its sanctity and itsmajesty, and loudly claim for humanity those rights which they havealways disowned. There are virtuous and peaceful individuals whosepure morality, quiet habits, affluence, and talents fit them to be theleaders of the surrounding population; their love of their country issincere, and they are prepared to make the greatest sacrifices to itswelfare, but they confound the abuses of civilization with its benefits, and the idea of evil is inseparable 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 acquire knowledge without faith, and prosperity apart from virtue;assuming the title of the champions of modern civilization, and placingthemselves in a station which they usurp with insolence, and fromwhich they are driven by their own unworthiness. Where are we then?The religionists are the enemies of liberty, and the friends of libertyattack religion; the high-minded and the noble advocate subjection, and the meanest and most servile minds preach independence; honest andenlightened citizens are opposed to all progress, whilst men withoutpatriotism and without principles are the apostles of civilization andof intelligence. Has such been the fate of the centuries which havepreceded our own? and has man always inhabited a world like the present, where nothing is linked together, where virtue is without genius, andgenius without honor; where the love of order is confounded with a tastefor oppression, and the holy rites of freedom with a contempt of law;where the light thrown by conscience on human actions is dim, andwhere nothing seems to be any longer forbidden or allowed, honorableor shameful, false or true? I cannot, however, believe that the Creatormade man to leave him in an endless struggle with the intellectualmiseries which surround us: God destines a calmer and a more certainfuture to the communities of Europe; I am unacquainted with His designs, but I shall not cease to believe in them because I cannot fathom them, and I had rather mistrust my own capacity than His justice. 

There is a country in the world where the great revolution which I amspeaking of seems nearly to have reached its natural limits; it hasbeen effected with ease and simplicity, say rather that this countryhas attained the consequences of the democratic revolution which weare undergoing without having experienced the revolution itself. Theemigrants who fixed themselves on the shores of America in the beginningof the seventeenth century severed the democratic principle from allthe principles which repressed it in the old communities of Europe, andtransplanted it unalloyed to the New World. It has there been allowed tospread in perfect freedom, and to put forth its consequences in the lawsby influencing the manners of the country. 

It appears to me beyond a doubt that sooner or later we shall arrive, like the Americans, at an almost complete equality of conditions. But Ido not conclude from this that we shall ever be necessarily led to drawthe same political consequences which the Americans have derived froma similar social organization. I am far from supposing that they havechosen the only form of government which a democracy may adopt; but theidentity of the efficient cause of laws and manners in the two countriesis sufficient to account for the immense interest we have in becomingacquainted with its effects in each of them. 

It is not, then, merely to satisfy a legitimate curiosity that I haveexamined America; my wish has been to find instruction by which we mayourselves profit. Whoever should imagine that I have intended to write apanegyric will perceive that such was not my design; nor has it beenmy object to advocate any form of government in particular, for I amof opinion that absolute excellence is rarely to be found in anylegislation; I have not even affected to discuss whether the socialrevolution, which I believe to be irresistible, is advantageous orprejudicial to mankind; I have acknowledged this revolution as a factalready accomplished or on the eve of its accomplishment; and I haveselected the nation, from amongst those which have undergone it, inwhich its development has been the most peaceful and the most complete, in order to discern its natural consequences, and, if it be possible, todistinguish the means by which it may be rendered profitable. I confessthat in America I saw more than America; I sought the image of democracyitself, with its inclinations, its character, its prejudices, and itspassions, in order to learn what we have to fear or to hope from itsprogress. 

In the first part of this work I have attempted to show the tendencygiven to the laws by the democracy of America, which is abandoned almostwithout restraint to its instinctive propensities, and to exhibit thecourse it prescribes to the Government and the influence it exercises onaffairs. I have sought to discover the evils and the advantages whichit produces. I have examined the precautions used by the Americans todirect it, as well as those which they have not adopted, and I haveundertaken to point out the causes which enable it to govern society. I do not know whether I have succeeded in making known what I saw inAmerica, but I am certain that such has been my sincere desire, and thatI have never, knowingly, moulded facts to ideas, instead of ideas tofacts. 

Whenever a point could be established by the aid of written documents, I have had recourse to the original text, and to the most authentic andapproved works. I have cited my authorities in the notes, and anyone mayrefer to them. Whenever an opinion, a political custom, or a remark onthe manners of the country was concerned, I endeavored to consult themost enlightened men I met with. If the point in question was importantor doubtful, I was not satisfied with one testimony, but I formed myopinion on the evidence of several witnesses. Here the reader mustnecessarily believe me upon my word. I could frequently have quoted nameswhich are either known to him, or which deserve to be so, in proof ofwhat I advance; but I have carefully abstained from this practice. Astranger frequently hears important truths at the fire-side of his host, which the latter would perhaps conceal from the ear of friendship;he consoles himself with his guest for the silence to which he isrestricted, and the shortness of the traveller's stay takes away allfear of his indiscretion. I carefully noted every conversation of thisnature as soon as it occurred, but these notes will never leave mywriting-case; I had rather injure the success of my statements thanadd my name to the list of those strangers who repay the generoushospitality they have received by subsequent chagrin and annoyance. 

I am aware that, notwithstanding my care, nothing will be easier thanto criticise this book, if anyone ever chooses to criticise it. Thosereaders who may examine it closely will discover the fundamental ideawhich connects the several parts together. But the diversity of thesubjects I have had to treat is exceedingly great, and it will not bedifficult to oppose an isolated fact to the body of facts which I quote, or an isolated idea to the body of ideas I put forth. I hope to be readin the spirit which has guided my labors, and that my book may be judgedby the general impression it leaves, as I have formed my own judgmentnot on any single reason, but upon the mass of evidence. It must not beforgotten that the author who wishes to be understood is obliged to pushall his ideas to their utmost theoretical consequences, and often tothe verge of what is false or impracticable; for if it be necessarysometimes to quit the rules of logic in active life, such is not thecase in discourse, and a man finds that almost as many difficultiesspring from inconsistency of language as usually arise frominconsistency of conduct. 

I conclude by pointing out myself what many readers will considerthe principal defect of the work. This book is written to favor noparticular views, and in composing it I have entertained no designsof serving or attacking any party; I have undertaken not to seedifferently, but to look further than parties, and whilst they arebusied for the morrow I have turned my thoughts to the Future. 

Chapter I: Exterior Form Of North America

Chapter Summary

North America divided into two vast regions, one inclining towards thePole, the other towards the Equator--Valley of the Mississippi--Tracesof the Revolutions of the Globe--Shore of the Atlantic Ocean where theEnglish Colonies were founded--Difference in the appearance of Northand of South America at the time of their Discovery--Forests ofNorth America--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 featureswhich it is easy to discriminate at the first glance. A sort ofmethodical order seems to have regulated the separation of land andwater, mountains and valleys. A simple, but grand, arrangement isdiscoverable amidst the confusion of objects and the prodigious varietyof scenes. This continent is divided, almost equally, into two vastregions, one of which is bounded on the north by the Arctic Pole, andby the two great oceans on the east and west. It stretches towards thesouth, forming a triangle whose irregular sides meet at length belowthe great lakes of Canada. The second region begins where the otherterminates, and includes all the remainder of the continent. The oneslopes gently towards the Pole, the other towards the Equator. 

The territory comprehended in the first region descends towards thenorth with so imperceptible a slope that it may almost be said to forma level plain. Within the bounds of this immense tract of country thereare neither high mountains nor deep valleys. Streams meander through itirregularly: great rivers mix their currents, separate and meet again, disperse and form vast marshes, losing all trace of their channelsin the labyrinth of waters they have themselves created; and thus, atlength, after innumerable windings, fall into the Polar Seas. The greatlakes which bound this first region are not walled in, like most ofthose in the Old World, between hills and rocks. Their banks are flat, and rise but a few feet above the level of their waters; each of themthus forming a vast bowl filled to the brim. The slightest change in thestructure of the globe would cause their waters to rush either towardsthe Pole or to the tropical sea. 

The second region is more varied on its surface, and better suited forthe habitation of man. Two long chains of mountains divide it from oneextreme to the other; the Alleghany ridge takes the form of the shoresof the Atlantic Ocean; the other is parallel with the Pacific. The spacewhich lies between these two chains of mountains contains 1, 341, 649square miles. *a Its surface is therefore about six times as great asthat of France. This vast territory, however, forms a single valley, one side of which descends gradually from the rounded summits of theAlleghanies, while the other rises in an uninterrupted course towardsthe tops of the Rocky Mountains. At the bottom of the valley flows animmense river, into which the various streams issuing from the mountainsfall from all parts. In memory of their native land, the French formerlycalled this river the St. Louis. The Indians, in their pompous language, have named it the Father of Waters, or the Mississippi. 

[Footnote a: Darby's "View of the United States. "]

The Mississippi takes its source above the limit of the two greatregions of which I have spoken, not far from the highest point of thetable-land where they unite. Near the same spot rises another river, *bwhich empties itself into the Polar seas. The course of the Mississippiis at first dubious: it winds several times towards the north, fromwhence it rose; and at length, after having been delayed in lakes andmarshes, it flows slowly onwards to the south. Sometimes quietly glidingalong the argillaceous bed which nature has assigned to it, sometimesswollen by storms, the Mississippi waters 2, 500 miles in its course. *c At the distance of 1, 364 miles from its mouth this river attains anaverage depth of fifteen feet; and it is navigated by vessels of300 tons burden for a course of nearly 500 miles. Fifty-seven largenavigable rivers contribute to swell the waters of the Mississippi;amongst others, the Missouri, which traverses a space of 2, 500 miles;the Arkansas of 1, 300 miles, the Red River 1, 000 miles, four whosecourse is from 800 to 1, 000 miles in length, viz. , the Illinois, theSt. Peter's, the St. Francis, and the Moingona; besides a countlessmultitude of rivulets which unite from all parts their tributarystreams. 

[Footnote b: The Red River. ]

[Footnote c: Warden's "Description of the United States. "]

The valley which is watered by the Mississippi seems formed to be thebed of this mighty river, which, like a god of antiquity, dispenses bothgood and evil in its course. On the shores of the stream nature displaysan inexhaustible fertility; in proportion as you recede from its banks, the powers of vegetation languish, the soil becomes poor, and the plantsthat survive have a sickly growth. Nowhere have the great convulsionsof the globe left more evident traces than in the valley of theMississippi; the whole aspect of the country shows the powerful effectsof water, both by its fertility and by its barrenness. The waters ofthe primeval ocean accumulated enormous beds of vegetable mould in thevalley, which they levelled as they retired. Upon the right shore of theriver are seen immense plains, as smooth as if the husbandman hadpassed over them with his roller. As you approach the mountains the soilbecomes more and more unequal and sterile; the ground is, as it were, pierced in a thousand places by primitive rocks, which appear like thebones of a skeleton whose flesh is partly consumed. The surface of theearth is covered with a granite sand and huge irregular masses of stone, among which a few plants force their growth, and give the appearance ofa green field covered with the ruins of a vast edifice. These stones andthis sand discover, on examination, a perfect analogy with those whichcompose the arid and broken summits of the Rocky Mountains. The floodof waters which washed the soil to the bottom of the valley afterwardscarried away portions of the rocks themselves; and these, dashed andbruised against the neighboring cliffs, were left scattered like wrecksat their feet. *d The valley of the Mississippi is, upon the whole, themost magnificent dwelling-place prepared by God for man's abode; and yetit may be said that at present it is but a mighty desert. 

[Footnote d: See Appendix, A. ]

On the eastern side of the Alleghanies, between the base of thesemountains and the Atlantic Ocean, there lies a long ridge of rocks andsand, which the sea appears to have left behind as it retired. The meanbreadth of this territory does not exceed one hundred miles; but it isabout nine hundred miles in length. This part of the American continenthas a soil which offers every obstacle to the husbandman, and itsvegetation is scanty and unvaried. 

Upon this inhospitable coast the first united efforts of human industrywere made. The tongue of arid land was the cradle of those Englishcolonies which were destined one day to become the United States ofAmerica. The centre of power still remains here; whilst in the backwoodsthe true elements of the great people to whom the future control of thecontinent belongs are gathering almost in secrecy together. 

When the Europeans first landed on the shores of the West Indies, and afterwards on the coast of South America, they thought themselvestransported into those fabulous regions of which poets had sung. The seasparkled with phosphoric light, and the extraordinary transparency ofits waters discovered to the view of the navigator all that had hithertobeen hidden in the deep abyss. *e Here and there appeared little islandsperfumed with odoriferous plants, and resembling baskets of flowersfloating on the tranquil surface of the ocean. Every object which metthe sight, in this enchanting region, seemed prepared to satisfy thewants or contribute to the pleasures of man. Almost all the trees wereloaded with nourishing fruits, and those which were useless as fooddelighted the eye by the brilliancy and variety of their colors. Ingroves of 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 displayedtheir bright plumage, glittering with purple and azure, and mingledtheir warbling with the harmony of a world teeming with life and motion. *f Underneath this brilliant exterior death was concealed. But the airof these climates had so enervating an influence that man, absorbed bypresent enjoyment, was rendered regardless of the future. 

[Footnote e: Malte Brun tells us (vol. V. P. 726) that the water of theCaribbean Sea is so transparent that corals and fish are discernible ata depth of sixty fathoms. The ship seemed to float in air, the navigatorbecame giddy as his eye penetrated through the crystal flood, and beheldsubmarine gardens, or beds of shells, or gilded fishes gliding amongtufts and thickets of seaweed. ]

[Footnote f: See Appendix, B. ]

North America appeared under a very different aspect; there everythingwas grave, serious, and solemn: it seemed created to be the domain ofintelligence, as the South was that of sensual delight. A turbulent andfoggy ocean washed its shores. It was girt round by a belt of graniterocks, or by wide tracts of sand. The foliage of its woods was dark andgloomy, for they were composed of firs, larches, evergreen oaks, wildolive-trees, and laurels. Beyond this outer belt lay the thick shadesof the central forest, where the largest trees which are produced inthe two hemispheres grow side by side. The plane, the catalpa, thesugar-maple, and the Virginian poplar mingled their branches with thoseof the oak, the beech, and the lime. In these, as in the forests of theOld World, destruction was perpetually going on. The ruins of vegetationwere heaped upon each other; but there was no laboring hand to removethem, and their decay was not rapid enough to make room for thecontinual work of reproduction. Climbing plants, grasses, and otherherbs forced their way through the mass of dying trees; they crept alongtheir bending trunks, found nourishment in their dusty cavities, anda passage beneath the lifeless bark. Thus decay gave its assistance tolife, and their respective productions were mingled together. The depthsof these forests were gloomy and obscure, and a thousand rivulets, undirected in their course by human industry, preserved in them aconstant moisture. It was rare to meet with flowers, wild fruits, orbirds beneath their shades. The fall of a tree overthrown by age, the rushing torrent of a cataract, the lowing of the buffalo, and thehowling of the wind were the only sounds which broke the silence ofnature. 

To the east of the great river, the woods almost disappeared; in theirstead were seen prairies of immense extent. Whether Nature in herinfinite variety had denied the germs of trees to these fertile plains, or whether they had once been covered with forests, subsequentlydestroyed by the hand of man, is a question which neither tradition norscientific research has been able to resolve. 

These immense deserts were not, however, devoid of human inhabitants. Some wandering tribes had been for ages scattered among the forestshades or the green pastures of the prairie. From the mouth of the St. Lawrence to the delta of the Mississippi, and from the Atlantic to thePacific Ocean, these savages possessed certain points of resemblancewhich bore witness of their common origin; but at the same time theydiffered from all other known races of men: *g they were neither whitelike the Europeans, nor yellow like most of the Asiatics, nor black likethe negroes. Their skin was reddish brown, their hair long and shining, their lips thin, and their cheekbones very prominent. The languagesspoken by the North American tribes are various as far as regarded theirwords, but they were subject to the same grammatical rules. These rulesdiffered in several points from such as had been observed to govern theorigin of language. The idiom of the Americans seemed to be the productof new combinations, and bespoke an effort of the understanding of whichthe Indians of our days would be incapable. *h

[Footnote g: With the progress of discovery some resemblance has beenfound to exist between the physical conformation, the language, andthe habits of the Indians of North America, and those of the Tongous, Mantchous, Mongols, Tartars, and other wandering tribes of Asia. Theland occupied by these tribes is not very distant from Behring's Strait, which allows of the supposition, that at a remote period they gaveinhabitants to the desert continent of America. But this is a pointwhich has not yet been clearly elucidated by science. See Malte Brun, vol. V. ; the works of Humboldt; Fischer, "Conjecture sur l'Origine desAmericains"; Adair, "History of the American Indians. "]

[Footnote h: See Appendix, C. ]

The social state of these tribes differed also in many respects from allthat was seen in the Old World. They seemed to have multiplied freelyin the midst of their deserts without coming in contact with other racesmore civilized than their own. Accordingly, they exhibited none of thoseindistinct, incoherent notions of right and wrong, none of that deepcorruption of manners, which is usually joined with ignorance andrudeness among nations which, after advancing to civilization, haverelapsed into a state of barbarism. The Indian was indebted to no onebut himself; his virtues, his vices, and his prejudices were his ownwork; he had grown up in the wild independence of his nature. 

If, in polished countries, the lowest of the people are rude anduncivil, it is not merely because they are poor and ignorant, but that, being so, they are in daily contact with rich and enlightened men. The sight of their own hard lot and of their weakness, which isdaily contrasted with the happiness and power of some of theirfellow-creatures, excites in their hearts at the same time thesentiments of anger and of fear: the consciousness of their inferiorityand of their dependence irritates while it humiliates them. This stateof mind displays itself in their manners and language; they are at onceinsolent and servile. The truth of this is easily proved by observation;the people are more rude in aristocratic countries than elsewhere, inopulent cities than in rural districts. In those places where the richand powerful are assembled together the weak and the indigent feelthemselves oppressed by their inferior condition. Unable to perceive asingle chance of regaining their equality, they give up to despair, andallow themselves to fall below the dignity of human nature. 

This unfortunate effect of the disparity of conditions is not observablein savage life: the Indians, although they are ignorant and poor, areequal and free. At the period when Europeans first came among themthe natives of North America were ignorant of the value of riches, andindifferent to the enjoyments which civilized man procures to himselfby their means. Nevertheless there was nothing coarse in theirdemeanor; they practised an habitual reserve and a kind of aristocraticpoliteness. Mild and hospitable when at peace, though merciless inwar beyond any known degree of human ferocity, the Indian would exposehimself to die of hunger in order to succor the stranger who askedadmittance by night at the door of his hut; yet he could tear in pieceswith his hands the still quivering limbs of his prisoner. The famousrepublics of antiquity never gave examples of more unshaken courage, more haughty spirits, or more intractable love of independence than werehidden in former times among the wild forests of the New World. *i TheEuropeans produced no great impression when they landed upon the shoresof North America; their presence engendered neither envy nor fear. Whatinfluence could they possess over such men as we have described? TheIndian could live without wants, suffer without complaint, and pour outhis death-song at the stake. *j Like all the other members of the greathuman family, these savages believed in the existence of a better world, and adored under different names, God, the creator of the universe. Their notions on the great intellectual truths were in general simpleand philosophical. *k

[Footnote i: We learn from President Jefferson's "Notes upon Virginia, "p. 148, that among the Iroquois, when attacked by a superior force, agedmen refused to fly or to survive the destruction of their country; andthey braved death like the ancient Romans when their capital was sackedby the Gauls. Further on, p. 150, he tells us that there is no exampleof an Indian who, having fallen into the hands of his enemies, beggedfor his life; on the contrary, the captive sought to obtain death at thehands of his conquerors by the use of insult and provocation. ]

[Footnote j: See "Histoire de la Louisiane, " by Lepage Dupratz;Charlevoix, "Histoire de la Nouvelle France"; "Lettres du Rev. G. Hecwelder;" "Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, " v. I;Jefferson's "Notes on Virginia, " pp. 135-190. What is said by Jeffersonis of especial weight, on account of the personal merit of the writer, of his peculiar position, and of the matter-of-fact age in which helived. ]

[Footnote k: See Appendix, D. ]

Although we have here traced the character of a primitive people, yet itcannot be doubted that another people, more civilized and more advancedin all respects, had preceded it in the same regions. 

An obscure tradition which prevailed among the Indians to the north ofthe Atlantic informs us that these very tribes formerly dwelt onthe west side of the Mississippi. Along the banks of the Ohio, andthroughout the central valley, there are frequently found, at this day, tumuli raised by the hands of men. On exploring these heaps of earth totheir centre, it is usual to meet with human bones, strange instruments, arms and utensils of all kinds, made of metal, or destined for purposesunknown to the present race. The Indians of our time are unable to giveany information relative to the history of this unknown people. Neitherdid those who lived three hundred years ago, when America was firstdiscovered, 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 undoubtedfact, however, that in this part of the globe thousands of ourfellow-beings had lived. When they came hither, what was their origin, their destiny, their history, and how they perished, no one can tell. How strange does it appear that nations have existed, and afterwards socompletely disappeared from the earth that the remembrance of their verynames is effaced; their languages are lost; their glory is vanished likea sound without an echo; though perhaps there is not one which has notleft behind it some tomb in memory of its passage! The most durablemonument of human labor is that which recalls the wretchedness andnothingness of man. 

Although the vast country which we have been describing was inhabitedby many indigenous tribes, it may justly be said at the time of itsdiscovery by Europeans to have formed one great desert. The Indiansoccupied without possessing it. It is by agricultural labor that manappropriates the soil, and the early inhabitants of North Americalived by the produce of the chase. Their implacable prejudices, theiruncontrolled passions, their vices, and still more perhaps their savagevirtues, consigned them to inevitable destruction. The ruin of thesenations began from the day when Europeans landed on their shores; it hasproceeded ever since, and we are now witnessing the completion of it. They seem to have been placed by Providence amidst the riches of the NewWorld to enjoy them for a season, and then surrender them. Those coasts, so admirably adapted for commerce and industry; those wide and deeprivers; that inexhaustible valley of the Mississippi; the wholecontinent, in short, seemed prepared to be the abode of a great nation, yet unborn. 

In that land the great experiment was to be made, by civilized man, ofthe attempt to construct society upon a new basis; and it was there, forthe first time, that theories hitherto unknown, or deemed impracticable, were to exhibit a spectacle for which the world had not been prepared bythe history of the past. 

Chapter II: Origin Of The Anglo-Americans--Part I

Chapter Summary

Utility of knowing the origin of nations in order to understand theirsocial condition 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 themselveson the 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 social contract--Penalcode borrowed from the Hebrew legislation--Religious fervor--Republicanspirit--Intimate union of the spirit of religion with the spirit ofliberty. 

Origin Of The Anglo-Americans, And Its Importance In Relation To TheirFuture Condition. 

After the birth of a human being his early years are obscurely spent inthe toils or pleasures of childhood. As he grows up the world receiveshim, when his manhood begins, and he enters into contact with hisfellows. He is then studied for the first time, and it is imaginedthat the germ of the vices and the virtues of his maturer years is thenformed. This, if I am not mistaken, is a great error. We must beginhigher up; we must watch the infant in its mother's arms; we must seethe first images which the external world casts upon the dark mirrorof his mind; the first occurrences which he witnesses; we must hear thefirst words which awaken the sleeping powers of thought, and stand byhis earliest efforts, if we would understand the prejudices, the habits, and the passions which will rule his life. The entire man is, so tospeak, to be seen in the cradle of the child. 

The growth of nations presents something analogous to this: they allbear some marks of their origin; and the circumstances which accompaniedtheir birth and contributed to their rise affect the whole term of theirbeing. If we were able to go back to the elements of states, and toexamine the oldest monuments of their history, I doubt not that weshould discover the primal cause of the prejudices, the habits, theruling passions, and, in short, of all that constitutes what is calledthe national character; we should then find the explanation of certaincustoms which now seem at variance with the prevailing manners; of suchlaws as conflict with established principles; and of such incoherentopinions as are here and there to be met with in society, like thosefragments of broken chains which we sometimes see hanging from the vaultof an edifice, and supporting nothing. This might explain the destiniesof certain nations, which seem borne on by an unknown force to ends ofwhich they themselves are ignorant. But hitherto facts have been wantingto researches of this kind: the spirit of inquiry has only come uponcommunities in their latter days; and when they at length contemplatedtheir origin, time had already obscured it, or ignorance and prideadorned it with truth-concealing fables. 

America is the only country in which it has been possible to witnessthe natural and tranquil growth of society, and where the influencesexercised on the future condition of states by their origin is clearlydistinguishable. At the period when the peoples of Europe landed in theNew World their national characteristics were already completely formed;each of them had a physiognomy of its own; and as they had alreadyattained that stage of civilization at which men are led to studythemselves, they have transmitted to us a faithful picture of theiropinions, their manners, and their laws. The men of the sixteenthcentury are almost as well known to us as our contemporaries. America, consequently, exhibits in the broad light of day the phenomena which theignorance or rudeness of earlier ages conceals from our researches. Near enough to the time when the states of America were founded, to beaccurately acquainted with their elements, and sufficiently removed fromthat period to judge of some of their results, the men of our own dayseem destined to see further than their predecessors into the series ofhuman events. Providence has given us a torch which our forefathers didnot possess, and has allowed us to discern fundamental causes in thehistory of the world which the obscurity of the past concealed fromthem. If we carefully examine the social and political state of America, after having studied its history, we shall remain perfectly convincedthat 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. The readers of this book will find the germ of all that is to follow inthe present chapter, 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;their aim was not the same, and they governed themselves on differentprinciples. These men had, however, certain features in common, andthey were all placed in an analogous situation. The tie of language isperhaps the strongest and the most durable that can unite mankind. Allthe emigrants spoke the same tongue; they were all offsets from the samepeople. Born in a country which had been agitated for centuries by thestruggles of faction, and in which all parties had been obliged intheir turn to place themselves under the protection of the laws, theirpolitical education had been perfected in this rude school, and theywere more conversant with the notions of right and the principles oftrue freedom than the greater part of their European contemporaries. Atthe period of their first emigrations the parish system, that fruitfulgerm of free institutions, was deeply rooted in the habits of theEnglish; and with it the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people hadbeen introduced into the bosom of the monarchy of the House of Tudor. 

The religious quarrels which have agitated the Christian world were thenrife. England had plunged into the new order of things with headlongvehemence. The character of its inhabitants, which had always beensedate and reflective, became argumentative and austere. Generalinformation had been increased by intellectual debate, and the mindhad received a deeper cultivation. Whilst religion was the topic ofdiscussion, the morals of the people were reformed. All these nationalfeatures are more or less discoverable in the physiognomy of thoseadventurers 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 all the Europeans who successively established themselves in the NewWorld. All these European colonies contained the elements, if not thedevelopment, of a complete democracy. Two causes led to this result. Itmay safely be advanced, that on leaving the mother-country the emigrantshad in general no notion of superiority over one another. The happy andthe powerful do not go into exile, and there are no surer guarantees ofequality among men than poverty and misfortune. It happened, however, on several occasions, that persons of rank were driven to Americaby political and religious quarrels. Laws were made to establish agradation of ranks; but it was soon found that the soil of America wasopposed to a territorial aristocracy. To bring that refractory land intocultivation, the constant and interested exertions of the owner himselfwere necessary; and when the ground was prepared, its produce was foundto be insufficient to enrich a master and a farmer at the same time. The land was then naturally broken up into small portions, which theproprietor cultivated for himself. Land is the basis of an aristocracy, which clings to the soil that supports it; for it is not by privilegesalone, nor by birth, but by landed property handed down from generationto generation, that an aristocracy is constituted. A nation may presentimmense fortunes and extreme wretchedness, but unless those fortunes areterritorial there is no aristocracy, but simply the class of the richand that of the poor. 

All the British colonies had then a great degree of similarity at theepoch of their settlement. All of them, from their first beginning, seemed destined to witness the growth, not of the aristocratic libertyof their mother-country, but of that freedom of the middle and lowerorders of which the history of the world had as yet furnished nocomplete 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 grownup without entirely commingling; the one in the South, the other in theNorth. 

Virginia received the first English colony; the emigrants tookpossession of it in 1607. The idea that mines of gold and silver arethe sources of national wealth was at that time singularly prevalent inEurope; a fatal delusion, which has done more to impoverish the nationswhich adopted it, and has cost more lives in America, than the unitedinfluence of war and bad laws. The men sent to Virginia *a were seekersof gold, adventurers, without resources and without character, whoseturbulent and restless spirit endangered the infant colony, *b andrendered its progress uncertain. The artisans and agriculturists arrivedafterwards; and, although they were a more moral and orderly race ofmen, they were in nowise above the level of the inferior classes inEngland. *c No lofty conceptions, no intellectual system, directed thefoundation of these new settlements. The colony was scarcely establishedwhen slavery was introduced, *d and this was the main circumstance whichhas exercised so prodigious an influence on the character, the laws, andall the future prospects of the South. Slavery, as we shall afterwardsshow, dishonors labor; it introduces idleness into society, and withidleness, ignorance and pride, luxury and distress. It enervates thepowers of the mind, and benumbs the activity of man. The influence ofslavery, united to the English character, explains the manners and thesocial condition of the Southern States. 

[Footnote a: The charter granted by the Crown of England in 1609stipulated, amongst other conditions, that the adventurers should payto the Crown a fifth of the produce of all gold and silver mines. SeeMarshall's "Life of Washington, " vol. I. Pp. 18-66. ] [Footnote b: Alarge portion of the adventurers, says Stith ("History of Virginia"), were unprincipled young men of family, whom their parents were glad toship off, discharged servants, fraudulent bankrupts, or debauchees; andothers of the same class, people more apt to pillage and destroy thanto assist the settlement, were the seditious chiefs, who easily led thisband into every kind of extravagance and excess. See for the history ofVirginia the following works:--

"History of Virginia, from the First Settlements in the year 1624, " bySmith. 

"History of Virginia, " by William Stith. 

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

[Footnote c: It was not till some time later that a certain number ofrich English capitalists came to fix themselves in the colony. ]

[Footnote d: Slavery was introduced about the year 1620 by a Dutchvessel which landed twenty negroes on the banks of the river James. SeeChalmer. ]

In the North, the same English foundation was modified by the mostopposite shades of character; and here I may be allowed to enter intosome details. The two or three main ideas which constitute the basisof the social theory of the United States were first combined in theNorthern English colonies, more generally denominated the States ofNew England. *e The principles of New England spread at first to theneighboring states; they then passed successively to the more distantones; and at length they imbued the whole Confederation. They now extendtheir influence beyond its limits over the whole American world. Thecivilization of New England has been like a beacon lit upon a hill, which, after it has diffused its warmth around, tinges the distanthorizon with its glow. 

[Footnote e: The States of New England are those situated to the east ofthe Hudson; they are 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 thecircumstances attending it were singular and original. The largemajority of colonies have been first inhabited either by men withouteducation and without resources, driven by their poverty and theirmisconduct from the land which gave them birth, or by speculatorsand adventurers greedy of gain. Some settlements cannot even boast sohonorable an origin; St. Domingo was founded by buccaneers; and thecriminal courts of England originally supplied the population ofAustralia. 

The settlers who established themselves on the shores of New England allbelonged to the more independent classes of their native country. Theirunion on the soil of America at once presented the singular phenomenonof a society containing neither lords nor common people, neither richnor poor. These men possessed, in proportion to their number, a greatermass of intelligence than is to be found in any European nation ofour own time. All, without a single exception, had received a goodeducation, and many of them were known in Europe for their talents andtheir acquirements. The other colonies had been founded by adventurerswithout family; the emigrants of New England brought with them the bestelements of order and morality--they landed in the desert accompaniedby their wives and children. But what most especially distinguished themwas the aim of their undertaking. They had not been obliged by necessityto leave their country; the social position they abandoned was one tobe regretted, and their means of subsistence were certain. Nor didthey cross the Atlantic to improve their situation or to increase theirwealth; the call which summoned them from the comforts of their homeswas purely intellectual; and in facing the inevitable sufferings ofexile their object was the triumph of an idea. 

The emigrants, or, as they deservedly styled themselves, the Pilgrims, belonged to that English sect the austerity of whose principles hadacquired for them the name of Puritans. Puritanism was not merely areligious doctrine, but it corresponded in many points with the mostabsolute democratic and republican theories. It was this tendency whichhad aroused its most dangerous adversaries. Persecuted by the Governmentof the mother-country, and disgusted by the habits of a society opposedto the rigor of their own principles, the Puritans went forth to seeksome rude and unfrequented part of the world, where they could liveaccording 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 thehistorian of the first years of the settlement, thus opens his subject:

[Footnote 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 a dutyincumbent, especially on the immediate successors of those that have hadso large experience of those many memorable and signal demonstrationsof God's goodness, viz. , the first beginners of this Plantation in NewEngland, to commit to writing his gracious dispensations on thatbehalf; having so many inducements thereunto, not onely otherwise butso plentifully in the Sacred Scriptures: that so, what we have seen, and what our fathers have told us (Psalm lxxviii. 3, 4), we may not hidefrom our children, showing to the generations to come the praises of theLord; that especially the seed of Abraham his servant, and the childrenof Jacob his chosen (Psalm cv. 5, 6), may remember his marvellousworks in the beginning and progress of the planting of New England, hiswonders and the judgments of his mouth; how that God brought a vine intothis wilderness; that he cast out the heathen, and planted it; that hemade 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 hispeople by his strength to his holy habitation and planted them in themountain of his inheritance in respect of precious Gospel enjoyments:and that as especially God may have the glory of all unto whom itis most due; so also some rays of glory may reach the names of thoseblessed Saints that were the main instruments and the beginning of thishappy enterprise. "

It is impossible to read this opening paragraph without an involuntaryfeeling of religious awe; it breathes the very savor of Gospelantiquity. The sincerity of the author heightens his power of language. The band which to his eyes was a mere party of adventurers gone forthto seek their fortune beyond seas appears to the reader as the germ of agreat nation wafted by Providence to a predestined 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, but lifted up their eyes to Heaven, their dearest country, where Godhath prepared for them a city (Heb. Xi. 16), and therein quieted theirspirits. When they came to Delfs-Haven they found the ship and allthings ready; and such of their friends as could not come with themfollowed after them, and sundry came from Amsterdam to see them shipt, and to take their leaves of them. One night was spent with little sleepwith the most, but with friendly entertainment and Christian discourse, and other real expressions of true Christian love. The next day theywent on board, and their friends with them, where truly doleful was thesight 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 pithy speeches pierced each other's heart, that sundry of the Dutchstrangers that stood on the Key as spectators could not refrain fromtears. But the tide (which stays for no man) calling them away, thatwere thus loth to depart, their Reverend Pastor falling down on hisknees, and they all with him, with watery cheeks commended them withmost fervent prayers unto the Lord and his blessing; and then, withmutual embraces and many tears they took their leaves one of another, which proved to be the last leave to many of them. "

[Footnote g: The emigrants were, for the most part, godly Christiansfrom the North of England, who had quitted their native country becausethey were "studious of reformation, and entered into covenant to walkwith one another according to the primitive pattern of the Word of God. "They emigrated to Holland, and settled in the city of Leyden in 1610, where they abode, being lovingly respected by the Dutch, for many years:they left it in 1620 for several reasons, the last of which was, thattheir posterity would in a few generations become Dutch, and so losetheir interest in the English nation; they being desirous ratherto enlarge His Majesty's dominions, and to live under their naturalprince. --Translator's Note. ]

The emigrants were about 150 in number, including the women and thechildren. Their object was to plant a colony on the shores of theHudson; but after having been driven about for some time in the AtlanticOcean, they were forced to land on that arid coast of New England whichis now the site of the town of Plymouth. The rock is still shown onwhich the pilgrims disembarked. *h

[Footnote h: This rock is become an object of veneration in the UnitedStates. I have seen bits of it carefully preserved in several towns ofthe Union. Does not this sufficiently show how entirely all human powerand greatness is in the soul of man? Here is a stone which the feet ofa few outcasts pressed for an instant, and this stone becomes famous; itis treasured by a great nation, its very dust is shared as a relic: andwhat is become of the gateways of a thousand palaces?]

"But before we pass on, " continues our historian, "let the readerwith me make a pause and seriously consider this poor people's presentcondition, the more to be raised up to admiration of God's goodnesstowards them in their preservation: for being now passed the vastocean, and a sea of troubles before them in expectation, they had nowno friends to welcome them, no inns to entertain or refresh them, nohouses, or much less towns to repair unto to seek for succour: and forthe season it was winter, and they that know the winters of the countryknow them to be sharp and violent, subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search unknown coasts. Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, fullof wilde beasts, and wilde men? and what multitudes of them there were, they then knew not: for which way soever they turned their eyes (saveupward to Heaven) they could have but little solace or content inrespect of any outward object; for summer being ended, all things standin appearance with a weather-beaten face, and the whole country full ofwoods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hew; if they lookedbehind them, there was the mighty ocean which they had passed, and wasnow as a main bar or gulph to separate them from all the civil parts ofthe 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 apolitical than a religious doctrine. No sooner had the emigrants landedon the barren coast described by Nathaniel Morton than it was theirfirst care to constitute a 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. , Havingundertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian Faith, and the honour of our King and country, a voyage to plant the firstcolony in the northern parts of Virginia; Do by these presents solemnlyand mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant andcombine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our betterordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid: and byvirtue hereof do enact, constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and officers, from time to time, asshall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of theColony: unto which we promise all due submission and obedience, " etc. *i

[Footnote i: The emigrants who founded the State of Rhode Island in1638, those who landed at New Haven in 1637, the first settlers inConnecticut in 1639, and the founders of Providence in 1640, began inlike manner by drawing up a social contract, which was acceded to by allthe interested parties. See "Pitkin's History, " pp. 42 and 47. ]

This happened in 1620, and from that time forwards the emigration wenton. The religious and political passions which ravaged the BritishEmpire during the whole reign of Charles I drove fresh crowds ofsectarians every year to the shores of America. In England thestronghold of Puritanism was in the middle classes, and it was from themiddle classes that the majority of the emigrants came. The populationof New England increased rapidly; and whilst the hierarchy of rankdespotically classed the inhabitants of the mother-country, the colonycontinued to present the novel spectacle of a community homogeneous inall its parts. A democracy, more perfect than any which antiquity haddreamt of, started in full size and panoply from the midst of an ancientfeudal society. 

Chapter II: Origin Of The Anglo-Americans--Part II

The English Government was not dissatisfied with an emigration whichremoved the elements of fresh discord and of further revolutions. On thecontrary, everything was done to encourage it, and great exertions weremade to mitigate the hardships of those who sought a shelter from therigor of their country's laws on the soil of America. It seemed asif New England was a region given up to the dreams of fancy and theunrestrained experiments of innovators. 

The English colonies (and this is one of the main causes of theirprosperity) have always enjoyed more internal freedom and more politicalindependence than the colonies of other nations; but this principle ofliberty was nowhere more extensively applied than in the States of NewEngland. 

It was generally allowed at that period that the territories of theNew World belonged to that European nation which had been the first todiscover them. Nearly the whole coast of North America thus became aBritish possession towards the end of the sixteenth century. The meansused by the English Government to people these new domains were ofseveral kinds; the King sometimes appointed a governor of his ownchoice, who ruled a portion of the New World in the name and under theimmediate orders of the Crown; *j this is the colonial system adopted byother countries of Europe. Sometimes grants of certain tracts were madeby the Crown to an individual or to a company, *k in which case all thecivil and political power fell into the hands of one or more persons, 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 whateverwas not contrary to her laws. This mode of colonization, so remarkablyfavorable to liberty, was only adopted in New England. *l

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

[Footnote k: Maryland, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey werein this situation. See "Pitkin's History, " vol. I. Pp. 11-31. ]

[Footnote l: See the work entitled "Historical Collection of StatePapers and other authentic Documents intended as materials for a Historyof the United States of America, by Ebenezer Hasard. Philadelphia, 1792, " for a great number of documents relating to the commencementof the colonies, which are valuable from their contents and theirauthenticity: amongst them are the various charters granted by the Kingof England, and the first acts of the local governments. 

See also the analysis of all these charters given by Mr. Story, Judgeof the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Introduction to his"Commentary on the Constitution of the United States. " It results fromthese documents that the principles of representative government andthe external forms of political liberty were introduced into all thecolonies at their origin. These principles were more fully acted upon inthe North than in the South, but they existed everywhere. ]

In 1628 *m a charter of this kind was granted by Charles I to theemigrants who went to form the colony of Massachusetts. But, in general, charters were not given to the colonies of New England till they hadacquired a certain existence. Plymouth, Providence, New Haven, the Stateof Connecticut, and that of Rhode Island *n were founded without theco-operation and almost without the knowledge of the mother-country. The new settlers did not derive their incorporation from the seat ofthe empire, although they did not deny its supremacy; they constituteda society of their own accord, and it was not till thirty or fortyyears afterwards, under Charles II. That their existence was legallyrecognized by a royal charter. 

[Footnote m: See "Pitkin's History, " p, 35. See the "History of theColony of Massachusetts Bay, " by Hutchinson, vol. I. P. 9. ] [Footnote n:See "Pitkin's History, " pp. 42, 47. ]

This frequently renders its it difficult to detect the link whichconnected the emigrants with the land of their forefathers in studyingthe earliest historical and legislative records of New England. Theyexercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enactedlaws as if their allegiance was due only to God. *o Nothing can be morecurious and, at the same time more instructive, than the legislation ofthat period; it is there that the solution of the great social problemwhich the United States now present to the world is to be found. 

[Footnote o: The inhabitants of Massachusetts had deviated from theforms which are preserved in the criminal and civil procedure ofEngland; in 1650 the decrees of justice were not yet headed by the royalstyle. See Hutchinson, vol. I. P. 452. ]

Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the code of laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut in 1650. *p The legislators of Connecticut *q begin with the penal laws, and, strange to say, they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ. "Whosoever shall worship any other God than the Lord, " says the preambleof the Code, "shall surely be put to death. " This is followed by ten ortwelve enactments of the same kind, copied verbatim from the books ofExodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Blasphemy, sorcery, adultery, *rand rape were punished with death; an outrage offered by a son to hisparents was to be expiated by the same penalty. The legislation of arude and half-civilized people was thus applied to an enlightened andmoral community. The consequence was that the punishment of death wasnever more frequently prescribed by the statute, and never more rarelyenforced towards the guilty. 

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

[Footnote q: See also in "Hutchinson's History, " vol. I. Pp. 435, 456, the analysis of the penal code adopted in 1648 by the Colony ofMassachusetts: this code is drawn up on the same principles as that ofConnecticut. ]

[Footnote r: Adultery was also punished with death by the law ofMassachusetts: and Hutchinson, vol. I. P. 441, says that several personsactually suffered for this crime. He quotes a curious anecdote onthis subject, which occurred in the year 1663. A married woman had hadcriminal intercourse with a young man; her husband died, and she marriedthe lover. Several years had elapsed, when the public began to suspectthe previous intercourse of this couple: they were thrown into prison, put upon trial, and very narrowly escaped capital punishment. ]

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 asin which was not subject to magisterial censure. The reader is aware ofthe rigor with which these laws punished rape and adultery; intercoursebetween unmarried persons was likewise severely repressed. The judge wasempowered to inflict a pecuniary penalty, a whipping, or marriage *s onthe misdemeanants; and if the records of the old courts of New Haven maybe believed, prosecutions of this kind were not unfrequent. We finda sentence bearing date the first of May, 1660, inflicting a fine andreprimand on a young woman who was accused of using improper language, and of allowing herself to be kissed. *t The Code of 1650 abounds inpreventive measures. It punishes idleness and drunkenness with severity. *u Innkeepers are forbidden to furnish more than a certain quantity ofliquor to each consumer; and simple lying, whenever it may be injurious, *v is checked by a fine or a flogging. In other places, the legislator, entirely forgetting the great principles of religious toleration whichhe had himself upheld in Europe, renders attendance on divine servicecompulsory, *w and goes so far as to visit with severe punishment, **and even with death, the Christians who chose to worship God accordingto a ritual differing from his own. *x Sometimes indeed the zeal of hisenactments induces him to descend to the most frivolous particulars:thus a law is to be found in the same Code which prohibits the useof tobacco. *y It must not be forgotten that these fantastical andvexatious laws were not imposed by authority, but that they werefreely voted by all the persons interested, and that the manners of thecommunity were even more austere and more puritanical than the laws. In 1649 a solemn association was formed in Boston to check the worldlyluxury of long hair. *z

[Footnote s: Code of 1650, p. 48. It seems sometimes to have happenedthat the judges superadded these punishments to each other, as is seenin a sentence pronounced in 1643 (p. 114, "New Haven Antiquities"), bywhich Margaret Bedford, convicted of loose conduct, was condemned to bewhipped, and afterwards to marry Nicholas Jemmings, her accomplice. ]

[Footnote t: "New Haven Antiquities, " p. 104. See also "Hutchinson'sHistory, " for several causes equally extraordinary. ]

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

[Footnote v: Ibid. , p. 64. ]

[Footnote w: Ibid. , p. 44. ]

[Footnote *: This was not peculiar to Connecticut. See, for instance, the law which, on September 13, 1644, banished the Anabaptists from theState of Massachusetts. ("Historical Collection of State Papers, " vol. I. P. 538. ) See also the law against the Quakers, passed on October 14, 1656: "Whereas, " says the preamble, "an accursed race of heretics calledQuakers has sprung up, " etc. The clauses of the statute inflict aheavy fine on all captains of ships who should import Quakers intothe country. The Quakers who may be found there shall be whipped andimprisoned with hard labor. Those members of the sect who should defendtheir opinions shall be first fined, then imprisoned, and finally drivenout of the province. --"Historical Collection of State Papers, " vol. I. P. 630. ]

[Footnote x: By the penal law of Massachusetts, any Catholic priest whoshould set foot in the colony after having been once driven out of itwas liable to capital punishment. ]

[Footnote y: Code of 1650, p. 96. ]

[Footnote 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 uponwhat is true and just, and is often reduced to the alternative of twoexcesses. In strict connection with this penal legislation, which bearssuch striking marks of a narrow sectarian spirit, and of those religiouspassions which had been warmed by persecution and were still fermentingamong the people, a body of political laws is to be found, which, thoughwritten two hundred years ago, is still ahead of the liberties ofour age. The general principles which are the groundwork of modernconstitutions--principles which were imperfectly known in Europe, andnot completely triumphant even in Great Britain, in the seventeenthcentury--were all recognized and determined by the laws of New England:the intervention of the people in public affairs, the free voting oftaxes, the responsibility of authorities, personal liberty, and trialby jury, were all positively established without discussion. From thesefruitful principles consequences have been derived and applications havebeen made such as no nation in Europe has yet ventured to attempt. 

In Connecticut the electoral body consisted, from its origin, of thewhole number of citizens; and this is readily to be understood, *a whenwe recollect that this people enjoyed an almost perfect equality offortune, and a still greater uniformity of opinions. *b In Connecticut, at this period, all the executive functionaries were elected, includingthe Governor of the State. *c The citizens above the age of sixteen wereobliged to bear arms; they formed a national militia, which appointedits own officers, and was to hold itself at all times in readiness tomarch for the defence of the country. *d

[Footnote a: Constitution of 1638, p. 17. ]

[Footnote b: In 1641 the General Assembly of Rhode Island unanimouslydeclared that the government of the State was a democracy, and that thepower was vested in the body of free citizens, who alone had the rightto make the laws and to watch their execution. --Code of 1650, p. 70. ]

[Footnote c: "Pitkin's History, " p. 47. ]

[Footnote d: Constitution of 1638, p. 12. ]

In the laws of Connecticut, as well as in all those of New England, we find the germ and gradual development of that township independencewhich is the life and mainspring of American liberty at the presentday. The political existence of the majority of the nations of Europecommenced in the superior ranks of society, and was gradually andimperfectly communicated to the different members of the social body. In America, on the other hand, it may be said that the township wasorganized before the county, the county before the State, the Statebefore the Union. In New England townships were completely anddefinitively constituted as early as 1650. The independence of thetownship was the nucleus round which the local interests, passions, rights, and duties collected and clung. It gave scope to the activityof a real political life most thoroughly democratic and republican. Thecolonies still recognized the supremacy of the mother-country; monarchywas still the law of the State; but the republic was already establishedin every township. The towns named their own magistrates of every kind, rated themselves, and levied their own taxes. *e In the parish of NewEngland the law of representation was not adopted, but the affairs ofthe community were discussed, as at Athens, in the market-place, by ageneral assembly of the citizens. 

[Footnote e: Code of 1650, p. 80. ]

In studying the laws which were promulgated at this first era of theAmerican republics, it is impossible not to be struck by the remarkableacquaintance with the science of government and the advanced theory oflegislation which they display. The ideas there formed of the dutiesof society towards its members are evidently much loftier and morecomprehensive than those of the European legislators at that time:obligations were there imposed which were elsewhere slighted. In theStates of New England, from the first, the condition of the poor wasprovided for; *f strict measures were taken for the maintenance ofroads, and surveyors were appointed to attend to them; *g registerswere established in every parish, in which the results of publicdeliberations, and the births, deaths, and marriages of the citizenswere entered; *h clerks were directed to keep these registers; *iofficers were charged with the administration of vacant inheritances, and with the arbitration of litigated landmarks; and many others werecreated whose chief functions were the maintenance of public order inthe community. *j The law enters into a thousand useful provisions fora number of social wants which are at present very inadequately felt inFrance. [Footnote f: Ibid. , p. 78. ]

[Footnote g: Ibid. , p. 49. ]

[Footnote h: See "Hutchinson's History, " vol. I. P. 455. ]

[Footnote i: Code of 1650, p. 86. ]

[Footnote 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 clearestlight. "It being, " says the law, "one chief project of Satan to keepmen from the knowledge of the Scripture by persuading from the use oftongues, to the end that learning may not be buried in the graves ofour forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting ourendeavors. . . . " *k Here follow clauses establishing schools in everytownship, and obliging the inhabitants, under pain of heavy fines, tosupport them. Schools of a superior kind were founded in the same mannerin the more populous districts. The municipal authorities were bound toenforce the sending of children to school by their parents; they wereempowered to inflict fines upon all who refused compliance; and in caseof continued resistance society assumed the place of the parent, tookpossession of the child, and deprived the father of those natural rightswhich he used to so bad a purpose. The reader will undoubtedly haveremarked the preamble of these enactments: in America religion is theroad to knowledge, and the observance of the divine laws leads man tocivil freedom. 

[Footnote k: Ibid. , p. 90. ]

If, after having cast a rapid glance over the state of American societyin 1650, we turn to the condition of Europe, and more especially to thatof the Continent, at the same period, we cannot fail to be struckwith astonishment. On the Continent of Europe, at the beginning of theseventeenth century, absolute monarchy had everywhere triumphed over theruins of the oligarchical and feudal liberties of the Middle Ages. Neverwere the notions of right more completely confounded than in the midstof the splendor and literature of Europe; never was there less politicalactivity among the people; never were the principles of true freedomless widely circulated; and at that very time those principles, whichwere scorned or unknown by the nations of Europe, were proclaimed inthe deserts of the New World, and were accepted as the future creed ofa great people. The boldest theories of the human reason were put intopractice by a community so humble that not a statesman condescended toattend to it; and a legislation without a precedent was producedoffhand by the imagination of the citizens. In the bosom of thisobscure democracy, which had as yet brought forth neither generals, norphilosophers, nor authors, a man might stand up in the face of a freepeople and pronounce the following fine definition of liberty. *l

[Footnote l: Mather's "Magnalia Christi Americana, " vol. Ii. P. 13. This speech was made by Winthrop; he was accused of having committedarbitrary actions during his magistracy, but after having madethe speech of which the above is a fragment, he was acquitted byacclamation, and from that time forwards he was always re-electedgovernor of the State. See Marshal, vol. I. P. 166. ]

"Nor would I have you to mistake in the point of your own liberty. There is a liberty of a corrupt nature which is effected both by menand beasts to do what they list, and this liberty is inconsistent withauthority, impatient of all restraint; by this liberty 'sumus omnesdeteriores': 'tis the grand enemy of truth and peace, and all theordinances of God are bent against it. But there is a civil, a moral, afederal liberty which is the proper end and object of authority; it isa liberty for that only which is just and good: for this liberty you areto stand with the hazard of your very lives and whatsoever crosses it isnot authority, but a distemper thereof. This liberty is maintained in away of subjection to authority; and the authority set over you will, inall administrations for your good, be quietly submitted unto by all butsuch as have a disposition to shake off the yoke and lose their trueliberty, by their murmuring at the honor and power of authority. "

The remarks I have made will suffice to display the character ofAnglo-American civilization in its true light. It is the result (andthis should be constantly present to the mind of two distinct elements), which in other places have been in frequent hostility, but which inAmerica have been admirably incorporated and combined with one another. I allude to the spirit of Religion and the spirit of Liberty. 

The settlers of New England were at the same time ardent sectariansand daring innovators. Narrow as the limits of some of their religiousopinions were, they were entirely free from political prejudices. Hencearose two tendencies, distinct but not opposite, which are constantlydiscernible in the manners as well as in the laws of the country. 

It might be imagined that men who sacrificed their friends, theirfamily, and their native land to a religious conviction were absorbedin the pursuit of the intellectual advantages which they purchased atso dear a rate. The energy, however, with which they strove for theacquirement of wealth, moral enjoyment, and the comforts as well asliberties of the world, is scarcely inferior to that with which theydevoted themselves to Heaven. 

Political principles and all human laws and institutions were mouldedand altered at their pleasure; the barriers of the society in which theywere born were broken down before them; the old principles which hadgoverned the world for ages were no more; a path without a turn anda field without an horizon were opened to the exploring and ardentcuriosity of man: but at the limits of the political world he checkshis researches, he discreetly lays aside the use of his most formidablefaculties, he no longer consents to doubt or to innovate, but carefullyabstaining from raising the curtain of the sanctuary, he yields withsubmissive respect to truths which he will not discuss. Thus, in themoral world everything is classed, adapted, decided, and foreseen; inthe political world everything is agitated, uncertain, and disputed:in the one is a passive, though a voluntary, obedience; in the other anindependence scornful of experience and jealous of authority. 

These two tendencies, apparently so discrepant, are far fromconflicting; they advance together, and mutually support each other. Religion perceives that civil liberty affords a noble exercise to thefaculties of man, and that the political world is a field prepared bythe Creator for the efforts of the intelligence. Contented with thefreedom and the power which it enjoys in its own sphere, and with theplace which it occupies, the empire of religion is never more surelyestablished than when it reigns in the hearts of men unsupported byaught beside its native strength. Religion is no less the companion ofliberty in all its battles and its triumphs; the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims. The safeguard of morality isreligion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledgeof freedom. *m

[Footnote m: See Appendix, F. ]

Reasons Of Certain Anomalies Which The Laws And Customs Of TheAnglo-Americans Present

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 aninference from what has been said. The social condition, the religion, and the manners of the first emigrants undoubtedly exercised an immenseinfluence on the destiny of their new country. Nevertheless they werenot in a situation to found a state of things solely dependent onthemselves: no man can entirely shake off the influence of the past, andthe settlers, intentionally or involuntarily, mingled habits and notionsderived from their education and from the traditions of their countrywith those habits and notions which were exclusively their own. To forma judgment on the Anglo-Americans of the present day it is thereforenecessary to distinguish what is of Puritanical and what is of Englishorigin. 

Laws and customs are frequently to be met with in the United Stateswhich contrast strongly with all that surrounds them. These laws seem tobe drawn up in a spirit contrary to the prevailing tenor of the Americanlegislation; and these customs are no less opposed to the tone ofsociety. If the English colonies had been founded in an age of darkness, or if their origin was already lost in the lapse of years, the problemwould be insoluble. 

I shall quote a single example to illustrate what I advance. Thecivil and criminal procedure of the Americans has only two means ofaction--committal and bail. The first measure taken by the magistrateis to exact security from the defendant, or, in case of refusal, toincarcerate him: the ground of the accusation and the importance of thecharges against him are then discussed. It is evident that a legislationof this kind is hostile to the poor man, and favorable only to therich. The poor man has not always a security to produce, even in acivil cause; and if he is obliged to wait for justice in prison, he isspeedily reduced to distress. The wealthy individual, on the contrary, always escapes imprisonment in civil causes; nay, more, he may readilyelude the punishment which awaits him for a delinquency by breaking hisbail. So that all the penalties of the law are, for him, reducibleto fines. *n Nothing can be more aristocratic than this system oflegislation. Yet in America it is the poor who make the law, and theyusually reserve the greatest social advantages to themselves. Theexplanation of the phenomenon is to be found in England; the laws ofwhich I speak are English, *o and the Americans have retained them, however repugnant they may be to the tenor of their legislation and themass of their ideas. Next to its habits, the thing which a nationis least apt to change is its civil legislation. Civil laws are onlyfamiliarly known to legal men, whose direct interest it is to maintainthem as they are, whether good or bad, simply because they themselvesare conversant with them. The body of the nation is scarcely acquaintedwith them; it merely perceives their action in particular cases; but ithas some difficulty in seizing their tendency, and obeys them withoutpremeditation. I have quoted one instance where it would have been easyto adduce a great number of others. The surface of American society is, if I may use the expression, covered with a layer of democracy, frombeneath which the old aristocratic colors sometimes peep. 

[Footnote n: Crimes no doubt exist for which bail is inadmissible, butthey are few in number. ]

[Footnote o: See Blackstone; and Delolme, book I chap. X. ]

Chapter III: Social Conditions Of The Anglo-Americans

Chapter Summary

A Social condition is commonly the result of circumstances, sometimes oflaws, oftener still of these two causes united; but wherever it exists, it may justly be considered as the source of almost all the laws, theusages, and the ideas which regulate the conduct of nations; whateverit does not produce it modifies. It is therefore necessary, if we wouldbecome acquainted with the legislation and the manners of a nation, tobegin by the study of its social condition. 

The Striking Characteristic Of The Social Condition Of TheAnglo-Americans In Its 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 conditionof the Anglo-Americans, but there is one which takes precedence of allthe rest. The social condition of the Americans is eminently democratic;this was its character at the foundation of the Colonies, and is stillmore strongly marked at the present day. I have stated in the precedingchapter that great equality existed among the emigrants who settled onthe shores of New England. The germ of aristocracy was never planted inthat part of the Union. The only influence which obtained there was thatof intellect; the people were used to reverence certain names as theemblems of knowledge and virtue. Some of their fellow-citizens acquireda power over the rest which might truly have been called 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 thesouth-west of that river, and in the direction of the Floridas, the casewas different. In most of the States situated to the south-west of theHudson some great English proprietors had settled, who had importedwith them aristocratic principles and the English law of descent. I haveexplained the reasons why it was impossible ever to establish a powerfularistocracy in America; these reasons existed with less force to thesouth-west of the Hudson. In the South, one man, aided by slaves, couldcultivate a great extent of country: it was therefore common to see richlanded proprietors. But their influence was not altogether aristocraticas that term is understood in Europe, since they possessed noprivileges; and the cultivation of their estates being carried on byslaves, they had no tenants depending on them, and consequently nopatronage. Still, the great proprietors south of the Hudson constituteda superior class, having ideas and tastes of its own, and forming thecentre of political action. This kind of aristocracy sympathized withthe body of the people, whose passions and interests it easily embraced;but it was too weak and too short-lived to excite either love or hatredfor itself. This was the class which headed the insurrection in theSouth, and furnished the best leaders of the American revolution. 

At the period of which we are now speaking society was shaken toits centre: the people, in whose name the struggle had taken place, conceived the desire of exercising the authority which it had acquired;its democratic tendencies were awakened; and having thrown off the yokeof the mother-country, it aspired to independence of every kind. Theinfluence of individuals gradually ceased to be felt, and custom and lawunited together to produce the same result. 

But the law of descent was the last step to equality. I am surprisedthat ancient and modern jurists have not attributed to this law agreater influence on human affairs. *a It is true that these laws belongto civil affairs; but they ought nevertheless to be placed at the headof all political institutions; for, whilst political laws are only thesymbol of a nation's condition, they exercise an incredible influenceupon its social state. They have, moreover, a sure and uniform manner ofoperating upon society, affecting, as it were, generations yet unborn. 

[Footnote a: I understand by the law of descent all those laws whoseprincipal object is to regulate the distribution of property after thedeath of its owner. The law of entail is of this number; it certainlyprevents the owner from disposing of his possessions before his death;but this is solely with the view of preserving them entire for the heir. The principal object, therefore, of the law of entail is to regulate thedescent of property after the death of its owner: its other provisionsare merely means to this end. ]

Through their means man acquires a kind of preternatural power over thefuture lot of his fellow-creatures. When the legislator has regulatedthe law of inheritance, he may rest from his labor. The machine once putin motion will go on for ages, and advance, as if self-guided, towards agiven point. When framed in a particular manner, this law unites, drawstogether, and vests property and power in a few hands: its tendency isclearly aristocratic. On opposite principles its action is still morerapid; it divides, distributes, and disperses both property and power. Alarmed by the rapidity of its progress, those who despair of arrestingits motion endeavor to obstruct it by difficulties and impediments;they vainly seek to counteract its effect by contrary efforts; but itgradually reduces or destroys every obstacle, until by its incessantactivity the bulwarks of the influence of wealth are ground down to thefine and shifting sand which is the basis of democracy. When the law ofinheritance permits, still more when it decrees, the equal division ofa father's property amongst all his children, its effects are of twokinds: it is important to distinguish them from each other, althoughthey tend to the same end. 

In virtue of the law of partible inheritance, the death of everyproprietor brings about a kind of revolution in property; not only dohis possessions change hands, but their very nature is altered, sincethey are parcelled into shares, which become smaller and smaller at eachdivision. This is the direct and, as it were, the physical effect of thelaw. It follows, then, that in countries where equality of inheritanceis established by law, property, and especially landed property, musthave a tendency to perpetual diminution. The effects, however, of suchlegislation would only be perceptible after a lapse of time, if the lawwas abandoned to its own working; for supposing the family to consist oftwo children (and in a country people as France is the average numberis 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 uponthe property itself, but it affects the minds of the heirs, and bringstheir passions into play. These indirect consequences tend powerfullyto the destruction of large fortunes, and especially of large domains. Among nations whose law of descent is founded upon the right ofprimogeniture landed estates often pass from generation to generationwithout undergoing division, the consequence of which is that familyfeeling is to a certain degree incorporated with the estate. The familyrepresents the estate, the estate the family; whose name, together withits origin, its glory, its power, and its virtues, is thus perpetuatedin an imperishable memorial of the past and a sure pledge of the future. 

When the equal partition of property is established by law, the intimateconnection is destroyed between family feeling and the preservation ofthe paternal estate; the property ceases to represent the family; foras it must inevitably be divided after one or two generations, ithas evidently a constant tendency to diminish, and must in the end becompletely dispersed. The sons of the great landed proprietor, if theyare few in number, or if fortune befriends them, may indeed entertainthe hope of being as wealthy as their father, but not that of possessingthe same property as he did; the riches must necessarily be composed ofelements different from his. 

Now, from the moment that you divest the landowner of that interest inthe preservation of his estate which he derives from association, fromtradition, and from family pride, you may be certain that sooner orlater he will dispose of it; for there is a strong pecuniary interest infavor of selling, as floating capital produces higher interest than realproperty, and is more readily available to gratify the passions of themoment. 

Great landed estates which have once been divided never come togetheragain; for the small proprietor draws from his land a better revenue, inproportion, than the large owner does from his, and of course he sellsit at a higher rate. *b The calculations of gain, therefore, whichdecide the rich man to sell his domain will still more powerfullyinfluence him against buying small estates to unite them into a largeone. 

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

What is called family pride is often founded upon an illusion ofself-love. A man wishes to perpetuate and immortalize himself, as itwere, in his great-grandchildren. Where the esprit de famille ceasesto act individual selfishness comes into play. When the idea of familybecomes vague, indeterminate, and uncertain, a man thinks of hispresent convenience; he provides for the establishment of his succeedinggeneration, and no more. Either a man gives up the idea of perpetuatinghis family, or at any rate he seeks to accomplish it by other meansthan that of a landed estate. Thus not only does the law of partibleinheritance render it difficult for families to preserve their ancestraldomains entire, but it deprives them of the inclination to attempt it, and compels them in some measure to co-operate with the law in their ownextinction. 

The law of equal distribution proceeds by two methods: by acting uponthings, it acts upon persons; by influencing persons, it affects things. By these means the law succeeds in striking at the root of landedproperty, and dispersing rapidly both families and fortunes. *c

[Footnote c: Land being the most stable kind of property, we find, fromtime to time, rich individuals who are disposed to make great sacrificesin order to obtain it, and who willingly forfeit a considerable part oftheir income to make sure of the rest. But these are accidental cases. The preference for landed property is no longer found habitually in anyclass but among the poor. The small landowner, who has less information, less imagination, and fewer passions than the great one, is generallyoccupied with the desire of increasing his estate: and it often happensthat by inheritance, by marriage, or by the chances of trade, he isgradually furnished with the means. Thus, to balance the tendency whichleads men to divide their estates, there exists another, which incitesthem to add to them. This tendency, which is sufficient to preventestates from being divided ad infinitum, is not strong enough to creategreat territorial possessions, certainly not to keep them up in the samefamily. ]

Most certainly it is not for us Frenchmen of the nineteenth century, who daily witness the political and social changes which the lawof partition is bringing to pass, to question its influence. It isperpetually conspicuous in our country, overthrowing the walls of ourdwellings and removing the landmarks of our fields. But although it hasproduced great effects in France, much still remains for it to do. Ourrecollections, opinions, and habits present powerful obstacles to itsprogress. 

In the United States it has nearly completed its work of destruction, and there we can best study its results. The English laws concerning thetransmission of property were abolished in almost all the States atthe time of the Revolution. The law of entail was so modified as notto interrupt the free circulation of property. *d The first generationhaving passed away, estates began to be parcelled out, and the changebecame more and more rapid with the progress of time. At this moment, after a lapse of a little more than sixty years, the aspect of societyis totally altered; the families of the great landed proprietors arealmost all commingled with the general mass. In the State of New York, which formerly contained many of these, there are but two who still keeptheir heads above the stream, and they must shortly disappear. The sonsof these opulent citizens are become merchants, lawyers, or physicians. Most of them have lapsed into obscurity. The last trace of hereditaryranks and distinctions is destroyed--the law of partition has reducedall to one level. [Footnote d: See Appendix, G. ]

I do not mean that there is any deficiency of wealthy individuals in theUnited States; I know of no country, indeed, where the love of money hastaken stronger hold on the affections of men, and where the profoundercontempt is expressed for the theory of the permanent equality ofproperty. But wealth circulates with inconceivable rapidity, andexperience shows that it is rare to find two succeeding generations inthe full enjoyment of it. 

This picture, which may perhaps be thought to be overcharged, stillgives a very imperfect idea of what is taking place in the new Statesof the West and South-west. At the end of the last century a few boldadventurers began to penetrate into the valleys of the Mississippi, andthe mass of the population very soon began to move in that direction:communities unheard of till then were seen to emerge from the wilds:States whose names were not in existence a few years before claimedtheir place in the American Union; and in the Western settlements we maybehold democracy arrived at its utmost extreme. In these States, founded off-hand, and, as it were, by chance, the inhabitants are butof yesterday. Scarcely known to one another, the nearest neighborsare ignorant of each other's history. In this part of the Americancontinent, therefore, the population has not experienced the influenceof great names and great wealth, nor even that of the naturalaristocracy of knowledge and virtue. None are there to wield thatrespectable power which men willingly grant to the remembrance of a lifespent in doing good before their eyes. The new States of the West arealready inhabited, but society has no existence among them. *e

[Footnote e: This may have been true in 1832, but is not so in 1874, when great cities like Chicago and San Francisco have sprung up inthe Western States. But as yet the Western States exert no powerfulinfluence on American society. ---Translator's Note. ]

It is not only the fortunes of men which are equal in America; eventheir requirements partake in some degree of the same uniformity. I donot believe that there is a country in the world where, in proportionto the population, there are so few uninstructed and at the same timeso few learned individuals. Primary instruction is within the reach ofeverybody; superior instruction is scarcely to be obtained by any. Thisis not surprising; it is in fact the necessary consequence of what wehave advanced above. Almost all the Americans are in easy circumstances, and can therefore obtain the first elements of human knowledge. 

In America there are comparatively few who are rich enough to livewithout a profession. Every profession requires an apprenticeship, whichlimits the time of instruction to the early years of life. At fifteenthey enter upon their calling, and thus their education ends at the agewhen ours begins. Whatever is done afterwards is with a view to somespecial and lucrative object; a science is taken up as a matter ofbusiness, and the only branch of it which is attended to is such asadmits of an immediate practical application. In America most of therich men were formerly poor; most of those who now enjoy leisure wereabsorbed in business during their youth; the consequence of which is, that when they might have had a taste for study they had no time for it, and when time 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 bywhich the labors of the intellect are held in honor. Accordingly thereis an equal want of the desire and the power of application to theseobjects. 

A middle standard is fixed in America for human knowledge. All approachas near to it as they can; some as they rise, others as they descend. Of course, an immense multitude of persons are to be found who entertainthe same number of ideas on religion, history, science, politicaleconomy, legislation, and government. The gifts of intellect proceeddirectly from God, and man cannot prevent their unequal distribution. But in consequence of the state of things which we have here representedit happens that, although the capacities of men are widely different, asthe Creator has doubtless intended they should be, they are submitted tothe same method of treatment. 

In America the aristocratic element has always been feeble from itsbirth; and if at the present day it is not actually destroyed, it is atany rate so completely disabled that we can scarcely assign to it anydegree of influence in the course of affairs. The democratic principle, on the contrary, has gained so much strength by time, by events, and bylegislation, as to have become not only predominant but all-powerful. There is no family or corporate authority, and it is rare to find eventhe influence of individual character enjoy any durability. 

America, then, exhibits in her social state a most extraordinaryphenomenon. Men are there seen on a greater equality in point of fortuneand intellect, or, in other words, more equal in their strength, thanin any other country of the world, or in any age of which history haspreserved 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 eventuallyfind its way into the political world as it does everywhere else. Toconceive of men remaining forever unequal upon one single point, yetequal on all others, is impossible; they must come in the end to beequal upon all. Now I know of only two methods of establishing equalityin the political world; every citizen must be put in possession ofhis rights, or rights must be granted to no one. For nations which arearrived at the same stage of social existence as the Anglo-Americans, itis therefore very difficult to discover a medium between the sovereigntyof all and the absolute power of one man: and it would be vain to denythat the social condition which I have been describing is equally liableto each of these consequences. 

There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excitesmen to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends toelevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also inthe human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weakto attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men toprefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom. Not that thosenations whose social condition is democratic naturally despise liberty;on the contrary, they have an instinctive love of it. But liberty is notthe chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol:they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty, and if they misstheir aim resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing cansatisfy them except equality, and rather than lose it they resolve toperish. 

On the other hand, in a State where the citizens are nearly on anequality, it becomes difficult for them to preserve their independenceagainst the aggressions of power. No one among them being strongenough to engage in the struggle with advantage, nothing but a generalcombination can protect their liberty. And such a union is not always tobe found. 

From the same social position, then, nations may derive one or the otherof two great political results; these results are extremely differentfrom each other, but they may both proceed from the same cause. 

The Anglo-Americans are the first nations who, having been exposedto this formidable alternative, have been happy enough to escapethe dominion of absolute power. They have been allowed by theircircumstances, their origin, their intelligence, and especially by theirmoral feeling, to establish and maintain the sovereignty of the people. 

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

Chapter Summary

It predominates over the whole of society in America--Applicationmade of this principle by the Americans even before theirRevolution--Development given to it by that Revolution--Gradual andirresistible extension of the elective qualification. 

The Principle Of The Sovereignty Of The People In America

Whenever the political laws of the United States are to be discussed, it is with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people that we mustbegin. The principle of the sovereignty of the people, which is to befound, more or less, at the bottom of almost all human institutions, generally remains concealed from view. It is obeyed without beingrecognized, or if for a moment it be brought to light, it is hastilycast back into the gloom of the sanctuary. "The will of the nation" isone of those expressions which have been most profusely abused by thewily and the despotic of every age. To the eyes of some it has beenrepresented by the venal suffrages of a few of the satellites of power;to others by the votes of a timid or an interested minority; and somehave even discovered it in the silence of a people, on the suppositionthat the fact of submission established the right of command. 

In America the principle of the sovereignty of the people is not eitherbarren or concealed, as it is with some other nations; it is recognizedby the customs and proclaimed by the laws; it spreads freely, andarrives without impediment at its most remote consequences. If therebe a country in the world where the doctrine of the sovereignty ofthe people can be fairly appreciated, where it can be studied in itsapplication to the affairs of society, and where its dangers and itsadvantages may be foreseen, that country is assuredly America. 

I have already observed that, from their origin, the sovereignty of thepeople was the fundamental principle of the greater number of Britishcolonies in America. It was far, however, from then exercising as muchinfluence on the government of society as it now does. Two obstacles, the one external, the other internal, checked its invasive progress. Itcould not ostensibly disclose itself in the laws of colonies which werestill constrained to obey the mother-country: it was therefore obligedto spread secretly, and to gain ground in the provincial assemblies, andespecially in the townships. 

American society was not yet prepared to adopt it with all itsconsequences. The intelligence of New England, and the wealth of thecountry to the south of the Hudson (as I have shown in the precedingchapter), long exercised a sort of aristocratic influence, which tendedto retain the exercise of social authority in the hands of a few. Thepublic functionaries were not universally elected, and the citizens werenot all of them electors. The electoral franchise was everywhere placedwithin certain limits, and made dependent on a certain qualification, which was exceedingly low in the North and more considerable in theSouth. 

The American revolution broke out, and the doctrine of the sovereigntyof the people, which had been nurtured in the townships andmunicipalities, took possession of the State: every class was enlistedin its cause; battles were fought, and victories obtained for it, untilit became the law of laws. 

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

At the very time when this consequence of the laws and of the revolutionwas apparent to every eye, victory was irrevocably pronounced in favorof the democratic cause. All power was, in fact, in its hands, andresistance was no longer possible. The higher orders submitted withouta murmur and without a struggle to an evil which was thenceforthinevitable. The ordinary fate of falling powers awaited them; eachof their several members followed his own interests; and as it wasimpossible to wring the power from the hands of a people which theydid not detest sufficiently to brave, their only aim was to secure itsgood-will at any price. The most democratic laws were consequently votedby the very men whose interests they impaired; and thus, although thehigher classes did not excite the passions of the people against theirorder, they accelerated the triumph of the new state of things; sothat by a singular change the democratic impulse was found to be mostirresistible in the very States where the aristocracy had the firmesthold. The State of Maryland, which had been founded by men of rank, was the first to proclaim universal suffrage, and to introduce the mostdemocratic forms into the conduct of its government. 

When a nation modifies the elective qualification, it may easily beforeseen that sooner or later that qualification will be entirelyabolished. There is no more invariable rule in the history of society:the further electoral rights are extended, the greater is the need ofextending them; for after each concession the strength of the democracyincreases, and its demands increase with its strength. The ambition ofthose who are below the appointed rate is irritated in exact proportionto the great number of those who are above it. The exception at lastbecomes the rule, concession follows concession, and no stop can be madeshort of universal suffrage. 

At the present day the principle of the sovereignty of the people hasacquired, in the United States, all the practical development which theimagination can conceive. It is unencumbered by those fictions whichhave been thrown over it in other countries, and it appears in everypossible form according to the exigency of the occasion. Sometimes thelaws are made by the people in a body, as at Athens; and sometimes itsrepresentatives, chosen by universal suffrage, transact business in itsname, and almost under its immediate control. 

In some countries a power exists which, though it is in a degree foreignto the social body, directs it, and forces it to pursue a certain track. In others the ruling force is divided, being partly within and partlywithout the ranks of the people. But nothing of the kind is to be seenin the United States; there society governs itself for itself. All powercentres in its bosom; and scarcely an individual is to be meet withwho would venture to conceive, or, still less, to express, the idea ofseeking it elsewhere. The nation participates in the making of its lawsby the choice of its legislators, and in the execution of them by thechoice of the agents of the executive government; it may almost be saidto govern itself, so feeble and so restricted is the share left to theadministration, so little do the authorities forget their popular originand the power from which they emanate. *a [Footnote a: See Appendix, H. ]

Chapter V: Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States--Part I

Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States Before That Of TheUnion At Large. 

It is proposed to examine in the following chapter what is the form ofgovernment established in America on the principle of the sovereignty ofthe people; what are its resources, its hindrances, its advantages, andits dangers. The first difficulty which presents itself arises from thecomplex nature of the constitution of the United States, which consistsof two distinct social structures, connected and, as it were, encasedone within the other; two governments, completely separate and almostindependent, the one fulfilling the ordinary duties and responding tothe daily and indefinite calls of a community, the other circumscribedwithin certain limits, and only exercising an exceptional authority overthe general interests of the country. In short, there are twenty-foursmall sovereign nations, whose agglomeration constitutes the body of theUnion. To examine the Union before we have studied the States wouldbe to adopt a method filled with obstacles. The form of the FederalGovernment of the United States was the last which was adopted; andit is in fact nothing more than a modification or a summary of thoserepublican principles which were current in the whole community beforeit existed, and independently of its existence. Moreover, the FederalGovernment is, as I have just observed, the exception; the Governmentof the States is the rule. The author who should attempt to exhibit thepicture as a whole before he had explained its details would necessarilyfall into obscurity and repetition. 

The great political principles which govern American society at thisday undoubtedly took their origin and their growth in the State. Itis therefore necessary to become acquainted with the State in order topossess a clue to the remainder. The States which at present composethe American Union all present the same features, as far as regards theexternal aspect of their institutions. Their political or administrativeexistence is centred in three focuses of action, which may not inaptlybe compared to the different nervous centres which convey motion to thehuman body. The township is the lowest in order, then the county, andlastly the State; and I propose to devote the following chapter to theexamination of these three divisions. 

The American System Of Townships And Municipal Bodies

Why the Author begins the examination of the political institutions withthe township--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 village or township is the only association which is so perfectlynatural that wherever a number of men are collected it seems toconstitute itself. 

The town, or tithing, as the smallest division of a community, mustnecessarily exist in all nations, whatever their laws and customsmay be: if man makes monarchies and establishes republics, the firstassociation of mankind seems constituted by the hand of God. Butalthough the existence of the township is coeval with that of man, itsliberties are not the less rarely respected and easily destroyed. Anation is always able to establish great political assemblies, becauseit habitually contains a certain number of individuals fitted by theirtalents, if not by their habits, for the direction of affairs. Thetownship is, on the contrary, composed of coarser materials, which areless easily fashioned by the legislator. The difficulties which attendthe consolidation of its independence rather augment than diminish withthe increasing enlightenment of the people. A highly civilized communityspurns the attempts of a local independence, is disgusted at itsnumerous blunders, and is apt to despair of success before theexperiment is completed. Again, no immunities are so ill protected fromthe encroachments of the supreme power as those of municipal bodies ingeneral: they are unable to struggle, single-handed, against a strongor an enterprising government, and they cannot defend their cause withsuccess unless it be identified with the customs of the nation andsupported by public opinion. Thus until the independence of townships isamalgamated with the manners of a people it is easily destroyed, andit is only after a long existence in the laws that it can be thusamalgamated. Municipal freedom is not the fruit of human device; itis rarely created; but it is, as it were, secretly and spontaneouslyengendered in the midst of a semi-barbarous state of society. The constant action of the laws and the national habits, peculiarcircumstances, and above all time, may consolidate it; but there iscertainly no nation on the continent of Europe which has experiencedits advantages. Nevertheless local assemblies of citizens constitutethe strength of free nations. Town-meetings are to liberty what primaryschools are to science; they bring it within the people's reach, theyteach men how to use and how to enjoy it. A nation may establisha system of free government, but without the spirit of municipalinstitutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty. The transientpassions and the interests of an hour, or the chance of circumstances, may have created the external forms of independence; but the despotictendency which has been repelled will, sooner or later, inevitablyreappear on the surface. 

In order to explain to the reader the general principles on which thepolitical organization of the counties and townships of the UnitedStates rests, I have thought it expedient to choose one of the States ofNew England as an example, to examine the mechanism of its constitution, and then to cast a general glance over the country. The township and thecounty are not organized in the same manner in every part of the Union;it is, however, easy to perceive that the same principles have guidedthe formation of both of them throughout the Union. I am inclined tobelieve that these principles have been carried further in New Englandthan elsewhere, and consequently that they offer greater facilities tothe observations of a stranger. The institutions of New England forma complete and regular whole; they have received the sanction of time, they have the support of the laws, and the still stronger support of themanners of the community, over which they exercise the most prodigiousinfluence; they consequently deserve our attention on every account. 

Limits Of The Township

The township of New England is a division which stands between thecommune and the canton of France, and which corresponds in general tothe English tithing, or town. Its average population is from two tothree thousand; *a so that, on the one hand, the interests of itsinhabitants are not likely to conflict, and, on the other, men capableof conducting its affairs are always to be found among its citizens. 

[Footnote a: In 1830 there were 305 townships in the State ofMassachusetts, and 610, 014 inhabitants, which gives an average of about2, 000 inhabitants to each township. ]

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 in thehands of the Selectmen--How the Selectmen act--Town-meeting--Enumerationof the public officers of the township--Obligatory and remuneratedfunctions. 

In the township, as well as everywhere else, the people is the onlysource of power; but in no stage of government does the body of citizensexercise a more immediate influence. In America the people is a masterwhose exigencies demand obedience to the utmost limits of possibility. 

In New England the majority acts by representatives in the conductof the public business of the State; but if such an arrangement benecessary in general affairs, in the townships, where the legislativeand administrative action of the government is in more immediate contactwith the subject, the system of representation is not adopted. There isno corporation; but the body of electors, after having designated itsmagistrates, directs them in everything that exceeds the simple andordinary executive business of the State. *b

[Footnote b: The same rules are not applicable to the great towns, whichgenerally have a mayor, and a corporation divided into two bodies; this, however, is an exception which requires the sanction of a law. --See theAct of February 22, 1822, for appointing the authorities of the cityof Boston. It frequently happens that small towns as well as citiesare subject to a peculiar administration. In 1832, 104 townships in theState of New York were governed in this manner. --Williams' Register. ]

This state of things is so contrary to our ideas, and so different fromour customs, that it is necessary for me to adduce some examples toexplain it thoroughly. 

The public duties in the township are extremely numerous and minutelydivided, as we shall see further on; but the larger proportion ofadministrative power is vested in the hands of a small number ofindividuals, called "the Selectmen. " *c The general laws of the Stateimpose a certain number of obligations on the selectmen, which they mayfulfil without the authorization of the body they represent, but whichthey can only neglect on their own responsibility. The law of the Stateobliges them, for instance, to draw up the list of electors in theirtownships; and if they omit this part of their functions, they areguilty of a misdemeanor. In all the affairs, however, which aredetermined by the town-meeting, the selectmen are the organs of thepopular mandate, as in France the Maire executes the decree of themunicipal council. They usually act upon their own responsibility, andmerely put in practice principles which have been previously recognizedby the majority. But if any change is to be introduced in the existingstate of things, or if they wish to undertake any new enterprise, theyare obliged to refer to the source of their power. If, for instance, aschool is to be established, the selectmen convoke the whole body ofthe electors on a certain day at an appointed place; they explain theurgency of the case; they give their opinion on the means of satisfyingit, on the probable expense, and the site which seems to be mostfavorable. The meeting is consulted on these several points; it adoptsthe principle, marks out the site, votes the rate, and confides theexecution of its resolution to the selectmen. 

[Footnote c: Three selectmen are appointed in the small townships, andnine in the large ones. See "The Town-Officer, " p. 186. See also theprincipal laws of 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; March12, 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 theymay be requested to do so: if ten citizens are desirous of submittinga new project to the assent of the township, they may demand a generalconvocation of the inhabitants; the selectmen are obliged to comply, butthey have only the right of presiding at the meeting. *d

[Footnote 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. The town-meeting chooses at the same time a number of other municipalmagistrates, who are entrusted with important administrative functions. The assessors rate the township; the collectors receive the rate. Aconstable is appointed to keep the peace, to watch the streets, and toforward the execution of the laws; the town-clerk records all the townvotes, orders, grants, births, deaths, and marriages; the treasurerkeeps the funds; the overseer of the poor performs the difficult task ofsuperintending 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 thoroughfaresof the township, complete the list of the principal functionaries. They are, however, still further subdivided; and amongst the municipalofficers are to be found parish commissioners, who audit the expensesof public worship; different classes of inspectors, some of whom areto direct the citizens in case of fire; tithing-men, listers, haywards, chimney-viewers, fence-viewers to maintain the bounds of property, timber-measurers, and sealers of weights and measures. *e

[Footnote e: All these magistrates actually exist; their differentfunctions are all detailed in a book called "The Town-Officer, " by IsaacGoodwin, Worcester, 1827; and in the "Collection of the General Laws ofMassachusetts, " 3 vols. , Boston, 1823. ]

There are nineteen principal officers in a township. Every inhabitantis constrained, 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. Every service has its price, and they are remunerated in proportion towhat they have done. 

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 inall that concerns itself alone: subject to the State in all othermatters--Bond of the township and the State--In France the Governmentlends its agent to the Commune--In America the reverse occurs. 

I have already observed that the principle of the sovereignty of thepeople governs the whole political system of the Anglo-Americans. Everypage of this book will afford new instances of the same doctrine. Inthe nations by which the sovereignty of the people is recognized everyindividual possesses an equal share of power, and participates alike inthe government of the State. Every individual is, therefore, supposedto be as well informed, as virtuous, and as strong as any of hisfellow-citizens. He obeys the government, not because he is inferior tothe authorities which conduct it, or that he is less capable than hisneighbor 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 subjectin all that concerns the mutual relations of citizens, he is free andresponsible to God alone for all that concerns himself. Hence arises themaxim that every one is the best and the sole judge of his own privateinterest, and that society has no right to control a man's actions, unless they are prejudicial to the common weal, or unless the commonweal demands his co-operation. This doctrine is universally admitted inthe United States. I shall hereafter examine the general influence whichit exercises on the ordinary actions of life; I am now speaking of thenature 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 Ihave just alluded to is applied. Municipal independence is therefore anatural consequence of the principle of the sovereignty of the people inthe United States: all the American republics recognize it more or less;but circumstances have peculiarly favored its growth in New England. 

In this part of the Union the impulsion of political activity was givenin the townships; and it may almost be said that each of them originallyformed an independent nation. When the Kings of England asserted theirsupremacy, they were contented to assume the central power of the State. The townships of New England remained as they were before; and althoughthey are now subject to the State, they were at first scarcely dependentupon it. It is important to remember that they have not been investedwith privileges, but that they have, on the contrary, forfeited aportion of their independence to the State. The townships are onlysubordinate to the State in those interests which I shall term social, as they are common to all the citizens. They are independent in allthat concerns themselves; and amongst the inhabitants of New EnglandI believe that not a man is to be found who would acknowledge that theState has any right to interfere in their local interests. The townsof New England buy and sell, sue or are sued, augment or diminishtheir rates, without the slightest opposition on the part of theadministrative authority of the State. 

They are bound, however, to comply with the demands of the community. Ifthe State is in need of money, a town can neither give nor withhold thesupplies. If the State projects a road, the township cannot refuse tolet it cross its territory; if a police regulation is made by the State, it must be enforced by the town. A uniform system of instruction isorganized all over the country, and every town is bound to establish theschools which the law ordains. In speaking of the administration of theUnited States I shall have occasion to point out the means by which thetownships are compelled to obey in these different cases: I here merelyshow the existence of the obligation. Strict as this obligation is, the government of the State imposes it in principle only, and in itsperformance 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 townshipbuilds, pays, and superintends it. In France the State-collectorreceives the local imposts; in America the town-collector receives thetaxes of the State. Thus the French Government lends its agents to thecommune; in America the township is the agent of the Government. Thisfact alone shows the extent of the differences which exist between thetwo 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 aliveand supported by public spirit. The township of New England possessestwo advantages which infallibly secure the attentive interest ofmankind, namely, independence and authority. Its sphere is indeed smalland limited, but within that sphere its action is unrestrained; andits independence gives to it a real importance which its extent andpopulation may not always ensure. 

It is to be remembered that the affections of men generally lie on theside of authority. Patriotism is not durable in a conquered nation. TheNew Englander is attached to his township, not only because he was bornin it, but because it constitutes a social body of which he is a member, and whose government claims and deserves the exercise of his sagacity. In Europe the absence of local public spirit is a frequent subject ofregret to those who are in power; everyone agrees that there is no surerguarantee of order and tranquility, and yet nothing is more difficult tocreate. If the municipal bodies were made powerful and independent, the authorities of the nation might be disunited and the peace of thecountry endangered. Yet, without power and independence, a town maycontain good subjects, but it can have no active citizens. Anotherimportant fact is that the township of New England is so constitutedas to excite the warmest of human affections, without arousing theambitious passions of the heart of man. The officers of the country arenot elected, and their authority is very limited. Even the State isonly a second-rate community, whose tranquil and obscure administrationoffers no inducement sufficient to draw men away from the circleof their interests into the turmoil of public affairs. The federalgovernment confers power and honor on the men who conduct it; butthese individuals can never be very numerous. The high station of thePresidency can only be reached at an advanced period of life, and theother federal functionaries are generally men who have been favoredby fortune, or distinguished in some other career. Such cannot be thepermanent aim of the ambitious. But the township serves as a centre forthe desire of public esteem, the want of exciting interests, andthe taste for authority and popularity, in the midst of the ordinaryrelations of life; and the passions which commonly embroil societychange their character when they find a vent so near the domestic hearthand the family circle. 

In the American States power has been disseminated with admirable skillfor the purpose of interesting the greatest possible number of personsin the common weal. Independently of the electors who are from time totime called into action, the body politic is divided into innumerablefunctionaries and officers, who all, in their several spheres, representthe same powerful whole in whose name they act. The local administrationthus affords an unfailing source of profit and interest to a vast numberof individuals. 

The American system, which divides the local authority among so manycitizens, does not scruple to multiply the functions of the townofficers. For in the United States it is believed, and with truth, that patriotism is a kind of devotion which is strengthened by ritualobservance. In this manner the activity of the township is continuallyperceptible; it is daily manifested in the fulfilment of a duty or theexercise of a right, and a constant though gentle motion is thus kept upin society which animates without disturbing it. 

The American attaches himself to his home as the mountaineer clings tohis hills, because the characteristic features of his country are theremore distinctly marked than elsewhere. The existence of the townshipsof New England is in general a happy one. Their government is suitedto their tastes, and chosen by themselves. In the midst of the profoundpeace and general comfort which reign in America the commotions ofmunicipal discord are unfrequent. The conduct of local business is easy. The political education of the people has long been complete; say ratherthat it was complete when the people first set foot upon the soil. InNew England no tradition exists of a distinction of ranks; no portion ofthe community is tempted to oppress the remainder; and the abuses whichmay injure isolated individuals are forgotten in the general contentmentwhich prevails. If the government is defective (and it would no doubtbe easy to point out its deficiencies), the fact that it really emanatesfrom those it governs, and that it acts, either ill or well, caststhe protecting spell of a parental pride over its faults. No term ofcomparison disturbs the satisfaction of the citizen: England formerlygoverned the mass of the colonies, but the people was always sovereignin the township where its rule is not only an ancient but a primitivestate. 

The native of New England is attached to his township because it isindependent and free: his co-operation in its affairs ensures hisattachment to its interest; the well-being it affords him secures hisaffection; and its welfare is the aim of his ambition and of hisfuture exertions: he takes a part in every occurrence in the place; hepractises the art of government in the small sphere within his reach;he accustoms himself to those forms which can alone ensure the steadyprogress of liberty; he imbibes their spirit; he acquires a taste fororder, comprehends the union or the balance of powers, and collectsclear practical notions on the nature of his duties and the extent ofhis rights. 

The Counties Of New England

The division of the countries in America has considerable analogy withthat of the arrondissements of France. The limits of the counties arearbitrarily laid down, and the various districts which they contain haveno necessary connection, no common tradition or natural sympathy; theirobject is simply to facilitate 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 sheriffto execute its decrees, and a prison for criminals. There are certainwants which are felt alike by all the townships of a county; it istherefore natural that they should be satisfied by a central authority. In the State of Massachusetts this authority is vested in the hands ofseveral magistrates, who are appointed by the Governor of the State, with the advice *g of his council. *h The officers of the county haveonly a limited and occasional authority, which is applicable to certainpredetermined cases. The State and the townships possess all the powerrequisite to conduct public business. The budget of the county is drawnup 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. 

[Footnote f: See the Act of February 14, 1821, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. I. P. 551. ]

[Footnote g: See the Act of February 20, 1819, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. Ii. P. 494. ]

[Footnote h: The council of the Governor is an elective body. ] A twofoldtendency may be discerned in the American constitutions, which impelsthe legislator to centralize the legislative and to disperse theexecutive power. The township of New England has in itself anindestructible element of independence; and this distinct existencecould only be fictitiously introduced into the county, where itsutility has not been felt. But all the townships united have butone representation, which is the State, the centre of the nationalauthority: beyond the action of the township and that of the nation, nothing can be said to 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 ofits rights; 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, either in the township or above it--The reason of this--How it happensthat the administration of the State is uniform--Who is empowered toenforce the obedience of the township and the county to the law--Theintroduction of judicial power into the administration--Consequenceof the extension of the elective principle to all functionaries--TheJustice of the Peace in New England--By whom appointed--County officer:ensures the administration 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 Statesthan the absence of what we term the Government, or the Administration. Written laws exist in America, and one sees that they are dailyexecuted; but although everything is in motion, the hand which gives theimpulse to the social machine can nowhere be discovered. Nevertheless, as all peoples are obliged to have recourse to certain grammaticalforms, which are the foundation of human language, in order to expresstheir thoughts; so all communities are obliged to secure their existenceby submitting to a certain dose of authority, without which they fall aprey to anarchy. This authority may be distributed in several ways, butit must always exist somewhere. 

There are two methods of diminishing the force of authority in a nation:The first is to weaken the supreme power in its very principle, byforbidding or preventing society from acting in its own defence undercertain circumstances. To weaken authority in this manner is what isgenerally termed in Europe to lay the foundations of freedom. The secondmanner of diminishing the influence of authority does not consist instripping society of any of its rights, nor in paralyzing its efforts, but in distributing the exercise of its privileges in various hands, and in multiplying functionaries, to each of whom the degree of powernecessary for him to perform his duty is entrusted. There may be nationswhom this distribution of social powers might lead to anarchy; but initself it is not anarchical. The action of authority is indeed thusrendered less irresistible and less perilous, but it is not totallysuppressed. 

The revolution of the United States was the result of a mature anddignified taste for freedom, and not of a vague or ill-defined cravingfor independence. It contracted no alliance with the turbulent passionsof anarchy; but its course was marked, on the contrary, by an attachmentto whatever was lawful and orderly. 

It was never assumed in the United States that the citizen of a freecountry has a right to do whatever he pleases; on the contrary, socialobligations were there imposed upon him more various than anywhereelse. No idea was ever entertained of attacking the principles or ofcontesting the rights of society; but the exercise of its authority wasdivided, to the end that the office might be powerful and the officerinsignificant, and that the community should be at once regulatedand free. In no country in the world does the law hold so absolute alanguage as in America, and in no country is the right of applying itvested in so many hands. The administrative power in the United Statespresents nothing either central or hierarchical in its constitution, which accounts for its passing, unperceived. The power exists, but itsrepresentative is not to be perceived. 

We have already seen that the independent townships of New Englandprotect their own private interests; and the municipal magistratesare the persons to whom the execution of the laws of the State is mostfrequently entrusted. *i Besides the general laws, the State sometimespasses general police regulations; but more commonly the townships andtown officers, conjointly with justices of the peace, regulate the minordetails of social life, according to the necessities of the differentlocalities, and promulgate such enactments as concern the health of thecommunity, and the peace as well as morality of the citizens. *j Lastly, these municipal magistrates provide, of their own accord and withoutany delegated powers, for those unforeseen emergencies which frequentlyoccur in society. *k

[Footnote i: See "The Town-Officer, " especially at the words Selectmen, Assessors, Collectors, Schools, Surveyors of Highways. I take oneexample in a thousand: the State prohibits travelling on the Sunday; thetything-men, who are town-officers, are specially charged to keep watchand 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 theGovernor, and transmit the result of the ballot to the Secretary of theState. See Act of February 24, 1796: Id. , vol. I. P. 488. ]

[Footnote j: Thus, for instance, the selectmen authorize theconstruction of drains, point out the proper sites for slaughter-housesand other trades which are a nuisance to the neighborhood. See the Actof June 7, 1785: Id. , vol. I. P. 193. ]

[Footnote k: The selectmen take measures for the security of the publicin case of contagious diseases, conjointly with the justices of thepeace. See Act of June 22, 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 but that it is distributed among a great number of individuals. In the French commune there is properly but one official functionary, namely, the Maire; and in New England we have seen that there arenineteen. These nineteen functionaries do not in general depend uponone another. The law carefully prescribes a circle of action to each ofthese magistrates; and within that circle they have an entire right toperform their functions independently of any other authority. Above thetownship scarcely any trace of a series of official dignitaries is to befound. It sometimes happens that the county officers alter a decision ofthe townships or town magistrates, *m but in general the authoritiesof the county have no right to interfere with the authorities of thetownship, *n except in such matters as concern the county. 

[Footnote l: I say almost, for there are various circumstances in theannals of a township which are regulated by the justice of the peace inhis individual capacity, or by the justices of the peace assembled inthe chief town of the county; thus licenses are granted by the justices. See the Act of February 28, 1787, vol. I. P. 297. ]

[Footnote m: Thus licenses are only granted to such persons as canproduce a certificate of good conduct from the selectmen. If theselectmen refuse to give the certificate, the party may appeal to thejustices assembled in the Court of Sessions, and they may grant thelicense. See Act of March 12, 1808, vol. Ii. P. 186. 

The townships have the right to make by-laws, and to enforce them byfines which are fixed by law; but these by-laws must be approved by theCourt of Sessions. See Act of March 23, 1786, vol. I. P. 254. ]

[Footnote n: In Massachusetts the county magistrates are frequentlycalled upon to investigate the acts of the town magistrates; but it willbe shown further on that this investigation is a consequence, not oftheir administrative, but of their judicial power. ]

The magistrates of the township, as well as those of the county, arebound to communicate their acts to the central government in a verysmall number of predetermined cases. *o But the central government isnot represented by an individual whose business it is to publish policeregulations and ordinances enforcing the execution of the laws; to keepup a regular communication with the officers of the township andthe county; to inspect their conduct, to direct their actions, or toreprimand their faults. There is no point which serves as a centre tothe radii of the administration. 

[Footnote o: The town committees of schools are obliged to make anannual report to the Secretary of the State on the condition of theschool. See Act of March 10, 1827, vol. Iii. P. 183. ]

Chapter V: Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States--Part II

What, then, is the uniform plan on which the government is conducted, and how is the compliance of the counties and their magistrates or thetownships and their officers enforced? In the States of New England thelegislative authority embraces more subjects than it does in France; thelegislator penetrates to the very core of the administration; the lawdescends to the most minute details; the same enactment prescribesthe principle and the method of its application, and thus imposes amultitude of strict and rigorously defined obligations on the secondaryfunctionaries of the State. The consequence of this is that if allthe 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, ingeneral, society has only two methods of enforcing the execution ofthe laws at its disposal: a discretionary power may be entrusted to asuperior functionary of directing all the others, and of cashiering themin case of disobedience; or the courts of justice may be authorized toinflict judicial penalties on the offender: but these two methods arenot always available. 

The right of directing a civil officer presupposes that of cashieringhim if he does not obey orders, and of rewarding him by promotion if hefulfils his duties with propriety. But an elected magistrate can neitherbe cashiered nor promoted. All elective functions are inalienable untiltheir term is expired. In fact, the elected magistrate has nothingeither to expect or to fear from his constituents; and when allpublic offices are filled by ballot there can be no series of officialdignities, because the double right of commanding and of enforcingobedience 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 ofthe government are elected are perforce obliged to make great use ofjudicial penalties as a means of administration. This is not evident atfirst sight; for those in power are apt to look upon the institutionof elective functionaries as one concession, and the subjection ofthe elected magistrate to the judges of the land as another. Theyare equally averse to both these innovations; and as they are morepressingly solicited to grant the former than the latter, they accedeto the election of the magistrate, and leave him independent of thejudicial power. Nevertheless, the second of these measures is the onlything that can possibly counterbalance the first; and it will be foundthat an elective authority which is not subject to judicial power will, sooner or later, either elude all control or be destroyed. The courts ofjustice are the only possible medium between the central power and theadministrative bodies; they alone can compel the elected functionaryto obey, without violating the rights of the elector. The extension ofjudicial power in the political world ought therefore to be in the exactratio of the extension of elective offices: if these two institutionsdo not go hand in hand, the State must fall into anarchy or intosubjection. 

It has always been remarked that habits of legal business do not rendermen apt to the exercise of administrative authority. The Americans haveborrowed from the English, their fathers, the idea of an institutionwhich is unknown upon the continent of Europe: I allude to that ofthe Justices of the Peace. The Justice of the Peace is a sort of mezzotermine between the magistrate and the man of the world, between thecivil officer and the judge. A justice of the peace is a well-informedcitizen, though he is not necessarily versed in the knowledge of thelaws. His office simply obliges him to execute the police regulations ofsociety; a task in which good sense and integrity are of more avail thanlegal science. The justice introduces into the administration a certaintaste 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 membersof a government. The Americans have adopted the system of the Englishjustices of the peace, but they have deprived it of that aristocraticcharacter which is discernible in the mother-country. The Governor ofMassachusetts *p appoints a certain number of justices of the peace inevery county, whose functions last seven years. *q He further designatesthree individuals from amongst the whole body of justices who form ineach county what is called the Court of Sessions. The justices take apersonal share in public business; they are sometimes entrusted withadministrative functions in conjunction with elected officers, *r theysometimes constitute a tribunal, before which the magistrates summarilyprosecute a refractory citizen, or the citizens inform against theabuses of the magistrate. But it is in the Court of Sessions that theyexercise their most important functions. This court meets twice a yearin the county town; in Massachusetts it is empowered to enforce theobedience of the greater number *s of public officers. *t It must beobserved, that in the State of Massachusetts the Court of Sessions isat the same time an administrative body, properly so called, and apolitical tribunal. It has been asserted that the county is a purelyadministrative 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 ofthem in particular. *u In all that concerns county business the dutiesof the Court of Sessions are purely administrative; and if in itsinvestigations it occasionally borrows the forms of judicial procedure, it is only with a view to its own information, *v or as a guarantee tothe community over which it presides. But when the administration of thetownship is brought before it, it always acts as a judicial body, and insome few cases as an official assembly. 

[Footnote p: We shall hereafter learn what a Governor is: I shallcontent myself with remarking in this place that he represents theexecutive power of the whole State. ]

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

[Footnote r: Thus, for example, a stranger arrives in a township froma country where a contagious disease prevails, and he falls ill. Twojustices of the peace can, with the assent of the selectmen, order thesheriff of the county to remove and take 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: Isay the greater number, because certain administrative misdemeanors arebrought before ordinary tribunals. If, for instance, a townshiprefuses to make the necessary expenditure for its schools or to namea school-committee, it is liable to a heavy fine. But this penalty ispronounced by the Supreme Judicial Court or the Court of Common Pleas. See Act of March 10, 1827, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. Iii. P. 190. Orwhen a township neglects to provide the necessary war-stores. --Act ofFebruary 21, 1822: Id. , vol. Ii. P. 570. ]

[Footnote t: In their individual capacity the justices of the peacetake a part in the business of the counties and townships. ] [Footnote u:These affairs may be brought under the following heads:--1. The erectionof prisons and courts of justice. 2. The county budget, which isafterwards voted by the State. 3. The distribution of the taxes sovoted. 4. Grants of certain patents. 5. The laying down and repairs ofthe country roads. ]

[Footnote v: Thus, when a road is under consideration, almost alldifficulties are disposed of by the aid of the jury. ]

The first difficulty is to procure the obedience of an authority asentirely independent of the general laws of the State as thetownship is. We have stated that assessors are annually named by thetown-meetings to levy the taxes. If a township attempts to evade thepayment of the taxes by neglecting to name its assessors, the Court ofSessions condemns it to a heavy penalty. *w The fine is levied on eachof the inhabitants; and the sheriff of the county, who is the officer ofjustice, executes the mandate. Thus it is that in the United States theauthority of the Government is mysteriously concealed under the forms ofa judicial sentence; and its influence is at the same time fortified bythat irresistible power with which men have invested the formalities oflaw. 

[Footnote w: See Act of February 20, 1786, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. I. P. 217. ]

These proceedings are easy to follow and to understand. The demandsmade upon a township are in general plain and accurately defined; theyconsist in a simple fact without any complication, or in a principlewithout its application in detail. *x But the difficulty increases whenit is not the obedience of the township, but that of the town officerswhich is to be enforced. All the reprehensible actions of which a publicfunctionary may be guilty are reducible to the following heads:

[Footnote x: There is an indirect method of enforcing the obedience ofa township. Suppose that the funds which the law demands for themaintenance of the roads have not been voted, the town surveyor isthen authorized, ex officio, to levy the supplies. As he is personallyresponsible to private individuals for the state of the roads, andindictable before the Court of Sessions, he is sure to employ theextraordinary right which the law gives him against the township. Thusby threatening the officer the Court of Sessions exacts compliance fromthe 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 ofa tribunal; a positive and appreciable fact is the indispensablefoundation of an action at law. Thus, if the selectmen omit to fulfilthe legal formalities usual at town elections, they may be condemnedto pay a fine; *y but when the public officer performs his duty withoutability, and when he obeys the letter of the law without zeal or energy, he is at least beyond the reach of judicial interference. The Court ofSessions, even when it is invested with its official powers, is in thiscase unable to compel him to a more satisfactory obedience. The fear ofremoval is the only check to these quasi-offences; and as the Courtof Sessions does not originate the town authorities, it cannotremove functionaries whom it does not appoint. Moreover, a perpetualinvestigation would be necessary to convict the officer of negligence orlukewarmness; and the Court of Sessions sits but twice a year and thenonly judges such offences as are brought before its notice. The onlysecurity of that active and enlightened obedience which a court ofjustice cannot impose upon public officers lies in the possibility oftheir arbitrary removal. In France this security is sought for in powersexercised by the heads of the administration; in America it is soughtfor in the principle of election. 

[Footnote y: Laws of Massachusetts, vol. Ii. P. 45. ]

Thus, to recapitulate in a few words what I have been showing: If apublic officer in New England commits a crime in the exercise of hisfunctions, the ordinary courts of justice are always called upon to passsentence upon him. If he commits a fault in his official capacity, apurely administrative tribunal is empowered to punish him; and, if theaffair is important or urgent, the judge supplies the omission of thefunctionary. *z Lastly, if the same individual is guilty of one ofthose intangible offences of which human justice has no cognizance, heannually appears before a tribunal from which there is no appeal, whichcan at once reduce him to insignificance and deprive him of his charge. This system undoubtedly possesses great advantages, but its execution isattended with a practical difficulty which it is important to point out. 

[Footnote z: If, for instance, a township persists in refusing to nameits assessors, the Court of Sessions nominates them; and the magistratesthus appointed are invested with the same authority as elected officers. See the Act quoted above, February 20, 1787. ]

I have already observed that the administrative tribunal, which iscalled the Court of Sessions, has no right of inspection over the townofficers. It can only interfere when the conduct of a magistrate isspecially brought under its notice; and this is the delicate part of thesystem. The Americans of New England are unacquainted with the officeof public prosecutor in the Court of Sessions, *a and it may readily beperceived that it could not have been established without difficulty. If an accusing magistrate had merely been appointed in the chief town ofeach county, and if he had been unassisted by agents in the townships, he would not have been better acquainted with what was going on in thecounty than the members of the Court of Sessions. But to appoint agentsin each township would have been to centre in his person the mostformidable of powers, that of a judicial administration. Moreover, laws are the children of habit, and nothing of the kind exists in thelegislation of England. The Americans have therefore divided the officesof inspection and of prosecution, as well as all the other functionsof the administration. Grand jurors are bound by the law to apprise thecourt to which they belong of all the misdemeanors which may have beencommitted in their county. *b There are certain great offences which areofficially prosecuted by the States; *c but more frequently the task ofpunishing delinquents devolves upon the fiscal officer, whose provinceit is to receive the fine: thus the treasurer of the township is chargedwith the prosecution of such administrative offences as fall under hisnotice. But a more special appeal is made by American legislation tothe private interest of the citizen; *d and this great principle isconstantly to be met with in studying the laws of the United States. American legislators are more apt to give men credit for intelligencethan for honesty, and they rely not a little on personal cupidity forthe execution of the laws. When an individual is really and sensiblyinjured by an administrative abuse, it is natural that his personalinterest should induce him to prosecute. But if a legal formality berequired, which, however advantageous to the community, is of smallimportance to individuals, plaintiffs may be less easily found; andthus, by a tacit agreement, the laws may fall into disuse. Reduced bytheir system to this extremity, the Americans are obliged to encourageinformers by bestowing on them a portion of the penalty in certaincases, *e and to insure the execution of the laws by the dangerousexpedient of degrading the morals of the people. The only administrativeauthority above the county magistrates is, properly speaking, that ofthe Government. 

[Footnote a: I say the Court of Sessions, because in common courtsthere is a magistrate who exercises some of the functions of a publicprosecutor. ]

[Footnote b: The grand-jurors are, for instance, bound to inform thecourt of the bad state of the roads. --Laws of Massachusetts, vol. I. P. 308. ]

[Footnote c: If, for instance, the treasurer of the county holds backhis accounts. --Laws of Massachusetts, vol. I. P. 406. ] [Footnote d:Thus, if a private individual breaks down or is wounded in consequenceof the badness of a road, he can sue the township or the county fordamages at the sessions. --Laws of Massachusetts, vol. I. P. 309. ]

[Footnote e: In cases of invasion or insurrection, if the town-officersneglect to furnish the necessary stores and ammunition for the militia, the township may be condemned to a fine of from $200 to $500. It mayreadily be imagined that in such a case it might happen that no onecared to prosecute; hence the law adds that all the citizens may indictoffences of this kind, and that half of the fine shall belong to theplaintiff. See Act of March 6, 1810, vol. Ii. P. 236. The same clauseis frequently to be met with in the law of Massachusetts. Not only areprivate individuals thus incited to prosecute the public officers, but the public officers are encouraged in the same manner to bring thedisobedience of private individuals to justice. If a citizen refuses toperform the work which has been assigned to him upon a road, theroad surveyor may prosecute him, and he receives half the penalty forhimself. See the Laws above quoted, vol. I. P. 308. ]

General Remarks On The Administration Of The United States Differencesof the States of the Union in their system of administration--Activityand perfection of the local authorities decrease towards theSouth--Power of the magistrate increases; that of the electordiminishes--Administration passes from the township to thecounty--States of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania--Principles ofadministration applicable to the whole Union--Election of publicofficers, and inalienability of their functions--Absence of gradation ofranks--Introduction of judicial resources into the administration. 

I have already premised that, after having examined the constitution ofthe township and the county of New England in detail, I should takea general view of the remainder of the Union. Townships and a localactivity exist in every State; but in no part of the confederation is atownship to be met with precisely similar to those of New England. Themore we descend towards the South, the less active does the business ofthe township or parish become; the number of magistrates, of functions, and of rights decreases; the population exercises a less immediateinfluence on affairs; town meetings are less frequent, and the subjectsof debate less numerous. The power of the elected magistrate isaugmented and that of the elector diminished, whilst the public spiritof the local communities is less awakened and less influential. *f Thesedifferences may be perceived to a certain extent in the State of NewYork; they are very sensible in Pennsylvania; but they become lessstriking as we advance to the northwest. The majority of the emigrantswho settle in the northwestern States are natives of New England, andthey carry the habits of their mother country with them into that whichthey adopt. A township in Ohio is by no means dissimilar from a townshipin Massachusetts. 

[Footnote f: For details see the Revised Statutes of the State of NewYork, part i. Chap. Xi. Vol. I. Pp. 336-364, entitled, "Of the Powers, Duties, and Privileges of 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 a general nature of the State of Ohio, the Act ofFebruary 25, 1834, relating to townships, p. 412; besides the peculiardispositions relating to divers town-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 publicadministration lies in the township. It forms the common centre of theinterests and affections of the citizens. But this ceases to be the caseas we descend to States in which knowledge is less generally diffused, and where the township consequently offers fewer guarantees of a wiseand active administration. As we leave New England, therefore, we findthat the importance of the town is gradually transferred to the county, which becomes the centre of administration, and the intermediate powerbetween the Government and the citizen. In Massachusetts the business ofthe county is conducted by the Court of Sessions, which is composed ofa 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 inthose of Ohio and Pennsylvania, the inhabitants of each county choosea certain number of representatives, who constitute the assembly of thecounty. *g The county assembly has the right of taxing the inhabitantsto a certain extent; and in this respect it enjoys the privileges of areal legislative body: at the same time it exercises an executive powerin the county, frequently directs the administration of the townships, and restricts their authority within much narrower bounds than inMassachusetts. 

[Footnote 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 ofthe State of Ohio, an act relating to county commissioners, February 25, 1824, p. 263. See the Digest of the Laws of Pennsylvania, at the wordsCounty-rates and Levies, p. 170. In the State of New York each townshipelects a representative, who has a share in the administration of thecounty 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 toexamine the provisions of American law minutely, I should have to pointout still further differences in the executive details of the severalcommunities. But what I have already said may suffice to show thegeneral principles on which the administration of the United Statesrests. These principles are differently applied; their consequencesare more or less numerous in various localities; but they are alwayssubstantially the same. The laws differ, and their outward featureschange, but their character does not vary. If the township and thecounty are not everywhere constituted in the same manner, it is at leasttrue that in the United States the county and the township are alwaysbased upon the same principle, namely, that everyone is the best judgeof what concerns himself alone, and the most proper person to supply hisprivate wants. The township and the county are therefore bound to takecare of their special interests: the State governs, but it does notinterfere with their administration. Exceptions to this rule may be metwith, but not a contrary principle. 

The first consequence of this doctrine has been to cause all themagistrates to be chosen either by or at least from amongst thecitizens. As the officers are everywhere elected or appointed for acertain period, it has been impossible to establish the rules of adependent series of authorities; there are almost as many independentfunctionaries as there are functions, and the executive power isdisseminated 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 thesecondary bodies and their representatives are constrained to obey thelaws. This system obtains from one end of the Union to the other. Thepower of punishing the misconduct of public officers, or of performingthe part of the executive in urgent cases, has not, however, beenbestowed on the same judges in all the States. The Anglo-Americansderived the institution of justices of the peace from a common source;but although it exists in all the States, it is not always turned tothe same use. The justices of the peace everywhere participate in theadministration of the townships and the counties, *h either as publicofficers or as the judges of public misdemeanors, but in most of theStates the more important classes of public offences come under thecognizance of the ordinary tribunals. 

[Footnote h: In some of the Southern States the county courts arecharged with all the details of the administration. See the Statutes ofthe State of Tennessee, arts. Judiciary, Taxes, etc. ]

The election of public officers, or the inalienability of theirfunctions, the absence of a gradation of powers, and the introductionof a judicial control over the secondary branches of the administration, are the universal characteristics of the American system from Maine tothe Floridas. In some States (and that of New York has advanced mostin this direction) traces of a centralized administration begin tobe discernible. In the State of New York the officers of the centralgovernment exercise, in certain cases, a sort of inspection or controlover the secondary bodies. *i

[Footnote i: For instance, the direction of public instruction centresin the hands of the Government. The legislature names the members ofthe University, who are denominated Regents; the Governorand Lieutentant-Governor of the State are necessarily of thenumber. --Revised Statutes, vol. I. P. 455. The Regents of the Universityannually visit the colleges and academies, and make their report tothe legislature. Their superintendence is not inefficient, for severalreasons: the colleges in order to become corporations stand in need ofa charter, which is only granted on the recommendation of the Regents;every year funds are distributed by the State for the encouragement oflearning, and the 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 ofaffairs. *j In the State of New York judicial penalties are less usedthan in other parts as a means of administration, and the right ofprosecuting the offences of public officers is vested in fewer hands. *kThe same tendency is faintly observable in some other States; *l but ingeneral the prominent feature of the administration in the United Statesis its excessive local independence. 

[Footnote j: If any one conceives himself to be wronged by theschool-commissioners (who are town-officers), he can appeal to thesuperintendent of the primary schools, whose decision is final. --RevisedStatutes, vol. I. P. 487. 

Provisions similar to those above cited are to be met with from time totime in the laws of the State of New York; but in general these attemptsat centralization are weak and unproductive. The great authorities ofthe State have the right of watching and controlling the subordinateagents, without that of rewarding or punishing them. The same individualis never empowered to give an order and to punish disobedience; hehas therefore the right of commanding, without the means of exactingcompliance. In 1830 the Superintendent of Schools complained inhis Annual Report addressed to the legislature that severalschool-commissioners had neglected, notwithstanding his application, to furnish him with the accounts which were due. He added that if thisomission continued he should be obliged to prosecute them, as the lawdirects, before the proper tribunals. ]

[Footnote k: Thus the district-attorney is directed to recover all finesbelow the sum of fifty dollars, unless such a right has been speciallyawarded to another magistrate. --Revised Statutes, vol. I. P. 383. ]

[Footnote l: Several traces of centralization may be discovered inMassachusetts; for instance, the committees of the town-schools aredirected to make an annual report to the Secretary of State. See Laws ofMassachusetts, vol. I. P. 367. ]

Of The State

I have described the townships and the administration; it now remainsfor me to speak of the State and the Government. This is ground I maypass over rapidly, without fear of being misunderstood; for all I haveto say is to be found in written forms of the various constitutions, which are easily to be procured. These constitutions rest upon a simpleand rational theory; their forms have been adopted by all constitutionalnations, and are become familiar to us. In this place, therefore, itis only necessary for me to give a short analysis; I shall endeavorafterwards to pass judgment upon what I now describe. 

Chapter V: Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States--Part III

Legislative Power Of 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, thefirst of which generally bears the name of the Senate. The Senate iscommonly a legislative body; but it sometimes becomes an executiveand judicial one. It takes a part in the government in several ways, according to the constitution of the different States; *m but it is inthe nomination of public functionaries that it most commonly assumes anexecutive power. It partakes of judicial power in the trial of certainpolitical offences, and sometimes also in the decision of certain civilcases. *n The number of its members is always small. The other branch ofthe legislature, which is usually called the House of Representatives, has no share whatever in the administration, and only takes a part inthe judicial power inasmuch as it impeaches public functionaries beforethe Senate. The members of the two Houses are nearly everywhere subjectto the same conditions of election. They are chosen in the same manner, and by the same citizens. The only difference which exists between themis, that the term for which the Senate is chosen is in general longerthan that of the House of Representatives. The latter seldom remain inoffice longer than a year; the former usually sit two or three years. By granting to the senators the privilege of being chosen for severalyears, and being renewed seriatim, the law takes care to preserve in thelegislative body a nucleus of men already accustomed to public business, and capable of exercising a salutary influence upon the junior members. 

[Footnote m: In Massachusetts the Senate is not invested with anyadministrative functions. ]

[Footnote n: As in the State of New York. ]

The Americans, plainly, did not desire, by this separation of thelegislative body into two branches, to make one house hereditary and theother elective; one aristocratic and the other democratic. It was nottheir object to create in the one a bulwark to power, whilst theother represented the interests and passions of the people. The onlyadvantages which result from the present constitution of the UnitedStates are the division of the legislative power and the consequentcheck upon political assemblies; with the creation of a tribunal ofappeal for the revision of the laws. 

Time and experience, however, have convinced the Americans that if theseare its only advantages, the division of the legislative power is stilla principle of the greatest necessity. Pennsylvania was the only one ofthe United States which at first attempted to establish a singleHouse of Assembly, and Franklin himself was so far carried away by thenecessary consequences of the principle of the sovereignty of the peopleas to have concurred in the measure; but the Pennsylvanians were soonobliged to change the law, and to create two Houses. Thus the principleof the division of the legislative power was finally established, andits necessity may henceforward be regarded as a demonstrated truth. Thistheory, which was nearly unknown to the republics of antiquity--whichwas introduced into the world almost by accident, like so many othergreat truths--and misunderstood by several modern nations, is at lengthbecome 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 inrelation to the Legislature--His rights and his duties--His dependenceon the people. 

The executive power of the State may with truth be said to berepresented by the Governor, although he enjoys but a portion of itsrights. The supreme magistrate, under the title of Governor, is theofficial moderator and counsellor of the legislature. He is armed witha veto or suspensive power, which allows him to stop, or at least toretard, its movements at pleasure. He lays the wants of the countrybefore the legislative body, and points out the means which he thinksmay be usefully employed in providing for them; he is the naturalexecutor of its decrees in all the undertakings which interest thenation at large. *o In the absence of the legislature, the Governor isbound to take all necessary steps to guard the State against violentshocks and unforeseen dangers. The whole military power of the State isat the disposal of the Governor. He is the commander of the militia, andhead of the armed force. When the authority, which is by general consentawarded to the laws, is disregarded, the Governor puts himself atthe head of the armed force of the State, to quell resistance, and torestore order. Lastly, the Governor takes no share in the administrationof townships and counties, except it be indirectly in the nomination ofJustices of the Peace, which nomination he has not the power to cancel. *p The Governor is an elected magistrate, and is generally chosenfor one or two years only; so that he always continues to be strictlydependent upon the majority who returned him. 

[Footnote o: Practically speaking, it is not always the Governor whoexecutes the plans of the Legislature; it often happens that the latter, in voting a measure, names special agents to superintend the executionof it. ]

[Footnote p: In some of the States the justices of the peace are notelected by the Governor. ]

Political Effects Of The System Of Local Administration In The UnitedStates

Necessary distinction between the general centralization of Governmentand the centralization of the local administration--Local administrationnot centralized in the United States: great general centralization ofthe Government--Some bad consequences resulting to the United Statesfrom the local administration--Administrative advantages attendingthis order of things--The power which conducts the Government is lessregular, less enlightened, less learned, but much greater than inEurope--Political advantages of this order of things--In the UnitedStates the interests of the country are everywhere kept in view--Supportgiven to the Government by the community--Provincial institutionsmore necessary in proportion as the social condition becomes moredemocratic--Reason of this. 

Centralization is become a word of general and daily use, without anyprecise meaning being attached to it. Nevertheless, there exist twodistinct kinds of centralization, which it is necessary to discriminatewith accuracy. Certain interests are common to all parts of a nation, such as the enactment of its general laws and the maintenance of itsforeign relations. Other interests are peculiar to certain parts of thenation; such, for instance, as the business of different townships. Whenthe power which directs the general interests is centred in one place, or vested in the same persons, it constitutes a central government. In like manner the power of directing partial or local interests, when brought together into one place, constitutes what may be termed acentral administration. 

Upon some points these two kinds of centralization coalesce; but byclassifying the objects which fall more particularly within the provinceof each of them, they may easily be distinguished. It is evident that acentral government acquires immense power when united to administrativecentralization. Thus combined, it accustoms men to set their own willhabitually and completely aside; to submit, not only for once, or uponone point, but in every respect, and at all times. Not only, therefore, does this union of power subdue them compulsorily, but it affects themin the ordinary habits of life, and influences each individual, firstseparately and then collectively. 

These two kinds of centralization mutually assist and attract eachother; but they must not be supposed to be inseparable. It is impossibleto imagine a more completely central government than that which existedin France under Louis XIV. ; when the same individual was the author andthe interpreter of the laws, and the representative of France at homeand abroad, he was justified in asserting that the State was identifiedwith his person. Nevertheless, the administration was much lesscentralized under Louis XIV. Than it is at the present day. 

In England the centralization of the government is carried to greatperfection; the State has the compact vigor of a man, and by thesole act of its will it puts immense engines in motion, and wields orcollects the efforts of its authority. Indeed, I cannot conceive thata nation can enjoy a secure or prosperous existence without a powerfulcentralization of government. But I am of opinion that a centraladministration enervates the nations in which it exists by incessantlydiminishing their public spirit. If such an administration succeedsin condensing at a given moment, on a given point, all the disposableresources of a people, it impairs at least the renewal of thoseresources. It may ensure a victory in the hour of strife, but itgradually relaxes the sinews of strength. It may contribute admirablyto the transient greatness of a man, but it cannot ensure the durableprosperity of a nation. 

If we pay proper attention, we shall find that whenever it is saidthat a State cannot act because it has no central point, it is thecentralization of the government in which it is deficient. It isfrequently asserted, and we are prepared to assent to the proposition, that the German empire was never able to bring all its powers intoaction. But the reason was, that the State was never able to enforceobedience to its general laws, because the several members of that greatbody 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, becausethere was no centralization of government. The same remark is applicableto the Middle Ages; the cause of all the confusion of feudal societywas that the control, not only of local but of general interests, wasdivided amongst a thousand hands, and broken up in a thousand differentways; the absence of a central government prevented the nations ofEurope from advancing with energy in 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 withoutgreat inconvenience, and which has even produced some disadvantageousconsequences in America. But in the United States the centralizationof the Government is complete; and it would be easy to prove that thenational power is more compact than it has ever been in the old nationsof Europe. Not only is there but one legislative body in each State;not only does there exist but one source of political authority;but district assemblies and county courts have not in general beenmultiplied, lest they should be tempted to exceed their administrativeduties, and interfere with the Government. In America the legislatureof each State is supreme; nothing can impede its authority; neitherprivileges, nor local immunities, nor personal influence, nor even theempire of reason, since it represents that majority which claims to bethe sole organ of reason. Its own determination is, therefore, the onlylimit to this action. In juxtaposition to it, and under its immediatecontrol, is the representative of the executive power, whose duty itis to constrain the refractory to submit by superior force. The onlysymptom of weakness lies in certain details of the action of theGovernment. The American republics have no standing armies to intimidatea discontented minority; but as no minority has as yet been reduced todeclare open war, the necessity of an army has not been felt. *q TheState usually employs the officers of the township or the county todeal with the citizens. Thus, for instance, in New England, the assessorfixes the rate of taxes; the collector receives them; the town-treasurertransmits the amount to the public treasury; and the disputes which mayarise are brought before the ordinary courts of justice. This method ofcollecting taxes is slow as well as inconvenient, and it would prove aperpetual hindrance to a Government whose pecuniary demands were large. It is desirable that, in whatever materially affects its existence, theGovernment should be served by officers of its own, appointed by itself, removable at pleasure, and accustomed to rapid methods of proceeding. But it will always be easy for the central government, organized as itis in America, to introduce new and more efficacious modes of action, proportioned to its wants. [Footnote q: [The Civil War of 1860-65cruelly belied this statement, and in the course of the struggle theNorth alone called two millions and a half of men to arms; but to thehonor of the United States it must be added that, with the cessationof the contest, this army disappeared as rapidly as it had beenraised. --Translator's Note. ]]

The absence of a central government will not, then, as has often beenasserted, prove the destruction of the republics of the New World;far from supposing that the American governments are not sufficientlycentralized, I shall prove hereafter that they are too much so. Thelegislative bodies daily encroach upon the authority of the Government, and their tendency, like that of the French Convention, is toappropriate it entirely to themselves. Under these circumstances thesocial power is constantly changing hands, because it is subordinate tothe power of the people, which is too apt to forget the maxims of wisdomand of foresight in the consciousness of its strength: hence arises itsdanger; 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 soundpolicy in isolating the administration of the Government; for order, even in second-rate affairs, is a matter of national importance. *r Asthe State has no administrative functionaries of its own, stationed ondifferent points of its territory, to whom it can give a common impulse, the consequence is that it rarely attempts to issue any general policeregulations. The want of these regulations is severely felt, and isfrequently observed by Europeans. The appearance of disorder whichprevails on the surface leads him at first to imagine that society isin a state of anarchy; nor does he perceive his mistake till he has gonedeeper into the subject. Certain undertakings are of importance to thewhole State; but they cannot be put in execution, because there is nonational administration to direct them. Abandoned to the exertions ofthe towns or counties, under the care of elected or temporary agents, they lead to no result, or at least to no durable benefit. 

[Footnote r: The authority which represents the State ought not, Ithink, to waive the right of inspecting the local administration, evenwhen it does not interfere more actively. Suppose, for instance, thatan agent of the Government was stationed at some appointed spot in thecountry, to prosecute the misdemeanors of the town and county officers, would not a more uniform order be the result, without in any waycompromising the independence of the township? Nothing of the kind, however, exists in America: there is nothing above the county-courts, which have, as it were, only an incidental cognizance of the offencesthey are meant to repress. ]

The partisans of centralization in Europe are wont to maintain that theGovernment directs the affairs of each locality better than the citizenscould do it for themselves; this may be true when the central power isenlightened, and when the local districts are ignorant; when it is asalert as they are slow; when it is accustomed to act, and they to obey. Indeed, it is evident that this double tendency must augment with theincrease of centralization, and that the readiness of the one and theincapacity of the others must become more and more prominent. But I denythat such is the case when the people is as enlightened, as awake to itsinterests, and as accustomed to reflect on them, as the Americans are. Iam persuaded, on the contrary, that in this case the collective strengthof the citizens will always conduce more efficaciously to the publicwelfare than the authority of the Government. It is difficult to pointout with certainty the means of arousing a sleeping population, and ofgiving it passions and knowledge which it does not possess; it is, Iam well aware, an arduous task to persuade men to busy themselves abouttheir own affairs; and it would frequently be easier to interest themin the punctilios of court etiquette than in the repairs of their commondwelling. But whenever a central administration affects to supersedethe persons most interested, I am inclined to suppose that it is eithermisled or desirous to mislead. However enlightened and however skilful acentral power may be, it cannot of itself embrace all the details of theexistence of a great nation. Such vigilance exceeds the powers of man. And when it attempts to create and set in motion so many complicatedsprings, it must submit to a very imperfect result, or consume itself inbootless efforts. 

Centralization succeeds more easily, indeed, in subjecting the externalactions of men to a certain uniformity, which at least commands ourregard, independently of the objects to which it is applied, like thosedevotees who worship the statue and forget the deity it represents. Centralization imparts without difficulty an admirable regularity to theroutine of business; provides for the details of the social policewith sagacity; represses the smallest disorder and the most pettymisdemeanors; maintains society in a status quo alike secure fromimprovement and decline; and perpetuates a drowsy precision in theconduct of affairs, which is hailed by the heads of the administrationas a sign of perfect order and public tranquillity: *s in short, itexcels more in prevention than in action. Its force deserts it whensociety is to be disturbed or accelerated in its course; and if once theco-operation of private citizens is necessary to the furtherance ofits measures, the secret of its impotence is disclosed. Even whilst itinvokes their assistance, it is on the condition that they shall actexactly as much as the Government chooses, and exactly in the manner itappoints. They are to take charge of the details, without aspiring toguide the system; they are to work in a dark and subordinate sphere, andonly to judge the acts in which they have themselves cooperated by theirresults. These, however, are not conditions on which the alliance ofthe human will is to be obtained; its carriage must be free and itsactions responsible, or (such is the constitution of man) the citizenhad rather remain a passive spectator than a dependent actor in schemeswith which he is unacquainted. 

[Footnote s: China appears to me to present the most perfect instance ofthat species of well-being which a completely central administration mayfurnish to the nations among which it exists. Travellers assure us thatthe Chinese have peace without happiness, industry without improvement, stability without strength, and public order without public morality. The condition of society is always tolerable, never excellent. I amconvinced that, when China is opened to European observation, it willbe found to contain the most perfect model of a central administrationwhich exists in the universe. ]

It is undeniable that the want of those uniform regulations whichcontrol the conduct of every inhabitant of France is not unfrequentlyfelt in the United States. Gross instances of social indifference andneglect are to be met with, and from time to time disgraceful blemishesare seen in complete contrast with the surrounding civilization. Usefulundertakings which cannot succeed without perpetual attention andrigorous exactitude are very frequently abandoned in the end; for inAmerica, as well as in other countries, the people is subject to suddenimpulses and momentary exertions. The European who is accustomed to finda functionary always at hand to interfere with all he undertakes hassome difficulty in accustoming himself to the complex mechanism of theadministration of the townships. In general it may be affirmed that thelesser details of the police, which render life easy and comfortable, are neglected in America; but that the essential guarantees of man insociety are as strong there as elsewhere. In America the power whichconducts the Government is far less regular, less enlightened, and lesslearned, but an hundredfold more authoritative than in Europe. In nocountry in the world do the citizens make such exertions for the commonweal; and I am acquainted with no people which has established schoolsas numerous and as efficacious, places of public worship better suitedto the wants of the inhabitants, or roads kept in better repair. Uniformity or permanence of design, the minute arrangement of details, *t and the perfection of an ingenious administration, must not be soughtfor in the United States; but it will be easy to find, on the otherhand, the symptoms of a power which, if it is somewhat barbarous, isat least robust; and of an existence which is checkered with accidentsindeed, but cheered at the same time by animation and effort. 

[Footnote t: A writer of talent, who, in the comparison which he hasdrawn between the finances of France and those of the United States, hasproved that ingenuity cannot always supply the place of a knowledge offacts, very justly reproaches the Americans for the sort of confusionwhich exists in the accounts of the expenditure in the townships; andafter giving the model of a departmental budget in France, he adds:--"Weare indebted to centralization, that admirable invention of a greatman, for the uniform order and method which prevail alike in all themunicipal budgets, from the largest town to the humblest commune. "Whatever may be my admiration of this result, when I see the communesof France, with their excellent system of accounts, plunged intothe grossest ignorance of their true interests, and abandoned to soincorrigible an apathy that they seem to vegetate rather than to live;when, on the other hand, I observe the activity, the information, andthe spirit of enterprise which keep society in perpetual labor, in thoseAmerican townships whose budgets are drawn up with small method and withstill less uniformity, I am struck by the spectacle; for to my mind theend of a good government is to ensure the welfare of a people, and notto establish order and regularity in the midst of its misery and itsdistress. I am therefore led to suppose that the prosperity of theAmerican townships and the apparent confusion of their accounts, thedistress of the French communes and the perfection of their budget, 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 evilwhich is compensated by so many benefits. ]

Granting for an instant that the villages and counties of the UnitedStates would be more usefully governed by a remote authority whichthey had never seen than by functionaries taken from the midst ofthem--admitting, for the sake of argument, that the country would bemore secure, and the resources of society better employed, if the wholeadministration centred in a single arm--still the political advantageswhich the Americans derive from their system would induce me to preferit to the contrary plan. It profits me but little, after all, that avigilant authority should protect the tranquillity of my pleasuresand constantly avert all dangers from my path, without my care or myconcern, if this same authority is the absolute mistress of my libertyand of my life, and if it so monopolizes all the energy of existencethat when it languishes everything languishes around it, that when itsleeps everything must sleep, that when it dies the State itself mustperish. 

In certain countries of Europe the natives consider themselves as a kindof settlers, indifferent to the fate of the spot upon which they live. The greatest changes are effected without their concurrence and (unlesschance may have apprised them of the event) without their knowledge; naymore, the citizen is unconcerned as to the condition of his village, thepolice of his street, the repairs of the church or of the parsonage; forhe looks upon all these things as unconnected with himself, and as theproperty of a powerful stranger whom he calls the Government. He hasonly a life-interest in these possessions, and he entertains no notionsof ownership or of improvement. This want of interest in his ownaffairs goes so far that, if his own safety or that of his children isendangered, instead of trying to avert the peril, he will fold his arms, and wait till the nation comes to his assistance. This same individual, who has so completely sacrificed his own free will, has no naturalpropensity to obedience; he cowers, it is true, before the pettiestofficer; but he braves the law with the spirit of a conquered foeas soon as its superior force is removed: his oscillations betweenservitude and license are perpetual. When a nation has arrived at thisstate it must either change its customs and its laws or perish: thesource of public virtue is dry, and, though it may contain subjects, the race of citizens is extinct. Such communities are a natural prey toforeign conquests, and if they do not disappear from the scene of life, it is because they are surrounded by other nations similar or inferiorto themselves: it is because the instinctive feeling of their country'sclaims still exists in their hearts; and because an involuntary pride inthe name it bears, or a vague reminiscence of its bygone fame, sufficesto give them the impulse of self-preservation. 

Nor can the prodigious exertions made by tribes in the defence of acountry to which they did not belong be adduced in favor of such asystem; for it will be found that in these cases their main incitementwas religion. The permanence, the glory, or the prosperity of the nationwere become parts of their faith, and in defending the country theyinhabited they defended that Holy City of which they were all citizens. The Turkish tribes have never taken an active share in the conduct ofthe affairs of society, but they accomplished stupendous enterprises aslong as the victories of the Sultan were the triumphs of the Mohammedanfaith. In the present age they are in rapid decay, because theirreligion is departing, and despotism only remains. Montesquieu, whoattributed to absolute power an authority peculiar to itself, did it, as I conceive, an undeserved honor; for despotism, taken by itself, can produce no durable results. On close inspection we shall findthat religion, and not fear, has ever been the cause of the long-livedprosperity of an absolute government. Whatever exertions may be made, notrue power can be founded among men which does not depend upon the freeunion of their inclinations; and patriotism and religion are the onlytwo motives in the world which can permanently direct the whole of abody politic to one end. 

Laws cannot succeed in rekindling the ardor of an extinguished faith, but men may be interested in the fate of their country by the laws. Bythis influence the vague impulse of patriotism, which never abandons thehuman heart, may be directed and revived; and if it be connected withthe thoughts, the passions, and the daily habits of life, it may beconsolidated into a durable and rational sentiment. 

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

It is not the administrative but the political effects of the localsystem that I most admire in America. In the United States the interestsof the country are everywhere kept in view; they are an object ofsolicitude to the people of the whole Union, and every citizen is aswarmly attached to them as if they were his own. He takes pride in theglory of his nation; he boasts of its success, to which he conceiveshimself to have contributed, and he rejoices in the general prosperityby which he profits. The feeling he entertains towards the State isanalogous to that which unites him to his family, and it is by a kind ofegotism that he interests himself in the welfare of his country. 

The European generally submits to a public officer because he representsa superior force; but to an American he represents a right. In Americait may be said that no one renders obedience to man, but to justiceand to law. If the opinion which the citizen entertains of himself isexaggerated, it is at least salutary; he unhesitatingly confides in hisown powers, which appear to him to be all-sufficient. When a privateindividual meditates an undertaking, however directly connected itmay be with the welfare of society, he never thinks of soliciting theco-operation of the Government, but he publishes his plan, offers toexecute 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 theend the sum of these private undertakings far exceeds all that theGovernment could have done. 

As the administrative authority is within the reach of the citizens, whom it in some degree represents, it excites neither their jealousy northeir hatred; as its resources are limited, every one feels that he mustnot rely solely on its assistance. Thus, when the administration thinksfit to interfere, it is not abandoned to itself as in Europe; the dutiesof the private citizens are not supposed to have lapsed because theState assists in their fulfilment, but every one is ready, on thecontrary, to guide and to support it. This action of individualexertions, joined to that of the public authorities, frequently performswhat the most energetic central administration would be unable toexecute. It would be easy to adduce several facts in proof of what Iadvance, but I had rather give only one, with which I am more thoroughlyacquainted. *u In America the means which the authorities have at theirdisposal for the discovery of crimes and the arrest of criminals arefew. The State police does not exist, and passports are unknown. Thecriminal police of the United States cannot be compared to that ofFrance; the magistrates and public prosecutors are not numerous, and theexaminations of prisoners are rapid and oral. Nevertheless in no countrydoes crime more rarely elude punishment. The reason is, that every oneconceives himself to be interested in furnishing evidence of the actcommitted, and in stopping the delinquent. During my stay in the UnitedStates I witnessed the spontaneous formation of committees for thepursuit and prosecution of a man who had committed a great crime ina certain county. In Europe a criminal is an unhappy being who isstruggling for his life against the ministers of justice, whilst thepopulation is merely a spectator of the conflict; in America he islooked upon as an enemy of the human race, and the whole of mankind isagainst him. 

[Footnote u: See Appendix, I. ]

I believe that provincial institutions are useful to all nations, butnowhere do they appear to me to be more indispensable than amongst ademocratic people. In an aristocracy order can always be maintained inthe midst of liberty, and as the rulers have a great deal to lose orderis to them a first-rate consideration. In like manner an aristocracyprotects the people from the excesses of despotism, because it alwayspossesses an organized power ready to resist a despot. But a democracywithout provincial institutions has no security against these evils. Howcan a populace, unaccustomed to freedom in small concerns, learn touse it temperately in great affairs? What resistance can be offered totyranny in a country where every private individual is impotent, andwhere the citizens are united by no common tie? Those who dread thelicense 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 mostexposed to fall beneath the yoke of a central administration, forseveral reasons, amongst which is the following. The constant tendencyof these nations is to concentrate all the strength of the Governmentin the hands of the only power which directly represents the people, because beyond the people nothing is to be perceived but a mass of equalindividuals confounded together. But when the same power is alreadyin possession of all the attributes of the Government, it can scarcelyrefrain from penetrating into the details of the administration, and anopportunity of doing so is sure to present itself in the end, as wasthe case in France. In the French Revolution there were two impulsesin opposite directions, which must never be confounded--the one wasfavorable to liberty, the other to despotism. Under the ancient monarchythe King was the sole author of the laws, and below the power of thesovereign certain vestiges of provincial institutions, half destroyed, were still distinguishable. These provincial institutions wereincoherent, ill compacted, and frequently absurd; in the hands ofthe aristocracy they had sometimes been converted into instruments ofoppression. The Revolution declared itself the enemy of royalty and ofprovincial institutions at the same time; it confounded all thathad preceded it--despotic power and the checks to its abuses--inindiscriminate hatred, and its tendency was at once to overthrow andto centralize. This double character of the French Revolution is a factwhich has been adroitly handled by the friends of absolute power. Canthey be accused of laboring in the cause of despotism when they aredefending that central administration which was one of the greatinnovations of the Revolution? *v In this manner popularity may beconciliated with hostility to the rights of the people, and the secretslave of tyranny may be the professed admirer of freedom. 

[Footnote v: See Appendix K. ]

I have visited the two nations in which the system of provincial libertyhas been most perfectly established, and I have listened to the opinionsof different parties in those countries. In America I met with men whosecretly aspired to destroy the democratic institutions of the Union; inEngland I found others who attacked the aristocracy openly, but Iknow of no one who does not regard provincial independence as a greatbenefit. In both countries I have heard a thousand different causesassigned for the evils of the State, but the local system was nevermentioned amongst them. I have heard citizens attribute the power andprosperity of their country to a multitude of reasons, but they allplaced the advantages of local institutions in the foremost rank. AmI to suppose that when men who are naturally so divided on religiousopinions and on political theories agree on one point (and that oneof which they have daily experience), they are all in error? The onlynations which deny the utility of provincial liberties are those whichhave fewest of them; in other words, those who are unacquainted with theinstitution are the only persons who pass a censure upon it. 

Chapter VI: Judicial Power In The United States

Chapter Summary

The Anglo-Americans have retained the characteristics of judicial powerwhich are common to all nations--They have, however, made it a powerfulpolitical organ--How--In what the judicial system of the Anglo-Americansdiffers from that of all other nations--Why the American judges have theright of declaring the laws to be unconstitutional--How they use thisright--Precautions taken by the legislator to prevent its abuse. 

Judicial Power In The United States And Its Influence On PoliticalSociety. 

I have thought it essential to devote a separate chapter to the judicialauthorities of the United States, lest their great political importanceshould be lessened in the reader's eyes by a merely incidental mentionof them. Confederations have existed in other countries beside America, and republics have not been established upon the shores of the NewWorld alone; the representative system of government has been adoptedin several States of Europe, but I am not aware that any nation ofthe globe has hitherto organized a judicial power on the principle nowadopted by the Americans. The judicial organization of the United Statesis the institution which a stranger has the greatest difficultyin understanding. He hears the authority of a judge invoked in thepolitical occurrences of every day, and he naturally concludes thatin the United States the judges are important political functionaries;nevertheless, when he examines the nature of the tribunals, they offernothing which is contrary to the usual habits and privileges of thosebodies, and the magistrates seem to him to interfere in public affairsof chance, but by a chance which recurs every day. 

When the Parliament of Paris remonstrated, or refused to enregister anedict, or when it summoned a functionary accused of malversation to itsbar, its political influence as a judicial body was clearly visible; butnothing of the kind is to be seen in the United States. The Americanshave retained all the ordinary characteristics of judicial authority, and have carefully restricted its action to the ordinary circle of itsfunctions. 

The first characteristic of judicial power in all nations is the dutyof arbitration. But rights must be contested in order to warrant theinterference of a tribunal; and an action must be brought to obtain thedecision of a judge. As long, therefore, as the law is uncontested, thejudicial authority is not called upon to discuss it, and it may existwithout being perceived. When a judge in a given case attacks a lawrelating to that case, he extends the circle of his customary duties, without however stepping beyond it; since he is in some measure obligedto decide upon the law in order to decide the case. But if he pronouncesupon a law without resting upon a case, he clearly steps beyond hissphere, and invades that of the legislative authority. 

The second characteristic of judicial power is that it pronounces onspecial cases, and not upon general principles. If a judge in decidinga particular point destroys a general principle, by passing a judgmentwhich tends to reject all the inferences from that principle, andconsequently to annul it, he remains within the ordinary limits of hisfunctions. But if he directly attacks a general principle without havinga particular case in view, he leaves the circle in which all nationshave agreed to confine his authority, he assumes a more important, andperhaps a more useful, influence than that of the magistrate, but heceases to be a representative of the judicial power. 

The third characteristic of the judicial power is its inability to actunless it is appealed to, or until it has taken cognizance of anaffair. This characteristic is less general than the other two; but, notwithstanding the exceptions, I think it may be regarded as essential. The judicial power is by its nature devoid of action; it must be put inmotion in order to produce a result. When it is called upon to repress acrime, it punishes the criminal; when a wrong is to be redressed, it isready to redress it; when an act requires interpretation, it is preparedto interpret it; but it does not pursue criminals, hunt out wrongs, or examine into evidence of its own accord. A judicial functionary whoshould open proceedings, and usurp the censorship of the laws, would insome measure do violence to the passive nature of his authority. 

The Americans have retained these three distinguishing characteristicsof the judicial power; an American judge can only pronounce a decisionwhen litigation has arisen, he is only conversant with special cases, and he cannot act until the cause has been duly brought before thecourt. His position is therefore perfectly similar to that of themagistrate of other nations; and he is nevertheless invested withimmense political power. If the sphere of his authority and his means ofaction are the same as those of other judges, it may be asked whence hederives a power which they do not possess. The cause of this differencelies in the simple fact that the Americans have acknowledged the rightof the judges to found their decisions on the constitution rather thanon the laws. In other words, they have left them at liberty not to applysuch laws as 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 anindividual, is found to contest it. This fact can only be explained bythe principles of the American constitution. In France the constitutionis (or at least is supposed to be) immutable; and the received theory isthat no power has the right of changing any part of it. In England theParliament has an acknowledged right to modify the constitution; as, therefore, the constitution may undergo perpetual changes, it doesnot in reality exist; the Parliament is at once a legislative and aconstituent assembly. The political theories of America are more simpleand more rational. An American constitution is not supposed to beimmutable as in France, nor is it susceptible of modification by theordinary powers of society as in England. It constitutes a detachedwhole, which, as it represents the determination of the whole people, isno less binding on the legislator than on the private citizen, butwhich may be altered by the will of the people in predeterminedcases, according to established rules. In America the constitutionmay therefore vary, but as long as it exists it is the origin of allauthority, and the sole vehicle of the predominating force. *a

[Footnote a: [The fifth article of the original Constitution of theUnited States provides the mode in which amendments of the Constitutionmay be made. Amendments must be proposed by two-thirds of both Housesof Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of theseveral States. Fifteen amendments of the Constitution have been madeat different times since 1789, the most important of which are theThirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth, framed and ratified after theCivil 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 actupon the position and the rights of the judicial bodies in the threecountries I have cited. If in France the tribunals were authorizedto disobey the laws on the ground of their being opposed to theconstitution, the supreme power would in fact be placed in their hands, since they alone would have the right of interpreting a constitution, the clauses of which can be modified by no authority. They wouldtherefore take the place of the nation, and exercise as absolute a swayover society as the inherent weakness of judicial power would allow themto do. Undoubtedly, as the French judges are incompetent to declare alaw to be unconstitutional, the power of changing the constitution isindirectly given to the legislative body, since no legal barrier wouldoppose the alterations which it might prescribe. But it is better togrant the power of changing the constitution of the people to men whorepresent (however imperfectly) the will of the people, than to men whorepresent no one but themselves. 

It would be still more unreasonable to invest the English judges withthe right of resisting the decisions of the legislative body, sincethe Parliament which makes the laws also makes the constitution; andconsequently a law emanating from the three powers of the State can inno case be unconstitutional. But neither of these remarks is applicableto America. 

In the United States the constitution governs the legislator as much asthe private citizen; as it is the first of laws it cannot be modifiedby a law, and it is therefore just that the tribunals should obey theconstitution in preference to any law. This condition is essential tothe power of the judicature, for to select that legal obligationby which he is most strictly bound is the natural right of everymagistrate. 

In France the constitution is also the first of laws, and the judgeshave the same right to take it as the ground of their decisions, butwere they to exercise this right they must perforce encroach on rightsmore sacred than their own, namely, on those of society, in whose namethey are acting. In this case the State-motive clearly prevails over themotives of an individual. In America, where the nation can always reduceits magistrates to obedience by changing its constitution, no danger ofthis kind is to be feared. Upon this point, therefore, the political andthe logical reasons agree, and the people as well as the judges preservetheir privileges. 

Whenever a law which the judge holds to be unconstitutional is arguedin a tribunal of the United States he may refuse to admit it as a rule;this power is the only one which is peculiar to the American magistrate, but it gives rise to immense political influence. Few laws can escapethe searching analysis of the judicial power for any length of time, for there are few which are not prejudicial to some private interest orother, and none which may not be brought before a court of justice bythe choice of parties, or by the necessity of the case. But from thetime that a judge has refused to apply any given law in a case, that lawloses a portion of its moral cogency. The persons to whose interestsit is prejudicial learn that means exist of evading its authority, andsimilar suits are multiplied, until it becomes powerless. One oftwo alternatives must then be resorted to: the people must alter theconstitution, or the legislature must repeal the law. The politicalpower which the Americans have intrusted to their courts of justiceis therefore immense, but the evils of this power are considerablydiminished by the obligation which has been imposed of attackingthe laws through the courts of justice alone. If the judge had beenempowered to contest the laws on the ground of theoretical generalities, if he had been enabled to open an attack or to pass a censure on thelegislator, he would have played a prominent part in the politicalsphere; and as the champion or the antagonist of a party, he would havearrayed the hostile passions of the nation in the conflict. But whena judge contests a law applied to some particular case in an obscureproceeding, the importance of his attack is concealed from the publicgaze, his decision bears upon the interest of an individual, and ifthe law is slighted it is only collaterally. Moreover, although it iscensured, it is not abolished; its moral force may be diminished, butits cogency is by no means suspended, and its final destruction can onlybe accomplished by the reiterated attacks of judicial functionaries. Itwill readily be understood that by connecting the censorship of thelaws with the private interests of members of the community, and byintimately uniting the prosecution of the law with the prosecution ofan individual, legislation is protected from wanton assailants, and fromthe daily aggressions of party spirit. The errors of the legislator areexposed whenever their evil consequences are most felt, and it isalways a positive and appreciable fact which serves as the basis of aprosecution. 

I am inclined to believe this practice of the American courts to be atonce the most favorable to liberty as well as to public order. If thejudge could only attack the legislator openly and directly, he wouldsometimes be afraid to oppose any resistance to his will; and at othermoments party spirit might encourage him to brave it at every turn. The laws would consequently be attacked when the power from which theyemanate is weak, and obeyed when it is strong. That is to say, when itwould be useful to respect them they would be contested, and when itwould be easy to convert them into an instrument of oppression theywould be respected. But the American judge is brought into the politicalarena independently of his own will. He only judges the law because heis obliged to judge a case. The political question which he is calledupon to resolve is connected with the interest of the suitors, and hecannot refuse to decide it without abdicating the duties of his post. He performs his functions as a citizen by fulfilling the precise dutieswhich belong to his profession as a magistrate. It is true that uponthis system the judicial censorship which is exercised by the courts ofjustice over the legislation cannot extend to all laws indiscriminately, inasmuch as some of them can never give rise to that exact speciesof contestation which is termed a lawsuit; and even when such acontestation is possible, it may happen that no one cares to bringit before a court of justice. The Americans have often felt thisdisadvantage, but they have left the remedy incomplete, lest they shouldgive it an efficacy which might in some cases prove dangerous. Withinthese limits the power vested in the American courts of justice ofpronouncing a statute to be unconstitutional forms one of the mostpowerful barriers which has ever been devised against the tyranny ofpolitical assemblies. 

Other Powers Granted To American Judges

The United States all the citizens have the right of indictingpublic functionaries before the ordinary tribunals--How they use thisright--Art. 75 of the French Constitution of the An VIII--The Americansand the English cannot understand the purport of this clause. 

It is perfectly natural that in a free country like America all thecitizens should have the right of indicting public functionaries beforethe ordinary tribunals, and that all the judges should have the power ofpunishing public offences. The right granted to the courts of justice ofjudging the agents of the executive government, when they have violatedthe laws, is so natural a one that it cannot be looked upon as anextraordinary privilege. Nor do the springs of government appear tome to be weakened in the United States by the custom which renders allpublic officers responsible to the judges of the land. The Americansseem, on the contrary, to have increased by this means that respectwhich is due to the authorities, and at the same time to have renderedthose who are in power more scrupulous of offending public opinion. Iwas struck by the small number of political trials which occur inthe United States, but I had no difficulty in accounting for thiscircumstance. A lawsuit, of whatever nature it may be, is always adifficult and expensive undertaking. It is easy to attack a public manin a journal, but the motives which can warrant an action at law must beserious. A solid ground of complaint must therefore exist to inducean individual to prosecute a public officer, and public officers arecareful not to furnish these grounds of complaint when they are afraidof being prosecuted. 

This does not depend upon the republican form of American institutions, for the same facts present themselves in England. These two nationsdo not regard the impeachment of the principal officers of State as asufficient guarantee of their independence. But they hold that theright of minor prosecutions, which are within the reach of the wholecommunity, is a better pledge of freedom than those great judicialactions which are rarely employed until it is too late. 

In the Middle Ages, when it was very difficult to overtake offenders, the judges inflicted the most dreadful tortures on the few who werearrested, which by no means diminished the number of crimes. It hassince been discovered that when justice is more certain and more mild, it is at the same time more efficacious. The English and the Americanshold that tyranny and oppression are to be treated like any other crime, by lessening the penalty and facilitating conviction. 

In the year VIII of the French Republic a constitution was drawn up inwhich the following clause was introduced: "Art. 75. All the agents ofthe government below the rank of ministers can only be prosecuted foroffences relating to their several functions by virtue of a decree ofthe Conseil d'Etat; in which the case the prosecution takes place beforethe ordinary tribunals. " This clause survived the "Constitution de l'AnVIII, " and it is still maintained in spite of the just complaints ofthe nation. I have always found the utmost difficulty in explaining itsmeaning to Englishmen or Americans. They were at once led to concludethat the Conseil d'Etat in France was a great tribunal, established inthe centre of the kingdom, which exercised a preliminary and somewhattyrannical jurisdiction in all political causes. But when I told themthat the Conseil d'Etat was not a judicial body, in the common sense ofthe term, but an administrative council composed of men dependent onthe Crown, so that the king, after having ordered one of his servants, called a Prefect, to commit an injustice, has the power of commandinganother of his servants, called a Councillor of State, to prevent theformer from being punished; when I demonstrated to them that the citizenwho has been injured by the order of the sovereign is obliged to solicitfrom the sovereign permission to obtain redress, they refused to creditso flagrant an abuse, and were tempted to accuse me of falsehood orof ignorance. It frequently happened before the Revolution that aParliament issued a warrant against a public officer who had committedan offence, and sometimes the proceedings were stopped by the authorityof the Crown, which enforced compliance with its absolute and despoticwill. It is painful to perceive how much lower we are sunk than ourforefathers, since we allow things to pass under the color of justiceand the sanction of the law which violence alone could impose upon them. 

Chapter VII: Political Jurisdiction 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--Hemore frequently passes a sentence of removal from office than apenalty--Political jurisdiction as it exists in the United Statesis, notwithstanding its mildness, and perhaps in consequence of thatmildness, a most powerful instrument in the hands of the majority. 

Political Jurisdiction In The United States

I understand, by political jurisdiction, that temporary right ofpronouncing a legal decision with which a political body may beinvested. 

In absolute governments no utility can accrue from the introduction ofextraordinary forms of procedure; the prince in whose name an offenderis prosecuted is as much the sovereign of the courts of justice as ofeverything else, and the idea which is entertained of his power is ofitself a sufficient security. The only thing he has to fear is, thatthe external formalities of justice should be neglected, and that hisauthority should be dishonored from a wish to render it more absolute. But in most free countries, in which the majority can never exercise thesame influence upon the tribunals as an absolute monarch, the judicialpower has occasionally been vested for a time in the representativesof the nation. It has been thought better to introduce a temporaryconfusion 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 differentadaptations which these three great nations have made of the principle. In England and in France the House of Lords and the Chambre des Paris *aconstitute the highest criminal court of their respective nations, andalthough they do not habitually try all political offences, they arecompetent to try them all. Another political body enjoys the right ofimpeachment before the House of Lords: the only difference which existsbetween the two countries in this respect is, that in England theCommons may impeach whomsoever they please before the Lords, whilst inFrance the Deputies can only employ this mode of prosecution against theministers of the Crown. 

[Footnote a: [As it existed under the constitutional monarchy down to1848. ]]

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

In the United States, as well as in Europe, one branch of thelegislature is authorized to impeach and another to judge: the Houseof Representatives arraigns the offender, and the Senate awards hissentence. But the Senate can only try such persons as are brought beforeit by the House of Representatives, and those persons must belong to theclass of public functionaries. Thus the jurisdiction of the Senate isless extensive than that of the Peers of France, whilst the right ofimpeachment by the Representatives is more general than that of theDeputies. But the great difference which exists between Europe andAmerica is, that in Europe political tribunals are empowered to inflictall the dispositions of the penal code, while in America, when theyhave deprived the offender of his official rank, and have declaredhim incapable of filling any political office for the future, theirjurisdiction terminates and that of the ordinary tribunals begins. 

Suppose, for instance, that the President of the United States hascommitted the crime of high treason; the House of Representativesimpeaches him, and the Senate degrades him; he must then be tried bya jury, which alone can deprive him of his liberty or his life. Thisaccurately illustrates the subject we are treating. The politicaljurisdiction which is established by the laws of Europe is intended totry great offenders, whatever may be their birth, their rank, or theirpowers in the State; and to this end all the privileges of the courtsof justice are temporarily extended to a great political assembly. Thelegislator is then transformed into the magistrate; he is called uponto admit, to distinguish, and to punish the offence; and as he exercisesall the authority of a judge, the law restricts him to the observanceof all the duties of that high office, and of all the formalities ofjustice. When a public functionary is impeached before an English or aFrench political tribunal, and is found guilty, the sentence depriveshim ipso facto of his functions, and it may pronounce him to beincapable of resuming them or any others for the future. But in thiscase the political interdict is a consequence of the sentence, and notthe sentence itself. In Europe the sentence of a political tribunal isto be regarded as a judicial verdict rather than as an administrativemeasure. In the United States the contrary takes place; and although thedecision of the Senate is judicial in its form, since the Senatorsare obliged to comply with the practices and formalities of a court ofjustice; although it is judicial in respect to the motives on which itis founded, since the Senate is in general obliged to take an offence atcommon law as the basis of its sentence; nevertheless the object of theproceeding is purely administrative. If it had been the intention ofthe American legislator to invest a political body with great judicialauthority, its action would not have been limited to the circle ofpublic functionaries, since the most dangerous enemies of the State maybe in the possession of no functions at all; and this is especially truein republics, where party influence is the first of authorities, andwhere the strength of many a reader is increased by his exercising nolegal power. 

If it had been the intention of the American legislator to givesociety the means of repressing State offences by exemplary punishment, according to the practice of ordinary justice, the resources of thepenal code would all have been placed at the disposal of the politicaltribunals. But the weapon with which they are intrusted is an imperfectone, and it can never reach the most dangerous offenders, since men whoaim at the entire subversion of the laws are not likely to murmur at apolitical interdict. 

The main object of the political jurisdiction which obtains in theUnited States is, therefore, to deprive the ill-disposed citizen ofan authority which he has used amiss, and to prevent him from everacquiring it again. This is evidently an administrative measuresanctioned by the formalities of a judicial decision. In this matterthe Americans have created a mixed system; they have surrounded the actwhich removes a public functionary with the securities of a politicaltrial; and they have deprived all political condemnations of theirseverest penalties. Every link of the system may easily be traced fromthis point; we at once perceive why the American constitutions subjectall the civil functionaries to the jurisdiction of the Senate, whilstthe military, whose crimes are nevertheless more formidable, areexempted from that tribunal. In the civil service none of the Americanfunctionaries can be said to be removable; the places which some ofthem occupy are inalienable, and the others are chosen for a term whichcannot be shortened. It is therefore necessary to try them all in orderto deprive them of their authority. But military officers aredependent on the chief magistrate of the State, who is himself a civilfunctionary, and the decision which condemns him is a blow upon themall. 

If we now compare the American and the European systems, we shall meetwith differences no less striking in the different effects which each ofthem produces or may produce. In France and in England the jurisdictionof political bodies is looked upon as an extraordinary resource, whichis only to be employed in order to rescue society from unwonted dangers. It is not to be denied that these tribunals, as they are constituted inEurope, are apt to violate the conservative principle of the balance ofpower in the State, and to threaten incessantly the lives and libertiesof the subject. The same political jurisdiction in the United States isonly indirectly hostile to the balance of power; it cannot menace thelives of the citizens, and it does not hover, as in Europe, over theheads of the community, since those only who have submitted to itsauthority on accepting office are exposed to the severity of itsinvestigations. It is at the same time less formidable and lessefficacious; indeed, it has not been considered by the legislators ofthe United States as a remedy for the more violent evils of society, butas an ordinary means of conducting the government. In this respect itprobably exercises more real influence on the social body in Americathan in Europe. We must not be misled by the apparent mildness of theAmerican legislation in all that relates to political jurisdiction. Itis to be observed, in the first place, that in the United States thetribunal which passes sentence is composed of the same elements, and subject to the same influences, as the body which impeaches theoffender, and that this uniformity gives an almost irresistible impulseto the vindictive passions of parties. If political judges in the UnitedStates cannot inflict such heavy penalties as those of Europe, there isthe less chance of their acquitting a prisoner; and the conviction, if it is less formidable, is more certain. The principal object of thepolitical tribunals of Europe is to punish the offender; the purposeof those in America is to deprive him of his authority. A politicalcondemnation in the United States may, therefore, be looked upon as apreventive measure; and there is no reason for restricting the judges tothe exact definitions of criminal law. Nothing can be more alarming thanthe excessive latitude with which political offences are described inthe laws of America. Article II. , Section 4, of the Constitution of theUnited States runs thus:--"The President, Vice-President, and allcivil officers of the United States shall be removed from office onimpeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other highcrimes and misdemeanors. " Many of the Constitutions of the Statesare even less explicit. "Public officers, " says the Constitutionof Massachusetts, *b "shall be impeached for misconduct ormaladministration;" the Constitution of Virginia declares that allthe civil officers who shall have offended against the State, bymaladministration, corruption, or other high crimes, may be impeached bythe House of Delegates; in some constitutions no offences arespecified, in order to subject the public functionaries to an unlimitedresponsibility. *c But I will venture to affirm that it is preciselytheir mildness which renders the American laws most formidable in thisrespect. We have shown that in Europe the removal of a functionary andhis political interdiction are the consequences of the penalty he isto undergo, and that in America they constitute the penalty itself. The consequence is that in Europe political tribunals are invested withrights which they are afraid to use, and that the fear of punishing toomuch hinders them from punishing at all. But in America no one hesitatesto inflict a penalty from which humanity does not recoil. To condemn apolitical opponent to death, in order to deprive him of his power, isto commit what all the world would execrate as a horrible assassination;but to declare that opponent unworthy to exercise that authority, todeprive him of it, and to leave him uninjured in life and limb, may bejudged to be the fair issue of the struggle. But this sentence, which itis so easy to pronounce, is not the less fatally severe to the majorityof those upon whom it is inflicted. Great criminals may undoubtedlybrave its intangible rigor, but ordinary offenders will dread it as acondemnation which destroys their position in the world, casts a blightupon their honor, and condemns them to a shameful inactivity worse thandeath. The influence exercised in the United States upon the progressof society by the jurisdiction of political bodies may not appear to beformidable, but it is only the more immense. It does not directly coercethe subject, but it renders the majority more absolute over those inpower; it does not confer an unbounded authority on the legislator whichcan be exerted at some momentous crisis, but it establishes a temperateand regular influence, which is at all times available. If the power isdecreased, it can, on the other hand, be more conveniently employed andmore easily abused. By preventing political tribunals from inflictingjudicial punishments the Americans seem to have eluded the worstconsequences of legislative tyranny, rather than tyranny itself; andI am not sure that political jurisdiction, as it is constituted in theUnited States, is not the most formidable weapon which has ever beenplaced in the rude grasp of a popular majority. When the Americanrepublics begin to degenerate it will be easy to verify the truthof this observation, by remarking whether the number of politicalimpeachments augments. *d

[Footnote b: Chap. I. Sect. Ii. Section 8. ]

[Footnote c: See the constitutions of Illinois, Maine, Connecticut, andGeorgia. ]

[Footnote 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 ofoffice, for it could not be contended that he had been guilty of highcrimes and misdemeanors, and he was in fact honorably acquitted andreinstated in office--is a striking confirmation of the truth of thisremark. --Translator's Note, 1874. ]]

Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution--Part I

I have hitherto considered each State as a separate whole, and I haveexplained the different springs which the people sets in motion, and thedifferent means of action which it employs. But all the States which Ihave considered as independent are forced to submit, in certain cases, to the supreme authority of the Union. The time is now come for me toexamine separately the supremacy with which the Union has been invested, and to cast a rapid glance over the Federal Constitution. 

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 ofEngland towards the end of the last century professed, as I have alreadyobserved, the same religion, the same language, the same customs, andalmost the same laws; they were struggling against a common enemy; andthese reasons were sufficiently strong to unite them one to another, andto consolidate them into one nation. But as each of them had enjoyed aseparate existence and a government within its own control, the peculiarinterests and customs which resulted from this system were opposed toa compact and intimate union which would have absorbed the individualimportance of each in the general importance of all. Hence arose twoopposite tendencies, the one prompting the Anglo-Americans to unite, the other to divide their strength. As long as the war with themother-country lasted the principle of union was kept alive bynecessity; and although the laws which constituted it were defective, the common tie subsisted in spite of their imperfections. *a But nosooner was peace concluded than the faults of the legislation becamemanifest, and the State seemed to be suddenly dissolved. Each colonybecame an independent republic, and assumed an absolute sovereignty. Thefederal government, condemned to impotence by its constitution, andno longer sustained by the presence of a common danger, witnessed theoutrages offered to its flag by the great nations of Europe, whilst itwas scarcely able to maintain its ground against the Indian tribes, andto pay the interest of the debt which had been contracted during thewar of independence. It was already on the verge of destruction, whenit officially proclaimed its inability to conduct the government, andappealed to the constituent authority of the nation. *b If America everapproached (for however brief a time) that lofty pinnacle of gloryto which the fancy of its inhabitants is wont to point, it was at thesolemn moment at which the power of the nation abdicated, as it were, the empire of the land. All ages have furnished the spectacle of apeople struggling with energy to win its independence; and the effortsof the Americans in throwing off the English yoke have been considerablyexaggerated. Separated from their enemies by three thousand miles ofocean, and backed by a powerful ally, the success of the United Statesmay be more justly attributed to their geographical position than to thevalor of their armies or the patriotism of their citizens. It wouldbe ridiculous to compare the American was to the wars of the FrenchRevolution, or the efforts of the Americans to those of the French whenthey were attacked by the whole of Europe, without credit and withoutallies, yet capable of opposing a twentieth part of their population tothe world, and of bearing the torch of revolution beyond their frontierswhilst they stifled its devouring flame within the bosom of theircountry. But it is a novelty in the history of society to see a greatpeople turn a calm and scrutinizing eye upon itself, when apprised bythe legislature that the wheels of government are stopped; to see itcarefully examine the extent of the evil, and patiently wait for twowhole years until a remedy was discovered, which it voluntarily adoptedwithout having wrung a tear or a drop of blood from mankind. At the timewhen the inadequacy of the first constitution was discovered Americapossessed the double advantage of that calm which had succeeded theeffervescence of the revolution, and of those great men who had led therevolution to a successful issue. The assembly which accepted the taskof composing the second constitution was small; *c but George Washingtonwas its President, and it contained the choicest talents and thenoblest hearts which had ever appeared in the New World. This nationalcommission, after long and mature deliberation, offered to theacceptance of the people the body of general laws which still rulesthe Union. All the States adopted it successively. *d The new FederalGovernment commenced its functions in 1789, after an interregnum of twoyears. The Revolution of America terminated when that of France began. 

[Footnote a: See the articles of the first confederation formed in 1778. This constitution was not adopted by all the States until 1781. See alsothe analysis given of this constitution in "The Federalist" from No. 15to No. 22, inclusive, and Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution ofthe United States, " pp. 85-115. ]

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

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

[Footnote d: It was not adopted by the legislative bodies, butrepresentatives were elected by the people for this sole purpose;and the new constitution was discussed at length in each of theseassemblies. ]

Summary Of The Federal Constitution

Division of authority between the Federal Government and the States--TheGovernment of the States is the rule, the Federal Government theexception. 

The first question which awaited the Americans was intricate, and by nomeans easy of solution: the object was so to divide the authority ofthe different States which composed the Union that each of them shouldcontinue to govern itself in all that concerned its internal prosperity, whilst the entire nation, represented by the Union, should continue toform a compact body, and to provide for the general exigencies of thepeople. It was as impossible to determine beforehand, with any degreeof accuracy, the share of authority which each of two governments was toenjoy, as to foresee all the incidents in the existence of a nation. 

The obligations and the claims of the Federal Government were simpleand easily definable, because the Union had been formed with the expresspurpose of meeting the general exigencies of the people; but the claimsand obligations of the States were, on the other hand, complicated andvarious, because those Governments had penetrated into all the detailsof social life. The attributes of the Federal Government were thereforecarefully enumerated and all that was not included amongst themwas declared to constitute a part of the privileges of the severalGovernments of the States. Thus the government of the States remainedthe rule, and that of the Confederation became the exception. *e

[Footnote 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 regulatingcertain matters is not reserved to Congress by the Constitution, theStates may take up the affair until it is brought before the NationalAssembly. For instance, Congress has the right of making a general lawon bankruptcy, which, however, it neglects to do. Each State is thenat liberty to make a law for itself. This point has been established bydiscussion in the law-courts, and may be said to belong more properly tojurisprudence. ]

But as it was foreseen that, in practice, questions might arise as tothe exact limits of this exceptional authority, and that it would bedangerous to submit these questions to the decision of the ordinarycourts of justice, established in the States by the States themselves, a high Federal court was created, *f which was destined, amongst otherfunctions, to maintain the balance of power which had been establishedby the Constitution between the two rival Governments. *g

[Footnote f: The action of this court is indirect, as we shall hereaftershow. ]

[Footnote g: It is thus that "The Federalist, " No. 45, explains thedivision of supremacy between the Union and the States: "The powersdelegated by the Constitution to the Federal Government are few anddefined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerousand indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on externalobjects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powersreserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the internal order andprosperity of the State. " I shall often have occasion to quote "TheFederalist" in this work. When the bill which has since become theConstitution of the United States was submitted to the approval ofthe people, and the discussions were still pending, three men, whohad already acquired a portion of that celebrity which they have sinceenjoyed--John Jay, Hamilton, and Madison--formed an association withthe intention of explaining to the nation the advantages of the measurewhich was proposed. With this view they published a series of articlesin the shape of a journal, which now form a complete treatise. Theyentitled their journal "The Federalist, " a name which has been retainedin the work. "The Federalist" is an excellent book, which ought tobe familiar to the statesmen of all countries, although it especiallyconcerns America. ]

Prerogative Of The Federal Government

Power of declaring war, making peace, and levying general taxes vestedin the Federal Government--What part of the internal policy of thecountry it may direct--The Government of the Union in some respects morecentral than the King'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 theagency of a single head of a Government. The exclusive right of makingpeace and war, of concluding treaties of commerce, of raising armies, and equipping fleets, was granted to the Union. *h The necessity ofa national Government was less imperiously felt in the conduct of theinternal policy of society; but there are certain general interestswhich can only be attended to with advantage by a general authority. TheUnion was invested with the power of controlling the monetary system, ofdirecting the post office, and of opening the great roads which were toestablish a communication between the different parts of the country. *iThe independence of the Government of each State was formally recognizedin its sphere; nevertheless, the Federal Government was authorizedto interfere in the internal affairs of the States *j in a fewpredetermined cases, in which an indiscreet abuse of their independencemight compromise the security of the Union at large. Thus, whilstthe power of modifying and changing their legislation at pleasure waspreserved in all the republics, they were forbidden to enact ex postfacto laws, or to create a class of nobles in their community. *kLastly, as it was necessary that the Federal Government should be ableto fulfil its engagements, it was endowed with an unlimited power oflevying taxes. *l

[Footnote 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. ]

[Footnote i: Several other privileges of the same kind exist, suchas that which empowers the Union to legislate on bankruptcy, togrant patents, and other matters in which its intervention is clearlynecessary. ]

[Footnote j: Even in these cases its interference is indirect. The Unioninterferes by means of the tribunals, as will be hereafter shown. ]

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

[Footnote l: Constitution, sects. 8, 9, and 10; "Federalist, " Nos. 30-36, inclusive, and 41-44; Kent's "Commentaries, " vol. I. Pp. 207 and381; Story, pp. 329 and 514. ]

In examining the balance of power as established by the FederalConstitution; in remarking on the one hand the portion of sovereigntywhich has been reserved to the several States, and on the other theshare of power which the Union has assumed, it is evident that theFederal legislators entertained the clearest and most accurate notionson the nature of the centralization of government. The United Statesform not only a republic, but a confederation; nevertheless theauthority of the nation is more central than it was in several of themonarchies of Europe when the American Constitution was formed. Take, for instance, the two following examples. 

Thirteen supreme courts of justice existed in France, which, generallyspeaking, had the right of interpreting the law without appeal; andthose provinces which were styled pays d'etats were authorized to refusetheir assent to an impost which had been levied by the sovereign whorepresented the nation. In the Union there is but one tribunal tointerpret, as there is one legislature to make the laws; and an impostvoted by the representatives of the nation is binding upon all thecitizens. In these two essential points, therefore, the Union exercisesmore central authority than the French monarchy possessed, although theUnion 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 privilegebelongs, by its very nature, to the national sovereignty. In America theCongress alone has the right of regulating the commercial relationsof the States. The government of the Confederation is therefore morecentralized in this respect than the kingdom of Spain. It is true thatthe power of the Crown in France or in Spain was always able to obtainby force whatever the Constitution of the country denied, and that theultimate result was consequently the same; but I am here discussing thetheory of the Constitution. 

Federal Powers

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

Legislative Powers *m

[Footnote m: [In this chapter the author points out the essence of theconflict between the seceding States and the Union which caused theCivil War of 1861. ]]

Division of the Legislative Body into two branches--Difference in themanner of forming the two Houses--The principle of the independence ofthe States predominates in the formation of the Senate--The principleof the sovereignty of the nation in the composition of the House ofRepresentatives--Singular effects of the fact that a Constitution canonly be logical in the early stages of a nation. 

The plan which had been laid down beforehand for the Constitutions ofthe several States was followed, in many points, in the organizationof the powers of the Union. The Federal legislature of the Unionwas composed of a Senate and a House of Representatives. A spirit ofconciliation prescribed the observance of distinct principles inthe formation of these two assemblies. I have already shown that twocontrary interests were opposed to each other in the establishment ofthe Federal Constitution. These two interests had given rise to twoopinions. 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 certainpoints of their common interests. The other party desired to unitethe inhabitants of the American colonies into one sole nation, and toestablish a Government which should act as the sole representative ofthe nation, as far as the limited sphere of its authority would permit. The practical consequences of these two theories were exceedinglydifferent. 

The question was, whether a league was to be established instead of anational Government; whether the majority of the State, instead of themajority of the inhabitants of the Union, was to give the law: for everyState, the small as well as the great, would then remain in the fullenjoyment of its independence, and enter the Union upon a footing ofperfect equality. If, however, the inhabitants of the United States wereto be considered as belonging to one and the same nation, it would bejust that the majority of the citizens of the Union should prescribe thelaw. Of course the lesser States could not subscribe to the applicationof this doctrine without, in fact, abdicating their existence inrelation to the sovereignty of the Confederation; since they would havepassed from the condition of a co-equal and co-legislative authority tothat of an insignificant fraction of a great people. But if the formersystem would have invested them with an excessive authority, thelatter would have annulled their influence altogether. Under thesecircumstances the result was, that the strict rules of logic wereevaded, as is usually the case when interests are opposed to arguments. A middle course was hit upon by the legislators, which brought togetherby force two systems theoretically irreconcilable. 

The principle of the independence of the States prevailed in theformation of the Senate, and that of the sovereignty of the nationpredominated in the composition of the House of Representatives. Itwas decided that each State should send two senators to Congress, and anumber of representatives proportioned to its population. *n It resultsfrom this arrangement that the State of New York has at the present dayforty representatives and only two senators; the State of Delawarehas two senators and only one representative; the State of Delawareis therefore equal to the State of New York in the Senate, whilst thelatter has forty times the influence of the former in the House ofRepresentatives. Thus, if the minority of the nation preponderates inthe Senate, . It may paralyze the decisions of the majority representedin the other House, which is contrary to the spirit of constitutionalgovernment. 

[Footnote n: Every ten years Congress fixes anew the number ofrepresentatives which each State is to furnish. The total number was 69in 1789, and 240 in 1833. (See "American Almanac, " 1834, p. 194. )The Constitution decided that there should not be more than onerepresentative for every 30, 000 persons; but no minimum was fixedon. The Congress has not thought fit to augment the number ofrepresentatives in proportion to the increase of population. The firstAct which was passed on the subject (April 14, 1792: see "Laws of theUnited States, " by Story, vol. I. P. 235) decided that there should beone representative for every 33, 000 inhabitants. The last Act, which waspassed in 1832, fixes the proportion at one for 48, 000. The populationrepresented is composed of all the free men and of three-fifths of theslaves. 

[The last Act of apportionment, passed February 2, 1872, fixes therepresentation at one to 134, 684 inhabitants. There are now (1875) 283members of the lower House of Congress, and 9 for the States at large, making in all 292 members. The old States have of course lost therepresentatives which the new States have gained. --Translator's Note. ]]

These facts show how rare and how difficult it is rationally andlogically to combine all the several parts of legislation. In thecourse of time different interests arise, and different principles aresanctioned by the same people; and when a general constitution is tobe established, these interests and principles are so many naturalobstacles to the rigorous application of any political system, with allits consequences. The early stages of national existence are the onlyperiods at which it is possible to maintain the complete logic oflegislation; and when we perceive a nation in the enjoyment of thisadvantage, before we hasten to conclude that it is wise, we should dowell to remember that it is young. When the Federal Constitution wasformed, the interests of independence for the separate States, and theinterest of union for the whole people, were the only two conflictinginterests which existed amongst the Anglo-Americans, and a compromisewas necessarily made between them. 

It is, however, just to acknowledge that this part of the Constitutionhas not hitherto produced those evils which might have been feared. Allthe States are young and contiguous; their customs, their ideas, andtheir exigencies are not dissimilar; and the differences which resultfrom their size or inferiority do not suffice to set their interestsat variance. The small States have consequently never been induced toleague themselves together in the Senate to oppose the designs of thelarger ones; and indeed there is so irresistible an authority in thelegitimate expression of the will of a people that the Senate couldoffer but a feeble opposition to the vote of the majority of the Houseof Representatives. 

It must not be forgotten, on the other hand, that it was not in thepower of the American legislators to reduce to a single nation thepeople for whom they were making laws. The object of the FederalConstitution was not to destroy the independence of the States, butto restrain it. By acknowledging the real authority of these secondarycommunities (and it was impossible to deprive them of it), theydisavowed beforehand the habitual use of constraint in enforcing g thedecisions of the majority. Upon this principle the introduction of theinfluence of the States into the mechanism of the Federal Government wasby no means to be wondered at, since it only attested the existence ofan acknowledged 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 Representativesby the people--Double election of the former; single election of thelatter--Term of the different offices--Peculiar functions of each House. 

The Senate not only differs from the other House in the principle whichit represents, but also in the mode of its election, in the term forwhich it is chosen, and in the nature of its functions. The House ofRepresentatives is named by the people, the Senate by the legislators ofeach State; the former is directly elected, the latter is elected by anelected body; the term for which the representatives are chosen is onlytwo years, that of the senators is six. The functions of the House ofRepresentatives are purely legislative, and the only share it takes inthe judicial power is in the impeachment of public officers. The Senateco-operates in the work of legislation, and tries those politicaloffences which the House of Representatives submits to its decision. It also acts as the great executive council of the nation; the treatieswhich are concluded by the President must be ratified by the Senate, and the appointments he may make must be definitely approved by the samebody. *o

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

[Footnote p: See "The Federalist, " Nos. 67-77; Constitution ofthe United States, 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 underthe direction, of the Senate--His salary fixed at his entry intooffice--Suspensive veto. 

The American legislators undertook a difficult task in attempting tocreate an executive power dependent on the majority of the people, andnevertheless sufficiently strong to act without restraint in its ownsphere. It was indispensable to the maintenance of the republican formof government that the representative of the executive power should besubject to the will of the nation. 

The President is an elective magistrate. His honor, his property, hisliberty, and his life are the securities which the people has for thetemperate use of his power. But in the exercise of his authority hecannot be said to be perfectly independent; the Senate takes cognizanceof his relations with foreign powers, and of the distribution of publicappointments, so that he can neither be bribed nor can he employ themeans of corruption. The legislators of the Union acknowledged that theexecutive power would be incompetent to fulfil its task with dignity andutility, unless it enjoyed a greater degree of stability and of strengththan had been granted to it in the separate States. 

The President is chosen for four years, and he may be reelected; so thatthe chances of a prolonged administration may inspire him with hopefulundertakings for the public good, and with the means of carrying theminto execution. The President was made the sole representative of theexecutive power of the Union, and care was taken not to render hisdecisions subordinate to the vote of a council--a dangerous measure, which tends at the same time to clog the action of the Government andto diminish its responsibility. The Senate has the right of annullingg certain acts of the President; but it cannot compel him to take anysteps, nor does it participate in the exercise of the executive power. 

The action of the legislature on the executive power may be direct; andwe have just shown that the Americans carefully obviated this influence;but it may, on the other hand, be indirect. Public assemblies which havethe power of depriving an officer of state of his salary encroach uponhis independence; and as they are free to make the laws, it is to befeared lest they should gradually appropriate to themselves a portionof that authority which the Constitution had vested in his hands. Thisdependence of the executive power is one of the defects inherent inrepublican constitutions. The Americans have not been able to counteractthe tendency which legislative assemblies have to get possession of thegovernment, but they have rendered this propensity less irresistible. 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 opposethe passing of such laws as might destroy the portion of independencewhich the Constitution awards him. The struggle between the Presidentand the legislature must always be an unequal one, since the latter iscertain of bearing down all resistance by persevering in its plans; butthe suspensive veto forces it at least to reconsider the matter, and, if the motion be persisted in, it must then be backed by a majority oftwo-thirds of the whole house. The veto is, in fact, a sort of appealto the people. The executive power, which, without this security, mighthave 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, thatin the constitutions of all nations, of whatever kind they may be, acertain point exists at which the legislator is obliged to have recourseto the good sense and the virtue of his fellow-citizens. This point ismore prominent and more discoverable in republics, whilst it is moreremote and more carefully concealed in monarchies, but it always existssomewhere. There is no country in the world in which everything can beprovided for by the laws, or in which political institutions can prove asubstitute for common sense and public morality. 

Differences Between The Position Of The President Of The United StatesAnd That Of 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 the legislature--ThePresident the mere executor of the law--Other differences resulting fromthe duration of the two powers--The President checked in the exerciseof the executive authority--The King independent in itsexercise--Notwithstanding these discrepancies France is more akin toa 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 ofnations that I am inclined to pause for an instant at this portion ofmy subject, in order more clearly to explain the part it sustainsin America. In order to form an accurate idea of the position of thePresident of the United States, it may not be irrelevant to compare itto that of one of the constitutional kings of Europe. In this comparisonI shall pay but little attention to the external signs of power, whichare more apt to deceive the eye of the observer than to guide hisresearches. When a monarchy is being gradually transformed into arepublic, the executive power retains the titles, the honors, theetiquette, and even the funds of royalty long after its authority hasdisappeared. The English, after having cut off the head of one kingand expelled another from his throne, were accustomed to accost thesuccessor of those princes upon their knees. On the other hand, when arepublic falls under the sway of a single individual, the demeanor ofthe sovereign is simple and unpretending, as if his authority was notyet paramount. When the emperors exercised an unlimited control overthe fortunes and the lives of their fellow-citizens, it was customary tocall them Caesar in conversation, and they were in the habit of suppingwithout formality at their friends' houses. It is therefore necessary tolook 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 thefirst and the most notable difference which exists between the Presidentof the United States and the King of France. In the United States theexecutive power is as limited and partial as the sovereignty of theUnion in whose name it acts; in France it is as universal as theauthority of the State. The Americans have a federal and the French anational Government. 

Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution--Part II

This cause of inferiority results from the nature of things, but it isnot the only one; the second in importance is as follows: Sovereigntymay be defined to be the right of making laws: in France, the Kingreally exercises a portion of the sovereign power, since the laws haveno weight till he has given his assent to them; he is, moreover, theexecutor of all they ordain. The President is also the executor of thelaws, but he does not really co-operate in their formation, since therefusal of his assent does not annul them. He is therefore merely to beconsidered 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 theother portion. He has the privilege of appointing the members of onechamber, and of dissolving the other at his pleasure; whereas thePresident of the United States has no share in the formation of thelegislative body, and cannot dissolve any part of it. The King has thesame right of bringing forward measures as the Chambers; a right whichthe President does not possess. The King is represented in each assemblyby his ministers, who explain his intentions, support his opinions, and maintain the principles of the Government. The President and hisministers are alike excluded from Congress; so that his influence andhis opinions can only penetrate indirectly into that great body. TheKing of France is therefore on an equal footing with the legislature, which can no more act without him than he can without it. The Presidentexercises an authority inferior to, and depending upon, that of thelegislature. 

Even in the exercise of the executive power, properly so called--thepoint upon which his position seems to be most analogous to that ofthe King of France--the President labors under several causes ofinferiority. The authority of the King, in France, has, in the firstplace, the advantage of duration over that of the President, anddurability is one of the chief elements of strength; nothing is eitherloved or feared but what is likely to endure. The President of theUnited States is a magistrate elected for four years; the King, inFrance, is an hereditary sovereign. In the exercise of the executivepower the President of the United States is constantly subject to ajealous scrutiny. He may make, but he cannot conclude, a treaty; hemay designate, but he cannot appoint, a public officer. *q The King ofFrance is absolute within the limits of his authority. The President ofthe United States is responsible for his actions; but the person of theKing is declared inviolable by the French Charter. *r

[Footnote q: The Constitution had left it doubtful whether the Presidentwas obliged to consult the Senate in the removal as well as in theappointment of Federal officers. "The Federalist" (No. 77) seemed toestablish the affirmative; but in 1789 Congress formally decided that, as the President was responsible for his actions, he ought not tobe forced to employ agents who had forfeited his esteem. See Kent's"Commentaries", vol. I. P. 289. ]

[Footnote r: [This comparison applied to the Constitutional King ofFrance and to the powers he held under the Charter of 1830, till theoverthrow of the monarchy in 1848. --Translator's Note. ]]

Nevertheless, the supremacy of public opinion is no less above the headof the one than of the other. This power is less definite, less evident, and less sanctioned by the laws in France than in America, but in factit exists. In America, it acts by elections and decrees; in France itproceeds by revolutions; but notwithstanding the different constitutionsof these two countries, public opinion is the predominant authorityin both of them. The fundamental principle of legislation--a principleessentially republican--is the same in both countries, although itsconsequences may be different, and its results more or less extensive. Whence I am led to conclude that France with its King is nearer akin toa republic than the Union with its President is to a monarchy. 

In what I have been saying I have only touched upon the main pointsof distinction; and if I could have entered into details, the contrastwould have been rendered still more striking. I have remarked that theauthority of the President in the United States is only exercised withinthe limits of a partial sovereignty, whilst that of the King in Franceis undivided. I might have gone on to show that the power of the King'sgovernment in France exceeds its natural limits, however extensivethey may be, and penetrates in a thousand different ways into theadministration of private interests. Amongst the examples of thisinfluence may be quoted that which results from the great numberof public functionaries, who all derive their appointments from theGovernment. This number now exceeds all previous limits; it amounts to138, 000 *s nominations, each of which may be considered as an element ofpower. The President of the United States has not the exclusive right ofmaking any public appointments, and their whole number scarcely exceeds12, 000. *t

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

[Footnote t: This number is extracted from the "National Calendar" for1833. The "National Calendar" is an American almanac which contains thenames of all the Federal officers. It results from this comparison thatthe King of France has eleven times as many places at his disposal asthe President, although the population of France is not much more thandouble that of the Union. 

[I have not the means of ascertaining the number of appointments now atthe disposal of the President of the United States, but his patronageand the abuse of it have largely increased since 1833. --Translator'sNote, 1875. ]]

Accidental Causes Which May Increase The Influence Of The ExecutiveGovernment

External security of the Union--Army of six thousand men--Few ships--ThePresident has no opportunity of exercising his great prerogatives--Inthe prerogatives he exercises he is weak. 

If the executive government is feebler in America than in France, thecause is more attributable to the circumstances than to the laws of thecountry. 

It is chiefly in its foreign relations that the executive power of anation is called upon to exert its skill and its vigor. If the existenceof the Union were perpetually threatened, and if its chief interestswere in daily connection with those of other powerful nations, theexecutive government would assume an increased importance in proportionto the measures expected of it, and those which it would carry intoeffect. The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief ofthe army, but of an army composed of only six thousand men; he commandsthe fleet, but the fleet reckons but few sail; he conducts the foreignrelations of the Union, but the United States are a nation withoutneighbors. 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 their interests rarely come into contact with those of any othernation of the globe. 

The practical part of a Government must not be judged by the theoryof its constitution. The President of the United States is in thepossession of almost royal prerogatives, which he has no opportunity ofexercising; and those privileges which he can at present use are verycircumscribed. The laws allow him to possess a degree of influence whichcircumstances do not permit him to employ. 

On the other hand, the great strength of the royal prerogative inFrance arises from circumstances far more than from the laws. Therethe executive government is constantly struggling against prodigiousobstacles, and exerting all its energies to repress them; so that itincreases by the extent of its achievements, and by the importance ofthe events it controls, without modifying its constitution. If the lawshad made it as feeble and as circumscribed as it is in the Union, itsinfluence would very soon become still more preponderant. 

Why The President Of The United States Does Not Require The Majority OfThe Two Houses In Order To Carry On The Government It is an establishedaxiom in Europe that a constitutional King cannot persevere in asystem of government which is opposed by the two other branches of thelegislature. But several Presidents of the United States have been knownto lose the majority in the legislative body without being obliged toabandon the supreme power, and without inflicting a serious evilupon 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 aproof of its extreme weakness. 

A King in Europe requires the support of the legislature to enable himto perform the duties imposed upon him by the Constitution, becausethose duties are enormous. A constitutional King in Europe is not merelythe executor of the law, but the execution of its provisions devolves socompletely upon him that he has the power of paralyzing its influenceif it opposes his designs. He requires the assistance of the legislativeassemblies to make the law, but those assemblies stand in need of hisaid to execute it: these two authorities cannot subsist without eachother, and the mechanism of government is stopped as soon as they are atvariance. 

In America the President cannot prevent any law from being passed, norcan he evade the obligation of enforcing it. His sincere and zealousco-operation is no doubt useful, but it is not indispensable, in thecarrying on of public affairs. All his important acts are directly orindirectly submitted to the legislature, and of his own free authorityhe can do but little. It is therefore his weakness, and not his power, which enables him to remain in opposition to Congress. In Europe, harmony must reign between the Crown and the other branches of thelegislature, because a collision between them may prove serious; inAmerica, this harmony is not indispensable, because such a collision isimpossible. 

Election Of The President

Dangers of the elective system increase in proportion to the extent ofthe prerogative--This system possible in America because no powerfulexecutive authority is required--What circumstances are favorable tothe elective system--Why the election of the President does not causea deviation from the principles of the Government--Influence of theelection of the President on secondary functionaries. 

The dangers of the system of election applied to the head of theexecutive government of a great people have been sufficientlyexemplified by experience and by history, and the remarks I am aboutto make refer to America alone. These dangers may be more or lessformidable in proportion to the place which the executive poweroccupies, and to the importance it possesses in the State; and they mayvary according to the mode of election and the circumstances in whichthe 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, thatwhen legitimate means are wanting force may not unfrequently seize whatright denied. 

It is clear that the greater the privileges of the executive authorityare, the greater is the temptation; the more the ambition of thecandidates is excited, the more warmly are their interests espoused bya throng of partisans who hope to share the power when their patron haswon the prize. The dangers of the elective system increase, therefore, in the exact ratio of the influence exercised by the executive powerin the affairs of State. The revolutions of Poland were not solelyattributable to the elective system in general, but to the fact that theelected monarch was the sovereign of a powerful kingdom. Before we candiscuss the absolute advantages of the elective system we must makepreliminary inquiries as to whether the geographical position, the laws, the habits, the manners, and the opinions of the people amongst whomit is to be introduced will admit of the establishment of a weakand dependent executive government; for to attempt to render therepresentative of the State a powerful sovereign, and at the same timeelective, is, in my opinion, to entertain two incompatible designs. Toreduce hereditary royalty to the condition of an elective authority, theonly means that I am acquainted with are to circumscribe its sphereof action beforehand, gradually to diminish its prerogatives, and toaccustom the people to live without its protection. Nothing, however, isfurther from the designs of the republicans of Europe than this course:as many of them owe their hatred of tyranny to the sufferings which theyhave personally undergone, it is oppression, and not the extent of theexecutive power, which excites their hostility, and they attack theformer without perceiving how nearly it is connected with the latter. 

Hitherto no citizen has shown any disposition to expose his honor andhis life in order to become the President of the United States; becausethe power of that office is temporary, limited, and subordinate. Theprize of fortune must be great to encourage adventurers in so desperatea game. No candidate has as yet been able to arouse the dangerousenthusiasm or the passionate sympathies of the people in his favor, forthe very simple reason that when he is at the head of the Government hehas but little power, but little wealth, and but little glory to shareamongst his friends; and his influence in the State is too small forthe success or the ruin of a faction to depend upon the elevation of anindividual to power. 

The great advantage of hereditary monarchies is, that as the privateinterest of a family is always intimately connected with the interestsof the State, the executive government is never suspended for a singleinstant; and if the affairs of a monarchy are not better conducted thanthose of a republic, at least there is always some one to conduct them, well or ill, according to his capacity. In elective States, on thecontrary, the wheels of government cease to act, as it were, of theirown accord at the approach of an election, and even for some timeprevious to that event. The laws may indeed accelerate the operation ofthe election, which may be conducted with such simplicity and rapiditythat the seat of power will never be left vacant; but, notwithstandingthese precautions, a break necessarily occurs in the minds of thepeople. 

At the approach of an election the head of the executive government iswholly occupied by the coming struggle; his future plans are doubtful;he can undertake nothing new, and the he will only prosecute withindifference those designs which another will perhaps terminate. "I amso near the time of my retirement from office, " said President Jeffersonon the 21st of January, 1809 (six weeks before the election), "that Ifeel no passion, I take no part, I express no sentiment. It appearsto me just to leave to my successor the commencement of those measureswhich 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;all are watching the gradual birth of so important an event. The widerthe influence of the executive power extends, the greater and themore necessary is its constant action, the more fatal is the term ofsuspense; and a nation which is accustomed to the government, or, stillmore, one used to the administrative protection of a powerful executiveauthority would be infallibly convulsed by an election of this kind. In the United States the action of the Government may be slackened withimpunity, because it is always weak and circumscribed. *u

[Footnote u: [This, however, may be a great danger. The period duringwhich Mr. Buchanan retained office, after the election of Mr. Lincoln, from November, 1860, to March, 1861, was that which enabled the secedingStates of the South to complete their preparations for the Civil War, and the Executive Government was paralyzed. No greater evil could befalla nation. --Translator's Note. ]]

One of the principal vices of the elective system is that it alwaysintroduces a certain degree of instability into the internal andexternal policy of the State. But this disadvantage is less sensiblyfelt if the share of power vested in the elected magistrate is small. InRome the principles of the Government underwent no variation, althoughthe Consuls were changed every year, because the Senate, which was anhereditary assembly, possessed the directing authority. If the electivesystem were adopted in Europe, the condition of most of the monarchicalStates would be changed at every new election. In America the Presidentexercises a certain influence on State affairs, but he does not conductthem; the preponderating power is vested in the representatives of thewhole nation. The political maxims of the country depend therefore onthe mass of the people, not on the President alone; and consequentlyin America the elective system has no very prejudicial influence on thefixed principles of the Government. But the want of fixed principles isan evil so inherent in the elective system that it is still extremelyperceptible in the narrow sphere to which the authority of the Presidentextends. 

The Americans have admitted that the head of the executive power, whohas to bear the whole responsibility of the duties he is called upon tofulfil, ought to be empowered to choose his own agents, and to removethem at pleasure: the legislative bodies watch the conduct of thePresident more than they direct it. The consequence of this arrangementis, that at every new election the fate of all the Federal publicofficers is in suspense. Mr. Quincy Adams, on his entry into office, discharged the majority of the individuals who had been appointed by hispredecessor: and I am not aware that General Jackson allowed a singleremovable functionary employed in the Federal service to retainhis place beyond the first year which succeeded his election. Itis sometimes made a subject of complaint that in the constitutionalmonarchies of Europe the fate of the humbler servants of anAdministration depends upon that of the Ministers. But in electiveGovernments this evil is far greater. In a constitutional monarchysuccessive ministries are rapidly formed; but as the principalrepresentative of the executive power does not change, the spirit ofinnovation is kept within bounds; the changes which take place are inthe details rather than in the principles of the administrative system;but to substitute one system for another, as is done in Americaevery four years, by law, is to cause a sort of revolution. As to themisfortunes which may fall upon individuals in consequence of this stateof things, it must be allowed that the uncertain situation of thepublic officers is less fraught with evil consequences in America thanelsewhere. It is so easy to acquire an independent position in theUnited States that the public officer who loses his place may bedeprived of the comforts of life, but not of the means of subsistence. 

I remarked at the beginning of this chapter that the dangers of theelective system applied to the head of the State are augmented ordecreased by the peculiar circumstances of the people which adopts it. However the functions of the executive power may be restricted, itmust always exercise a great influence upon the foreign policy of thecountry, for a negotiation cannot be opened or successfully carriedon otherwise than by a single agent. The more precarious and the moreperilous the position of a people becomes, the more absolute is the wantof a fixed and consistent external policy, and the more dangerous doesthe elective system of the Chief Magistrate become. The policy of theAmericans in relation to the whole world is exceedingly simple; for itmay almost be said that no country stands in need of them, nor do theyrequire the co-operation of any other people. Their independence isnever threatened. In their present condition, therefore, the functionsof the executive power are no less limited by circumstances than by thelaws; and the President may frequently change his line of policy withoutinvolving the State in difficulty or destruction. 

Whatever the prerogatives of the executive power may be, the periodwhich immediately precedes an election and the moment of its durationmust always be considered as a national crisis, which is perilous inproportion to the internal embarrassments and the external dangers ofthe country. Few of the nations of Europe could escape the calamitiesof anarchy or of conquest every time they might have to elect a newsovereign. In America society is so constituted that it can standwithout assistance upon its own basis; nothing is to be feared from thepressure of external dangers, and the election of the President is acause of agitation, but not of ruin. 

Mode Of Election

Skill of the American legislators shown in the mode of election adoptedby them--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 otherdifficulties may arise from the mode of election, which may be obviatedby the precaution of the legislator. When a people met in arms on somepublic spot to choose its head, it was exposed to all the chances ofcivil war resulting from so martial a mode of proceeding, besidesthe dangers of the elective system in itself. The Polish laws, whichsubjected the election of the sovereign to the veto of a singleindividual, suggested the murder of that individual or prepared the wayto anarchy. 

In the examination of the institutions and the political as well associal condition of the United States, we are struck by the admirableharmony of the gifts of fortune and the efforts of man. The nationpossessed two of the main causes of internal peace; it was a newcountry, but it was inhabited by a people grown old in the exercise offreedom. America had no hostile neighbors to dread; and the Americanlegislators, profiting by these favorable circumstances, created aweak and subordinate executive power which could without danger be madeelective. 

It then only remained for them to choose the least dangerous of thevarious modes of election; and the rules which they laid down upon thispoint admirably correspond to the securities which the physical andpolitical constitution of the country already afforded. Their object wasto find the mode of election which would best express the choice of thepeople with the least possible excitement and suspense. It was admittedin the first place that the simple majority should be decisive; butthe difficulty was to obtain this majority without an interval ofdelay which it was most important to avoid. It rarely happens that anindividual can at once collect the majority of the suffrages of a greatpeople; and this difficulty is enhanced in a republic of confederateStates, where local influences are apt to preponderate. The means bywhich it was proposed to obviate this second obstacle was to delegatethe electoral powers of the nation to a body of representatives. Thismode of election rendered a majority more probable; for the fewer theelectors are, the greater is the chance of their coming to a finaldecision. It also offered an additional probability of a judiciouschoice. It then remained to be decided whether this right of electionwas to be entrusted to a legislative body, the habitual representativeassembly of the nation, or whether an electoral assembly should beformed for the express purpose of proceeding to the nomination of aPresident. The Americans chose the latter alternative, from a beliefthat the individuals who were returned to make the laws were incompetentto represent the wishes of the nation in the election of its chiefmagistrate; and that, as they are chosen for more than a year, theconstituency they represent might have changed its opinion in that time. It was thought that if the legislature was empowered to elect the headof the executive power, its members would, for some time before theelection, be exposed to the manoeuvres of corruption and the tricks ofintrigue; whereas the special electors would, like a jury, remain mixedup with the crowd till the day of action, when they would appear for thesole purpose of giving their votes. 

It was therefore established that every State should name a certainnumber of electors, *v who in their turn should elect the President;and as it had been observed that the assemblies to which the choice ofa chief magistrate had been entrusted in elective countries inevitablybecame the centres of passion and of cabal; that they sometimes usurpedan authority which did not belong to them; and that their proceedings, or the uncertainty which resulted from them, were sometimes prolonged somuch as to endanger the welfare of the State, it was determined that theelectors should all vote upon the same day, without being convoked tothe same place. *w This double election rendered a majority probable, though not certain; for it was possible that as many differences mightexist between the electors as between their constituents. In this caseit was necessary to have recourse to one of three measures; eitherto appoint new electors, or to consult a second time those alreadyappointed, or to defer the election to another authority. The firsttwo of these alternatives, independently of the uncertainty of theirresults, were likely to delay the final decision, and to perpetuatean agitation which must always be accompanied with danger. The thirdexpedient was therefore adopted, and it was agreed that the votes shouldbe transmitted sealed to the President of the Senate, and that theyshould be opened and counted in the presence of the Senate and the Houseof Representatives. If none of the candidates has a majority, the Houseof Representatives then proceeds immediately to elect a President, butwith the condition that it must fix upon one of the three candidates whohave the highest numbers. *x

[Footnote v: As many as it sends members to Congress. The number ofelectors at the election of 1833 was 288. (See "The National Calendar, "1833. )]

[Footnote w: The electors of the same State assemble, but they transmitto the central government the list of their individual votes, and notthe mere result of the vote of the majority. ] [Footnote x: In this caseit is the majority of the States, and not the majority of the members, which decides the question; so that New York has not more influence inthe debate than Rhode Island. Thus the citizens of the Union are firstconsulted as members of one and the same community; and, if they cannotagree, recourse is had to the division of the States, each of which hasa separate and independent vote. This is one of the singularities ofthe Federal Constitution which can only be explained by the jar ofconflicting interests. ]

Thus it is only in case of an event which cannot often happen, and whichcan never be foreseen, that the election is entrusted to the ordinaryrepresentatives of the nation; and even then they are obliged to choosea citizen who has already been designated by a powerful minority of thespecial electors. It is by this happy expedient that the respect whichis due to the popular voice is combined with the utmost celerity ofexecution and those precautions which the peace of the country demands. But the decision of the question by the House of Representatives doesnot necessarily offer an immediate solution of the difficulty, for themajority of that assembly may still be doubtful, and in this case theConstitution prescribes no remedy. Nevertheless, by restricting thenumber of candidates to three, and by referring the matter to thejudgment of an enlightened public body, it has smoothed all theobstacles *y which are not inherent in the elective system. 

[Footnote y: Jefferson, in 1801, was not elected until the thirty-sixthtime of balloting. ]

In the forty-four years which have elapsed since the promulgation ofthe Federal Constitution the United States have twelve times chosen aPresident. Ten of these elections took place simultaneously by thevotes of the special electors in the different States. The House ofRepresentatives has only twice exercised its conditional privilege ofdeciding in cases of uncertainty; the first time was at the election ofMr. Jefferson in 1801; the second was in 1825, when Mr. Quincy Adams wasnamed. *z

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

Crises Of The Election

The Election may be considered as a national crisis--Why?--Passions ofthe people--Anxiety of the President--Calm which succeeds the agitationof the election. 

I have shown what the circumstances are which favored the adoption ofthe elective system in the United States, and what precautions weretaken by the legislators to obviate its dangers. The Americans arehabitually accustomed to all kinds of elections, and they know byexperience the utmost degree of excitement which is compatible withsecurity. The vast extent of the country and the dissemination of theinhabitants render a collision between parties less probable and lessdangerous there than elsewhere. The political circumstances under whichthe elections have hitherto been carried on have presented no realembarrassments to the nation. 

Nevertheless, the epoch of the election of a President of the UnitedStates may be considered as a crisis in the affairs of the nation. Theinfluence which he exercises on public business is no doubt feeble andindirect; but the choice of the President, which is of small importanceto each individual citizen, concerns the citizens collectively; andhowever trifling an interest may be, it assumes a great degree ofimportance as soon as it becomes general. The President possesses butfew means of rewarding his supporters in comparison to the kings ofEurope, but the places which are at his disposal are sufficientlynumerous to interest, directly or indirectly, several thousand electorsin his success. Political parties in the United States are led to rallyround an individual, in order to acquire a more tangible shape in theeyes of the crowd, and the name of the candidate for the Presidency isput forward as the symbol and personification of their theories. Forthese reasons parties are strongly interested in gaining the election, not so much with a view to the triumph of their principles underthe auspices of the President-elect as to show by the majority whichreturned him, the strength of the supporters of those principles. 

For a long while before the appointed time is at hand the electionbecomes the most important and the all-engrossing topic of discussion. The ardor of faction is redoubled; and all the artificial passions whichthe imagination can create in the bosom of a happy and peaceful landare agitated and brought to light. The President, on the other hand, is absorbed by the cares of self-defence. He no longer governs for theinterest of the State, but for that of his re-election; he does homageto the majority, and instead of checking its passions, as his dutycommands him to do, he frequently courts its worst caprices. As theelection draws near, the activity of intrigue and the agitation of thepopulace increase; the citizens are divided into hostile camps, each ofwhich assumes the name of its favorite candidate; the whole nation glowswith feverish excitement; the election is the daily theme of the publicpapers, the subject of private conversation, the end of every thoughtand every action, the sole interest of the present. As soon as thechoice is determined, this ardor is dispelled; and as a calmer seasonreturns, the current of the State, which had nearly broken its banks, sinks to its usual level: *a but who can refrain from astonishment atthe causes of the storm. 

[Footnote a: [Not always. The election of President Lincoln was thesignal of civil war. --Translator's Note. ]]

Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution--Part III

Re-election Of The President

When the head of the executive power is re-eligible, it is the Statewhich is the source of intrigue and corruption--The desire ofbeing re-elected the chief aim of a President of the UnitedStates--Disadvantage of the system peculiar to America--The naturalevil of democracy is that it subordinates all authority to the slightestdesires of the majority--The re-election of the President encouragesthis evil. 

It may be asked whether the legislators of the United States did rightor wrong in allowing the re-election of the President. It seems at firstsight contrary to all reason to prevent the head of the executive powerfrom being elected a second time. The influence which the talents andthe character of a single individual may exercise upon the fate of awhole people, in critical circumstances or arduous times, is well known:a law preventing the re-election of the chief magistrate would deprivethe citizens of the surest pledge of the prosperity and the securityof the commonwealth; and, by a singular inconsistency, a man would beexcluded from the government at the very time when he had shown hisability in conducting its affairs. 

But if these arguments are strong, perhaps still more powerful reasonsmay be advanced against them. Intrigue and corruption are the naturaldefects of elective government; but when the head of the State can bere-elected these evils rise to a great height, and compromise the veryexistence of the country. When a simple candidate seeks to rise byintrigue, his manoeuvres must necessarily be limited to a narrow sphere;but when the chief magistrate enters the lists, he borrows the strengthof the government for his own purposes. In the former case the feebleresources of an individual are in action; in the latter, the Stateitself, with all its immense influence, is busied in the work ofcorruption and cabal. The private citizen, who employs the mostimmoral practices to acquire power, can only act in a manner indirectlyprejudicial to the public prosperity. But if the representative of theexecutive descends into the combat, the cares of government dwindle intosecond-rate importance, and the success of his election is his firstconcern. All laws and all the negotiations he undertakes are to himnothing more than electioneering schemes; places become the rewardof services rendered, not to the nation, but to its chief; and theinfluence of the government, if not injurious to the country, is atleast no longer beneficial to the community for which it was created. 

It is impossible to consider the ordinary course of affairs in theUnited States without perceiving that the desire of being re-elected isthe chief aim of the President; that his whole administration, and evenhis most indifferent measures, tend to this object; and that, as thecrisis approaches, his personal interest takes the place of his interestin the public good. The principle of re-eligibility renders the corruptinfluence of elective government still more extensive and pernicious. 

In America it exercises a peculiarly fatal influence on the sources ofnational existence. Every government seems to be afflicted by some evilwhich is inherent in its nature, and the genius of the legislator isshown in eluding its attacks. A State may survive the influence of ahost of bad laws, and the mischief they cause is frequently exaggerated;but a law which encourages the growth of the canker within must provefatal in the end, although its bad consequences may not be immediatelyperceived. 

The principle of destruction in absolute monarchies lies in theexcessive and unreasonable extension of the prerogative of the crown;and a measure tending to remove the constitutional provisions whichcounterbalance this influence would be radically bad, even if itsimmediate consequences were unattended with evil. By a parity ofreasoning, in countries governed by a democracy, where the people isperpetually drawing all authority to itself, the laws which increase oraccelerate its action are the direct assailants of the very principle ofthe government. 

The greatest proof of the ability of the American legislators is, thatthey clearly discerned this truth, and that they had the courage to actup to it. They conceived that a certain authority above the body ofthe people was necessary, which should enjoy a degree of independence, without, however, being entirely beyond the popular control;an authority which would be forced to comply with the permanentdeterminations of the majority, but which would be able to resist itscaprices, and to refuse its most dangerous demands. To this end theycentred the whole executive power of the nation in a single arm; theygranted extensive prerogatives to the President, and they armed him withthe veto to resist the encroachments of the legislature. 

But by introducing the principle of re-election they partly destroyedtheir work; and they rendered the President but little inclined to exertthe great power they had vested in his hands. If ineligible a secondtime, the President would be far from independent of the people, for hisresponsibility would not be lessened; but the favor of the people wouldnot be so necessary to him as to induce him to court it by humoring itsdesires. If re-eligible (and this is more especially true at the presentday, when political morality is relaxed, and when great men are rare), the President of the United States becomes an easy tool in the hands ofthe majority. He adopts its likings and its animosities, he hastens toanticipate its wishes, he forestalls its complaints, he yields to itsidlest cravings, and instead of guiding it, as the legislature intendedthat he should do, he is ever ready to follow its bidding. Thus, inorder not to deprive the State of the talents of an individual, thosetalents have been rendered almost useless; and to reserve an expedientfor extraordinary perils, the country has been exposed to daily dangers. 

Federal Courts *b

[Footnote b: See chap. VI, entitled "Judicial Power in the UnitedStates. " This chapter explains the general principles of the Americantheory of judicial institutions. See also the Federal Constitution, Art. 3. See "The Federalists, " Nos. 78-83, inclusive; and a work entitled"Constitutional Law, " being a view of the practice and jurisdiction ofthe 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, inthe "Collection of the Laws of the United States, " by Story, vol. I. P. 53. ]

Political importance of the judiciary in the United States--Difficultyof treating this subject--Utility of judicial power inconfederations--What tribunals could be introduced into theUnion--Necessity of establishing federal courts of justice--Organizationof the national judiciary--The Supreme Court--In what it differs fromall known tribunals. 

I have inquired into the legislative and executive power of the Union, and the judicial power now remains to be examined; but in this placeI cannot conceal my fears from the reader. Their judicial institutionsexercise a great influence on the condition of the Anglo-Americans, andthey occupy a prominent place amongst what are probably called politicalinstitutions: in this respect they are peculiarly deserving of ourattention. But I am at a loss to explain the political action of theAmerican tribunals without entering into some technical details oftheir constitution and their forms of proceeding; and I know not how todescend to these minutiae without wearying the curiosity of the readerby the natural aridity of the subject, or without risking to fall intoobscurity through a desire to be succinct. I can scarcely hope to escapethese various evils; for if I appear too lengthy to a man of the world, a lawyer may on the other hand complain of my brevity. But these are thenatural disadvantages of my subject, and more especially of the pointwhich I am about to discuss. 

The great difficulty was, not to devise the Constitution to the FederalGovernment, but to find out a method of enforcing its laws. Governmentshave in general but two means of overcoming the opposition of the peoplethey govern, viz. , the physical force which is at their own disposal, and the moral force which they derive from the decisions of the courtsof justice. 

A government which should have no other means of exacting obedience thanopen war must be very near its ruin, for one of two alternatives wouldthen probably occur: if its authority was small and its charactertemperate, it would not resort to violence till the last extremity, and it would connive at a number of partial acts of insubordination, in which case the State would gradually fall into anarchy; if it wasenterprising and powerful, it would perpetually have recourse toits physical strength, and would speedily degenerate into a militarydespotism. 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 thatof violence, and to place a legal barrier between the power of thegovernment and the use of physical force. The authority which is awardedto the intervention of a court of justice by the general opinion ofmankind is so surprisingly great that it clings to the mere formalitiesof justice, and gives a bodily influence to the shadow of the law. Themoral force which courts of justice possess renders the introduction ofphysical force exceedingly rare, and is very frequently substituted forit; but if the latter proves to be indispensable, its power is doubledby 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 exposedto formidable opposition. *c If it were always obliged to resort toviolence in the first instance, it could not fulfil its task. The Union, therefore, required a national judiciary to enforce the obedience of thecitizens to the laws, and to repeal the attacks which might be directedagainst them. The question then remained as to what tribunals were toexercise these privileges; were they to be entrusted to the courts ofjustice which were already organized in every State? or was it necessaryto create federal courts? It may easily be proved that the Union couldnot adapt the judicial power of the States to its wants. The separationof the judiciary from the administrative power of the State no doubtaffects the security of every citizen and the liberty of all. But itis no less important to the existence of the nation that these severalpowers should have the same origin, should follow the same principles, and act in the same sphere; in a word, that they should be correlativeand homogeneous. No one, I presume, ever suggested the advantage oftrying offences committed in France by a foreign court of justice, inorder to secure the impartiality of the judges. The Americans form onepeople in relation to their Federal Government; but in the bosom of thispeople divers political bodies have been allowed to subsist which aredependent on the national Government in a few points, and independentin all the rest; which have all a distinct origin, maxims peculiar tothemselves, and special means of carrying on their affairs. To entrustthe execution of the laws of the Union to tribunals instituted by thesepolitical bodies would be to allow foreign judges to preside over thenation. Nay, more; not only is each State foreign to the Union atlarge, but it is in perpetual opposition to the common interests, sincewhatever authority the Union loses turns to the advantage of the States. Thus to enforce the laws of the Union by means of the tribunals of theStates would be to allow not only foreign but partial judges to presideover the nation. 

[Footnote c: Federal laws are those which most require courts ofjustice, and those at the same time which have most rarely establishedthem. The reason is that confederations have usually been formed byindependent States, which entertained no real intention of obeying thecentral Government, and which very readily ceded the right of commandto the federal executive, and very prudently reserved the right ofnon-compliance to themselves. ]

But the number, still more than the mere character, of the tribunals ofthe States rendered them unfit for the service of the nation. When theFederal Constitution was formed there were already thirteen courts ofjustice in the United States which decided causes without appeal. Thatnumber is now increased to twenty-four. To suppose that a State cansubsist when its fundamental laws may be subjected to four-and-twentydifferent interpretations at the same time is to advance a propositionalike contrary to reason and to experience. 

The American legislators therefore agreed to create a federal judiciarypower to apply the laws of the Union, and to determine certain questionsaffecting general interests, which were carefully determined beforehand. The entire judicial power of the Union was centred in one tribunal, which was denominated the Supreme Court of the United States. But, tofacilitate the expedition of business, inferior courts were appended toit, which were empowered to decide causes of small importance withoutappeal, and with appeal causes of more magnitude. The members of theSupreme Court are named neither by the people nor the legislature, butby the President of the United States, acting with the advice of theSenate. In order to render them independent of the other authorities, their office was made inalienable; and it was determined that theirsalary, when once fixed, should not be altered by the legislature. *dIt was easy to proclaim the principle of a Federal judiciary, butdifficulties multiplied when the extent of its jurisdiction was to bedetermined. 

[Footnote d: The Union was divided into districts, in each of which aresident Federal judge was appointed, and the court in which he presidedwas termed a "District Court. " Each of the judges of the Supreme Courtannually visits a certain portion of the Republic, in order to try themost important causes upon the spot; the court presided over by thismagistrate is styled a "Circuit Court. " Lastly, all the most seriouscases of litigation are brought before the Supreme Court, which holdsa solemn session once a year, at which all the judges of the CircuitCourts must attend. The jury was introduced into the Federal Courtsin the same manner, and in the same cases, as into the courts of theStates. 

It will be observed that no analogy exists between the Supreme Courtof the United States and the French Cour de Cassation, since the latteronly hears appeals on questions of law. The Supreme Court decides uponthe evidence of the fact as well as upon the law of the case, whereasthe Cour de Cassation does not pronounce a decision of its own, butrefers the cause to the arbitration of another tribunal. See the law ofSeptember 24, 1789, "Laws of the United States, " by Story, vol. I. P. 53. ]

Means Of Determining The Jurisdiction Of The Federal Courts Difficultyof determining the jurisdiction of separate courts of justice inconfederations--The courts of the Union obtained the right of fixingtheir own jurisdiction--In what respect this rule attacks the portionof sovereignty reserved to the several States--The sovereignty ofthese States restricted by the laws, and the interpretation of thelaws--Consequently, the danger of the several States is more apparentthan real. 

As the Constitution of the United States recognized two distinct powersin presence of each other, represented in a judicial point of view bytwo distinct classes of courts of justice, the utmost care which couldbe taken in defining their separate jurisdictions would have beeninsufficient to prevent frequent collisions between those tribunals. Thequestion then arose to whom the right of deciding the competency of eachcourt was to be referred. 

In nations which constitute a single body politic, when a question isdebated between two courts relating to their mutual jurisdiction, athird tribunal is generally within reach to decide the difference;and this is effected without difficulty, because in these nations thequestions of judicial competency have no connection with the privilegesof the national supremacy. But it was impossible to create an arbiterbetween a superior court of the Union and the superior court of aseparate State which would not belong to one of these two classes. Itwas, 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 Stateswould have been to destroy the sovereignty of the Union de factoafter having established it de jure; for the interpretation of theConstitution would soon have restored that portion of independence tothe States of which the terms of that act deprived them. The objectof the creation of a Federal tribunal was to prevent the courts of theStates from deciding questions affecting the national interests in theirown department, and so to form a uniform body of jurisprudene for theinterpretation of the laws of the Union. This end would not have beenaccomplished if the courts of the several States had been competentto decide upon cases in their separate capacities from which they wereobliged to abstain as Federal tribunals. The Supreme Court of theUnited States was therefore invested with the right of determining allquestions of jurisdiction. *e

[Footnote e: In order to diminish the number of these suits, it wasdecided that in a great many Federal causes the courts of the Statesshould be empowered to decide conjointly with those of the Union, thelosing party having then a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of theUnited States. The Supreme Court of Virginia contested the right ofthe Supreme Court of the United States to judge an appeal from itsdecisions, but unsuccessfully. See "Kent's Commentaries, " vol. I. P. 300, pp. 370 et seq. ; Story's "Commentaries, " p. 646; and "The OrganicLaw of the United States, " vol. I. P. 35. ]

This was a severe blow upon the independence of the States, which wasthus restricted not only by the laws, but by the interpretation of them;by one limit which was known, and by another which was dubious; by arule which was certain, and a rule which was arbitrary. It is true theConstitution had laid down the precise limits of the Federal supremacy, but whenever this supremacy is contested by one of the States, a Federaltribunal decides the question. Nevertheless, the dangers with which theindependence of the States was threatened by this mode of proceeding areless serious than they appeared to be. We shall see hereafter that inAmerica the real strength of the country is vested in the provincial farmore than in the Federal Government. The Federal judges are conscious ofthe relative weakness of the power in whose name they act, and they aremore inclined to abandon a right of jurisdiction in cases where it isjustly their own than to assert a privilege to which they have no legalclaim. 

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 from thelaws of the Union--Why judged by the Federal tribunals--Causes relatingto the performance of contracts tried by the Federal courts--Consequenceof this arrangement. 

After having appointed the means of fixing the competency of the Federalcourts, the legislators of the Union defined the cases which should comewithin their jurisdiction. It was established, on the one hand, thatcertain parties must always be brought before the Federal courts, without any regard to the special nature of the cause; and, on theother, that certain causes must always be brought before the samecourts, without any regard to the quality of the parties in the suit. These distinctions were therefore admitted to be the basis of theFederal jurisdiction. 

Ambassadors are the representatives of nations in a state of amitywith the Union, and whatever concerns these personages concerns in somedegree the whole Union. When an ambassador is a party in a suit, thatsuit affects the welfare of the nation, and a Federal tribunal isnaturally called upon to decide it. 

The Union itself may be invoked in legal proceedings, and in this caseit would be alike contrary to the customs of all nations and to commonsense to appeal to a tribunal representing any other sovereigntythan its own; the Federal courts, therefore, take cognizance of theseaffairs. 

When two parties belonging to two different States are engaged in asuit, the case cannot with propriety be brought before a court of eitherState. The surest expedient is to select a tribunal like that of theUnion, which can excite the suspicions of neither party, and whichoffers the most natural as well as the most certain remedy. 

When the two parties are not private individuals, but States, animportant political consideration is added to the same motive of equity. The quality of the parties in this case gives a national importance toall their disputes; and the most trifling litigation of the States maybe said to involve the peace of the whole Union. *f

[Footnote f: The Constitution also says that the Federal courts shalldecide "controversies between a State and the citizens of anotherState. " And here a most important question of a constitutional naturearose, which was, whether the jurisdiction given by the Constitution incases in which a State is a party extended to suits brought against aState as well as by it, or was exclusively confined to the latter. Thequestion was most elaborately considered in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, and was decided by the majority of the Supreme Court in theaffirmative. The decision created general alarm among the States, andan amendment was proposed and ratified by which the power was entirelytaken away, so far as it regards suits brought against a State. SeeStory's "Commentaries, " p. 624, or in the large edition Section 1677. ]

The nature of the cause frequently prescribes the rule of competency. Thus all the questions which concern maritime commerce evidently fallunder the cognizance of the Federal tribunals. *g Almost all thesequestions are connected with the interpretation of the law of nations, and in this respect they essentially interest the Union in relation toforeign powers. Moreover, as the sea is not included within the limitsof any peculiar jurisdiction, the national courts can only hear causeswhich originate in maritime affairs. 

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

The Constitution comprises under one head almost all the cases which bytheir very nature come within the limits of the Federal courts. Therule which it lays down is simple, but pregnant with an entire system ofideas, and with a vast multitude of facts. It declares that the judicialpower of the Supreme Court shall extend to all cases in law and equityarising under the laws of the United States. 

Two examples will put the intention of the legislator in the clearestlight:

The Constitution prohibits the States from making laws on the valueand circulation of money: If, notwithstanding this prohibition, a Statepasses a law of this kind, with which the interested parties refuse tocomply because it is contrary to the Constitution, the case must comebefore a Federal court, because it arises under the laws of the UnitedStates. Again, if difficulties arise in the levying of import dutieswhich have been voted by Congress, the Federal court must decide thecase, because it arises under the interpretation of a law of the UnitedStates. 

This rule is in perfect accordance with the fundamental principles ofthe Federal Constitution. The Union, as it was established in 1789, possesses, it is true, a limited supremacy; but it was intended thatwithin its limits it should form one and the same people. *h Withinthose limits the Union is sovereign. When this point is establishedand admitted, the inference is easy; for if it be acknowledged thatthe United States constitute one and the same people within the boundsprescribed by their Constitution, it is impossible to refuse them therights which belong to other nations. But it has been allowed, from theorigin of society, that every nation has the right of deciding by itsown courts those questions which concern the execution of its own laws. To this it is answered that the Union is in so singular a positionthat in relation to some matters it constitutes a people, and that inrelation to all the rest it is a nonentity. But the inference to bedrawn is, that in the laws relating to these matters the Union possessesall the rights of absolute sovereignty. The difficulty is to know whatthese matters are; and when once it is resolved (and we have shownhow it was resolved, in speaking of the means of determining thejurisdiction of the Federal courts) no further doubt can arise; for assoon as it is established that a suit is Federal--that is to say, thatit belongs to the share of sovereignty reserved by the Constitution ofthe Union--the natural consequence is that it should come within thejurisdiction of a Federal court. 

[Footnote h: This principle was in some measure restricted by theintroduction of the several States as independent powers into theSenate, and by allowing them to vote separately in the House ofRepresentatives when the President is elected by that body. But theseare exceptions, and the contrary principle is the rule. ]

Whenever the laws of the United States are attacked, or whenever theyare resorted to in self-defence, the Federal courts must be appealed to. Thus the jurisdiction of the tribunals of the Union extends and narrowsits limits exactly in the same ratio as the sovereignty of the Unionaugments or decreases. We have shown that the principal aim of thelegislators of 1789 was to divide the sovereign authority into twoparts. In the one they placed the control of all the general interestsof the Union, in the other the control of the special interests ofits component States. Their chief solicitude was to arm the FederalGovernment with sufficient power to enable it to resist, withinits sphere, the encroachments of the several States. As for thesecommunities, the principle of independence within certain limits oftheir own was adopted in their behalf; and they were concealed from theinspection, and protected from the control, of the central Government. In speaking of the division of authority, I observed that this latterprinciple had not always been held sacred, since the States areprevented from passing certain laws which apparently belong to their ownparticular sphere of interest. When a State of the Union passes a law ofthis kind, the citizens who are injured by its execution can appeal tothe Federal courts. 

Thus the jurisdiction of the Federal courts extends not only to all thecases which arise under the laws of the Union, but also to thosewhich arise under laws made by the several States in opposition to theConstitution. The States are prohibited from making ex post facto lawsin criminal cases, and any person condemned by virtue of a law of thiskind can appeal to the judicial power of the Union. The States arelikewise prohibited from making laws which may have a tendency to impairthe obligations of contracts. *i If a citizen thinks that an obligationof this kind is impaired by a law passed in his State, he may refuse toobey it, and may appeal to the Federal courts. *j

[Footnote i: It is perfectly clear, says Mr. Story ("Commentaries, " p. 503, or in the large edition Section 1379), that any law which enlarges, abridges, or in any manner changes the intention of the parties, resulting from the stipulations in the contract, necessarily impairs it. He gives in the same place a very long and careful definition of what isunderstood by a contract in Federal jurisprudence. A grant made by theState to a private individual, and accepted by him, is a contract, andcannot be revoked by any future law. A charter granted by the State toa company is a contract, and equally binding to the State as to thegrantee. The clause of the Constitution here referred to insures, therefore, the existence of a great part of acquired rights, but not ofall. Property may legally be held, though it may not have passed intothe possessor's hands by means of a contract; and its possession is anacquired right, not guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. ]

[Footnote j: A remarkable instance of this is given by Mr. Story (p. 508, or in the large edition Section 1388): "Dartmouth College in NewHampshire had been founded by a charter granted to certain individualsbefore the American Revolution, and its trustees formed a corporationunder this charter. The legislature of New Hampshire had, without theconsent of this corporation, passed an act changing the organization ofthe original provincial charter of the college, and transferring all therights, privileges, and franchises from the old charter trustees to newtrustees appointed under the act. The constitutionality of the act wascontested, and, after solemn arguments, it was deliberately held bythe Supreme Court that the provincial charter was a contract withinthe meaning of the Constitution (Art. I. Section 10), and that theemendatory act was utterly void, as impairing the obligation ofthat charter. The college was deemed, like other colleges of privatefoundation, to be a private eleemosynary institution, endowed byits charter with a capacity to take property unconnected with theGovernment. Its funds were bestowed upon the faith of the charter, andthose funds consisted entirely of private donations. It is true that theuses were in some sense public, that is, for the general benefit, andnot for the mere benefit of the corporators; but this did not makethe 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 fora particular purpose of beneficence. And the State itself, if it hadbestowed funds upon a charity of the same nature, could not resume thosefunds. "]

This provision appears to me to be the most serious attack upon theindependence of the States. The rights awarded to the Federal Governmentfor purposes of obvious national importance are definite and easilycomprehensible; but those with which this last clause invests it arenot either clearly appreciable or accurately defined. For there are vastnumbers of political laws which influence the existence of obligationsof contracts, which may thus furnish an easy pretext for the aggressionsof the central authority. 

Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution--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, andnot States, before the Federal Courts--How the Americans have succeededin this--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 noless important to point out the manner in which they are exercised. Theirresistible authority of justice in countries in which the sovereigntyin undivided is derived from the fact that the tribunals of thosecountries represent the entire nation at issue with the individualagainst whom their decree is directed, and the idea of power is thusintroduced to corroborate the idea of right. But this is not alwaysthe case in countries in which the sovereignty is divided; in them thejudicial power is more frequently opposed to a fraction of the nationthan to an isolated individual, and its moral authority and physicalstrength are consequently diminished. In federal States the power ofthe judge is naturally decreased, and that of the justiciable partiesis augmented. The aim of the legislator in confederate States oughttherefore to be to render the position of the courts of justiceanalogous to that which they occupy in countries where the sovereigntyis undivided; in other words, his efforts ought constantly to tend tomaintain the judicial power of the confederation as the representativeof the nation, and the justiciable party as the representative of anindividual interest. 

Every government, whatever may be its constitution, requires the meansof constraining its subjects to discharge their obligations, and ofprotecting its privileges from their assaults. As far as the directaction of the Government on the community is concerned, the Constitutionof the United States contrived, by a master-stroke of policy, thatthe federal courts, acting in the name of the laws, should only takecognizance of parties in an individual capacity. For, as it had beendeclared that the Union consisted of one and the same people withinthe limits laid down by the Constitution, the inference was that theGovernment created by this Constitution, and acting within these limits, was invested with all the privileges of a national government, one ofthe principal of which is the right of transmitting its injunctionsdirectly to the private citizen. When, for instance, the Union votes animpost, it does not apply to the States for the levying of it, but toevery American citizen in proportion to his assessment. The SupremeCourt, which is empowered to enforce the execution of this law of theUnion, exerts its influence not upon a refractory State, but upon theprivate taxpayer; and, like the judicial power of other nations, it isopposed to the person of an individual. It is to be observed that theUnion chose its own antagonist; and as that antagonist is feeble, he isnaturally worsted. 

But the difficulty increases when the proceedings are not broughtforward by but against the Union. The Constitution recognizes thelegislative power of the States; and a law so enacted may impair theprivileges of the Union, in which case a collision in unavoidablebetween that body and the State which has passed the law: and it onlyremains to select the least dangerous remedy, which is very clearlydeducible from the general principles I have before established. *k

[Footnote k: See Chapter VI. On "Judicial Power in America. "]

It may be conceived that, in the case under consideration, the Unionmight have used the State before a Federal court, which would haveannulled the act, and by this means it would have adopted a naturalcourse of proceeding; but the judicial power would have been placedin open hostility to the State, and it was desirable to avoid thispredicament as much as possible. The Americans hold that it is nearlyimpossible that a new law should not impair the interests of someprivate individual by its provisions: these private interests areassumed by the American legislators as the ground of attack against suchmeasures as may be prejudicial to the Union, and it is to these casesthat the protection of the Supreme Court is extended. 

Suppose a State vends a certain portion of its territory to a company, and that a year afterwards it passes a law by which the territoryis otherwise disposed of, and that clause of the Constitution whichprohibits laws impairing the obligation of contracts violated. When thepurchaser under the second act appears to take possession, the possessorunder the first act brings his action before the tribunals of the Union, and causes the title of the claimant to be pronounced null and void. *lThus, in point of fact, the judicial power of the Union is contestingthe claims of the sovereignty of a State; but it only acts indirectlyand upon a special application of detail: it attacks the law in itsconsequences, not in its principle, and it rather weakens than destroysit. 

[Footnote l: See Kent's "Commentaries, " vol. I. P. 387. ]

The last hypothesis that remained was that each State formed acorporation enjoying a separate existence and distinct civil rights, andthat it could therefore sue or be sued before a tribunal. Thus a Statecould bring an action against another State. In this instance the Unionwas not called upon to contest a provincial law, but to try a suit inwhich a State was a party. This suit was perfectly similar to any othercause, except that the quality of the parties was different; and herethe danger pointed out at the beginning of this chapter exists with lesschance of being avoided. The inherent disadvantage of the very essenceof Federal constitutions is that they engender parties in the bosomof the nation which present powerful obstacles to the free course ofjustice. 

High Rank Of The Supreme Court Amongst The Great Powers Of StateNo nation ever constituted so great a judicial power as theAmericans--Extent of its prerogative--Its political influence--Thetranquillity and the very existence of the Union depend on thediscretion of the seven Federal Judges. 

When we have successively examined in detail the organization of theSupreme Court, and the entire prerogatives which it exercises, we shallreadily admit that a more imposing judicial power was never constitutedby any people. The Supreme Court is placed at the head of all knowntribunals, both by the nature of its rights and the class of justiciableparties which it controls. 

In all the civilized countries of Europe the Government has always shownthe greatest repugnance to allow the cases to which it was itself aparty to be decided by the ordinary course of justice. This repugnancenaturally attains its utmost height in an absolute Government; and, onthe other hand, the privileges of the courts of justice are extendedwith the increasing liberties of the people: but no European nation hasat present held that all judicial controversies, without regard to theirorigin, can be decided by the judges of common law. 

In America this theory has been actually put in practice, and theSupreme Court of the United States is the sole tribunal of the nation. Its power extends to all the cases arising under laws and treaties madeby the executive and legislative authorities, to all cases of admiraltyand maritime jurisdiction, and in general to all points which affect thelaw of nations. It may even be affirmed that, although its constitutionis essentially judicial, its prerogatives are almost entirely political. Its sole object is to enforce the execution of the laws of the Union;and the Union only regulates the relations of the Government withthe citizens, and of the nation with Foreign Powers: the relations ofcitizens amongst themselves are almost exclusively regulated by thesovereignty of the States. 

A second and still greater cause of the preponderance of this courtmay be adduced. In the nations of Europe the courts of justice are onlycalled upon to try the controversies of private individuals; but theSupreme Court of the United States summons sovereign powers to its bar. When the clerk of the court advances on the steps of the tribunal, andsimply says, "The State of New York versus the State of Ohio, " it isimpossible not to feel that the Court which he addresses is no ordinarybody; and when it is recollected that one of these parties representsone million, and the other two millions of men, one is struck by theresponsibility of the seven judges whose decision is about to satisfy orto disappoint so large a number of their fellow-citizens. 

The peace, the prosperity, and the very existence of the Unionare vested in the hands of the seven judges. Without their activeco-operation the Constitution would be a dead letter: the Executiveappeals to them for assistance against the encroachments of thelegislative powers; the Legislature demands their protection from thedesigns of the Executive; they defend the Union from the disobedienceof the States, the States from the exaggerated claims of the Union, the public interest against the interests of private citizens, andthe conservative spirit of order against the fleeting innovations ofdemocracy. Their power is enormous, but it is clothed in the authorityof public opinion. They are the all-powerful guardians of a people whichrespects law, but they would be impotent against popular neglect orpopular contempt. The force of public opinion is the most intractable ofagents, because its exact limits cannot be defined; and it is not lessdangerous to exceed than to remain below the boundary prescribed. 

The Federal judges must not only be good citizens, and men possessed ofthat information and integrity which are indispensable to magistrates, but they must be statesmen--politicians, not unread in the signs of thetimes, not afraid to brave the obstacles which can be subdued, nor slowto turn aside such encroaching elements as may threaten the supremacy ofthe Union and the obedience which is due to the laws. 

The President, who exercises a limited power, may err without causinggreat mischief in the State. Congress may decide amiss withoutdestroying the Union, because the electoral body in which Congressoriginates may cause it to retract its decision by changing its members. But if the Supreme Court is ever composed of imprudent men or badcitizens, the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war. 

The real cause of this danger, however, does not lie in the constitutionof the tribunal, but in the very nature of Federal Governments. Wehave observed that in confederate peoples it is especially necessary toconsolidate the judicial authority, because in no other nations do thoseindependent persons who are able to cope with the social body exist ingreater power or in a better condition to resist the physical strengthof the Government. But the more a power requires to be strengthened, themore extensive and independent it must be made; and the dangerswhich its abuse may create are heightened by its independence and itsstrength. The source of the evil is not, therefore, in the constitutionof the power, but in the constitution of those States which render itsexistence necessary. 

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

In what respects the Constitution of the Union can be compared to thatof the States--Superiority of the Constitution of the Union attributableto the wisdom of the Federal legislators--Legislature of the Union lessdependent on the people than that of the States--Executive powermore independent in its sphere--Judicial power less subjected to theinclinations of the majority--Practical consequence of these facts--Thedangers inherent in a democratic government eluded by the Federallegislators, and increased by the legislators of the States. 

The Federal Constitution differs essentially from that of the States inthe ends which it is intended to accomplish, but in the means by whichthese ends are promoted a greater analogy exists between them. Theobjects of the Governments are different, but their forms are the same;and in this special point of view there is some advantage in comparingthem 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 periodthan those of the majority of the States, and it may have derived someameliorations from past experience. But we shall be led to acknowledgethat this is only a secondary cause of its superiority, when werecollect that eleven new States *n have been added to the AmericanConfederation since the promulgation of the Federal Constitution, andthat these new republics have always rather exaggerated than avoided thedefects which existed in the former Constitutions. 

[Footnote n: [The number of States has now risen to 46 (1874), besidesthe District of Columbia. ]]

The chief cause of the superiority of the Federal Constitution lay inthe character of the legislators who composed it. At the time when itwas formed the dangers of the Confederation were imminent, and its ruinseemed inevitable. In this extremity the people chose the men who mostdeserved the esteem, rather than those who had gained the affections, of the country. I have already observed that distinguished as almostall the legislators of the Union were for their intelligence, they werestill more so for their patriotism. They had all been nurtured at a timewhen the spirit of liberty was braced by a continual struggle againsta powerful and predominant authority. When the contest was terminated, whilst the excited passions of the populace persisted in warring withdangers which had ceased to threaten them, these men stopped short intheir career; they cast a calmer and more penetrating look uponthe country which was now their own; they perceived that the war ofindependence was definitely ended, and that the only dangers whichAmerica had to fear were those which might result from the abuse of thefreedom she had won. They had the courage to say what they believedto be true, because they were animated by a warm and sincere love ofliberty; and they ventured to propose restrictions, because they wereresolutely opposed to destruction. *o

[Footnote o: At this time Alexander Hamilton, who was one of theprincipal founders of the Constitution, ventured to express thefollowing sentiments in "The Federalist, " 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 inthe Legislature, as its best recommendation. But such men entertainvery crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government wasinstituted as of the true means by which the public happiness may bepromoted. The Republican principle demands that the deliberative senseof the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrustthe management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualifiedcomplaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transientimpulse which the people may receive from the arts of men who flattertheir prejudices to betray their interests. It is a just observation, that the people commonly intend the public good. This often applies totheir very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulatorwho should pretend that they always reason right about the means ofpromoting it. They know from experience that they sometimes err; and thewonder is that they so seldom err as they do, beset, as they continuallyare, by the wiles of parasites and sycophants; by the snares of theambitious, the avaricious, the desperate; by the artifices of men whopossess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those whoseek to possess rather than to deserve it. When occasions presentthemselves in which the interests of the people are at variance withtheir inclinations, it is the duty of persons whom they have appointedto be the guardians of those interests to withstand the temporarydelusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool andsedate reflection. Instances might be cited in which a conduct of thiskind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their ownmistakes, and has procured lasting monuments of their gratitude to themen who had courage and magnanimity enough to serve them at the peril oftheir displeasure. "]

The greater number of the Constitutions of the States assign one yearfor the duration of the House of Representatives, and two years for thatof the Senate; so that members of the legislative body are constantlyand narrowly tied down by the slightest desires of their constituents. The legislators of the Union were of opinion that this excessivedependence of the Legislature tended to alter the nature of the mainconsequences of the representative system, since it vested the source, not only of authority, but of government, in the people. They increasedthe length of the time for which the representatives were returned, inorder to give them freer scope for the exercise of their own judgment. 

The Federal Constitution, as well as the Constitutions of the differentStates, divided the legislative body into two branches. But in theStates these two branches were composed of the same elements, andelected in the same manner. The consequence was that the passionsand inclinations of the populace were as rapidly and as energeticallyrepresented in one chamber as in the other, and that laws were made withall the characteristics of violence and precipitation. By the FederalConstitution the two houses originate in like manner in the choice ofthe people; but the conditions of eligibility and the mode of electionwere changed, to the end that, if, as is the case in certain nations, one branch of the Legislature represents the same interests as theother, it may at least represent a superior degree of intelligenceand discretion. A mature age was made one of the conditions of thesenatorial dignity, and the Upper House was chosen by an electedassembly of a limited number of members. 

To concentrate the whole social force in the hands of the legislativebody is the natural tendency of democracies; for as this is thepower which emanates the most directly from the people, it is made toparticipate most fully in the preponderating authority of the multitude, and it is naturally led to monopolize every species of influence. Thisconcentration is at once prejudicial to a well-conducted administration, and favorable to the despotism of the majority. The legislators of theStates frequently yielded to these democratic propensities, which wereinvariably and courageously resisted by the founders of the Union. 

In the States the executive power is vested in the hands of amagistrate, who is apparently placed upon a level with the Legislature, but who is in reality nothing more than the blind agent and the passiveinstrument of its decisions. He can derive no influence from theduration of his functions, which terminate with the revolving year, orfrom the exercise of prerogatives which can scarcely be said to exist. The Legislature can condemn him to inaction by intrusting the executionof the laws to special committees of its own members, and can annulhis 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 Presidencyis fixed at four years; the salary of the individual who fills thatoffice cannot be altered during the term of his functions; he isprotected by a body of official dependents, and armed with a suspensiveveto. In short, every effort was made to confer a strong and independentposition upon the executive authority within the limits which had beenprescribed to it. 

In the Constitutions of all the States the judicial power is that whichremains the most independent of the legislative authority; nevertheless, in all the States the Legislature has reserved to itself the right ofregulating the emoluments of the judges, a practice which necessarilysubjects these magistrates to its immediate influence. In some Statesthe judges are only temporarily appointed, which deprives them ofa great portion of their power and their freedom. In others thelegislative and judicial powers are entirely confounded; thus the Senateof New York, for instance, constitutes in certain cases the SuperiorCourt of the State. The Federal Constitution, on the other hand, carefully separates the judicial authority from all external influences;and it provides for the independence of the judges, by declaring thattheir salary shall not be altered, and that their functions shall beinalienable. 

The practical consequences of these different systems may easily beperceived. An attentive observer will soon remark that the business ofthe Union is incomparably better conducted than that of any individualState. The conduct of the Federal Government is more fair and moretemperate than that of the States, its designs are more fraught withwisdom, its projects are more durable and more skilfully combined, itsmeasures are put into execution with more vigor and consistency. 

I recapitulate the substance of this chapter in a few words: Theexistence of democracies is threatened by two dangers, viz. , thecomplete subjection of the legislative body to the caprices ofthe electoral body, and the concentration of all the powers of theGovernment in the legislative authority. The growth of these evils hasbeen encouraged by the policy of the legislators of the States, but ithas been resisted by the legislators of the Union by every means whichlay within their control. 

Characteristics Which Distinguish The Federal Constitution Of The UnitedStates Of America From All Other Federal Constitutions American Unionappears to resemble all other confederations--Nevertheless its effectsare different--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 modernEurope, without adverting to those of antiquity. Switzerland, theGermanic Empire, and the Republic of the United Provinces either havebeen or still are confederations. In studying the constitutions of thesedifferent countries, the politician is surprised to observe that thepowers with which they invested the Federal Government are nearlyidentical with the privileges awarded by the American Constitution tothe Government of the United States. They confer upon the central powerthe same rights of making peace and war, of raising money and troops, and of providing for the general exigencies and the common interestsof the nation. Nevertheless the Federal Government of these differentpeoples has always been as remarkable for its weakness and inefficiencyas that of the Union is for its vigorous and enterprising spirit. Again, the first American Confederation perished through the excessive weaknessof its Government; and this weak Government was, notwithstanding, inpossession of rights even more extensive than those of the FederalGovernment of the present day. But the more recent Constitution ofthe United States contains certain principles which exercise a mostimportant influence, although they do not at once strike the observer. 

This Constitution, which may at first sight be confounded with thefederal constitutions which preceded it, rests upon a novel theory, which may be considered as a great invention in modern politicalscience. In all the confederations which had been formed before theAmerican Constitution of 1789 the allied States agreed to obey theinjunctions of a Federal Government; but they reserved to themselves theright of ordaining and enforcing the execution of the laws of the Union. The American States which combined in 1789 agreed that the FederalGovernment should not only dictate the laws, but that it should executeit own enactments. In both cases the right is the same, but the exerciseof the right is different; and this alteration produced the mostmomentous consequences. 

In all the confederations which had been formed before the AmericanUnion the Federal Government demanded its supplies at the hands of theseparate Governments; and if the measure it prescribed was onerous toany one of those bodies means were found to evade its claims: if theState was powerful, it had recourse to arms; if it was weak, it connivedat the resistance which the law of the Union, its sovereign, met with, and resorted to inaction under the plea of inability. Under thesecircumstances one of the two alternatives has invariably occurred;either the most preponderant of the allied peoples has assumed theprivileges 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 Unionhas lost all powers of action. *q

[Footnote p: This was the case in Greece, when Philip undertook toexecute the decree of the Amphictyons; in the Low Countries, where theprovince of Holland always gave the law; and, in our own time, in theGermanic Confederation, in which Austria and Prussia assume a greatdegree of influence over the whole country, in the name of the Diet. ]

[Footnote q: Such has always been the situation of the SwissConfederation, which would have perished ages ago but for the mutualjealousies of its neighbors. ]

In America the subjects of the Union are not States, but privatecitizens: the national Government levies a tax, not upon the State ofMassachusetts, but upon each inhabitant of Massachusetts. All formerconfederate governments presided over communities, but that of the Unionrules individuals; its force is not borrowed, but self-derived; and itis served by its own civil and military officers, by its own army, andits own courts of justice. It cannot be doubted that the spirit of thenation, the passions of the multitude, and the provincial prejudicesof each State tend singularly to diminish the authority of a Federalauthority thus constituted, and to facilitate the means of resistance toits mandates; but the comparative weakness of a restricted sovereigntyis an evil inherent in the Federal system. In America, each Statehas fewer opportunities of resistance and fewer temptations tonon-compliance; nor can such a design be put in execution (if indeed itbe entertained) without an open violation of the laws of the Union, a direct interruption of the ordinary course of justice, and a bolddeclaration of revolt; in a word, without taking a decisive step whichmen hesitate to adopt. 

In all former confederations the privileges of the Union furnished moreelements of discord than of power, since they multiplied the claimsof the nation without augmenting the means of enforcing them: and inaccordance with this fact it may be remarked that the real weakness offederal governments has almost always been in the exact ratio of theirnominal power. Such is not the case in the American Union, in which, as in ordinary governments, the Federal Government has the means ofenforcing all it is empowered to demand. 

The human understanding more easily invents new things than new words, and we are thence constrained to employ a multitude of improper andinadequate expressions. When several nations form a permanent leagueand establish a supreme authority, which, although it has not the sameinfluence over the members of the community as a national government, acts upon each of the Confederate States in a body, this Government, which is so essentially different from all others, is denominated aFederal one. Another form of society is afterwards discovered, in whichseveral peoples are fused into one and the same nation with regard tocertain common interests, although they remain distinct, or at leastonly confederate, with regard to all their other concerns. In this casethe central power acts directly upon those whom it governs, whom itrules, and whom it judges, in the same manner, as, but in a more limitedcircle than, a national government. Here the term Federal Government isclearly no longer applicable to a state of things which must be styledan incomplete national Government: a form of government has been foundout which is neither exactly national nor federal; but no furtherprogress has been made, and the new word which will one day designatethis novel invention does not yet exist. 

The absence of this new species of confederation has been the causewhich has brought all Unions to Civil War, to subjection, or to astagnant apathy, and the peoples which formed these leagues have beeneither too dull to discern, or too pusillanimous to apply this greatremedy. The American Confederation perished by the same defects. 

But the Confederate States of America had been long accustomed to forma portion of one empire before they had won their independence; theyhad not contracted the habit of governing themselves, and their nationalprejudices had not taken deep root in their minds. Superior to the restof the world in political knowledge, and sharing that knowledge equallyamongst themselves, they were little agitated by the passions whichgenerally oppose the extension of federal authority in a nation, andthose passions were checked by the wisdom of the chief citizens. TheAmericans applied the remedy with prudent firmness as soon as they wereconscious of the evil; they amended their laws, and they saved theircountry. 

Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution--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 thefirst element of national prosperity--Aim of the Federal system tounite the twofold advantages resulting from a small and from a largeterritory--Advantages derived by the United States from this system--Thelaw adapts itself to the exigencies of the population; population doesnot conform to the exigencies of the law--Activity, amelioration, loveand enjoyment of freedom in the American communities--Public spirit ofthe Union the abstract of provincial patriotism--Principles and thingscirculate freely over the territory of the United States--The Union ishappy and free as a little nation, and respected as a great empire. 

In small nations the scrutiny of society penetrates into every part, andthe spirit of improvement enters into the most trifling details; as theambition of the people is necessarily checked by its weakness, all theefforts and resources of the citizens are turned to the internal benefitof the community, and are not likely to evaporate in the fleetingbreath of glory. The desires of every individual are limited, becauseextraordinary faculties are rarely to be met with. The gifts of an equalfortune render the various conditions of life uniform, and the mannersof the inhabitants are orderly and simple. Thus, if one estimate thegradations of popular morality and enlightenment, we shall generallyfind that in small nations there are more persons in easy circumstances, a more numerous population, and a more tranquil state of society, thanin great empires. 

When tyranny is established in the bosom of a small nation, it is moregalling than elsewhere, because, as it acts within a narrow circle, every point of that circle is subject to its direct influence. Itsupplies the place of those great designs which it cannot entertain bya violent or an exasperating interference in a multitude of minutedetails; and it leaves the political world, to which it properlybelongs, to meddle with the arrangements of domestic life. Tastes aswell as actions are to be regulated at its pleasure; and the families ofthe citizens as well as the affairs of the State are to be governed byits decisions. This invasion of rights occurs, however, but seldom, and freedom is in truth the natural state of small communities. Thetemptations which the Government offers to ambition are too weak, andthe resources of private individuals are too slender, for the sovereignpower easily to fall within the grasp of a single citizen; and shouldsuch an event have occurred, the subjects of the State can withoutdifficulty overthrow the tyrant and his oppression by a simultaneouseffort. 

Small nations have therefore ever been the cradle of political liberty;and the fact that many of them have lost their immunities by extendingtheir dominion shows that the freedom they enjoyed was more aconsequence of the inferior size than of the character of the people. 

The history of the world affords no instance of a great nation retainingthe form of republican government for a long series of years, *rand this has led to the conclusion that such a state of things isimpracticable. For my own part, I cannot but censure the imprudence ofattempting to limit the possible and to judge the future on the part ofa being who is hourly deceived by the most palpable realities of life, and who is constantly taken by surprise in the circumstances with whichhe is most familiar. But it may be advanced with confidence that theexistence of a great republic will always be exposed to far greaterperils than that of a small one. 

[Footnote r: I do not speak of a confederation of small republics, butof a great consolidated Republic. ]

All the passions which are most fatal to republican institutions spreadwith an increasing territory, whilst the virtues which maintain theirdignity do not augment in the same proportion. The ambition of thecitizens increases with the power of the State; the strength of partieswith the importance of the ends they have in view; but that devotion tothe common weal which is the surest check on destructive passions isnot stronger in a large than in a small republic. It might, indeed, beproved without difficulty that it is less powerful and less sincere. Thearrogance of wealth and the dejection of wretchedness, capital cities ofunwonted extent, a lax morality, a vulgar egotism, and a great confusionof interests, are the dangers which almost invariably arise from themagnitude of States. But several of these evils are scarcely prejudicialto a monarchy, and some of them contribute to maintain its existence. In monarchical States the strength of the government is its own; it mayuse, but it does not depend on, the community, and the authority of theprince is proportioned to the prosperity of the nation; but the onlysecurity which a republican government possesses against these evilslies in the support of the majority. This support is not, however, proportionably greater in a large republic than it is in a small one;and thus, whilst the means of attack perpetually increase both in numberand in influence, the power of resistance remains the same, or it mayrather be said to diminish, since the propensities and interests ofthe people are diversified by the increase of the population, and thedifficulty 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 toattain, but by the multitude of individuals who are animated by them atthe same time. Every one has had occasion to remark that his emotionsin the midst of a sympathizing crowd are far greater than those which hewould have felt in solitude. In great republics the impetus of politicalpassion is irresistible, not only because it aims at gigantic purposes, but because it is felt and shared by millions of men at the same time. 

It may therefore be asserted as a general proposition that nothing ismore opposed to the well-being and the freedom of man than vast empires. Nevertheless it is important to acknowledge the peculiar advantages ofgreat States. For the very reason which renders the desire of powermore intense in these communities than amongst ordinary men, the love ofglory is also more prominent in the hearts of a class of citizens, who regard the applause of a great people as a reward worthy of theirexertions, and an elevating encouragement to man. If we would learn whyit is that great nations contribute more powerfully to the spread ofhuman improvement than small States, we shall discover an adequate causein the rapid and energetic circulation of ideas, and in those greatcities which are the intellectual centres where all the rays of humangenius are reflected and combined. To this it may be added that mostimportant discoveries demand a display of national power which theGovernment of a small State is unable to make; in great nations theGovernment entertains a greater number of general notions, and is morecompletely disengaged from the routine of precedent and the egotismof local prejudice; its designs are conceived with more talent, andexecuted with more boldness. 

In time of peace the well-being of small nations is undoubtedly moregeneral and more complete, but they are apt to suffer more acutely fromthe calamities of war than those great empires whose distant frontiersmay for ages avert the presence of the danger from the mass of thepeople, which is therefore more frequently afflicted than ruined by theevil. 

But in this matter, as in many others, the argument derived from thenecessity of the case predominates over all others. If none but smallnations existed, I do not doubt that mankind would be more happy andmore free; but the existence of great nations is unavoidable. 

This consideration introduces the element of physical strength as acondition of national prosperity. It profits a people but little tobe affluent and free if it is perpetually exposed to be pillagedor subjugated; the number of its manufactures and the extent of itscommerce are of small advantage if another nation has the empire of theseas and gives the law in all the markets of the globe. Small nationsare often impoverished, not because they are small, but because they areweak; the great empires prosper less because they are great thanbecause they are strong. Physical strength is therefore one of the firstconditions of the happiness and even of the existence of nations. Henceit occurs that, unless very peculiar circumstances intervene, smallnations are always united to large empires in the end, either by forceor by their own consent: yet I am unacquainted with a more deplorablespectacle than that of a people unable either to defend or to maintainits independence. 

The Federal system was created with the intention of combining thedifferent advantages which result from the greater and the lesserextent of nations; and a single glance over the United States of Americasuffices to discover the advantages which they have derived from itsadoption. 

In great centralized nations the legislator is obliged to impart acharacter of uniformity to the laws which does not always suit thediversity of customs and of districts; as he takes no cognizance ofspecial cases, he can only proceed upon general principles; and thepopulation is obliged to conform to the exigencies of the legislation, since the legislation cannot adapt itself to the exigencies and thecustoms of the population, which is the cause of endless trouble andmisery. This disadvantage does not exist in confederations. Congressregulates the principal measures of the national Government, and allthe details of the administration are reserved to the provinciallegislatures. It is impossible to imagine how much this division ofsovereignty contributes to the well-being of each of the States whichcompose the Union. In these small communities, which are never agitatedby the desire of aggrandizement or the cares of self-defence, all publicauthority and private energy is employed in internal amelioration. Thecentral government of each State, which is in immediate juxtaposition tothe citizens, is daily apprised of the wants which arise in society; andnew projects are proposed every year, which are discussed either at townmeetings or by the legislature of the State, and which are transmittedby the press to stimulate the zeal and to excite the interest ofthe citizens. This spirit of amelioration is constantly alive inthe American republics, without compromising their tranquillity; theambition of power yields to the less refined and less dangerous love ofcomfort. It is generally believed in America that the existence and thepermanence of the republican form of government in the New World dependupon the existence and the permanence of the Federal system; and it isnot unusual to attribute a large share of the misfortunes which havebefallen the new States of South America to the injudicious erection ofgreat republics, instead of a divided and confederate sovereignty. 

It is incontestably true that the love and the habits of republicangovernment in the United States were engendered in the townships and inthe provincial assemblies. In a small State, like that of Connecticutfor instance, where cutting a canal or laying down a road is a momentouspolitical question, where the State has no army to pay and no wars tocarry on, and where much wealth and much honor cannot be bestowed uponthe chief citizens, no form of government can be more natural or moreappropriate than that of a republic. But it is this same republicanspirit, it is these manners and customs of a free people, which areengendered and nurtured in the different States, to be afterwardsapplied to the country at large. The public spirit of the Union is, soto speak, nothing more than an abstract of the patriotic zeal of theprovinces. Every citizen of the United States transfuses his attachmentto his little republic in the common store of American patriotism. Indefending the Union he defends the increasing prosperity of his owndistrict, the right of conducting its affairs, and the hope of causingmeasures of improvement to be adopted which may be favorable to his owninterest; and these are motives which are wont to stir men more readilythan the general interests of the country and the glory of the nation. 

On the other hand, if the temper and the manners of the inhabitantsespecially fitted them to promote the welfare of a great republic, theFederal system smoothed the obstacles which they might have encountered. The confederation of all the American States presents none of theordinary disadvantages resulting from great agglomerations of men. TheUnion is a great republic in extent, but the paucity of objects forwhich its Government provides assimilates it to a small State. Its actsare important, but they are rare. As the sovereignty of the Union islimited and incomplete, its exercise is not incompatible with liberty;for it does not excite those insatiable desires of fame and power whichhave proved so fatal to great republics. As there is no common centre tothe country, vast capital cities, colossal wealth, abject poverty, andsudden revolutions are alike unknown; and political passion, insteadof spreading over the land like a torrent of desolation, spends itsstrength against the interests and the individual passions of everyState. 

Nevertheless, all commodities and ideas circulate throughout the Unionas freely as in a country inhabited by one people. Nothing checks thespirit of enterprise. Government avails itself of the assistance of allwho have talents or knowledge to serve it. Within the frontiers of theUnion the profoundest peace prevails, as within the heart of some greatempire; abroad, it ranks with the most powerful nations of the earth;two thousand miles of coast are open to the commerce of the world; andas it possesses the keys of the globe, its flags is respected in themost remote seas. The Union is as happy and as free as a small 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 daily exerciseof 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 reallystronger, than that of the Union--Why?--Natural causes of union mustexist between confederate peoples besides the laws--What these causesare amongst the Anglo-Americans--Maine and Georgia, separated by adistance of a thousand miles, more naturally united than Normandy andBrittany--War, the main peril of confederations--This proved even bythe example of the United States--The Union has no great wars tofear--Why?--Dangers to which Europeans would be exposed if they adoptedthe Federal system of the Americans. 

When a legislator succeeds, after persevering efforts, in exercising anindirect influence upon the destiny of nations, his genius is laudedby mankind, whilst, in point of fact, the geographical position of thecountry which he is unable to change, a social condition which arosewithout his co-operation, manners and opinions which he cannot trace totheir source, and an origin with which he is unacquainted, exercise soirresistible an influence over the courses of society that he is himselfborne away by the current, after an ineffectual resistance. Like thenavigator, he may direct the vessel which bears him along, but he canneither change its structure, nor raise the winds, nor lull the waterswhich swell beneath him. 

I have shown the advantages which the Americans derive from theirfederal system; it remains for me to point out the circumstances whichrendered that system practicable, as its benefits are not to be enjoyedby all nations. The incidental defects of the Federal system whichoriginate in the laws may be corrected by the skill of the legislator, but there are further evils inherent in the system which cannot becounteracted by the peoples which adopt it. These nations must thereforefind the strength necessary to support the natural imperfections oftheir Government. 

The most prominent evil of all Federal systems is the very complexnature of the means they employ. Two sovereignties are necessarily inpresence of each other. The legislator may simplify and equalize theaction of these two sovereignties, by limiting each of them to a sphereof authority accurately defined; but he cannot combine them into one, orprevent them from coming into collision at certain points. The Federalsystem therefore rests upon a theory which is necessarily complicated, and which demands the daily exercise of a considerable share ofdiscretion on the part of those it governs. 

A proposition must be plain to be adopted by the understanding of apeople. A false notion which is clear and precise will always meet witha greater number of adherents in the world than a true principle whichis obscure or involved. Hence it arises that parties, which are likesmall communities in the heart of the nation, invariably adopt someprinciple or some name as a symbol, which very inadequately representsthe end they have in view and the means which are at their disposal, butwithout which they could neither act nor subsist. The governments whichare founded upon a single principle or a single feeling which is easilydefined 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 mostperfect federal constitution that ever existed, one is startled, onthe other hand, at the variety of information and the excellence ofdiscretion which it presupposes in the people whom it is meant togovern. The government of the Union depends entirely upon legalfictions; the Union is an ideal nation which only exists in the mind, and whose limits and extent can only be discerned by the understanding. 

When once the general theory is comprehended, numberless difficultiesremain to be solved in its application; for the sovereignty of theUnion is so involved in that of the States that it is impossible todistinguish its boundaries at the first glance. The whole structureof the Government is artificial and conventional; and it would be illadapted to a people which has not been long accustomed to conductits own affairs, or to one in which the science of politics has notdescended to the humblest classes of society. I have never been morestruck by the good sense and the practical judgment of the Americansthan in the ingenious devices by which they elude the numberlessdifficulties resulting from their Federal Constitution. I scarcelyever met with a plain American citizen who could not distinguish, withsurprising facility, the obligations created by the laws of Congressfrom those created by the laws of his own State; and who, after havingdiscriminated between the matters which come under the cognizance of theUnion and those which the local legislature is competent to regulate, could not point out the exact limit of the several jurisdictions of theFederal courts and the tribunals of the State. 

The Constitution of the United States is like those exquisiteproductions of human industry which ensure wealth and renown to theirinventors, but which are profitless in any other hands. This truth isexemplified by the condition of Mexico at the present time. The Mexicanswere desirous of establishing a federal system, and they took theFederal Constitution of their neighbors, the Anglo-Americans, as theirmodel, and copied it with considerable accuracy. *s But although theyhad borrowed the letter of the law, they were unable to create orto introduce the spirit and the sense which give it life. They wereinvolved in ceaseless embarrassments between the mechanism of theirdouble government; the sovereignty of the States and that of the Unionperpetually exceeded their respective privileges, and entered intocollision; and to the present day Mexico is alternately the victim ofanarchy and the slave of military despotism. 

[Footnote s: See the Mexican Constitution of 1824. ]

The second and the most fatal of all the defects I have alluded to, and that which I believe to be inherent in the federal system, is therelative weakness of the government of the Union. The principle uponwhich all confederations rest is that of a divided sovereignty. Thelegislator may render this partition less perceptible, he may evenconceal it for a time from the public eye, but he cannot prevent it fromexisting, and a divided sovereignty must always be less powerful than anentire supremacy. The reader has seen in the remarks I have made onthe Constitution of the United States that the Americans have displayedsingular ingenuity in combining the restriction of the power ofthe Union within the narrow limits of a federal government with thesemblance and, to a certain extent, with the force of a nationalgovernment. By this means the legislators of the Union have succeededin diminishing, though not in counteracting the natural danger ofconfederations. 

It has been remarked that the American Government does not apply itselfto the States, but that it immediately transmits its injunctions to thecitizens, and compels them as isolated individuals to comply with itsdemands. But if the Federal law were to clash with the interests and theprejudices of a State, it might be feared that all the citizens ofthat State would conceive themselves to be interested in the cause of asingle individual who should refuse to obey. If all the citizens ofthe State were aggrieved at the same time and in the same manner by theauthority of the Union, the Federal Government would vainly attempt tosubdue them individually; they would instinctively unite in a commondefence, and they would derive a ready-prepared organization from theshare of sovereignty which the institution of their State allows themto enjoy. Fiction would give way to reality, and an organized portionof the territory might then contest the central authority. *t The sameobservation holds good with regard to the Federal jurisdiction. If thecourts of the Union violated an important law of a State in a privatecase, the real, if not the apparent, contest would arise between theaggrieved State represented by a citizen and the Union represented byits courts of justice. *u

[Footnote t: [This is precisely what occurred in 1862, and the followingparagraph describes correctly the feelings and notions of the South. General Lee held that his primary allegiance was due, not to the Union, but to Virginia. ]]

[Footnote u: For instance, the Union possesses by the Constitution theright of selling unoccupied lands for its own profit. Supposing thatthe State of Ohio should claim the same right in behalf of certainterritories lying within its boundaries, upon the plea that theConstitution refers to those lands alone which do not belong to thejurisdiction of any particular State, and consequently should choose todispose of them itself, the litigation would be carried on in the namesof the purchasers from the State of Ohio and the purchasers from theUnion, and not in the names of Ohio and the Union. But what would becomeof this legal fiction if the Federal purchaser was confirmed in hisright by the courts of the Union, whilst the other competitor wasordered to retain possession by the tribunals of the State of Ohio?]

He would have but a partial knowledge of the world who should imaginethat it is possible, by the aid of legal fictions, to prevent men fromfinding out and employing those means of gratifying their passions whichhave been left open to them; and it may be doubted whether the Americanlegislators, when they rendered a collision between the two sovereignsless probable, destroyed the cause of such a misfortune. But it may evenbe affirmed that they were unable to ensure the preponderance of theFederal element in a case of this kind. The Union is possessed of moneyand of troops, but the affections and the prejudices of the people arein the bosom of the States. The sovereignty of the Union is an abstractbeing, which is connected with but few external objects; the sovereigntyof the States is hourly perceptible, easily understood, constantlyactive; and if the former is of recent creation, the latter is coevalwith 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 ofthe nation only affects a few of the chief interests of society; itrepresents an immense but remote country, and claims a feeling ofpatriotism which is vague and ill defined; but the authority of theStates controls every individual citizen at every hour and in allcircumstances; it protects his property, his freedom, and his life; andwhen we recollect the traditions, the customs, the prejudices of localand familiar attachment with which it is connected, we cannot doubt ofthe superiority of a power which is interwoven with every circumstancethat renders the love of one's native country instinctive in the humanheart. 

Since legislators are unable to obviate such dangerous collisions asoccur between the two sovereignties which coexist in the federal system, their first object must be, not only to dissuade the confederate Statesfrom warfare, but to encourage such institutions as may promote themaintenance of peace. Hence it results that the Federal compact cannotbe lasting unless there exists in the communities which are leaguedtogether a certain number of inducements to union which render theircommon dependence agreeable, and the task of the Government light, and that system cannot succeed without the presence of favorablecircumstances added to the influence of good laws. All the peoples whichhave 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 intoconsideration as well as his immediate interests. A certain uniformityof civilization is not less necessary to the durability of aconfederation than a uniformity of interests in the States which composeit. In Switzerland the difference which exists between the Canton of Uriand the Canton of Vaud is equal to that between the fifteenth and thenineteenth centuries; and, properly speaking, Switzerland has neverpossessed a federal government. The union between these two cantons onlysubsists upon the map, and their discrepancies would soon be perceivedif an attempt were made by a central authority to prescribe the samelaws to the whole territory. 

One of the circumstances 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 alsoarrived at the same stage of civilization; which almost always rendersa union feasible. I do not know of any European nation, how small soeverit may be, which does not present less uniformity in its differentprovinces than the American people, which occupies a territory asextensive as one-half of Europe. The distance from the State of Maineto that of Georgia is reckoned at about one thousand miles; but thedifference between the civilization of Maine and that of Georgia isslighter than the difference between the habits of Normandy and thoseof Brittany. Maine and Georgia, which are placed at the oppositeextremities of a great empire, are consequently in the naturalpossession of more real inducements to form a confederation thanNormandy and Brittany, which are only separated by a bridge. 

The geographical position of the country contributed to increase thefacilities which the American legislators derived from the manners andcustoms of the inhabitants; and it is to this circumstance thatthe adoption and the maintenance of the Federal system are mainlyattributable. 

The most important occurrence which can mark the annals of a people isthe breaking out of a war. In war a people struggles with the energyof a single man against foreign nations in the defence of its veryexistence. The skill of a government, the good sense of the community, and the natural fondness which men entertain for their country, maysuffice to maintain peace in the interior of a district, and to favorits internal prosperity; but a nation can only carry on a great war atthe cost of more numerous and more painful sacrifices; and to supposethat a great number of men will of their own accord comply with theseexigencies of the State is to betray an ignorance of mankind. All thepeoples which have been obliged to sustain a long and serious warfarehave consequently been led to augment the power of their government. Those which have not succeeded in this attempt have been subjugated. A long war almost always places nations in the wretched alternativeof being abandoned to ruin by defeat or to despotism by success. Wartherefore renders the symptoms of the weakness of a government mostpalpable and most alarming; and I have shown that the inherent defeat offederal governments is that of being weak. 

The Federal system is not only deficient in every kind of centralizedadministration, but the central government itself is imperfectlyorganized, which is invariably an influential cause of inferiority whenthe nation is opposed to other countries which are themselves governedby a single authority. In the Federal Constitution of the United States, by which the central government possesses more real force, this evilis still extremely sensible. An example will illustrate the case to thereader. 

The Constitution confers upon Congress the right of calling forthmilitia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, andrepel invasions; and another article declares that the President of theUnited States is the commander-in-chief of the militia. In the war of1812 the President ordered the militia of the Northern States to marchto the frontiers; but Connecticut and Massachusetts, whose interestswere impaired by the war, refused to obey the command. They argued thatthe Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to call forth themilitia in case of insurrection or invasion, but that in the presentinstance there was neither invasion nor insurrection. They added, that the same Constitution which conferred upon the Union the rightof calling forth the militia reserved to the States that of namingthe officers; and that consequently (as they understood the clause) noofficer of the Union had any right to command the militia, even duringwar, except the President in person; and in this case they were orderedto join an army commanded by another individual. These absurd andpernicious doctrines received the sanction not only of the governorsand the legislative bodies, but also of the courts of justice in bothStates; and the Federal Government was constrained to raise elsewherethe troops which it required. *v

[Footnote v: Kent's "Commentaries, " vol. I. P. 244. I have selected anexample which relates to a time posterior to the promulgation ofthe present Constitution. If I had gone back to the days of theConfederation, I might have given still more striking instances. Thewhole nation was at that time in a state of enthusiastic excitement; theRevolution was represented by a man who was the idol of the people; butat that very period Congress had, to say the truth, no resources atall at its disposal. Troops and supplies were perpetually wanting. Thebest-devised projects failed in the execution, and the Union, which wasconstantly on the verge of destruction, was saved by the weakness of itsenemies far more than by its own strength. [All doubt as to the powersof 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 relativeperfection of its laws, possesses against the dissolution which wouldbe produced by a great war, lies in its probable exemption from thatcalamity. Placed in the centre of an immense continent, which offersa boundless field for human industry, the Union is almost as muchinsulated from the world as if its frontiers were girt by the ocean. Canada contains only a million of inhabitants, and its population isdivided into two inimical nations. The rigor of the climate limits theextension of its territory, and shuts up its ports during the six monthsof winter. From Canada to the Gulf of Mexico a few savage tribes areto be met with, which retire, perishing in their retreat, before sixthousand soldiers. To the South, the Union has a point of contact withthe empire of Mexico; and it is thence that serious hostilities may oneday be expected to arise. But for a long while to come the uncivilizedstate of the Mexican community, the depravity of its morals, and itsextreme poverty, will prevent that country from ranking high amongstnations. *w As for the Powers of Europe, they are too distant to beformidable. 

[Footnote w: [War broke out between the United States and Mexico in1846, and ended in the conquest of an immense territory, includingCalifornia. ]]

The great advantage of the United States does not, then, consist in aFederal Constitution which allows them to carry on great wars, but ina geographical position which renders such enterprises extremelyimprobable. 

No one can be more inclined than I am myself to appreciate theadvantages of the federal system, which I hold to be one of thecombinations most favorable to the prosperity and freedom of man. Ienvy the lot of those nations which have been enabled to adopt it; but Icannot believe that any confederate peoples could maintain a long or anequal contest with a nation of similar strength in which the governmentshould be centralized. A people which should divide its sovereignty intofractional powers, in the presence of the great military monarchies ofEurope, would, in my opinion, by that very act, abdicate its power, andperhaps its existence and its name. But such is the admirable positionof 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 People May Strictly Be Said To Govern In The UnitedStates

I have hitherto examined the institutions of the United States; I havepassed their legislation in review, and I have depicted the presentcharacteristics of political society in that country. But a sovereignpower exists above these institutions and beyond these characteristicfeatures which may destroy or modify them at its pleasure--I mean thatof the people. It remains to be shown in what manner this power, whichregulates the laws, acts: its propensities and its passions remain to bepointed out, as well as the secret springs which retard, accelerate, or direct its irresistible course; and the effects of its unboundedauthority, with the destiny which is probably reserved for it. 

In America the people appoints the legislative and the executive power, and furnishes the jurors who punish all offences against the laws. TheAmerican institutions are democratic, not only in their principle butin all their consequences; and the people elects its representativesdirectly, and for the most part annually, in order to ensure theirdependence. The people is therefore the real directing power; andalthough the form of government is representative, it is evident thatthe opinions, the prejudices, the interests, and even the passions ofthe community are hindered by no durable obstacles from exercisinga perpetual influence on society. In the United States the majoritygoverns in the name of the people, as is the case in all the countriesin which the people is supreme. The majority is principally composedof peaceful citizens who, either by inclination or by interest, aresincerely desirous of the welfare of their country. But they aresurrounded by the incessant agitation of parties, which attempt to gaintheir co-operation and to avail themselves of their support. 

Chapter X: Parties In The United 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 the Federalists--Difficultyof creating parties in the United States--What is done with thisintention--Aristocratic or democratic character to be met with in allparties--Struggle of General Jackson against the Bank. 

Parties In The United States

A great distinction must be made between parties. Some countries areso large that the different populations which inhabit them havecontradictory interests, although they are the subjects of the sameGovernment, and they may thence be in a perpetual state of opposition. In this case the different fractions of the people may more properly beconsidered as distinct nations than as mere parties; and if a civil warbreaks out, the struggle is carried on by rival peoples rather than byfactions in the State. 

But when the citizens entertain different opinions upon subjects whichaffect the whole country alike, such, for instance, as the principlesupon which the government is to be conducted, then distinctions arisewhich may correctly be styled parties. Parties are a necessary evil infree governments; but they have not at all times the same character andthe same propensities. 

At certain periods a nation may be oppressed by such insupportable evilsas to conceive the design of effecting a total change in its politicalconstitution; at other times the mischief lies still deeper, and theexistence of society itself is endangered. Such are the times of greatrevolutions and of great parties. But between these epochs of misery andof confusion there are periods during which human society seems to rest, and mankind to make a pause. This pause is, indeed, only apparent, fortime does not stop its course for nations any more than for men; theyare all advancing towards a goal with which they are unacquainted; andwe only imagine them to be stationary when their progress escapes ourobservation, as men who are going at a foot-pace seem to be standingstill to those who run. 

But however this may be, there are certain epochs at which the changesthat take place in the social and political constitution of nations areso slow and so insensible that men imagine their present condition to bea final state; and the human mind, believing itself to be firmly basedupon certain foundations, does not extend its researches beyond thehorizon which it descries. These are the times of small parties and ofintrigue. 

The political parties which I style great are those which cling toprinciples more than to their consequences; to general, and not toespecial cases; to ideas, and not to men. These parties are usuallydistinguished by a nobler character, by more generous passions, moregenuine convictions, and a more bold and open conduct than the others. In them private interest, which always plays the chief part in politicalpassions, is more studiously veiled under the pretext of the publicgood; and it may even be sometimes concealed from the eyes of the verypersons whom it excites and impels. 

Minor parties are, on the other hand, generally deficient in politicalfaith. As they are not sustained or dignified by a lofty purpose, theyostensibly display the egotism of their character in their actions. They glow with a factitious zeal; their language is vehement, but theirconduct is timid and irresolute. The means they employ are as wretchedas the end at which they aim. Hence it arises that when a calm stateof things succeeds a violent revolution, the leaders of societyseem suddenly to disappear, and the powers of the human mind to lieconcealed. Society is convulsed by great parties, by minor ones it isagitated; it is torn by the former, by the latter it is degraded; andif these sometimes save it by a salutary perturbation, those invariablydisturb it to no good end. 

America has already lost the great parties which once divided thenation; and if her happiness is considerably increased, her moralityhas suffered by their extinction. When the War of Independence wasterminated, and the foundations of the new Government were to be laiddown, the nation was divided between two opinions--two opinions whichare as old as the world, and which are perpetually to be met withunder all the forms and all the names which have ever obtained in freecommunities--the one tending to limit, the other to extend indefinitely, the power of the people. The conflict of these two opinions neverassumed that degree of violence in America which it has frequentlydisplayed elsewhere. Both parties of the Americans were, in fact, agreedupon the most essential points; and neither of them had to destroy atraditionary constitution, or to overthrow the structure of society, inorder to ensure its own triumph. In neither of them, consequently, werea great number of private interests affected by success or by defeat;but moral principles of a high order, such as the love of equality andof independence, were concerned in the struggle, and they sufficed tokindle violent passions. 

The party which desired to limit the power of the people endeavored toapply its doctrines more especially to the Constitution of the Union, whence it derived its name of Federal. The other party, which affectedto be more exclusively attached to the cause of liberty, took that ofRepublican. America is a land of democracy, and the Federalists werealways in a minority; but they reckoned on their side almost all thegreat men who had been called forth by the War of Independence, andtheir moral influence was very considerable. Their cause was, moreover, favored by circumstances. The ruin of the Confederation had impressedthe people with a dread of anarchy, and the Federalists did not fail toprofit by this transient disposition of the multitude. For ten or twelveyears they were at the head of affairs, and they were able to applysome, though not all, of their principles; for the hostile current wasbecoming from day to day too violent to be checked or stemmed. In 1801the Republicans got possession of the Government; Thomas Jefferson wasnamed President; and he increased the influence of their party by theweight of his celebrity, the greatness of his talents, and the immenseextent of his popularity. 

The means by which the Federalists had maintained their position wereartificial, and their resources were temporary; it was by the virtuesor the talents of their leaders that they had risen to power. Whenthe Republicans attained to that lofty station, their opponents wereoverwhelmed by utter defeat. An immense majority declared itself againstthe retiring party, and the Federalists found themselves in so small aminority that they at once despaired of their future success. From thatmoment the Republican or Democratic party *a has proceeded from conquestto conquest, until it has acquired absolute supremacy in the country. The Federalists, perceiving that they were vanquished without resource, and isolated in the midst of the nation, fell into two divisions, ofwhich one joined the victorious Republicans, and the other abandoned itsrallying-point and its name. Many years have already elapsed since theyceased to exist as a party. 

[Footnote a: [It is scarcely necessary to remark that in more recenttimes the signification of these terms has changed. The Republicans arethe representatives of the old Federalists, and the Democrats of the oldRepublicans. --Trans. Note (1861). ]] The accession of the Federaliststo power was, in my opinion, one of the most fortunate incidents whichaccompanied the formation of the great American Union; they resistedthe inevitable propensities of their age and of the country. Butwhether their theories were good or bad, they had the effect of beinginapplicable, as a system, to the society which they professed togovern, and that which occurred under the auspices of Jefferson musttherefore have taken place sooner or later. But their Government gavethe new republic time to acquire a certain stability, and afterwards tosupport the rapid growth of the very doctrines which they had combated. A considerable number of their principles were in point of fact embodiedin the political creed of their opponents; and the Federal Constitutionwhich 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 UnitedStates at the present time. Parties, indeed, may be found which threatenthe future tranquillity of the Union; but there are none which seem tocontest the present form of Government or the present course of society. The parties by which the Union is menaced do not rest upon abstractprinciples, but upon temporal interests. These interests, disseminatedin the provinces of so vast an empire, may be said to constitute rivalnations rather than parties. Thus, upon a recent occasion, the Northcontended for the system of commercial prohibition, and the Southtook up arms in favor of free trade, simply because the North is amanufacturing and the South an agricultural district; and that therestrictive system which was profitable to the one was prejudicial tothe other. *b

[Footnote b: [The divisions of North and South have since acquired afar greater degree of intensity, and the South, though conquered, still presents a formidable spirit of opposition to Northerngovernment. --Translator's Note, 1875. ]]

In the absence of great parties, the United States abound with lessercontroversies; and public opinion is divided into a thousand minuteshades of difference upon questions of very little moment. The painswhich are taken to create parties are inconceivable, and at the presentday it is no easy task. In the United States there is no religiousanimosity, because all religion is respected, and no sect ispredominant; there is no jealousy of rank, because the people iseverything, and none can contest its authority; lastly, there is nopublic indigence to supply the means of agitation, because the physicalposition of the country opens so wide a field to industry that man isable to accomplish the most surprising undertakings with his own nativeresources. Nevertheless, ambitious men are interested in the creation ofparties, since it is difficult to eject a person from authority upon themere ground that his place is coveted by others. The skill of the actorsin the political world lies therefore in the art of creating parties. Apolitical aspirant in the United States begins by discriminating his owninterest, and by calculating upon those interests which may be collectedaround and amalgamated with it; he then contrives to discover somedoctrine or some principle which may suit the purposes of this newassociation, and which he adopts in order to bring forward his party andto secure his popularity; just as the imprimatur of a King was in formerdays incorporated with the volume which it authorized, but to which itnowise belonged. When these preliminaries are terminated, the new partyis ushered into the political world. 

All the domestic controversies of the Americans at first appear to astranger to be so incomprehensible and so puerile that he is at aloss whether to pity a people which takes such arrant trifles in goodearnest, or to envy the happiness which enables it to discuss them. Butwhen he comes to study the secret propensities which govern the factionsof America, he easily perceives that the greater part of them are moreor less connected with one or the other of those two divisions whichhave always existed in free communities. The deeper we penetrate intothe working of these parties, the more do we perceive that the objectof the one is to limit, and that of the other to extend, the popularauthority. 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 democraticpassions may easily be detected at the bottom of all parties, and that, although they escape a superficial observation, they are the main pointand the very soul of every faction in the United States. 

To quote a recent example. When the President attacked the Bank, thecountry was excited and parties were formed; the well-informed classesrallied round the Bank, the common people round the President. But itmust not be imagined that the people had formed a rational opinion upona question which offers so many difficulties to the most experiencedstatesmen. The Bank is a great establishment which enjoys an independentexistence, and the people, accustomed to make and unmake whatsoever itpleases, is startled to meet with this obstacle to its authority. In themidst of the perpetual fluctuation of society the community is irritatedby so permanent an institution, and is led to attack it in order to seewhether it can be shaken and controlled, like all the other institutionsof 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 towards thepeople. 

It sometimes happens in a people amongst which various opinions prevailthat the balance of the several parties is lost, and one of them obtainsan irresistible preponderance, overpowers all obstacles, harasses itsopponents, and appropriates all the resources of society to its ownpurposes. The vanquished citizens despair of success and they concealtheir dissatisfaction in silence and in general apathy. The nation seemsto be governed by a single principle, and the prevailing party assumesthe credit of having restored peace and unanimity to the country. Butthis apparent unanimity is merely a cloak to alarming dissensions andperpetual opposition. 

This is precisely what occurred in America; when the democratic partygot the upper hand, it took exclusive possession of the conduct ofaffairs, and from that time the laws and the customs of society havebeen adapted to its caprices. At the present day the more affluentclasses of society are so entirely removed from the direction ofpolitical affairs in the United States that wealth, far from conferringa right to the exercise of power, is rather an obstacle than a means ofattaining to it. The wealthy members of the community abandon the lists, through unwillingness to contend, and frequently to contend in vain, against the poorest classes of their fellow citizens. They concentrateall their enjoyments in the privacy of their homes, where they occupya rank which cannot be assumed in public; and they constitute a privatesociety in the State, which has its own tastes and its own pleasures. They submit to this state of things as an irremediable evil, but theyare careful not to show that they are galled by its continuance; itis even not uncommon to hear them laud the delights of a republicangovernment, and the advantages of democratic institutions when theyare in public. Next to hating their enemies, men are most inclined toflatter them. 

Mark, for instance, that opulent citizen, who is as anxious as a Jew ofthe Middle Ages to conceal his wealth. His dress is plain, his demeanorunassuming; but the interior of his dwelling glitters with luxury, andnone but a few chosen guests whom he haughtily styles his equals areallowed to penetrate into this sanctuary. No European noble is moreexclusive in his pleasures, or more jealous of the smallest advantageswhich his privileged station confers upon him. But the very sameindividual crosses the city to reach a dark counting-house in the centreof traffic, where every one may accost him who pleases. If he meets hiscobbler upon the way, they stop and converse; the two citizens discussthe affairs of the State in which they have an equal interest, and theyshake hands before they part. 

But beneath this artificial enthusiasm, and these obsequious attentionsto the preponderating power, it is easy to perceive that the wealthymembers of the community entertain a hearty distaste to the democraticinstitutions of their country. The populace is at once the objectof their scorn and of their fears. If the maladministration of thedemocracy ever brings about a revolutionary crisis, and if monarchicalinstitutions ever become practicable in the United States, the truth ofwhat I advance will become obvious. 

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

Chapter XI: Liberty Of The Press 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 thepress a necessary consequence of the sovereignty of the people as it isunderstood in America--Violent language of the periodical press in theUnited States--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 politicalopinions alone, but it extends to all the opinions of men, and itmodifies customs as well as laws. In another part of this work I shallattempt to determinate the degree of influence which the liberty ofthe press has exercised upon civil society in the United States, and topoint out the direction which it has given to the ideas, as well as thetone which it has imparted to the character and the feelings, of theAnglo-Americans, but at present I purpose simply to examine the effectsproduced by the liberty of the press in the political world. 

I confess that I do not entertain that firm and complete attachment tothe liberty of the press which things that are supremely good in theirvery nature are wont to excite in the mind; and I approve of it morefrom a recollection of the evils it prevents than from a considerationof the advantages it ensures. 

If any one could point out an intermediate and yet a tenable positionbetween the complete independence and the entire subjection of thepublic expression of opinion, I should perhaps be inclined to adopt it;but the difficulty is to discover this position. If it is your intentionto correct the abuses of unlicensed printing and to restore the use oforderly language, you may in the first instance try the offender bya jury; but if the jury acquits him, the opinion which was that of asingle individual becomes the opinion of the country at large. Too muchand too little has therefore hitherto been done. If you proceed, youmust bring the delinquent before a court of permanent judges. But evenhere the cause must be heard before it can be decided; and the veryprinciples which no book would have ventured to avow are blazonedforth in the pleadings, and what was obscurely hinted at in a singlecomposition is then repeated in a multitude of other publications. The language in which a thought is embodied is the mere carcass of thethought, and not the idea itself; tribunals may condemn the form, butthe sense and spirit of the work is too subtle for their authority. Toomuch has still been done to recede, too little to attain your end; youmust therefore proceed. If you establish a censorship of the press, thetongue of the public speaker will still make itself heard, and you haveonly increased the mischief. The powers of thought do not rely, like thepowers of physical strength, upon the number of their mechanical agents, nor can a host of authors be reckoned like the troops which compose anarmy; on the contrary, the authority of a principle is often increasedby the smallness of the number of men by whom it is expressed. Thewords of a strong-minded man, which penetrate amidst the passions of alistening assembly, have more power than the vociferations of a thousandorators; and if it be allowed to speak freely in any public place, the consequence is the same as if free speaking was allowed in everyvillage. The liberty of discourse must therefore be destroyed as wellas the liberty of the press; this is the necessary term of your efforts;but if your object was to repress the abuses of liberty, they havebrought you to the feet of a despot. You have been led from the extremeof 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 havejust pointed out. For in certain countries which profess to enjoy theprivileges of freedom every individual agent of the Government mayviolate the laws with impunity, since those whom he oppresses cannotprosecute him before the courts of justice. In this case the liberty ofthe press is not merely a guarantee, but it is the only guarantee, oftheir liberty and their security which the citizens possess. If therulers of these nations propose to abolish the independence of thepress, the people would be justified in saying: Give us the right ofprosecuting your offences before the ordinary tribunals, and perhaps wemay then waive our right of appeal to the tribunal of public opinion. 

But in the countries in which the doctrine of the sovereignty of thepeople ostensibly prevails, the censorship of the press is not onlydangerous, but it is absurd. When the right of every citizen toco-operate in the government of society is acknowledged, every citizenmust be presumed to possess the power of discriminating between thedifferent opinions of his contemporaries, and of appreciating thedifferent facts from which inferences may be drawn. The sovereignty ofthe people and the liberty of the press may therefore be looked uponas correlative institutions; just as the censorship of the press anduniversal suffrage are two things which are irreconcilably opposed, andwhich cannot long be retained among the institutions of the same people. Not a single individual of the twelve millions who inhabit the territoryof the United States has as yet dared to propose any restrictions tothe liberty of the press. The first newspaper over which I cast my eyes, upon my arrival in America, contained the following article:

In all this affair the language of Jackson has been that of a heartlessdespot, solely occupied with the preservation of his own authority. Ambition is his crime, and it will be his punishment too: intrigue ishis native element, and intrigue will confound his tricks, and willdeprive him of his power: he governs by means of corruption, and hisimmoral practices will redound to his shame and confusion. His conductin the political arena has been that of a shameless and lawlessgamester. He succeeded at the time, but the hour of retributionapproaches, and he will be obliged to disgorge his winnings, to throwaside his false dice, and to end his days in some retirement, where hemay curse his madness at his leisure; for repentance is a virtue withwhich his heart is likely to remain forever unacquainted. 

It is not uncommonly imagined in France that the virulence of thepress originates in the uncertain social condition, in the politicalexcitement, and the general sense of consequent evil which prevail inthat country; and it is therefore supposed that as soon as society hasresumed a certain degree of composure the press will abandon its presentvehemence. I am inclined to think that the above causes explain thereason of the extraordinary ascendency it has acquired over the nation, but that they do not exercise much influence upon the tone of itslanguage. The periodical press appears to me to be actuated by passionsand propensities independent of the circumstances in which it is placed, and the present position of America corroborates this opinion. 

America is perhaps, at this moment, the country of the whole worldwhich contains the fewest germs of revolution; but the press is not lessdestructive in its principles than in France, and it displays the sameviolence without the same reasons for indignation. In America, asin France, it constitutes a singular power, so strangely composed ofmingled good and evil that it is at the same time indispensable to theexistence of freedom, and nearly incompatible with the maintenance ofpublic order. Its power is certainly much greater in France than in theUnited States; though nothing is more rare in the latter country than tohear of a prosecution having been instituted against it. The reasonof this is perfectly simple: the Americans, having once admittedthe doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, apply it with perfectconsistency. It was never their intention to found a permanent stateof things with elements which undergo daily modifications; and thereis consequently nothing criminal in an attack upon the existing laws, provided it be not attended with a violent infraction of them. Theyare moreover of opinion that courts of justice are unable to checkthe abuses of the press; and that as the subtilty of human languageperpetually eludes the severity of judicial analysis, offences of thisnature are apt to escape the hand which attempts to apprehend them. Theyhold that to act with efficacy upon the press it would be necessary tofind a tribunal, not only devoted to the existing order of things, butcapable of surmounting the influence of public opinion; a tribunal whichshould conduct its proceedings without publicity, which should pronounceits decrees without assigning its motives, and punish the intentionseven more than the language of an author. Whosoever should have thepower of creating and maintaining a tribunal of this kind would wastehis time in prosecuting the liberty of the press; for he would be thesupreme master of the whole community, and he would be as free torid himself of the authors as of their writings. In this question, therefore, there is no medium between servitude and extreme license; inorder to enjoy the inestimable benefits which the liberty of the pressensures, it is necessary to submit to the inevitable evils which itengenders. To expect to acquire the former and to escape the latteris to cherish one of those illusions which commonly mislead nationsin their times of sickness, when, tired with faction and exhausted byeffort, they attempt to combine hostile opinions and contrary principlesupon 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 formidablewhen it is a novelty; for a people which has never been accustomed toco-operate in the conduct of State affairs places implicit confidencein the first tribune who arouses its attention. The Anglo-Americanshave enjoyed this liberty ever since the foundation of the settlements;moreover, the press cannot create human passions by its own power, however skillfully it may kindle them where they exist. In Americapolitics are discussed with animation and a varied activity, but theyrarely touch those deep passions which are excited whenever the positiveinterest of a part of the community is impaired: but in the UnitedStates the interests of the community are in a most prosperouscondition. A single glance upon a French and an American newspaper issufficient to show the difference which exists between the two nationson this head. In France the space allotted to commercial advertisementsis very limited, and the intelligence is not considerable, but the mostessential part of the journal is that which contains the discussion ofthe politics of the day. In America three-quarters of the enormous sheetwhich is set before the reader are filled with advertisements, and theremainder is frequently occupied by political intelligence or trivialanecdotes: it is only from time to time that one finds a corner devotedto passionate discussions like those with which the journalists ofFrance are wont to indulge their readers. 

It has been demonstrated by observation, and discovered by the innatesagacity of the pettiest as well as the greatest of despots, that theinfluence of a power is increased in proportion as its directionis rendered more central. In France the press combines a twofoldcentralization; almost all its power is centred in the same spot, andvested in the same hands, for its organs are far from numerous. Theinfluence of a public press thus constituted, upon a sceptical nation, must be unbounded. It is an enemy with which a Government may sign anoccasional truce, but which it is difficult to resist for any length oftime. 

Neither of these kinds of centralization exists in America. The UnitedStates have no metropolis; the intelligence as well as the power of thecountry are dispersed abroad, and instead of radiating from a point, they cross each other in every direction; the Americans have establishedno central control over the expression of opinion, any more than overthe conduct of business. These are circumstances which do not depend onhuman foresight; but it is owing to the laws of the Union that thereare no licenses to be granted to printers, no securities demanded fromeditors as in France, and no stamp duty as in France and formerly inEngland. The consequence of this is that nothing is easier than to setup a newspaper, and a small number of readers suffices to defray theexpenses of the editor. 

The number of periodical and occasional publications which appearsin the United States actually surpasses belief. The most enlightenedAmericans attribute the subordinate influence of the press to thisexcessive dissemination; and it is adopted as an axiom of politicalscience in that country that the only way to neutralize the effect ofpublic journals is to multiply them indefinitely. I cannot conceivethat a truth which is so self-evident should not already have been moregenerally admitted in Europe; it is comprehensible that the persons whohope to bring about revolutions by means of the press should be desirousof confining its action to a few powerful organs, but it is perfectlyincredible that the partisans of the existing state of things, and thenatural supporters of the law, should attempt to diminish the influenceof the press by concentrating its authority. The Governments of Europeseem to treat the press with the courtesy of the knights of old; theyare anxious to furnish it with the same central power which they havefound to be so trusty a weapon, in order to enhance the glory of theirresistance to its attacks. 

In America there is scarcely a hamlet which has not its own newspaper. It may readily be imagined that neither discipline nor unity ofdesign can be communicated to so multifarious a host, and each one isconsequently led to fight under his own standard. All the politicaljournals of the United States are indeed arrayed on the side of theadministration or against it; but they attack and defend in a thousanddifferent ways. They cannot succeed in forming those great currents ofopinion which overwhelm the most solid obstacles. This division of theinfluence of the press produces a variety of other consequences whichare scarcely less remarkable. The facility with which journals can beestablished induces a multitude of individuals to take a part inthem; but as the extent of competition precludes the possibility ofconsiderable profit, the most distinguished classes of society arerarely led to engage in these undertakings. But such is the number ofthe public prints that, even if they were a source of wealth, writersof ability could not be found to direct them all. The journalists ofthe United States are usually placed in a very humble position, with ascanty education and a vulgar turn of mind. The will of the majority isthe most general of laws, and it establishes certain habits which formthe 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, butfrequently an eloquent and lofty, manner of discussing the politicsof the day; and the exceptions to this habitual practice are onlyoccasional. The characteristics of the American journalist consist inan open and coarse appeal to the passions of the populace; and hehabitually abandons the principles of political science to assail thecharacters of individuals, to track them into private life, and discloseall their weaknesses and errors. 

Nothing can be more deplorable than this abuse of the powers of thought;I shall have occasion to point out hereafter the influence of thenewspapers upon the taste and the morality of the American people, butmy present subject exclusively concerns the political world. It cannotbe denied that the effects of this extreme license of the press tendindirectly to the maintenance of public order. The individuals whoare already in the possession of a high station in the esteem of theirfellow-citizens are afraid to write in the newspapers, and they are thusdeprived of the most powerful instrument which they can use to excitethe passions of the multitude to their own advantage. *a

[Footnote a: They only write in the papers when they choose to addressthe people in their own name; as, for instance, when they are calledupon to repel calumnious imputations, and to correct a misstatement offacts. ]

The personal opinions of the editors have no kind of weight in theeyes of the public: the only use of a journal is, that it imparts theknowledge of certain facts, and it is only by altering or distortingthose facts that a journalist can contribute to the support of his ownviews. 

But although the press is limited to these resources, its influencein America is immense. It is the power which impels the circulation ofpolitical life through all the districts of that vast territory. Its eyeis constantly open to detect the secret springs of political designs, and to summon the leaders of all parties to the bar of public opinion. It rallies the interests of the community round certain principles, andit draws up the creed which factions adopt; for it affords a means ofintercourse between parties which hear, and which address each otherwithout ever having been in immediate contact. When a great number ofthe organs of the press adopt the same line of conduct, their influencebecomes irresistible; and public opinion, when it is perpetuallyassailed from the same side, eventually yields to the attack. In theUnited States each separate journal exercises but little authority, butthe power of the periodical press is only second to that of the people. *b

[Footnote b: See Appendix, P. ]

The opinions established in the United States under the empire of theliberty of the press are frequently more firmly rooted than those whichare formed elsewhere under the sanction of a censor. 

In the United States the democracy perpetually raises fresh individualsto the conduct of public affairs; and the measures of the administrationare consequently seldom regulated by the strict rules of consistency orof order. But the general principles of the Government are more stable, and the opinions most prevalent in society are generally more durablethan in many other countries. When once the Americans have taken up anidea, whether it be well or ill founded, nothing is more difficult thanto eradicate it from their minds. The same tenacity of opinion has beenobserved in England, where, for the last century, greater freedom ofconscience and more invincible prejudices have existed than in all theother countries of Europe. I attribute this consequence to a cause whichmay at first sight appear to have a very opposite tendency, namely, tothe liberty of the press. The nations amongst which this liberty existsare as apt to cling to their opinions from pride as from conviction. They cherish them because they hold them to be just, and because theyexercised their own free-will in choosing them; and they maintain themnot only because they are true, but because they are their own. Severalother reasons conduce to the 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, that absolute convictions are to be met with at the two extremities, andthat doubt lies in the middle; for the human intellect may be consideredin three distinct states, which frequently succeed one another. A manbelieves implicitly, because he adopts a proposition without inquiry. Hedoubts as soon as he is assailed by the objections which his inquiriesmay have aroused. But he frequently succeeds in satisfying these doubts, and then he begins to believe afresh: he no longer lays hold on a truthin its most shadowy and uncertain form, but he sees it clearly beforehim, and he advances onwards by the light it gives him. *c

[Footnote c: It may, however, be doubted whether this rationaland self-guiding conviction arouses as much fervor or enthusiasticdevotedness in men as their first dogmatical belief. ]

When the liberty of the press acts upon men who are in the first ofthese three states, it does not immediately disturb their habit ofbelieving implicitly without investigation, but it constantly modifiesthe objects of their intuitive convictions. The human mind continuesto discern but one point upon the whole intellectual horizon, andthat point is in continual motion. Such are the symptoms of suddenrevolutions, and of the misfortunes which are sure to befall thosegenerations which abruptly adopt the unconditional freedom of the press. 

The circle of novel ideas is, however, soon terminated; the touchof experience is upon them, and the doubt and mistrust which theiruncertainty produces become universal. We may rest assured that themajority of mankind will either believe they know not wherefore, or willnot know what to believe. Few are the beings who can ever hope toattain to that state of rational and independent conviction which trueknowledge can beget in defiance of the attacks of doubt. 

It has been remarked that in times of great religious fervor mensometimes change their religious opinions; whereas in times of generalscepticism everyone clings to his own persuasion. The same thing takesplace in politics under the liberty of the press. In countries where allthe theories of social science have been contested in their turn, thecitizens who have adopted one of them stick to it, not so much becausethey are assured of its excellence, as because they are not convinced ofthe superiority of any other. In the present age men are not very readyto die in defence of their opinions, but they are rarely inclined tochange them; and there are fewer martyrs as well as fewer apostates. 

Another still more valid reason may yet be adduced: when no abstractopinions are looked upon as certain, men cling to the mere propensitiesand external interests of their position, which are naturally moretangible and more permanent than any opinions in the world. 

It is not a question of easy solution whether aristocracy or democracyis most fit to govern a country. But it is certain that democracy annoysone part of the community, and that aristocracy oppresses another part. When the question is reduced to the simple expression of the strugglebetween poverty and wealth, the tendency of each side of the disputebecomes perfectly evident without further controversy. 

Chapter XII: Political Associations 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 UnitedStates than elsewhere--Why it may be looked upon as necessary--Utilityof associations in a democratic people. 

Political Associations In The United States

In no country in the world has the principle of association beenmore successfully used, or more unsparingly applied to a multitude ofdifferent objects, than in America. Besides the permanent associationswhich are established by law under the names of townships, cities, and counties, a vast number of others are formed and maintained by theagency of private individuals. 

The citizen of the United States is taught from his earliest infancyto rely upon his own exertions in order to resist the evils and thedifficulties of life; he looks upon social authority with an eye ofmistrust and anxiety, and he only claims its assistance when he is quiteunable to shift without it. This habit may even be traced in the schoolsof the rising generation, where the children in their games are wont tosubmit to rules which they have themselves established, and to punishmisdemeanors which they have themselves defined. The same spiritpervades every act of social life. If a stoppage occurs in athoroughfare, and the circulation of the public is hindered, theneighbors immediately constitute a deliberative body; and thisextemporaneous assembly gives rise to an executive power which remediesthe inconvenience before anybody has thought of recurring to anauthority superior to that of the persons immediately concerned. If thepublic pleasures are concerned, an association is formed to providefor the splendor and the regularity of the entertainment. Societies areformed to resist enemies which are exclusively of a moral nature, and todiminish the vice of intemperance: in the United States associations areestablished to promote public order, commerce, industry, morality, andreligion; for there is no end which the human will, seconded by thecollective exertions of individuals, despairs of attaining. 

I shall hereafter have occasion to show the effects of association uponthe course of society, and I must confine myself for the present to thepolitical world. When once the right of association is recognized, thecitizens may employ 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 right of association with these views is very analogous to theliberty of unlicensed writing; but societies thus formed possess moreauthority than the press. When an opinion is represented by a society, it necessarily assumes a more exact and explicit form. It numbers itspartisans, and compromises their welfare in its cause: they, on theother hand, become acquainted with each other, and their zeal isincreased 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 an association is allowed to establish centres of action at certainimportant points in the country, its activity is increased and itsinfluence extended. Men have the opportunity of seeing each other; meansof execution are more readily combined, and opinions are maintained witha degree of warmth and energy which written language cannot approach. 

Lastly, in the exercise of the right of political association, thereis a third degree: the partisans of an opinion may unite in electoralbodies, and choose delegates to represent them in a central assembly. This is, properly speaking, the application of the representative systemto a party. 

Thus, in the first instance, a society is formed between individualsprofessing the same opinion, and the tie which keeps it together is ofa purely intellectual nature; in the second case, small assemblies areformed which only represent a fraction of the party. Lastly, in thethird case, they constitute a separate nation in the midst of thenation, a government within the Government. Their delegates, like thereal delegates of the majority, represent the entire collective forceof their party; and they enjoy a certain degree of that national dignityand great influence which belong to the chosen representatives of thepeople. It is true that they have not the right of making the laws, but they have the power of attacking those which are in being, andof drawing up beforehand those which they may afterwards cause to beadopted. 

If, in a people which is imperfectly accustomed to the exerciseof freedom, or which is exposed to violent political passions, adeliberating minority, which confines itself to the contemplation offuture laws, be placed in juxtaposition to the legislative majority, Icannot but believe that public tranquillity incurs very great risks inthat nation. There is doubtless a very wide difference between provingthat one law is in itself better than another and proving that theformer ought to be substituted for the latter. But the imaginationof the populace is very apt to overlook this difference, which is soapparent to the minds of thinking men. It sometimes happens that anation is divided into two nearly equal parties, each of which affectsto represent the majority. If, in immediate contiguity to the directingpower, another power be established, which exercises almost as muchmoral authority as the former, it is not to be believed that it willlong be content to speak without acting; or that it will always berestrained by the abstract consideration of the nature of associationswhich are meant to direct but not to enforce opinions, to suggest butnot 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 tospeak, the constitutive element of freedom in the modern world. A nationwhich is determined to remain free is therefore right in demanding theunrestrained exercise of this independence. But the unrestrained libertyof political association cannot be entirely assimilated to the libertyof the press. The one is at the same time less necessary and moredangerous than the other. A nation may confine it within certain limitswithout forfeiting any part of its self-control; and it may sometimes beobliged to do so in order to maintain its own authority. 

In America the liberty of association for political purposes isunbounded. An example will show in the clearest light to what an extentthis privilege is tolerated. 

The question of the tariff, or of free trade, produced a greatmanifestation of party feeling in America; the tariff was not only asubject of debate as a matter of opinion, but it exercised a favorableor a prejudicial influence upon several very powerful interests of theStates. The North attributed a great portion of its prosperity, and theSouth all its sufferings, to this system; insomuch that for a longtime the tariff was the sole source of the political animosities whichagitated the Union. 

In 1831, when the dispute was raging with the utmost virulence, aprivate citizen of Massachusetts proposed to all the enemies of thetariff, by means of the public prints, to send delegates to Philadelphiain order to consult together upon the means which were most fitted topromote freedom of trade. This proposal circulated in a few days fromMaine to New Orleans by the power of the printing-press: the opponentsof the tariff adopted it with enthusiasm; meetings were formed on allsides, and delegates were named. The majority of these individualswere well known, and some of them had earned a considerable degree ofcelebrity. South Carolina alone, which afterwards took up arms inthe same cause, sent sixty-three delegates. On October 1, 1831, thisassembly, which according to the American custom had taken the name ofa Convention, met at Philadelphia; it consisted of more than two hundredmembers. Its debates were public, and they at once assumed a legislativecharacter; the extent of the powers of Congress, the theories of freetrade, and the different clauses of the tariff, were discussed in turn. At the end of ten days' deliberation the Convention broke up, afterhaving published an address to the American people, in which itdeclared:

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

II. That the prohibition of free trade was prejudicial to the interestsof all nations, and to that of the American people in particular. 

It must be acknowledged that the unrestrained liberty of politicalassociation has not hitherto produced, in the United States, those fatalconsequences which might perhaps be expected from it elsewhere. Theright of association was imported from England, and it has alwaysexisted in America; so that the exercise of this privilege is nowamalgamated with the manners and customs of the people. At the presenttime the liberty of association is become a necessary guarantee againstthe tyranny of the majority. In the United States, as soon as a party isbecome preponderant, all public authority passes under its control; itsprivate supporters occupy all the places, and have all the force of theadministration at their disposal. As the most distinguished partisansof the other side of the question are unable to surmount the obstacleswhich exclude them from power, they require some means of establishingthemselves upon their own basis, and of opposing the moral authorityof 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 extremeperils to the American Republics that the dangerous measure which isused to repress it seems to be more advantageous than prejudicial. Andhere I am about to advance a proposition which may remind the readerof what I said before in speaking of municipal freedom: There areno countries in which associations are more needed, to prevent thedespotism of faction or the arbitrary power of a prince, than thosewhich are democratically constituted. In aristocratic nations thebody of the nobles and the more opulent part of the community are inthemselves natural associations, which act as checks upon the abuses ofpower. In countries in which these associations do not exist, ifprivate individuals are unable to create an artificial and a temporarysubstitute for them, I can imagine no permanent protection against themost galling tyranny; and a great people may be oppressed by a smallfaction, or by a single individual, with impunity. 

The meeting of a great political Convention (for there are Conventionsof all kinds), which may frequently become a necessary measure, isalways a serious occurrence, even in America, and one which is neverlooked forward to, by the judicious friends of the country, withoutalarm. This was very perceptible in the Convention of 1831, at which theexertions of all the most distinguished members of the Assembly tendedto moderate its language, and to restrain the subjects which it treatedwithin certain limits. It is probable, in fact, that the Convention of1831 exercised a very great influence upon the minds of the malcontents, and prepared them for the open revolt against the commercial laws of theUnion which took place in 1832. 

It cannot be denied that the unrestrained liberty of associationfor political purposes is the privilege which a people is longest inlearning how to exercise. If it does not throw the nation into anarchy, it perpetually augments the chances of that calamity. On one point, however, this perilous liberty offers a security against dangers ofanother kind; in countries where associations are free, secretsocieties are unknown. In America there are numerous factions, but noconspiracies. 

Different ways in which the right of association is understood inEurope and in the United States--Different use which is made of it. 

The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of actingfor himself, is that of combining his exertions with those of hisfellow-creatures, and of acting in common with them. I am therefore ledto conclude that the right of association is almost as inalienableas the right of personal liberty. No legislator can attack it withoutimpairing the very foundations of society. Nevertheless, if the libertyof association is a fruitful source of advantages and prosperity to somenations, it may be perverted or carried to excess by others, andthe element of life may be changed into an element of destruction. Acomparison of the different methods which associations pursue in thosecountries in which they are managed with discretion, as well as in thosewhere liberty degenerates into license, may perhaps be thought usefulboth to governments and to parties. 

The greater part of Europeans look upon an association as a weapon whichis to be hastily fashioned, and immediately tried in the conflict. A society is formed for discussion, but the idea of impending actionprevails in the minds of those who constitute it: it is, in fact, anarmy; and the time given to parley serves to reckon up the strength andto animate the courage of the host, after which they direct their marchagainst the enemy. Resources which lie within the bounds of the law maysuggest themselves to the persons who compose it as means, but never asthe 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 formthe minority associate, in order, in the first place, to show theirnumerical strength, and so to diminish the moral authority of themajority; and, in the second place, to stimulate competition, and todiscover those arguments which are most fitted to act upon the majority;for they always entertain hopes of drawing over their opponents to theirown side, and of afterwards disposing of the supreme power in theirname. Political associations in the United States are thereforepeaceable in their intentions, and strictly legal in the means whichthey employ; and they assert with perfect truth that they only aim atsuccess by lawful expedients. 

The difference which exists between the Americans and ourselves dependson several causes. In Europe there are numerous parties so diametricallyopposed to the majority that they can never hope to acquire its support, and at the same time they think that they are sufficiently strong inthemselves to struggle and to defend their cause. When a party of thiskind forms an association, its object is, not to conquer, but to fight. In America the individuals who hold opinions very much opposed to thoseof the majority are no sort of impediment to its power, and all otherparties hope to win it over to their own principles in the end. Theexercise of the right of association becomes dangerous in proportionto the impossibility which excludes great parties from acquiring themajority. In a country like the United States, in which the differencesof opinion are mere differences of hue, the right of association mayremain unrestrained without evil consequences. The inexperience of manyof the European nations in the enjoyment of liberty leads them onlyto look upon the liberty of association as a right of attacking theGovernment. The first notion which presents itself to a party, as wellas to an individual, when it has acquired a consciousness of its ownstrength, is that of violence: the notion of persuasion arises at alater period and is only derived from experience. The English, who aredivided into parties which differ most essentially from each other, rarely abuse the right of association, because they have long beenaccustomed to exercise it. In France the passion for war is so intensethat there is no undertaking so mad, or so injurious to the welfare ofthe State, that a man does not consider himself honored in defending it, at the risk of his life. 

But perhaps the most powerful of the causes which tend to mitigate theexcesses of political association in the United States is UniversalSuffrage. In countries in which universal suffrage exists the majorityis never doubtful, because neither party can pretend to represent thatportion of the community which has not voted. The associations whichare formed are aware, as well as the nation at large, that they do notrepresent the majority: this is, indeed, a condition inseparable fromtheir existence; for if they did represent the preponderating power, they would change the law instead of soliciting its reform. Theconsequence of this is that the moral influence of the Government whichthey attack is very much increased, and their own power is very muchenfeebled. 

In Europe there are few associations which do not affect to representthe majority, or which do not believe that they represent it. Thisconviction or this pretension tends to augment their force amazingly, and contributes no less to legalize their measures. Violence may seem tobe excusable in defence of the cause of oppressed right. Thus it is, in the vast labyrinth of human laws, that extreme liberty sometimescorrects the abuses of license, and that extreme democracy obviatesthe dangers of democratic government. In Europe, associations considerthemselves, in some degree, as the legislative and executive councils ofthe people, which is unable to speak for itself. In America, where theyonly represent a minority of the nation, they argue and they petition. 

The means which the associations of Europe employ are in accordancewith the end which they propose to obtain. As the principal aim of thesebodies is to act, and not to debate, to fight rather than to persuade, they are naturally led to adopt a form of organization which differsfrom the ordinary customs of civil bodies, and which assumes the habitsand the maxims of military life. They centralize the direction of theirresources as much as possible, and they intrust the power of the wholeparty to a very small number of leaders. 

The members of these associations respond to a watchword, like soldierson duty; they profess the doctrine of passive obedience; say rather, that in uniting together they at once abjure the exercise of their ownjudgment and free will; and the tyrannical control which these societiesexercise is often far more insupportable than the authority possessedover society by the Government which they attack. Their moral force ismuch diminished by these excesses, and they lose the powerful interestwhich is always excited by a struggle between oppressors and theoppressed. The man who in given cases consents to obey his fellows withservility, and who submits his activity and even his opinions to theircontrol, can have no claim to rank as a free citizen. 

The Americans have also established certain forms of government whichare applied to their associations, but these are invariably borrowedfrom the forms of the civil administration. The independence of eachindividual is formally recognized; the tendency of the members of theassociation points, as it does in the body of the community, towardsthe same end, but they are not obliged to follow the same track. Noone abjures the exercise of his reason and his free will; but everyone exerts that reason and that will for the benefit of a commonundertaking. 

Chapter XIII: Government Of The Democracy In America--Part I

I am well aware of the difficulties which attend this part of mysubject, but although every expression which I am about to make use ofmay clash, upon some one point, with the feelings of the differentparties which divide my country, I shall speak my opinion with the mostperfect 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 intocollision. Such, however, is not the case in America; there the peoplereigns without any obstacle, and it has no perils to dread and noinjuries to avenge. In America, democracy is swayed by its own freepropensities; its course is natural and its activity is unrestrained;the United States consequently afford the most favorable opportunity ofstudying its real character. And to no people can this inquiry be morevitally interesting than to the French nation, which is blindly drivenonwards by a daily and irresistible impulse towards a state of thingswhich may prove either despotic or republican, but which will assuredlybe democratic. 

Universal Suffrage

I have already observed that universal suffrage has been adopted inall the States of the Union; it consequently occurs amongst differentpopulations which occupy very different positions in the scale ofsociety. I have had opportunities of observing its effects in differentlocalities, and amongst races of men who are nearly strangers to eachother by their language, their religion, and their manner of life; inLouisiana as well as in New England, in Georgia and in Canada. I haveremarked that Universal Suffrage is far from producing in America eitherall the good or all the evil consequences which are assigned to it inEurope, and that its effects differ very widely from those which areusually attributed to it. 

Choice Of The People, And Instinctive Preferences Of The AmericanDemocracy

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

Many people in Europe are apt to believe without saying it, or to saywithout believing it, that one of the great advantages of universalsuffrage is, that it entrusts the direction of public affairs to menwho are worthy of the public confidence. They admit that the people isunable to govern for itself, but they aver that it is always sincerelydisposed to promote the welfare of the State, and that it instinctivelydesignates those persons who are animated by the same good wishes, andwho are the most fit to wield the supreme authority. I confess that theobservations I made in America by no means coincide with these opinions. On my arrival in the United States I was surprised to find so muchdistinguished talent among the subjects, and so little among the headsof the Government. It is a well-authenticated fact, that at the presentday the most able men in the United States are very rarely placed atthe head of affairs; and it must be acknowledged that such has been theresult in proportion as democracy has outstepped all its former limits. The race of American statesmen has evidently dwindled most remarkably inthe 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 intelligenceof the people above a certain level. Whatever may be the facilities ofacquiring information, whatever may be the profusion of easy methods andof cheap science, the human mind can never be instructed and educatedwithout devoting a considerable space of time to those objects. 

The greater or the lesser possibility of subsisting without labor istherefore the necessary boundary of intellectual improvement. Thisboundary is more remote in some countries and more restricted in others;but it must exist somewhere as long as the people is constrained to workin order to procure the means of physical subsistence, that is to say, as long as it retains its popular character. It is therefore quite asdifficult to imagine a State in which all the citizens should be verywell informed as a State in which they should all be wealthy; these twodifficulties may be looked upon as correlative. It may very readily beadmitted that the mass of the citizens are sincerely disposed to promotethe welfare of their country; nay more, it may even be allowed that thelower classes are less apt to be swayed by considerations of personalinterest than the higher orders: but it is always more or lessimpossible for them to discern the best means of attaining the end whichthey desire with sincerity. Long and patient observation, joined to amultitude of different notions, is required to form a just estimate ofthe character of a single individual; and can it be supposed that thevulgar have the power of succeeding in an inquiry which misleads thepenetration of genius itself? The people has neither the time nor themeans which are essential to the prosecution of an investigation of thiskind: its conclusions are hastily formed from a superficial inspectionof the more prominent features of a question. Hence it often assentsto the clamor of a mountebank who knows the secret of stimulating itstastes, while its truest friends frequently fail in their exertions. 

Moreover, the democracy is not only deficient in that soundness ofjudgment which is necessary to select men really deserving of itsconfidence, but it has neither the desire nor the inclination to findthem out. It cannot be denied that democratic institutions have a verystrong tendency to promote the feeling of envy in the human heart; notso much because they afford to every one the means of rising to thelevel of any of his fellow-citizens, as because those means perpetuallydisappoint the persons who employ them. Democratic institutions awakenand foster a passion for equality which they can never entirely satisfy. This complete equality eludes the grasp of the people at the very momentat which it thinks to hold it fast, and "flies, " as Pascal says, "witheternal flight"; the people is excited in the pursuit of an advantage, which is more precious because it is not sufficiently remote to beunknown, or sufficiently near to be enjoyed. The lower ordersare agitated by the chance of success, they are irritated by itsuncertainty; and they pass from the enthusiasm of pursuit to theexhaustion of ill-success, and lastly to the acrimony of disappointment. Whatever transcends their own limits appears to be an obstacle to theirdesires, and there is no kind of superiority, however legitimate it maybe, which is not irksome in their sight. 

It has been supposed that the secret instinct which leads the lowerorders to remove their superiors as much as possible from the directionof public affairs is peculiar to France. This, however, is an error; thepropensity to which I allude is not inherent in any particular nation, but in democratic institutions in general; and although it may have beenheightened by peculiar political circumstances, it owes its origin to ahigher cause. 

In the United States the people is not disposed to hate the superiorclasses of society; but it is not very favorably inclined towards them, and it carefully excludes them from the exercise of authority. It doesnot entertain any dread of distinguished talents, but it is rarelycaptivated by them; and it awards its approbation very sparingly to suchas have risen without the popular support. 

Whilst the natural propensities of democracy induce the people to rejectthe most distinguished citizens as its rulers, these individuals areno less apt to retire from a political career in which it is almostimpossible to retain their independence, or to advance without degradingthemselves. This opinion has been very candidly set forth by ChancellorKent, who says, in speaking with great eulogiums of that part of theConstitution which empowers the Executive to nominate the judges: "It isindeed probable that the men who are best fitted to discharge the dutiesof this high office would have too much reserve in their manners, andtoo much austerity in their principles, for them to be returned by themajority at an election where universal suffrage is adopted. " Such werethe opinions which were printed without contradiction in America in theyear 1830!

I hold it to be sufficiently demonstrated that universal suffrage isby no means a guarantee of the wisdom of the popular choice, and that, whatever its advantages may be, this is not one of them. 

Causes Which May Partly Correct These Tendencies Of The DemocracyContrary effects produced on peoples as well as on individuals by greatdangers--Why so many distinguished men stood at the head of affairsin America fifty years ago--Influence which the intelligence andthe manners of 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 upon thecomposition of the Senate. 

When a State is threatened by serious dangers, the people frequentlysucceeds in selecting the citizens who are the most able to save it. It has been observed that man rarely retains his customary level inpresence of very critical circumstances; he rises above or he sinksbelow his usual condition, and the same thing occurs in nations atlarge. Extreme perils sometimes quench the energy of a people instead ofstimulating it; they excite without directing its passions, and insteadof clearing they confuse its powers of perception. The Jews deluged thesmoking ruins of their temple with the carnage of the remnant of theirhost. But it is more common, both in the case of nations and in thatof individuals, to find extraordinary virtues arising from the veryimminence of the danger. Great characters are then thrown into relief, as edifices which are concealed by the gloom of night are illuminated bythe glare of a conflagration. At those dangerous times genius no longerabstains from presenting itself in the arena; and the people, alarmedby the perils of its situation, buries its envious passions in a shortoblivion. Great names may then be drawn from the balloting-box. 

I have already observed that the American statesmen of the present dayare very inferior to those who stood at the head of affairs fifty yearsago. This is as much a consequence of the circumstances as of thelaws of the country. When America was struggling in the high cause ofindependence to throw off the yoke of another country, and when itwas about to usher a new nation into the world, the spirits of itsinhabitants were roused to the height which their great effortsrequired. In this general excitement the most distinguished men wereready to forestall the wants of the community, and the people clungto them for support, and placed them at its head. But events of thismagnitude are rare, and it is from an inspection of the ordinary courseof affairs that our judgment must be formed. 

If passing occurrences sometimes act as checks upon the passions ofdemocracy, the intelligence and the manners of the community exercisean influence which is not less powerful and far more permanent. This isextremely perceptible in the United States. 

In New England the education and the liberties of the communities wereengendered by the moral and religious principles of their founders. Where society has acquired a sufficient degree of stability to enable itto hold certain maxims and to retain fixed habits, the lower ordersare accustomed to respect intellectual superiority and to submit toit without complaint, although they set at naught all those privilegeswhich wealth and birth have introduced among mankind. The democracyin New England consequently makes a more judicious choice than it doeselsewhere. 

But as we descend towards the South, to those States in whichthe constitution of society is more modern and less strong, whereinstruction is less general, and where the principles of morality, ofreligion, and of liberty are less happily combined, we perceive that thetalents and the virtues of those who are in authority become more andmore rare. 

Lastly, when we arrive at the new South-western States, in which theconstitution of society dates but from yesterday, and presents anagglomeration of adventurers and speculators, we are amazed at thepersons who are invested with public authority, and we are led to ask bywhat force, independent of the legislation and of the men who direct it, the State can be protected, and society be made to flourish. 

There are certain laws of a democratic nature which contribute, nevertheless, to correct, in some measure, the dangerous tendencies ofdemocracy. On entering the House of Representatives of Washington one isstruck by the vulgar demeanor of that great assembly. The eye frequentlydoes not discover a man of celebrity within its walls. Its members arealmost all obscure individuals whose names present no associations tothe mind: they are mostly village lawyers, men in trade, or evenpersons belonging to the lower classes of society. In a country in whicheducation 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 menof America. Scarcely an individual is to be perceived in it who doesnot recall the idea of an active and illustrious career: the Senateis composed of eloquent advocates, distinguished generals, wisemagistrates, and statesmen of note, whose language would at all times dohonor to the most remarkable parliamentary debates of Europe. 

What then is the cause of this strange contrast, and why are the mostable citizens to be found in one assembly rather than in the other?Why is the former body remarkable for its vulgarity and its poverty oftalent, whilst the latter seems to enjoy a monopoly of intelligence andof sound judgment? Both of these assemblies emanate from the people;both of them are chosen by universal suffrage; and no voice has hithertobeen heard to assert in America that the Senate is hostile to theinterests of the people. From what cause, then, does so startling adifference arise? The only reason which appears to me adequately toaccount for it is, that the House of Representatives is elected by thepopulace directly, and that the Senate is elected by elected bodies. Thewhole body of the citizens names the legislature of each State, and theFederal Constitution converts these legislatures into so many electoralbodies, which return the members of the Senate. The senators are electedby an indirect application of universal suffrage; for the legislatureswhich name them are not aristocratic or privileged bodies which exercisethe electoral franchise in their own right; but they are chosen by thetotality of the citizens; they are generally elected every year, and newmembers may constantly be chosen who will employ their electoral rightsin conformity with the wishes of the public. But this transmission ofthe popular authority through an assembly of chosen men operates animportant change in it, by refining its discretion and improving theforms which it adopts. Men who are chosen in this manner accuratelyrepresent the majority of the nation which governs them; but theyrepresent the elevated thoughts which are current in the community, the propensities which prompt its nobler actions, rather than the pettypassions which disturb or the vices which disgrace it. 

The time may be already anticipated at which the American Republics willbe obliged to introduce the plan of election by an elected body morefrequently into their system of representation, or they will incur nosmall risk of perishing miserably amongst the shoals of democracy. 

And here I have no scruple in confessing that I look upon this peculiarsystem of election as the only means of bringing the exercise ofpolitical power to the level of all classes of the people. Thosethinkers who regard this institution as the exclusive weapon of a party, and those who fear, on the other hand, to make use of it, seem to me tofall into as great an error in the one case as in the other. 

Influence Which The American Democracy Has Exercised On The LawsRelating To Elections

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 ofthe laws--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 theutmost in order to gain a prize which is so rarely within their reach;and as the evil is almost irremediable for the candidates who fail, theconsequences of their disappointed ambition may prove most disastrous;if, on the other hand, the legal struggle can be repeated within a shortspace of time, the defeated parties take patience. When elections occurfrequently, their recurrence keeps society in a perpetual state offeverish excitement, and imparts a continual instability to publicaffairs. 

Thus, on the one hand the State is exposed to the perils of arevolution, on the other to perpetual mutability; the former systemthreatens the very existence of the Government, the latter is anobstacle to all steady and consistent policy. The Americans havepreferred the second of these evils to the first; but they were led tothis conclusion by their instinct much more than by their reason; for ataste for variety is one of the characteristic passions of democracy. Anextraordinary mutability has, by this means, been introduced into theirlegislation. Many of the Americans consider the instability of theirlaws as a necessary consequence of a system whose general results arebeneficial. But no one in the United States affects to deny the fact ofthis instability, or to contend that it is not a great evil. 

Hamilton, after having demonstrated the utility of a power which mightprevent, or which might at least impede, the promulgation of bad laws, adds: "It might perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad lawsincludes that of preventing good ones, and may be used to the onepurpose as well as to the other. But this objection will have littleweight with those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of thatinconstancy and mutability in the laws which form the greatest blemishin the character and genius of our governments. " (Federalist, No. 73. )And again in No. 62 of the same work he observes: "The facility andexcess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governmentsare most liable. . . . The mischievous effects of the mutability in thepublic councils arising from a rapid succession of new members wouldfill a volume: every new election in the States is found to changeone-half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceeda change of opinions and of measures, which forfeits the respect andconfidence of other nations, poisons the blessings of liberty itself, and diminishes the attachment and reverence of the people toward apolitical system which betrays so many marks of infirmity. "

Jefferson himself, the greatest Democrat whom the democracy of Americahas yet produced, pointed out the same evils. "The instability ofour laws, " said he in a letter to Madison, "is really a very seriousinconvenience. I think that we ought to have obviated it by decidingthat a whole year should always be allowed to elapse between thebringing in of a bill and the final passing of it. It should afterwardbe discussed and put to the vote without the possibility of making anyalteration in it; and if the circumstances of the case required amore speedy decision, the question should not be decided by a simplemajority, but by a majority of at least two-thirds of both houses. "

Public Officers Under The Control Of The Democracy In America Simpleexterior of the American public officers--No official costume--Allpublic officers are remunerated--Political consequences of thissystem--No public career exists in America--Result of this. 

Public officers in the United States are commingled with the crowdof citizens; they have neither palaces, nor guards, nor ceremonialcostumes. This simple exterior of the persons in authority is connectednot only with the peculiarities of the American character, but withthe fundamental principles of that society. In the estimation of thedemocracy a government is not a benefit, but a necessary evil. A certaindegree of power must be granted to public officers, for they would beof no use without it. But the ostensible semblance of authority is byno means indispensable to the conduct of affairs, and it is needlesslyoffensive to the susceptibility of the public. The public officersthemselves are well aware that they only enjoy the superiority overtheir fellow-citizens which they derive from their authority uponcondition of putting themselves on a level with the whole community bytheir manners. A public officer in the United States is uniformly civil, accessible to all the world, attentive to all requests, and obligingin his replies. I was pleased by these characteristics of a democraticgovernment; and I was struck by the manly independence of the citizens, who respect the office more than the officer, and who are less attachedto the emblems of authority than to the man who bears them. 

I am inclined to believe that the influence which costumes reallyexercise, in an age like that in which we live, has been a good dealexaggerated. I never perceived that a public officer in America was theless respected whilst he was in the discharge of his duties because hisown merit was set off by no adventitious signs. On the other hand, it isvery doubtful whether a peculiar dress contributes to the respect whichpublic characters ought to have for their own position, at least whenthey are not otherwise inclined to respect it. When a magistrate (andin France such instances are not rare) indulges his trivial wit at theexpense of the prisoner, or derides the predicament in which a culpritis placed, it would be well to deprive him of his robes of office, to see whether he would recall some portion of the natural dignity ofmankind when he is reduced to the apparel of a private citizen. 

A democracy may, however, allow a certain show of magisterial pomp, andclothe its officers in silks and gold, without seriously compromisingits principles. Privileges of this kind are transitory; they belong tothe place, and are distinct from the individual: but if public officersare not uniformly remunerated by the State, the public charges must beentrusted to men of opulence and independence, who constitute thebasis of an aristocracy; and if the people still retains its rightof election, that election can only be made from a certain class ofcitizens. When a democratic republic renders offices which had formerlybeen remunerated gratuitous, it may safely be believed that the Stateis advancing to monarchical institutions; and when a monarchy begins toremunerate such officers as had hitherto been unpaid, it is a suresign that it is approaching toward a despotic or a republican form ofgovernment. The substitution of paid for unpaid functionaries is ofitself, in my opinion, sufficient to constitute a serious revolution. 

I look upon the entire absence of gratuitous functionaries in America asone of the most prominent signs of the absolute dominion which democracyexercises in that country. All public services, of whatsoever naturethey may be, are paid; so that every one has not merely the right, butalso the means of performing them. Although, in democratic States, allthe citizens are qualified to occupy stations in the Government, allare not tempted to try for them. The number and the capacities of thecandidates are more apt to restrict the choice of electors than theconnections of the candidateship. 

In nations in which the principle of election extends to every place inthe State no political career can, properly speaking, be said to exist. Men are promoted as if by chance to the rank which they enjoy, andthey are by no means sure of retaining it. The consequence is that intranquil times public functions offer but few lures to ambition. In theUnited States the persons who engage in the perplexities of politicallife are individuals of very moderate pretensions. The pursuit of wealthgenerally diverts men of great talents and of great passions from thepursuit of power, and it very frequently happens that a man does notundertake to direct the fortune of the State until he has discoveredhis incompetence to conduct his own affairs. The vast number of veryordinary men who occupy public stations is quite as attributable tothese causes as to the bad choice of the democracy. In the UnitedStates, I am not sure that the people would return the men of superiorabilities who might solicit its support, but it is certain that men ofthis description do not come forward. 

Arbitrary Power Of Magistrates Under The Rule Of The American Democracy

For what reason the arbitrary power of Magistrates is greater inabsolute monarchies 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 aconsiderable degree of arbitrary power; namely, under the absolutegovernment of a single individual, and under that of a democracy. Thisidentical result proceeds from causes which are nearly analogous. 

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

In despotic States the fortune of no citizen is secure; and publicofficers are not more safe than private individuals. The sovereign, whohas under his control the lives, the property, and sometimes the honorof the men whom he employs, does not scruple to allow them a greatlatitude of action, because he is convinced that they will not use itto his prejudice. In despotic States the sovereign is so attached to theexercise of his power, that he dislikes the constraint even of his ownregulations; and he is well pleased that his agents should follow asomewhat fortuitous line of conduct, provided he be certain that theiractions will never counteract his desires. 

In democracies, as the majority has every year the right of deprivingthe officers whom it has appointed of their power, it has no reasonto fear any abuse of their authority. As the people is always ableto signify its wishes to those who conduct the Government, it prefersleaving them to make their own exertions to prescribing an invariablerule of conduct which would at once fetter their activity and thepopular authority. 

It may even be observed, on attentive consideration, that under therule of a democracy the arbitrary power of the magistrate must be stillgreater than in despotic States. In the latter the sovereign has thepower of punishing all the faults with which he becomes acquainted, butit would be vain for him to hope to become acquainted with all thosewhich are committed. In the former the sovereign power is not onlysupreme, but it is universally present. The American functionaries are, in point of fact, much more independent in the sphere of action whichthe law traces out for them than any public officer in Europe. Veryfrequently the object which they are to accomplish is simply pointed outto them, and the choice of the means is left to their own discretion. 

In New England, for instance, the selectmen of each township are boundto draw up the list of persons who are to serve on the jury; the onlyrule which is laid down to guide them in their choice is that they areto select citizens possessing the elective franchise and enjoying a fairreputation. *b In France the lives and liberties of the subjects wouldbe thought to be in danger if a public officer of any kind was entrustedwith so formidable a right. In New England the same magistrates areempowered to post the names of habitual drunkards in public-houses, andto prohibit the inhabitants of a town from supplying them with liquor. *c A censorial power of this excessive kind would be revolting tothe population of the most absolute monarchies; here, however, it issubmitted to without difficulty. 

[Footnote b: See the Act of February 27, 1813. "General Collection ofthe Laws of Massachusetts, " vol. Ii. P. 331. It should be added that thejurors are afterwards drawn from these lists by lot. ]

[Footnote c: See Act of February 28, 1787. "General Collection of theLaws of Massachusetts, " vol. I. P. 302. ]

Nowhere has so much been left by the law to the arbitrary determinationof the magistrate as in democratic republics, because this arbitrarypower is unattended by any alarming consequences. It may even beasserted that the freedom of the magistrate increases as the electivefranchise is extended, and as the duration of the time of officeis shortened. Hence arises the great difficulty which attends theconversion of a democratic republic into a monarchy. The magistrateceases to be elective, but he retains the rights and the habits of anelected officer, which lead directly to despotism. 

It is only in limited monarchies that the law, which prescribes thesphere in which public officers are to act, superintends all theirmeasures. The cause of this may be easily detected. In limitedmonarchies the power is divided between the King and the people, bothof whom are interested in the stability of the magistrate. The Kingdoes not venture to place the public officers under the control of thepeople, lest they should be tempted to betray his interests; on theother hand, the people fears lest the magistrates should serve tooppress the liberties of the country, if they were entirely dependentupon the Crown; they cannot therefore be said to depend on either oneor the other. The same cause which induces the king and the peopleto render public officers independent suggests the necessity of suchsecurities as may prevent their independence from encroaching uponthe authority of the former and the liberties of the latter. Theyconsequently agree as to the necessity of restricting the functionaryto a line of conduct laid down beforehand, and they are interested inconfining him by certain regulations which he cannot evade. 

Chapter XIII: Government Of The Democracy In America--Part II

Instability Of The Administration In The United States

In America the public acts of a community frequently leave fewertraces than the 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 theyare so soon commingled with the ever-changing population of the country, that the acts of a community frequently leave fewer traces than theoccurrences of a private family. The public administration is, so tospeak, oral and traditionary. But little is committed to writing, andthat little is wafted away forever, like the leaves of the Sibyl, by thesmallest breeze. 

The only historical remains in the United States are the newspapers; butif a number be wanting, the chain of time is broken, and the presentis severed from the past. I am convinced that in fifty years it willbe more difficult to collect authentic documents concerning the socialcondition of the Americans at the present day than it is to find remainsof the administration of France during the Middle Ages; and if theUnited States were ever invaded by barbarians, it would be necessary tohave recourse to the history of other nations in order to learn anythingof the people which now inhabits them. 

The instability of the administration has penetrated into the habits ofthe people: it even appears to suit the general taste, and no one caresfor what occurred before his time. No methodical system is pursued; noarchives are formed; and no documents are brought together when it wouldbe very easy to do so. Where they exist, little store is set upon them;and I have amongst my papers several original public documents whichwere given to me in answer to some of my inquiries. In Americasociety seems to live from hand to mouth, like an army in the field. Nevertheless, the art of administration may undoubtedly be ranked asa science, and no sciences can be improved if the discoveries andobservations of successive generations are not connected together inthe order in which they occur. One man, in the short space of his liferemarks a fact; another conceives an idea; the former invents a meansof execution, the latter reduces a truth to a fixed proposition; andmankind gathers the fruits of individual experience upon its wayand gradually forms the sciences. But the persons who conduct theadministration in America can seldom afford any instruction to eachother; and when they assume the direction of society, they simplypossess those attainments which are most widely disseminated in thecommunity, and no experience peculiar to themselves. Democracy, carried to its furthest limits, is therefore prejudicial to the art ofgovernment; and for this reason it is better adapted to a people alreadyversed in the conduct of an administration than to a nation which isuninitiated in public affairs. 

This remark, indeed, is not exclusively applicable to the science ofadministration. Although a democratic government is founded upon a verysimple and natural principle, it always presupposes the existence ofa high degree of culture and enlightenment in society. *d At the firstglance it may be imagined to belong to the earliest ages of the world;but maturer observation will convince us that it could only come last inthe succession of human history. 

[Footnote d: It is needless to observe that I speak here of thedemocratic form of government as applied to a people, not merely to atribe. ]

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

In all communities citizens divisible into three classes--Habits ofeach of 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 iseconomical or not, we must establish a suitable standard of comparison. The question would be one of easy solution if we were to attempt to drawa parallel between a democratic republic and an absolute monarchy. Thepublic expenditure would be found to be more considerable under theformer than under the latter; such is the case with all free Statescompared to those which are not so. It is certain that despotism ruinsindividuals by preventing them from producing wealth, much more than bydepriving them of the wealth they have produced; it dries up the sourceof riches, whilst it usually respects acquired property. Freedom, on thecontrary, engenders far more benefits than it destroys; and the nationswhich are favored by free institutions invariably find that theirresources increase even more rapidly than their taxes. 

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

Communities, as well as organic bodies, are subject to certain fixedrules in their formation which they cannot evade. They are composed ofcertain elements which are common to them at all times and under allcircumstances. The people may always be mentally divided into threedistinct classes. The first of these classes consists of the wealthy;the second, of those who are in easy circumstances; and the third iscomposed of those who have little or no property, and who subsist moreespecially by the work which they perform for the two superior orders. The proportion of the individuals who are included in these threedivisions 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 influencepeculiar to its own propensities upon the administration of the financesof the State. If the first of the three exclusively possesses thelegislative power, it is probable that it will not be sparing of thepublic funds, because the taxes which are levied on a large fortune onlytend to diminish the sum of superfluous enjoyment, and are, in point offact, but little felt. If the second class has the power of making thelaws, it will certainly not be lavish of taxes, because nothing isso onerous as a large impost which is levied upon a small income. The government of the middle classes appears to me to be the mosteconomical, though perhaps not the most enlightened, and certainly notthe most generous, of free governments. 

But let us now suppose that the legislative authority is vested inthe lowest orders: there are two striking reasons which show that thetendency of the expenditure will be to increase, not to diminish. As thegreat majority of those who create the laws are possessed of no propertyupon which taxes can be imposed, all the money which is spent for thecommunity appears to be spent to their advantage, at no cost of theirown; and those who are possessed of some little property readily findmeans of regulating the taxes so that they are burdensome to the wealthyand profitable to the poor, although the rich are unable to take thesame advantage when they are in possession of the Government. 

In countries in which the poor *e should be exclusively invested withthe power of making the laws no great economy of public expenditureought to be expected: that expenditure will always be considerable;either because the taxes do not weigh upon those who levy them, orbecause they are levied in such a manner as not to weigh upon thoseclasses. In other words, the government of the democracy is the only oneunder which the power which lays on taxes escapes the payment of them. 

[Footnote e: The word poor is used here, and throughout the remainderof this chapter, in a relative, not in an absolute sense. Poor men inAmerica would often appear rich in comparison with the poor of Europe;but they may with propriety by styled poor in comparison with their moreaffluent countrymen. ]

It may be objected (but the argument has no real weight) that thetrue interest of the people is indissolubly connected with that of thewealthier portion of the community, since it cannot but suffer by thesevere measures to which it resorts. But is it not the true interest ofkings to render their subjects happy, and the true interest of noblesto admit recruits into their order on suitable grounds? If remoteadvantages had power to prevail over the passions and the exigenciesof the moment, no such thing as a tyrannical sovereign or an exclusivearistocracy could ever exist. 

Again, it may be objected that the poor are never invested with the solepower of making the laws; but I reply, that wherever universal suffragehas been established the majority of the community unquestionablyexercises the legislative authority; and if it be proved that the pooralways constitute the majority, it may be added, with perfect truth, that in the countries in which they possess the elective franchise theypossess the sole power of making laws. But it is certain that in all thenations of the world the greater number has always consisted of thosepersons who hold no property, or of those whose property is insufficientto exempt them from the necessity of working in order to procure an easysubsistence. Universal suffrage does therefore, in point of fact, investthe poor with the government of society. 

The disastrous influence which popular authority may sometimes exerciseupon the finances of a State was very clearly seen in some of thedemocratic republics of antiquity, in which the public treasure wasexhausted in order to relieve indigent citizens, or to supply thegames and theatrical amusements of the populace. It is true that therepresentative system was then very imperfectly known, and that, atthe present time, the influence of popular passion is less felt in theconduct of public affairs; but it may be believed that the delegatewill in the end conform to the principles of his constituents, and favortheir propensities as much as their interests. 

The extravagance of democracy is, however, less to be dreaded inproportion as the people acquires a share of property, because on theone hand the contributions of the rich are then less needed, and, onthe other, it is more difficult to lay on taxes which do not affect theinterests of the lower classes. On this account universal suffragewould be less dangerous in France than in England, because in the lattercountry the property on which taxes may be levied is vested in fewerhands. America, where the great majority of the citizens possess somefortune, is in a still more favorable position than France. 

There are still further causes which may increase the sum of publicexpenditure in democratic countries. When the aristocracy governs, theindividuals who conduct the affairs of State are exempted by their ownstation in society from every kind of privation; they are contented withtheir position; power and renown are the objects for which they strive;and, as they are placed far above the obscurer throng of citizens, theydo not always distinctly perceive how the well-being of the mass of thepeople ought to redound to their own honor. They are not indeed callousto the sufferings of the poor, but they cannot feel those miseries asacutely as if they were themselves partakers of them. Provided that thepeople appear to submit to its lot, the rulers are satisfied, and theydemand nothing further from the Government. An aristocracy is moreintent upon the means of maintaining its influence than upon the meansof improving its condition. 

When, on the contrary, the people is invested with the supremeauthority, the perpetual sense of their own miseries impels the rulersof society to seek for perpetual ameliorations. A thousand differentobjects are subjected to improvement; the most trivial details aresought out as susceptible of amendment; and those changes which areaccompanied with considerable expense are more especially advocated, since the object is to render the condition of the poor more tolerable, who cannot pay for themselves. 

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

In monarchies and aristocracies the natural taste which the rulers havefor power and for renown is stimulated by the promptings of ambition, and they are frequently incited by these temptations to very costlyundertakings. In democracies, where the rulers labor under privations, they can only be courted by such means as improve their well-being, andthese improvements cannot take place without a sacrifice of money. Whena people begins to reflect upon its situation, it discovers a multitudeof wants to which it had not before been subject, and to satisfy theseexigencies recourse must be had to the coffers of the State. Hence itarises that the public charges increase in proportion as civilizationspreads, and that imposts are augmented as knowledge pervades thecommunity. 

The last cause which frequently renders a democratic governmentdearer than any other is, that a democracy does not always succeed inmoderating its expenditure, because it does not understand the art ofbeing economical. As the designs which it entertains are frequentlychanged, and the agents of those designs are still more frequentlyremoved, its undertakings are often ill conducted or left unfinished: inthe former case the State spends sums out of all proportion to the endwhich it proposes to accomplish; in the second, the expense itself isunprofitable. *f

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

Tendencies Of The American Democracy As Regards The Salaries Of PublicOfficers

In the democracies those who establish high salaries have no chance ofprofiting by them--Tendency of the American democracy to increasethe salaries of subordinate officers and to lower those of the moreimportant functionaries--Reason of this--Comparative statement of thesalaries of public officers in the United States and in France. 

There is a powerful reason which usually induces democracies toeconomize upon the salaries of public officers. As the number ofcitizens who dispense the remuneration is extremely large in democraticcountries, so the number of persons who can hope to be benefited by thereceipt of it is comparatively small. In aristocratic countries, on thecontrary, the individuals who fix high salaries have almost always avague hope of profiting by them. These appointments may be looked uponas a capital which they create for their own use, or at least as aresource for their children. 

It must, however, be allowed that a democratic State is mostparsimonious towards its principal agents. In America the secondaryofficers are much better paid, and the dignitaries of the administrationmuch worse, than they are elsewhere. 

These opposite effects result from the same cause; the people fixesthe salaries of the public officers in both cases; and the scale ofremuneration is determined by the consideration of its own wants. It isheld to be fair that the servants of the public should be placed in thesame easy circumstances as the public itself; *g but when the questionturns upon the salaries of the great officers of State, this rulefails, and chance alone can guide the popular decision. The poor have noadequate conception of the wants which the higher classes of society mayfeel. The sum which is scanty to the rich appears enormous to the poorman whose wants do not extend beyond the necessaries of life; and in hisestimation the Governor of a State, with his twelve or fifteen hundreddollars a year, is a very fortunate and enviable being. *h If youundertake to convince him that the representative of a great peopleought to be able to maintain some show of splendor in the eyes offoreign nations, he will perhaps assent to your meaning; but when hereflects on his own humble dwelling, and on the hard-earned produceof his wearisome toil, he remembers all that he could do with a salarywhich you say is insufficient, and he is startled or almost frightenedat the sight of such uncommon wealth. Besides, the secondary publicofficer is almost on a level with the people, whilst the others areraised above it. The former may therefore excite his interest, but thelatter begins to arouse his envy. 

[Footnote g: The easy circumstances in which secondary functionariesare placed in the United States result also from another cause, whichis independent of the general tendencies of democracy; every kind ofprivate business is very lucrative, and the State would not be served atall if it did not pay its servants. The country is in the position ofa commercial undertaking, which is obliged to sustain an expensivecompetition, notwithstanding its tastes for economy. ]

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

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

[Footnote i: To render this assertion perfectly evident, it willsuffice to examine the scale of salaries of the agents of the FederalGovernment. I have added the salaries attached to the correspondingofficers in France under the constitutional monarchy to complete thecomparison. 

 United States Treasury Department Messenger . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . $700 Clerk with lowest salary . .. .. .. .. .. .. 1, 000 Clerk with highest salary . .. .. .. .. .. . 1, 600 Chief Clerk . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 2, 000 Secretary of State . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6, 000 The President . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 25, 000

 France Ministere des Finances Hussier . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1, 500 fr. Clerk with lowest salary, 1, 000 to 1, 800 fr. Clerk with highest salary 3, 200 to 8, 600 fr. Secretaire-general . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 20, 000 fr. The Minister . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 80, 000 fr. The King . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 12, 000, 000 fr. 

I have perhaps done wrong in selecting France as my standard ofcomparison. In France the democratic tendencies of the nation exercisean ever-increasing influence upon the Government, and the Chambers showa disposition to raise the low salaries and to lower the principalones. Thus, the Minister of Finance, who received 160, 000 fr. Under theEmpire, receives 80, 000 fr. In 1835: the Directeurs-generaux ofFinance, who then received 50, 000 fr. Now receive only 20, 000 fr. [Thiscomparison is based on the state of things existing in France andthe 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, that whilst the high officers are receiving munificent salaries, theinferior ones have not more than enough to procure the necessaries oflife. The reason of this fact is easily discoverable from causes veryanalogous to those to which I have just alluded. If a democracy isunable to conceive the pleasures of the rich or to witness them withoutenvy, an aristocracy is slow to understand, or, to speak more correctly, is unacquainted with, the privations of the poor. The poor man is not(if we use the term aright) the fellow of the rich one; but he is abeing of another species. An aristocracy is therefore apt to care butlittle for the fate of its subordinate agents; and their salaries areonly raised when they refuse to perform their service for too scanty aremuneration. 

It is the parsimonious conduct of democracy towards its principalofficers which has countenanced a supposition of far more economicalpropensities than any which it really possesses. It is true that itscarcely allows the means of honorable subsistence to the individualswho conduct its affairs; but enormous sums are lavished to meet theexigencies or to facilitate the enjoyments of the people. *j The moneyraised by taxation may be better employed, but it is not saved. Ingeneral, democracy gives largely to the community, and very sparingly tothose who govern it. The reverse is the case in aristocratic countries, where the money of the State is expended to the profit of the personswho are at the head of affairs. 

[Footnote j: See the American budgets for the cost of indigent citizensand gratuitous instruction. In 1831 $250, 000 were spent in the State ofNew York for the maintenance of the poor, and at least $1, 000, 000were devoted to gratuitous instruction. (William's "New York AnnualRegister, " 1832, pp. 205 and 243. ) The State of New York contained only1, 900, 000 inhabitants in the year 1830, which is not more than doublethe amount of population in the Department du Nord in France. ]

Difficulty of Distinguishing The Causes Which Contribute To The EconomyOf The American Government

We are liable to frequent errors in the research of those facts whichexercise a serious influence upon the fate of mankind, since nothingis more difficult than to appreciate their real value. One peopleis naturally inconsistent and enthusiastic; another is sober andcalculating; and these characteristics originate in their physicalconstitution or in remote causes with which we are unacquainted. 

These are nations which are fond of parade and the bustle of festivity, and which do not regret the costly gaieties of an hour. Others, onthe contrary, are attached to more retiring pleasures, and seem almostashamed of appearing to be pleased. In some countries the highest valueis set upon the beauty of public edifices; in others the productions ofart are treated with indifference, and everything which is unproductiveis looked down upon with contempt. In some renown, in others money, isthe ruling passion. 

Independently of the laws, all these causes concur to exercise a verypowerful influence upon the conduct of the finances of the State. If theAmericans never spend the money of the people in galas, it is not onlybecause the imposition of taxes is under the control of the people, but because the people takes no delight in public rejoicings. If theyrepudiate all ornament from their architecture, and set no store on anybut the more practical and homely advantages, it is not only becausethey live under democratic institutions, but because they are acommercial nation. The habits of private life are continued in public;and we ought carefully to distinguish that economy which depends upontheir institutions from that which is the natural result of theirmanners and customs. 

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

Two points to be established in order to estimate the extent of thepublic charges, viz. , the national wealth and the rate of taxation--Thewealth and the charges of France not accurately known--Why the wealthand charges of the Union cannot be accurately known--Researches ofthe author with a view to discover the amount of taxation ofPennsylvania--General symptoms which may serve to indicate the amount ofthe public charges in a given nation--Result of this investigation forthe Union. 

Many attempts have recently been made in France to compare the publicexpenditure of that country with the expenditure of the United States;all these attempts have, however, been unattended by success, and a fewwords will suffice to show that they could not have had a satisfactoryresult. 

In order to estimate the amount of the public charges of a people twopreliminaries are indispensable: it is necessary, in the first place, toknow the wealth of that people; and in the second, to learn what portionof that wealth is devoted to the expenditure of the State. To show theamount of taxation without showing the resources which are destinedto meet the demand, is to undertake a futile labor; for it is not theexpenditure, but the relation of the expenditure to the revenue, whichit 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 ofnations is composed of several distinct elements, of which populationis the first, real property the second, and personal property the third. The first of these three elements may be discovered without difficulty. Amongst civilized nations it is easy to obtain an accurate census ofthe inhabitants; but the two others cannot be determined with so muchfacility. It is difficult to take an exact account of all the lands ina country which are under cultivation, with their natural or theiracquired value; and it is still more impossible to estimate the entirepersonal property which is at the disposal of a nation, and which eludesthe strictest analysis by the diversity and the number of shapes underwhich it may occur. And, indeed, we find that the most ancient civilizednations of Europe, including even those in which the administrationis most central, have not succeeded, as yet, in determining the exactcondition of their wealth. 

In America the attempt has never been made; for how would such aninvestigation be possible in a country where society has not yetsettled into habits of regularity and tranquillity; where the nationalGovernment is not assisted by a multiple of agents whose exertions itcan command and direct to one sole end; and where statistics are notstudied, because no one is able to collect the necessary documents, or to find time to peruse them? Thus the primary elements of thecalculations which have been made in France cannot be obtained in theUnion; the relative wealth of the two countries is unknown; the propertyof the former is not accurately determined, and no means exist ofcomputing that of the latter. 

I consent, therefore, for the sake of the discussion, to abandon thisnecessary term of the comparison, and I confine myself to a computationof the actual amount of taxation, without investigating the relationwhich subsists between the taxation and the revenue. But the reader willperceive that my task has not been facilitated by the limits which Ihere lay down for my researches. 

It cannot be doubted that the central administration of France, assistedby all the public officers who are at its disposal, might determine withexactitude the amount of the direct and indirect taxes levied uponthe citizens. But this investigation, which no private individual canundertake, has not hitherto been completed by the French Government, or, at least, its results have not been made public. We are acquainted withthe sum total of the charges of the State; we know the amount of thedepartmental expenditure; but the expenses of the communal divisionshave not been computed, and the amount of the public expenses of Franceis consequently unknown. 

If we now turn to America, we shall perceive that the difficulties aremultiplied and enhanced. The Union publishes an exact return of theamount of its expenditure; the budgets of the four and twenty Statesfurnish similar returns of their revenues; but the expenses incident tothe affairs of the counties and the townships are unknown. *k

[Footnote k: The Americans, as we have seen, have four separate budgets, the Union, the States, the Counties, and the Townships having eachseverally their own. During my stay in America I made every endeavorto discover the amount of the public expenditure in the townships andcounties of the principal States of the Union, and I readily obtainedthe budget of the larger townships, but I found it quite impossible toprocure that of the smaller ones. I possess, however, some documentsrelating to county expenses, which, although incomplete, are stillcurious. I have to thank Mr. Richards, Mayor of Philadelphia, for thebudgets of 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. Their population at that time consisted of 495, 207inhabitants. On looking at the map of Pennsylvania, it will be seenthat these thirteen counties are scattered in every direction, and sogenerally affected by the causes which usually influence the conditionof a country, that they may easily be supposed to furnish a correctaverage of the financial state of the counties of Pennsylvania ingeneral; and thus, upon reckoning that the expenses of these countiesamounted in the year 1830 to about $361, 650, or nearly 75 cents for eachinhabitant, and calculating that each of them contributed in the sameyear about $2. 55 towards the Union, and about 75 cents to the State ofPennsylvania, it appears that they each contributed as their shareof all the public expenses (except those of the townships) the sum of$4. 05. This calculation is doubly incomplete, as it applies only to asingle year and to one part of the public charges; but it has at leastthe 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 thesegovernments were inclined to afford their simultaneous co-operation, it may be doubted whether they possess the means of procuring asatisfactory answer. Independently of the natural difficulties of thetask, the political organization of the country would act as a hindranceto the success of their efforts. The county and town magistrates are notappointed by the authorities of the State, and they are not subjectedto their control. It is therefore very allowable to suppose that, if theState was desirous of obtaining the returns which we require, its designwould be counteracted by the neglect of those subordinate officers whomit would be obliged to employ. *l It is, in point of fact, useless toinquire what the Americans might do to forward this inquiry, since itis 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 can inform us what each citizen of the Union annually contributesto the public charges of the nation. *m [Footnote l: Those who haveattempted to draw a comparison between the expenses of France andAmerica have at once perceived that no such comparison could be drawnbetween the total expenditure of the two countries; but they haveendeavored to contrast detached portions of this expenditure. It mayreadily be shown that this second system is not at all less defectivethan the first. If I attempt to compare the French budget with thebudget of the Union, it must be remembered that the latter embraces muchfewer objects than then central Government of the former country, andthat the expenditure must consequently be much smaller. If I contrastthe budgets of the Departments with those of the States which constitutethe Union, it must be observed that, as the power and control exercisedby the States is much greater than that which is exercised by theDepartments, their expenditure is also more considerable. As for thebudgets of the counties, nothing of the kind occurs in the Frenchsystem of finances; and it is, again, doubtful whether the correspondingexpenses should be referred to the budget of the State or to those ofthe municipal divisions. Municipal expenses exist in both countries, but they are not always analogous. In America the townships discharge avariety of offices which are reserved in France to the Departments orto the State. It may, moreover, be asked what is to be understood by themunicipal expenses of America. The organization of the municipal bodiesor townships differs in the several States. Are we to be guided by whatoccurs in New England or in Georgia, in Pennsylvania or in the Stateof Illinois? A kind of analogy may very readily be perceived betweencertain budgets in the two countries; but as the elements of whichthey are composed always differ more or less, no fair comparison canbe instituted between them. [The same difficulty exists, perhaps to agreater degree at the present time, when the taxation of America haslargely increased. --1874. ]]

[Footnote m: Even if we knew the exact pecuniary contributions of everyFrench and American citizen to the coffers of the State, we should onlycome at a portion of the truth. Governments do not only demand suppliesof money, but they call for personal services, which may be looked uponas equivalent to a given sum. When a State raises an army, besides thepay of the troops, which is furnished by the entire nation, each soldiermust give up his time, the value of which depends on the use he mightmake of it if he were not in the service. The same remark applies to themilitia; the citizen who is in the militia devotes a certain portionof valuable time to the maintenance of the public peace, and he does inreality surrender to the State those earnings which he is prevented fromgaining. Many other instances might be cited in addition to these. Thegovernments of France and of America both levy taxes of this kind, which weigh upon the citizens; but who can estimate with accuracy theirrelative amount in the 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, and vice versa. The French Government pays the clergy; in America thevoluntary principle prevails. In America there is a legal provision forthe poor; in France they are abandoned to the charity of the public. TheFrench public officers are paid by a fixed salary; in America they areallowed certain perquisites. In France contributions in kind take placeon very few roads; in America upon almost all the thoroughfares: inthe former country the roads are free to all travellers; in thelatter turnpikes abound. All these differences in the manner in whichcontributions are levied in the two countries enhance the difficulty ofcomparing their expenditure; for there are certain expenses which thecitizens 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 thename of the public. ]

Hence we must conclude that it is no less difficult to compare thesocial expenditure than it is to estimate the relative wealth of Franceand America. I will even add that it would be dangerous to attempt thiscomparison; for when statistics are not based upon computations whichare strictly accurate, they mislead instead of guiding aright. The mindis easily imposed upon by the false affectation of exactness, whichprevails even in the misstatements of science, and it adopts withconfidence errors which are dressed in the forms of mathematical truth. 

We abandon, therefore, our numerical investigation, with the hope ofmeeting with data of another kind. In the absence of positive documents, we may form an opinion as to the proportion which the taxation of apeople bears to its real prosperity, by observing whether its externalappearance is flourishing; whether, after having discharged the calls ofthe State, the poor man retains the means of subsistence, and the richthe means of enjoyment; and whether both classes are contented withtheir position, seeking, however, to ameliorate it by perpetualexertions, so that industry is never in want of capital, nor capitalunemployed by industry. The observer who draws his inferences from thesesigns will, undoubtedly, be led to the conclusion that the American ofthe United States contributes a much smaller portion of his income tothe State than the citizen of France. Nor, indeed, can the result beotherwise. 

A portion of the French debt is the consequence of two successiveinvasions; and the Union has no similar calamity to fear. A nationplaced upon the continent of Europe is obliged to maintain a largestanding army; the isolated position of the Union enables it to haveonly 6, 000 soldiers. The French have a fleet of 300 sail; the Americanshave 52 vessels. *n How, then, can the inhabitants of the Union becalled upon to contribute as largely as the inhabitants of France?No parallel can be drawn between the finances of two countries sodifferently situated. 

[Footnote n: See the details in the Budget of the French Minister ofMarine; and for America, the National Calendar of 1833, p. 228. [Butthe public debt of the United States in 1870, caused by the Civil War, amounted to $2, 480, 672, 427; that of France was more than doubled by theextravagance of the Second Empire and by the war of 1870. ]]

It is by examining what actually takes place in the Union, and notby comparing the Union with France, that we may discover whether theAmerican Government is really economical. On casting my eyes over thedifferent republics which form the confederation, I perceive that theirGovernments lack perseverance in their undertakings, and that theyexercise no steady control over the men whom they employ. Whence Inaturally infer that they must often spend the money of the people tono purpose, or consume more of it than is really necessary to theirundertakings. Great efforts are made, in accordance with the democraticorigin of society, to satisfy the exigencies of the lower orders, toopen the career of power to their endeavors, and to diffuse knowledgeand comfort amongst them. The poor are maintained, immense sums areannually devoted to public instruction, all services whatsoever areremunerated, and the most subordinate agents are liberally paid. Ifthis kind of government appears to me to be useful and rational, I amnevertheless constrained to admit that it is expensive. 

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

I conclude, therefore, without having recourse to inaccuratecomputations, and without hazarding a comparison which might proveincorrect, that the democratic government of the Americans is not acheap government, as is sometimes asserted; and I have no hesitation inpredicting that, if the people of the United States is ever involvedin serious difficulties, its taxation will speedily be increased to therate of that which prevails in the greater part of the aristocracies andthe monarchies of Europe. *o

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

Chapter XIII: Government Of The Democracy In America--Part III

Corruption And Vices Of The Rulers In A Democracy, And ConsequentEffects Upon Public Morality

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

A distinction must be made, when the aristocratic and the democraticprinciples mutually inveigh against each other, as tending to facilitatecorruption. In aristocratic governments the individuals who are placedat the head of affairs are rich men, who are solely desirous of power. In democracies statesmen are poor, and they have their fortunes to make. The consequence is that in aristocratic States the rulers are rarelyaccessible to corruption, and have very little craving for money; whilstthe reverse is the case in democratic nations. 

But in aristocracies, as those who are desirous of arriving at the headof affairs are possessed of considerable wealth, and as the number ofpersons by whose assistance they may rise is comparatively small, thegovernment is, if I may use the expression, put up to a sort of auction. In democracies, on the contrary, those who are covetous of power arevery seldom wealthy, and the number of citizens who confer that power isextremely great. Perhaps in democracies the number of men who might bebought is by no means smaller, but buyers are rarely to be met with;and, besides, it would be necessary to buy so many persons at once thatthe attempt is rendered nugatory. 

Many of the men who have been in the administration in France duringthe last forty years have been accused of making their fortunes atthe expense of the State or of its allies; a reproach which was rarelyaddressed to the public characters of the ancient monarchy. But inFrance the practice of bribing electors is almost unknown, whilst it isnotoriously and publicly carried on in England. In the United StatesI never heard a man accused of spending his wealth in corruptingthe populace; but I have often heard the probity of public officersquestioned; still more frequently have I heard their success attributedto 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 directlyassailed; in the latter an indirect influence is exercised upon thepeople which is still more to be dreaded. 

As the rulers of democratic nations are almost always exposed tothe suspicion of dishonorable conduct, they in some measure lend theauthority of the Government to the base practices of which they areaccused. They thus afford an example which must prove discouragingto the struggles of virtuous independence, and must foster the secretcalculations of a vicious ambition. If it be asserted that evil passionsare displayed in all ranks of society, that they ascend the throne byhereditary right, and that despicable characters are to be met withat the head of aristocratic nations as well as in the sphere of ademocracy, this objection has but little weight in my estimation. Thecorruption of men who have casually risen to power has a coarse andvulgar infection in it which renders it contagious to the multitude. Onthe contrary, there is a kind of aristocratic refinement and an air ofgrandeur in the depravity of the great, which frequently prevent it fromspreading abroad. 

The people can never penetrate into the perplexing labyrinth of courtintrigue, and it will always have difficulty in detecting the turpitudewhich lurks under elegant manners, refined tastes, and gracefullanguage. But to pillage the public purse, and to vend the favors of theState, are arts which the meanest villain may comprehend, and hope topractice in his turn. 

In reality it is far less prejudicial to witness the immorality of thegreat than to witness that immorality which leads to greatness. In ademocracy private citizens see a man of their own rank in life, whorises from that obscure position, and who becomes possessed of richesand of power in a few years; the spectacle excites their surprise andtheir envy, and they are led to inquire how the person who was yesterdaytheir equal is to-day their ruler. To attribute his rise to his talentsor his virtues is unpleasant; for it is tacitly to acknowledge that theyare themselves less virtuous and less talented than he was. They aretherefore led (and not unfrequently their conjecture is a correct one)to impute his success mainly to some one of his defects; and an odiousmixture 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 itsexistence--Enthusiasm at the commencement of the war--Indifferencetowards its close--Difficulty of establishing military conscriptionor impressment of seamen in America--Why a democratic people is lesscapable of sustained effort than another. 

I here warn the reader that I speak of a government which implicitlyfollows the real desires of a people, and not of a government whichsimply commands in its name. Nothing is so irresistible as a tyrannicalpower commanding in the name of the people, because, whilst it exercisesthat moral influence which belongs to the decision of the majority, itacts at the same time with the promptitude and the tenacity of a singleman. 

It is difficult to say what degree of exertion a democratic governmentmay be capable of making a crisis in the history of the nation. But nogreat democratic republic has hitherto existed in the world. To stylethe oligarchy which ruled over France in 1793 by that name would be tooffer an insult to the republican form of government. The United Statesafford the first example of the kind. 

The American Union has now subsisted for half a century, in the courseof which time its existence has only once been attacked, namely, duringthe War of Independence. At the commencement of that long war, variousoccurrences took place which betokened an extraordinary zeal for theservice of the country. *p But as the contest was prolonged, symptoms ofprivate egotism began to show themselves. No money was poured into thepublic treasury; few recruits could be raised to join the army; thepeople wished to acquire independence, but was very ill-disposed toundergo the privations by which alone it could be obtained. "Taxlaws, " says Hamilton in the "Federalist" (No. 12), "have in vain beenmultiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain beentried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed and thetreasuries of the States have remained empty. The popular system ofadministration inherent in the nature of popular government, coincidingwith 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 thefolly of attempting them. "

[Footnote p: One of the most singular of these occurrences was theresolution which the Americans took of temporarily abandoning the use oftea. Those who know that men usually cling more to their habits thanto their life will doubtless admire this great though obscure sacrificewhich was made by a whole people. ]

The United States have not had any serious war to carry on ever sincethat period. In order, therefore, to appreciate the sacrifices whichdemocratic nations may impose upon themselves, we must wait until theAmerican people is obliged to put half its entire income at the disposalof the Government, as was done by the English; or until it sends forth atwentieth part of its population to the field of battle, as was done byFrance. *q

[Footnote q: [The Civil War showed that when the necessity arose theAmerican people, both in the North and in the South, are capable ofmaking the most enormous sacrifices, both in money and in men. ]]

In America the use of conscription is unknown, and men are induced toenlist by bounties. The notions and habits of the people of the UnitedStates are so opposed to compulsory enlistment that I do not imagine itcan ever be sanctioned by the laws. What is termed the conscriptionin France is assuredly the heaviest tax upon the population of thatcountry; yet how could a great continental war be carried on without it?The Americans have not adopted the British impressment of seamen, andthey have nothing which corresponds to the French system of maritimeconscription; the navy, as well as the merchant service, is suppliedby voluntary service. But it is not easy to conceive how a people cansustain a great maritime war without having recourse to one or the otherof these two systems. Indeed, the Union, which has fought with somehonor upon the seas, has never possessed a very numerous fleet, andthe equipment of the small number of American vessels has always beenexcessively expensive. 

I have heard American statesmen confess that the Union will have greatdifficulty in maintaining its rank on the seas without adopting thesystem of impressment or of maritime conscription; but the difficulty isto induce the people, which exercises the supreme authority, to submitto impressment or any compulsory system. 

It is incontestable that in times of danger a free people displays farmore energy than one which is not so. But I incline to believe thatthis is more especially the case in those free nations in which thedemocratic element preponderates. Democracy appears to me to be muchbetter adapted for the peaceful conduct of society, or for an occasionaleffort of remarkable vigor, than for the hardy and prolonged enduranceof the storms which beset the political existence of nations. The reasonis very evident; it is enthusiasm which prompts men to expose themselvesto dangers and privations, but they will not support them long withoutreflection. There is more calculation, even in the impulses of bravery, than is generally attributed to them; and although the first efforts aresuggested by passion, perseverance is maintained by a distinct regard ofthe purpose in view. A portion of what we value is exposed, in order tosave the remainder. 

But it is this distinct perception of the future, founded upon a soundjudgment and an enlightened experience, which is most frequently wantingin democracies. The populace is more apt to feel than to reason; andif its present sufferings are great, it is to be feared that the stillgreater sufferings attendant upon defeat will be forgotten. 

Another cause tends to render the efforts of a democratic governmentless persevering than those of an aristocracy. Not only are the lowerclasses less awakened than the higher orders to the good or evil chancesof the future, but they are liable to suffer far more acutely frompresent privations. The noble exposes his life, indeed, but the chanceof glory is equal to the chance of harm. If he sacrifices a largeportion of his income to the State, he deprives himself for a time ofthe pleasures of affluence; but to the poor man death is embellishedby no pomp or renown, and the imposts which are irksome to the rich arefatal to him. 

This relative impotence of democratic republics is, perhaps, thegreatest obstacle to the foundation of a republic of this kind inEurope. In order that such a State should subsist in one country of theOld World, it would be necessary that similar institutions should beintroduced into all the other nations. 

I am of opinion that a democratic government tends in the end toincrease the real strength of society; but it can never combine, upon asingle point and at a given time, so much power as an aristocracy ora monarchy. If a democratic country remained during a whole centurysubject to a republican government, it would probably at the end ofthat period be more populous and more prosperous than the neighboringdespotic States. But it would have incurred the risk of being conqueredmuch 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, in what is beneficial to its interests--The faults of the Americandemocracy are for the most part reparable. 

The difficulty which a democracy has in conquering the passions and insubduing the exigencies of the moment, with a view to the future, isconspicuous in the most trivial occurrences of the United States. Thepeople, which is surrounded by flatterers, has great difficulty insurmounting its inclinations, and whenever it is solicited to undergo aprivation or any kind of inconvenience, even to attain an end which issanctioned by its own rational conviction, it almost always refuses tocomply at first. The deference of the Americans to the laws hasbeen very justly applauded; but it must be added that in America thelegislation is made by the people and for the people. Consequently, inthe United States the law favors those classes which are most interestedin evading it elsewhere. It may therefore be supposed that an offensivelaw, which should not be acknowledged to be one of immediate utility, would either not be enacted or would not be obeyed. 

In America there is no law against fraudulent bankruptcies; not becausethey are few, but because there are a great number of bankruptcies. Thedread of being prosecuted as a bankrupt acts with more intensity uponthe mind of the majority of the people than the fear of being involvedin losses or ruin by the failure of other parties, and a sort of guiltytolerance is extended by the public conscience to an offence whicheveryone condemns in his individual capacity. In the new States of theSouthwest the citizens generally take justice into their own hands, and murders are of very frequent occurrence. This arises from the rudemanners and the ignorance of the inhabitants of those deserts, who donot perceive the utility of investing the law with adequate force, andwho prefer duels to prosecutions. 

Someone observed to me one day, in Philadelphia, that almost all crimesin America are caused by the abuse of intoxicating liquors, which thelower classes can procure in great abundance, from their excessivecheapness. "How comes it, " said I, "that you do not put a duty uponbrandy?" "Our legislators, " rejoined my informant, "have frequentlythought of this expedient; but the task of putting it in operation is adifficult one; a revolt might be apprehended, and the members whoshould vote for a law of this kind would be sure of losing theirseats. " "Whence I am to infer, " replied I, "that the drinking populationconstitutes the majority in your country, and that temperance issomewhat unpopular. "

When these things are pointed out to the American statesmen, theycontent themselves with assuring you that time will operate thenecessary change, and that the experience of evil will teach the peopleits true interests. This is frequently true, although a democracy ismore liable to error than a monarch or a body of nobles; the chances ofits regaining the right path when once it has acknowledged itsmistake, are greater also; because it is rarely embarrassed by internalinterests, which conflict with those of the majority, and resist theauthority of reason. But a democracy can only obtain truth as the resultof experience, and many nations may forfeit their existence whilst theyare awaiting the consequences of their errors. 

The great privilege of the Americans does not simply consist in theirbeing more enlightened than other nations, but in their being able torepair the faults they may commit. To which it must be added, that ademocracy cannot derive substantial benefit from past experience, unlessit be arrived at a certain pitch of knowledge and civilization. Thereare tribes and peoples whose education has been so vicious, and whosecharacter presents so strange a mixture of passion, of ignorance, and oferroneous notions upon all subjects, that they are unable to discern thecauses of their own wretchedness, and they fall a sacrifice to ills withwhich they are unacquainted. 

I have crossed vast tracts of country that were formerly inhabited bypowerful Indian nations which are now extinct; I have myself passed sometime in the midst of mutilated tribes, which witness the daily declineof their numerical strength and of the glory of their independence; andI have heard these Indians themselves anticipate the impending doom oftheir race. Every European can perceive means which would rescuethese unfortunate beings from inevitable destruction. They alone areinsensible to the expedient; they feel the woe which year after yearheaps upon their heads, but they will perish to a man without acceptingthe remedy. It would be necessary to employ force to induce them tosubmit to the protection and the constraint of civilization. 

The incessant revolutions which have convulsed the South Americanprovinces for the last quarter of a century have frequently beenadverted to with astonishment, and expectations have been expressed thatthose nations would speedily return to their natural state. But canit be affirmed that the turmoil of revolution is not actually the mostnatural state of the South American Spaniards at the present time? Inthat country society is plunged into difficulties from which all itsefforts are insufficient to rescue it. The inhabitants of that fairportion of the Western Hemisphere seem obstinately bent on pursuingthe work of inward havoc. If they fall into a momentary repose from theeffects of exhaustion, that repose prepares them for a fresh state offrenzy. When I consider their condition, which alternates between miseryand crime, I should be inclined to believe that despotism itself wouldbe a benefit to them, if it were possible that the words despotism andbenefit could ever be united in my mind. 

Conduct Of Foreign Affairs By The American Democracy

Direction given to the foreign policy of the United States byWashington and Jefferson--Almost all the defects inherent indemocratic institutions are brought to light in the conduct of foreignaffairs--Their advantages are less perceptible. 

We have seen that the Federal Constitution entrusts the permanentdirection of the external interests of the nation to the President andthe Senate, *r which tends in some degree to detach the general foreignpolicy of the Union from the control of the people. It cannot thereforebe asserted with truth that the external affairs of State are conductedby the democracy. 

[Footnote r: "The President, " says the Constitution, Art. II, sect. 2, Section 2, "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of theSenate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators presentconcur. " The reader is reminded that the senators are returned for aterm of six years, and that they are chosen by the legislature of eachState. ]

The policy of America owes its rise to Washington, and after him toJefferson, who established those principles which it observes at thepresent day. Washington said in the admirable letter which he addressedto his fellow-citizens, and which may be looked upon as his politicalbequest to the country: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard toforeign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to havewith them as little political connection as possible. So far as we havealready formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect goodfaith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which tous have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged infrequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign toour concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicateourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of herpolitics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendshipsor enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enablesus to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under anefficient government, the period is not far off when we may defymaterial injury from external annoyance; when we may take such anattitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve uponto be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under theimpossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazardthe giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as ourinterest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages ofso peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steerclear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world;so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not beunderstood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it; therefore, letthose engagements be observed in their genuine sense; but in my opinionit is unnecessary, and would be unwise, to extend them. Taking carealways to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, in a respectabledefensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances forextraordinary emergencies. " In a previous part of the same letterWashington makes the following admirable and just remark: "The nationwhich indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitualfondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or toits affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from itsduty and its interest. "

The political conduct of Washington was always guided by these maxims. He succeeded in maintaining his country in a state of peace whilst allthe other nations of the globe were at war; and he laid it down as afundamental doctrine, that the true interest of the Americans consistedin a perfect neutrality with regard to the internal dissensions of theEuropean Powers. 

Jefferson went still further, and he introduced a maxim into the policyof the Union, which affirms that "the Americans ought never to solicitany privileges from foreign nations, in order not to be obliged to grantsimilar privileges themselves. "

These two principles, which were so plain and so just as to be adaptedto the capacity of the populace, have greatly simplified the foreignpolicy of the United States. As the Union takes no part in the affairsof Europe, it has, properly speaking, no foreign interests to discuss, since it has at present no powerful neighbors on the American continent. The country is as much removed from the passions of the Old World by itsposition as by the line of policy which it has chosen, and it is neithercalled upon to repudiate nor to espouse the conflicting interests ofEurope; whilst the dissensions of the New World are still concealedwithin the bosom of the future. 

The Union is free from all pre-existing obligations, and it isconsequently enabled to profit by the experience of the old nationsof Europe, without being obliged, as they are, to make the best of thepast, and to adapt it to their present circumstances; or to acceptthat immense inheritance which they derive from their forefathers--aninheritance of glory mingled with calamities, and of alliancesconflicting with national antipathies. The foreign policy of the UnitedStates 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 degreeof sagacity the American democracy will display in the conduct of theforeign policy of the country; and upon this point its adversaries, aswell as its advocates, must suspend their judgment. As for myself I haveno hesitation in avowing my conviction, that it is most especially inthe conduct of foreign relations that democratic governments appear tome to be decidedly inferior to governments carried on upon differentprinciples. Experience, instruction, and habit may almost always succeedin creating a species of practical discretion in democracies, and thatscience of the daily occurrences of life which is called good sense. Good sense may suffice to direct the ordinary course of society; andamongst a people whose education has been provided for, the advantagesof democratic liberty in the internal affairs of the country may morethan 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 ademocracy possesses; and they require, on the contrary, the perfect useof almost all those faculties in which it is deficient. Democracy isfavorable to the increase of the internal resources of the State; ittends to diffuse a moderate independence; it promotes the growth ofpublic spirit, and fortifies the respect which is entertained for law inall classes of society; and these are advantages which only exercise anindirect influence over the relations which one people bears to another. But a democracy is unable to regulate the details of an importantundertaking, to persevere in a design, and to work out its execution inthe presence of serious obstacles. It cannot combine its measures withsecrecy, and it will not await their consequences with patience. Theseare qualities which more especially belong to an individual or to anaristocracy; and they are precisely the means by which an individualpeople attains to a predominant position. 

If, on the contrary, we observe the natural defects of aristocracy, we shall find that their influence is comparatively innoxious in thedirection of the external affairs of a State. The capital fault of whicharistocratic bodies may be accused is that they are more apt to contrivetheir own advantage than that of the mass of the people. In foreignpolitics it is rare for the interest of the aristocracy to be in any waydistinct from that of the people. 

The propensity which democracies have to obey the impulse of passionrather than the suggestions of prudence, and to abandon a mature designfor the gratification of a momentary caprice, was very clearly seen inAmerica on the breaking out of the French Revolution. It was then asevident to the simplest capacity as it is at the present time that theinterest of the Americans forbade them to take any part in the contestwhich was about to deluge Europe with blood, but which could by no meansinjure the welfare of their own country. Nevertheless the sympathies ofthe people declared themselves with so much violence in behalf of Francethat nothing but the inflexible character of Washington, and the immensepopularity which he enjoyed, could have prevented the Americans fromdeclaring war against England. And even then, the exertions whichthe austere reason of that great man made to repress the generous butimprudent passions of his fellow-citizens, very nearly deprived him ofthe sole recompense which he had ever claimed--that of his country'slove. The majority then reprobated the line of policy which he adopted, and which has since been unanimously approved by the nation. *s If theConstitution and the favor of the public had not entrusted the directionof the foreign affairs of the country to Washington, it is certain thatthe American nation would at that time have taken the very measureswhich it now condemns. 

[Footnote s: See the fifth volume of Marshall's "Life of Washington. " Ina government constituted like that of the United States, he says, "it is impossible for the chief magistrate, however firm he may be, tooppose for any length of time the torrent of popular opinion; and theprevalent opinion of that day seemed to incline to war. In fact, inthe session of Congress held at the time, it was frequently seen thatWashington had lost the majority in the House of Representatives. " Theviolence of the language used against him in public was extreme, and ina political meeting they did not scruple to compare him indirectly tothe treacherous Arnold. "By the opposition, " says Marshall, "the friendsof the administration were declared to be an aristocratic and corruptfaction, who, from a desire to introduce monarchy, were hostile toFrance and under the influence of Britain; that they were a papernobility, whose extreme sensibility at every measure which threatenedthe funds, induced a tame submission to injuries and insults, which theinterests and honor of the nation required them to resist. "]

Almost all the nations which have ever exercised a powerful influenceupon the destinies of the world by conceiving, following up, andexecuting vast designs--from the Romans to the English--have beengoverned by aristocratic institutions. Nor will this be a subject ofwonder when we recollect that nothing in the world has so absolute afixity of purpose as an aristocracy. The mass of the people may be ledastray by ignorance or passion; the mind of a king may be biased, andhis perseverance in his designs may be shaken--besides which a king isnot immortal--but an aristocratic body is too numerous to be led astrayby the blandishments of intrigue, and yet not numerous enough to yieldreadily to the intoxicating influence of unreflecting passion: it hasthe energy of a firm and enlightened individual, added to the powerwhich it derives from perpetuity. 

Chapter XIV: Advantages American Society Derive From Democracy--Part I

What The Real Advantages Are Which American Society Derives From TheGovernment Of The Democracy

Before I enter upon the subject of the present chapter I am inducedto remind the reader of what I have more than once adverted to in thecourse of this book. The political institutions of the United Statesappear to me to be one of the forms of government which a democracy mayadopt; but I do not regard the American Constitution as the best, or asthe only one, which a democratic people may establish. In showing theadvantages which the Americans derive from the government of democracy, I am therefore very far from meaning, or from believing, that similaradvantages can only be obtained from the same laws. 

General Tendency Of The Laws Under The Rule Of The American Democracy, And Habits 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 distinctfrom those of the majority--Result of this state of things. 

The defects and the weaknesses of a democratic government may veryreadily be discovered; they are demonstrated by the most flagrantinstances, whilst its beneficial influence is less perceptiblyexercised. A single glance suffices to detect its evil consequences, butits good qualities can only be discerned by long observation. The lawsof the American democracy are frequently defective or incomplete; theysometimes attack vested rights, or give a sanction to others which aredangerous to the community; but even if they were good, the frequentchanges 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 observedbetween the end at which they aim and the means by which they aredirected to that end, between their absolute and their relativeexcellence. If it be the intention of the legislator to favor theinterests of the minority at the expense of the majority, and if themeasures he takes are so combined as to accomplish the object he has inview with the least possible expense of time and exertion, the law maybe 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 greatestpossible number; for they emanate from the majority of the citizens, whoare subject to error, but who cannot have an interest opposed to theirown advantage. The laws of an aristocracy tend, on the contrary, toconcentrate wealth and power in the hands of the minority, becausean aristocracy, by its very nature, constitutes a minority. It maytherefore be asserted, as a general proposition, that the purpose ofa democracy in the conduct of its legislation is useful to a greaternumber of citizens than that of an aristocracy. This is, however, thesum total of its advantages. 

Aristocracies are infinitely more expert in the science of legislationthan democracies ever can be. They are possessed of a self-control whichprotects them from the errors of temporary excitement, and they formlasting designs which they mature with the assistance of favorableopportunities. Aristocratic government proceeds with the dexterity ofart; it understands how to make the collective force of all its lawsconverge at the same time to a given point. Such is not the case withdemocracies, whose laws are almost always ineffective or inopportune. The means of democracy are therefore more imperfect than those ofaristocracy, 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 itsconstitution, that it can support the transitory action of bad laws, and that it can await, without destruction, the general tendency ofthe legislation: we shall then be able to conceive that a democraticgovernment, notwithstanding its defects, will be most fitted to conduceto the prosperity of this community. This is precisely what has occurredin the United States; and I repeat, what I have before remarked, thatthe great advantage of the Americans consists in their being able tocommit faults which they may afterward repair. 

An analogous observation may be made respecting public officers. Itis easy to perceive that the American democracy frequently errs inthe choice of the individuals to whom it entrusts the power of theadministration; but it is more difficult to say why the State prospersunder their rule. In the first place it is to be remarked, that if in ademocratic State the governors have less honesty and less capacity thanelsewhere, the governed, on the other hand, are more enlightened andmore attentive to their interests. As the people in democracies is moreincessantly vigilant in its affairs and more jealous of its rights, it prevents its representatives from abandoning that general line ofconduct which its own interest prescribes. In the second place, it mustbe remembered that if the democratic magistrate is more apt to misusehis power, he possesses it for a shorter period of time. But there isyet another reason which is still more general and conclusive. It isno doubt of importance to the welfare of nations that they should begoverned by men of talents and virtue; but it is perhaps still moreimportant that the interests of those men should not differ from theinterests of the community at large; for, if such were the case, virtuesof a high order might become useless, and talents might be turned toa bad account. I say that it is important that the interests of thepersons in authority should not conflict with or oppose the interests ofthe community at large; but I do not insist upon their having the sameinterests as the whole population, because I am not aware that such astate of things ever existed in any country. 

No political form has hitherto been discovered which is equallyfavorable to the prosperity and the development of all the classes intowhich society is divided. These classes continue to form, as it were, a certain number of distinct nations in the same nation; and experiencehas shown that it is no less dangerous to place the fate of theseclasses exclusively in the hands of any one of them than it is to makeone people the arbiter of the destiny of another. When the rich alonegovern, the interest of the poor is always endangered; and when the poormake the laws, that of the rich incurs very serious risks. The advantageof democracy does not consist, therefore, as has sometimes beenasserted, in favoring the prosperity of all, but simply in contributingto the well-being of the greatest possible number. 

The men who are entrusted with the direction of public affairs in theUnited States are frequently inferior, both in point of capacity and ofmorality, to those whom aristocratic institutions would raise topower. But their interest is identified and confounded with that of themajority of their fellow-citizens. They may frequently be faithless andfrequently mistaken, but they will never systematically adopt a line ofconduct opposed to the will of the majority; and it is impossible thatthey should give a dangerous or an exclusive tendency to the government. 

The mal-administration of a democratic magistrate is a mere isolatedfact, which only occurs during the short period for which he is elected. Corruption and incapacity do not act as common interests, which mayconnect men permanently with one another. A corrupt or an incapablemagistrate will not concert his measures with another magistrate, simplybecause that individual is as corrupt and as incapable as himself; andthese two men will never unite their endeavors to promote the corruptionand inaptitude of their remote posterity. The ambition and themanoeuvres of the one will serve, on the contrary, to unmask the other. The vices of a magistrate, in democratic states, are usually peculiar tohis own person. 

But under aristocratic governments public men are swayed by the interestof their order, which, if it is sometimes confounded with the interestsof the majority, is very frequently distinct from them. This interest isthe common and lasting bond which unites them together; it induces themto coalesce, and to combine their efforts in order to attain an endwhich does not always ensure the greatest happiness of the greatestnumber; and it serves not only to connect the persons in authority, but to unite them to a considerable portion of the community, sincea numerous body of citizens belongs to the aristocracy, without beinginvested with official functions. The aristocratic magistrate istherefore constantly supported by a portion of the community, as well asby the Government 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 identifiesit with that of future generations; their influence belongs to thefuture as much as to the present. The aristocratic magistrate is urgedat the same time toward the same point by the passions of the community, by his own, and I may almost add by those of his posterity. Is it, then, wonderful that he does not resist such repeated impulses? And indeedaristocracies are often carried away by the spirit of their orderwithout being corrupted by it; and they unconsciously fashion society totheir own ends, and prepare it for their own descendants. 

The English aristocracy is perhaps the most liberal which ever existed, and no body of men has ever, uninterruptedly, furnished so manyhonorable and enlightened individuals to the government of a country. Itcannot, however, escape observation that in the legislation of Englandthe good of the poor has been sacrificed to the advantage of therich, and the rights of the majority to the privileges of the few. Theconsequence is, that England, at the present day, combines the extremesof fortune in the bosom of her society, and her perils and calamitiesare almost equal to her power and her renown. *a

[Footnote a: [The legislation of England for the forty years iscertainly not fairly open to this criticism, which was written beforethe Reform Bill of 1832, and accordingly Great Britain has thus farescaped and surmounted the perils and calamities to which she seemed tobe exposed. ]]

In the United States, where the public officers have no interests topromote connected with their caste, the general and constant influenceof the Government is beneficial, although the individuals who conduct itare frequently unskilful and sometimes contemptible. There is indeed asecret tendency in democratic institutions to render the exertionsof the citizens subservient to the prosperity of the community, notwithstanding their private vices and mistakes; whilst in aristocraticinstitutions there is a secret propensity which, notwithstanding thetalents and the virtues of those who conduct the government, leads themto contribute to the evils which oppress their fellow-creatures. Inaristocratic governments public men may frequently do injuries whichthey do not intend, and in democratic states they produce advantageswhich 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 of theindividual intimately connected with that of the country. 

There is one sort of patriotic attachment which principally arises fromthat instinctive, disinterested, and undefinable feeling which connectsthe affections of man with his birthplace. This natural fondness isunited to a taste for ancient customs, and to a reverence for ancestraltraditions of the past; those who cherish it love their country as theylove the mansions of their fathers. They enjoy the tranquillity whichit affords them; they cling to the peaceful habits which they havecontracted within its bosom; they are attached to the reminiscenceswhich it awakens, and they are even pleased by the state of obediencein which they are placed. This patriotism is sometimes stimulatedby religious enthusiasm, and then it is capable of making the mostprodigious efforts. It is in itself a kind of religion; it does notreason, but it acts from the impulse of faith and of sentiment. Bysome nations the monarch has been regarded as a personification of thecountry; and the fervor of patriotism being converted into the fervor ofloyalty, they took a sympathetic pride in his conquests, and gloried inhis power. At one time, under the ancient monarchy, the French felt asort of satisfaction in the sense of their dependence upon the arbitrarypleasure of their king, and they were wont to say with pride, "We arethe subjects of the most powerful king in the world. "

But, like all instinctive passions, this kind of patriotism is more aptto prompt transient exertion than to supply the motives of continuousendeavor. It may save the State in critical circumstances, but it willnot unfrequently allow the nation to decline in the midst of peace. Whilst the manners of a people are simple and its faith unshaken, whilstsociety is steadily based upon traditional institutions whose legitimacyhas never been contested, this instinctive patriotism is wont to endure. 

But there is another species of attachment to a country which is morerational than the one we have been describing. It is perhaps lessgenerous and less ardent, but it is more fruitful and more lasting; itis coeval with the spread of knowledge, it is nurtured by the laws, itgrows by the exercise of civil rights, and, in the end, it is confoundedwith the personal interest of the citizen. A man comprehends theinfluence which the prosperity of his country has upon his own welfare;he is aware that the laws authorize him to contribute his assistanceto that prosperity, and he labors to promote it as a portion of hisinterest in the first place, and as a portion of his right in thesecond. 

But epochs sometimes occur, in the course of the existence of a nation, at which the ancient customs of a people are changed, public moralitydestroyed, religious belief disturbed, and the spell of traditionbroken, whilst the diffusion of knowledge is yet imperfect, and thecivil rights of the community are ill secured, or confined within verynarrow limits. The country then assumes a dim and dubious shape in theeyes of the citizens; they no longer behold it in the soil which theyinhabit, for that soil is to them a dull inanimate clod; nor in theusages of their forefathers, which they have been taught to look uponas a debasing yoke; nor in religion, for of that they doubt; nor inthe laws, which do not originate in their own authority; nor in thelegislator, whom they fear and despise. The country is lost to theirsenses, they can neither discover it under its own nor under borrowedfeatures, and they entrench themselves within the dull precincts ofa narrow egotism. They are emancipated from prejudice without havingacknowledged the empire of reason; they are neither animated by theinstinctive patriotism of monarchical subjects nor by the thinkingpatriotism of republican citizens; but they have stopped halfway betweenthe two, in the midst of confusion and of distress. 

In this predicament, to retreat is impossible; for a people cannotrestore the vivacity of its earlier times, any more than a man canreturn to the innocence and the bloom of childhood; such things maybe regretted, but they cannot be renewed. The only thing, then, whichremains to be done is to proceed, and to accelerate the union of privatewith public interests, since the period of disinterested patriotism isgone by forever. 

I am certainly very far from averring that, in order to obtain thisresult, the exercise of political rights should be immediately grantedto all the members of the community. But I maintain that the mostpowerful, and perhaps the only, means of interesting men in the welfareof their country which we still possess is to make them partakers in theGovernment. At the present time civic zeal seems to me to be inseparablefrom the exercise of political rights; and I hold that the number ofcitizens will be found to augment or to decrease in Europe in proportionas those rights are extended. 

In the United States the inhabitants were thrown but as yesterday uponthe soil which they now occupy, and they brought neither customs nortraditions with them there; they meet each other for the first timewith no previous acquaintance; in short, the instinctive love of theircountry can scarcely exist in their minds; but everyone takes as zealousan interest in the affairs of his township, his county, and of the wholeState, as if they were his own, because everyone, in his sphere, takesan active part in the government of society. 

The lower orders in the United States are alive to the perception of theinfluence exercised by the general prosperity upon their own welfare;and simple as this observation is, it is one which is but too rarelymade by the people. But in America the people regards this prosperity asthe result of its own exertions; the citizen looks upon the fortune ofthe public as his private interest, and he co-operates in its success, not so much from a sense of pride or of duty, as from what I shallventure to term cupidity. 

It is unnecessary to study the institutions and the history of theAmericans in order to discover the truth of this remark, for theirmanners render it sufficiently evident. As the American participatesin all that is done in his country, he thinks himself obliged to defendwhatever may be censured; for it is not only his country which isattacked upon these occasions, but it is himself. The consequence is, that his national pride resorts to a thousand artifices, and to all thepetty tricks of individual vanity. 

Nothing is more embarrassing in the ordinary intercourse of life thanthis irritable patriotism of the Americans. A stranger may be very wellinclined to praise many of the institutions of their country, but hebegs permission to blame some of the peculiarities which he observes--apermission which is, however, inexorably refused. America is therefore afree country, in which, lest anybody should be hurt by your remarks, youare not allowed to speak freely of private individuals, or of theState, of the citizens or of the authorities, of public or of privateundertakings, or, in short, of anything at all, except it be of theclimate and the soil; and even then Americans will be found ready todefend either the one or the other, as if they had been contrived by theinhabitants 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 confersare irreconcilable with the guarantees of tranquillity which the secondfurnishes. 

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, to speak more accurately, these two ideas are commingled in one. The idea of right is simply that of virtue introduced into the politicalworld. It is the idea of right which enabled men to define anarchy andtyranny; and which taught them to remain independent without arrogance, as well as to obey without servility. The man who submits to violenceis debased by his compliance; but when he obeys the mandate of onewho possesses that right of authority which he acknowledges in afellow-creature, he rises in some measure above the person who deliversthe command. There are no great men without virtue, and there areno great nations--it may almost be added that there would be nosociety--without the notion of rights; for what is the condition of amass of rational and intelligent beings who are only united together bythe bond of force?

I am persuaded that the only means which we possess at the present timeof inculcating the notion of rights, and of rendering it, as it were, palpable to the senses, is to invest all the members of the communitywith the peaceful exercise of certain rights: this is very clearly seenin children, who are men without the strength and the experience ofmanhood. When a child begins to move in the midst of the objects whichsurround him, he is instinctively led to turn everything which he canlay his hands upon to his own purposes; he has no notion of the propertyof others; but as he gradually learns the value of things, and beginsto perceive that he may in his turn be deprived of his possessions, hebecomes more circumspect, and he observes those rights in others whichhe wishes to have respected in himself. The principle which the childderives from the possession of his toys is taught to the man by theobjects which he may call his own. In America those complaints againstproperty in general which are so frequent in Europe are never heard, because in America there are no paupers; and as everyone has property ofhis own to defend, everyone recognizes the principle upon which he holdsit. 

The same thing occurs in the political world. In America the lowestclasses have conceived a very high notion of political rights, becausethey exercise those rights; and they refrain from attacking those ofother people, in order to ensure their own from attack. Whilst in Europethe same classes sometimes recalcitrate even against the supreme power, the American submits without a murmur to the authority of the pettiestmagistrate. 

This truth is exemplified by the most trivial details of nationalpeculiarities. In France very few pleasures are exclusively reservedfor the higher classes; the poor are admitted wherever the rich arereceived, and they consequently behave with propriety, and respectwhatever contributes to the enjoyments in which they themselvesparticipate. In England, where wealth has a monopoly of amusement aswell as of power, complaints are made that whenever the poor happen tosteal into the enclosures which are reserved for the pleasures of therich, they commit acts of wanton mischief: can this be wondered at, since care has been taken that they should have nothing to lose? *b

[Footnote b: [This, too, has been amended by much larger provisions forthe amusements of the people in public parks, gardens, museums, etc. ;and the conduct of the people in these places of amusement has improvedin the same proportion. ]]

The government of democracy brings the notion of political rights tothe level of the humblest citizens, just as the dissemination of wealthbrings the notion of property within the reach of all the members of thecommunity; and I confess that, to my mind, this is one of its greatestadvantages. I do not assert that it is easy to teach men to exercisepolitical rights; but I maintain that, when it is possible, the effectswhich result from it are highly important; and I add that, if there everwas a time at which such an attempt ought to be made, that time is ourown. It is clear that the influence of religious belief is shaken, andthat 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 argumentfor faith, and of calculation for the impulses of sentiment. If, in themidst of this general disruption, you do not succeed in connectingthe notion of rights with that of personal interest, which is theonly immutable point in the human heart, what means will you have ofgoverning the world except by fear? When I am told that, since the lawsare weak and the populace is wild, since passions are excited and theauthority of virtue is paralyzed, no measures must be taken to increasethe rights of the democracy, I reply, that it is for these very reasonsthat some measures of the kind must be taken; and I am persuaded thatgovernments are still more interested in taking them than society atlarge, because governments are liable to be destroyed and society cannotperish. 

I am not, however, inclined to exaggerate the example which Americafurnishes. In those States the people are invested with political rightsat a time when they could scarcely be abused, for the citizens werefew in number and simple in their manners. As they have increased, theAmericans have not augmented the power of the democracy, but theyhave, if I may use the expression, extended its dominions. It cannotbe doubted that the moment at which political rights are granted to apeople that had before been without them is a very critical, though itbe 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 isaware that his own may be taken away from him. The lower orders, whenfirst they are invested with political rights, stand, in relation tothose rights, in the same position as the child does to the whole ofnature, and the celebrated adage may then be applied to them, Homo puerrobustus. This truth may even be perceived in America. The States inwhich the citizens have enjoyed their rights longest are those in whichthey make the best use of them. 

It cannot be repeated too often that nothing is more fertile inprodigies than the art of being free; but there is nothing more arduousthan the apprenticeship of liberty. Such is not the case with despoticinstitutions: despotism often promises to make amends for a thousandprevious ills; it supports the right, it protects the oppressed, and itmaintains public order. The nation is lulled by the temporary prosperitywhich accrues to it, until it is roused to a sense of its own misery. Liberty, on the contrary, is generally established in the midst ofagitation, it is perfected by civil discord, and its benefits cannot beappreciated until it is already old. 

Chapter XIV: Advantages American Society Derive From Democracy--Part II

Respect For The Law In The United States

Respect of the Americans for the law--Parental affection which theyentertain for it--Personal interest of everyone to increase theauthority of the law. 

It is not always feasible to consult the whole people, either directlyor indirectly, in the formation of the law; but it cannot be deniedthat, when such a measure is possible the authority of the law is verymuch augmented. This popular origin, which impairs the excellence andthe wisdom of legislation, contributes prodigiously to increaseits power. There is an amazing strength in the expression of thedetermination of a whole people, and when it declares itself theimagination of those who are most inclined to contest it is overawed byits authority. The truth of this fact is very well known by parties, andthey consequently strive to make out a majority whenever they can. Ifthey have not the greater number of voters on their side, they assertthat the true majority abstained from voting; and if they are foiledeven there, they have recourse to the body of those persons who had novotes to give. 

In the United States, except slaves, servants, and paupers in thereceipt of relief from the townships, there is no class of personswho do not exercise the elective franchise, and who do not indirectlycontribute to make the laws. Those who design to attack the laws mustconsequently either modify the opinion of the nation or trample upon itsdecision. 

A second reason, which is still more weighty, may be further adduced;in the United States everyone is personally interested in enforcing theobedience of the whole community to the law; for as the minority mayshortly rally the majority to its principles, it is interested inprofessing that respect for the decrees of the legislator which it maysoon have occasion to claim for its own. However irksome an enactmentmay be, the citizen of the United States complies with it, not onlybecause it is the work of the majority, but because it originates in hisown authority, and he regards it as a contract to which he is himself aparty. 

In the United States, then, that numerous and turbulent multitude doesnot exist which always looks upon the law as its natural enemy, andaccordingly surveys it with fear and with fear and with distrust. It isimpossible, on the other hand, not to perceive that all classes displaythe utmost reliance upon the legislation of their country, and that theyare attached to it by a kind of parental affection. 

I am wrong, however, in saying all classes; for as in America theEuropean scale of authority is inverted, the wealthy are there placed ina position analogous to that of the poor in the Old World, and it isthe opulent classes which frequently look upon the law with suspicion. I have already observed that the advantage of democracy is not, as hasbeen sometimes asserted, that it protects the interests of the wholecommunity, but simply that it protects those of the majority. In theUnited States, where the poor rule, the rich have always some reason todread the abuses of their power. This natural anxiety of the rich mayproduce a sullen dissatisfaction, but society is not disturbed by it;for the same reason which induces the rich to withhold their confidencein the legislative authority makes them obey its mandates; their wealth, which prevents them from making the law, prevents them from withstandingit. Amongst civilized nations revolts are rarely excited, except by suchpersons as have nothing to lose by them; and if the laws of a democracyare not always worthy of respect, at least they always obtain it; forthose who usually infringe the laws have no excuse for not complyingwith the enactments they have themselves made, and by which they arethemselves benefited, whilst the citizens whose interests might bepromoted by the infraction of them are induced, by their character andtheir stations, to submit to the decisions of the legislature, whateverthey may be. Besides which, the people in America obeys the law notonly because it emanates from the popular authority, but because thatauthority may modify it in any points which may prove vexatory; a lawis observed because it is a self-imposed evil in the first place, and anevil of transient duration in the second. 

Activity Which Pervades All The Branches Of The Body Politic In TheUnited States; Influence Which It Exercises Upon Society

More difficult to conceive the political activity which pervades theUnited States than the freedom and equality which reign there--The greatactivity which perpetually agitates the legislative bodies is only anepisode to the general activity--Difficult for an American to confinehimself to his own business--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 toone where they do not exist, the traveller is struck by the change; inthe former all is bustle and activity, in the latter everything is calmand motionless. In the one, amelioration and progress are the generaltopics of inquiry; in the other, it seems as if the community onlyaspired to repose in the enjoyment of the advantages which it hasacquired. Nevertheless, the country which exerts itself so strenuouslyto promote its welfare is generally more wealthy and more prosperousthan that which appears to be so contented with its lot; and when wecompare them together, we can scarcely conceive how so many new wantsare daily felt in the former, whilst so few seem to occur in the latter. 

If this remark is applicable to those free countries in whichmonarchical and aristocratic institutions subsist, it is still morestriking with regard to democratic republics. In these States it is notonly a portion of the people which is busied with the amelioration ofits social condition, but the whole community is engaged in the task;and it is not the exigencies and the convenience of a single class forwhich a provision is to be made, but the exigencies and the convenienceof all ranks of life. 

It is not impossible to conceive the surpassing liberty which theAmericans enjoy; some idea may likewise be formed of the extremeequality which subsists amongst them, but the political activity whichpervades the United States must be seen in order to be understood. Nosooner do you set foot upon the American soil than you are stunned by akind of tumult; a confused clamor is heard on every side; and a thousandsimultaneous voices demand the immediate satisfaction of their socialwants. Everything is in motion around you; here, the people of onequarter of a town are met to decide upon the building of a church;there, the election of a representative is going on; a little furtherthe delegates of a district are posting to the town in order to consultupon some local improvements; or in another place the laborers of avillage quit their ploughs to deliberate upon the project of a road ora public school. Meetings are called for the sole purpose of declaringtheir disapprobation of the line of conduct pursued by the Government;whilst in other assemblies the citizens salute the authorities of theday as the fathers of their country. Societies are formed which regarddrunkenness as the principal cause of the evils under which the Statelabors, and which solemnly bind themselves to give a constant example oftemperance. *c

[Footnote c: At the time of my stay in the United States the temperancesocieties already consisted of more than 270, 000 members, and theireffect had been to diminish the consumption of fermented liquors by500, 000 gallons per annum in the State of Pennsylvania alone. ]

The great political agitation of the American legislative bodies, whichis the only kind of excitement that attracts the attention of foreigncountries, is a mere episode or a sort of continuation of that universalmovement which originates in the lowest classes of the people andextends successively to all the ranks of society. It is impossible tospend more efforts in the pursuit of enjoyment. 

The cares of political life engross a most prominent place in theoccupation of a citizen in the United States, and almost the onlypleasure of which an American has any idea is to take a part in theGovernment, and to discuss the part he has taken. This feeling pervadesthe most trifling habits of life; even the women frequently attendpublic meetings and listen to political harangues as a recreationafter their household labors. Debating clubs are to a certain extent asubstitute for theatrical entertainments: an American cannot converse, but he can discuss; and when he attempts to talk he falls into adissertation. He speaks to you as if he was addressing a meeting; andif he should chance to warm in the course of the discussion, he willinfallibly 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;it would seem that they set too high a value upon their time to spendit on the interests of the community; and they prefer to withdraw withinthe exact limits of a wholesome egotism, marked out by four sunk fencesand a quickset hedge. But if an American were condemned to confinehis activity to his own affairs, he would be robbed of one half ofhis existence; he would feel an immense void in the life which he isaccustomed to lead, and his wretchedness would be unbearable. *d I ampersuaded that, if ever a despotic government is established in America, it will find it more difficult to surmount the habits which freeinstitutions have engendered than to conquer the attachment of thecitizens to freedom. 

[Footnote d: The same remark was made at Rome under the first Caesars. Montesquieu somewhere alludes to the excessive despondency of certainRoman citizens who, after the excitement of political life, were all atonce flung back into the stagnation of private life. ]

This ceaseless agitation which democratic government has introduced intothe political world influences all social intercourse. I am not surethat upon the whole this is not the greatest advantage of democracy. AndI am much less inclined to applaud it for what it does than for whatit causes to be done. It is incontestable that the people frequentlyconducts public business very ill; but it is impossible that the lowerorders should take a part in public business without extending thecircle of their ideas, and without quitting the ordinary routine oftheir mental acquirements. The humblest individual who is called uponto co-operate in the government of society acquires a certain degree ofself-respect; and as he possesses authority, he can command the servicesof minds much more enlightened than his own. He is canvassed by amultitude of applicants, who seek to deceive him in a thousand differentways, but who instruct him by their deceit. He takes a part in politicalundertakings which did not originate in his own conception, but whichgive him a taste for undertakings of the kind. New ameliorations aredaily pointed out in the property which he holds in common with others, and this gives him the desire of improving that property which is morepeculiarly his own. He is perhaps neither happier nor better than thosewho came before him, but he is better informed and more active. I haveno doubt that the democratic institutions of the United States, joinedto the physical constitution of the country, are the cause (notthe direct, as is so often asserted, but the indirect cause) of theprodigious commercial activity of the inhabitants. It is not engenderedby the laws, but the people learns how to promote it by the experiencederived from legislation. 

When the opponents of democracy assert that a single individual performsthe duties which he undertakes much better than the government ofthe community, it appears to me that they are perfectly right. Thegovernment of an individual, supposing an equality of instruction oneither side, is more consistent, more persevering, and more accuratethan that of a multitude, and it is much better qualified judiciouslyto discriminate the characters of the men it employs. If any deny what Iadvance, they have certainly never seen a democratic government, or haveformed their opinion upon very partial evidence. It is true thateven when local circumstances and the disposition of the people allowdemocratic institutions to subsist, they never display a regularand methodical system of government. Democratic liberty is far fromaccomplishing all the projects it undertakes, with the skill of anadroit despotism. It frequently abandons them before they have bornetheir fruits, or risks them when the consequences may prove dangerous;but in the end it produces more than any absolute government, and if itdo fewer things well, it does a greater number of things. Under itssway the transactions of the public administration are not nearly soimportant as what is done by private exertion. Democracy does not conferthe 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 an energy which is inseparable from it, and which may, underfavorable circumstances, beget the most amazing benefits. These are thetrue advantages of democracy. 

In the present age, when the destinies of Christendom seem to be insuspense, some hasten to assail democracy as its foe whilst it is yet inits early growth; and others are ready with their vows of adoration forthis new deity which is springing forth from chaos: but both parties arevery imperfectly acquainted with the object of their hatred or of theirdesires; they strike in the dark, and distribute their blows by merechance. 

We must first understand what the purport of society and the aim ofgovernment is held to be. If it be your intention to confer a certainelevation upon the human mind, and to teach it to regard the things ofthis world with generous feelings, to inspire men with a scorn of meretemporal advantage, to give birth to living convictions, and to keepalive the spirit of honorable devotedness; if you hold it to be a goodthing to refine the habits, to embellish the manners, to cultivate thearts of a nation, and to promote the love of poetry, of beauty, and ofrenown; if you would constitute a people not unfitted to act with powerupon all other nations, nor unprepared for those high enterprises which, 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 uncertainguide to 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 ofthe necessaries of life; if a clear understanding be more profitableto man than genius; if your object be not to stimulate the virtues ofheroism, but to create habits of peace; if you had rather witness vicesthan crimes and are content to meet with fewer noble deeds, providedoffences be diminished in the same proportion; if, instead of livingin the midst of a brilliant state of society, you are contented tohave prosperity around you; if, in short, you are of opinion that theprincipal object of a Government is not to confer the greatest possibleshare of power and of glory upon the body of the nation, but to ensurethe greatest degree of enjoyment and the least degree of misery to eachof the individuals who compose it--if such be your desires, you can haveno 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 ifsome superhuman power impel us towards one or the other of these twogovernments without consulting our wishes, let us at least endeavor tomake the best of that which is allotted to us; and let us so inquireinto its good and its evil propensities as to be able to foster theformer and repress the latter to the utmost. 

Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of 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 the majority--Opinionas to its infallibility--Respect for its rights, how augmented in theUnited States. 

Unlimited Power Of The Majority In The United States, And ItsConsequences

The very essence of democratic government consists in the absolutesovereignty of the majority; for there is nothing in democratic Stateswhich is capable of resisting it. Most of the American Constitutionshave sought to increase this natural strength of the majority byartificial means. *a

[Footnote a: We observed, in examining the Federal Constitution, thatthe efforts of the legislators of the Union had been diametricallyopposed to the present tendency. The consequence has been that theFederal Government is more independent in its sphere than that of theStates. But the Federal Government scarcely ever interferes in anybut external affairs; and the governments of the State are in thegovernments of the States are in reality the authorities which directsociety in America. ]

The legislature is, of all political institutions, the one which is mosteasily swayed by the wishes of the majority. The Americans determinedthat the members of the legislature should be elected by the peopleimmediately, and for a very brief term, in order to subject them, notonly to the general convictions, but even to the daily passion, of theirconstituents. The members of both houses are taken from the sameclass in society, and are nominated in the same manner; so that themodifications of the legislative bodies are almost as rapid and quite asirresistible as those of a single assembly. It is to a legislature thusconstituted that almost all the authority of the government has beenentrusted. 

But whilst the law increased the strength of those authorities whichof themselves were strong, it enfeebled more and more those which werenaturally weak. It deprived the representatives of the executive of allstability and independence, and by subjecting them completely to thecaprices of the legislature, it robbed them of the slender influencewhich the nature of a democratic government might have allowed them toretain. In several States the judicial power was also submitted to theelective discretion of the majority, and in all of them its existencewas made to depend on the pleasure of the legislative authority, sincethe representatives were empowered annually to regulate the stipend ofthe judges. 

Custom, however, has done even more than law. A proceeding which will inthe end set all the guarantees of representative government at naughtis becoming more and more general in the United States; it frequentlyhappens that the electors, who choose a delegate, point out a certainline of conduct to him, and impose upon him a certain number of positiveobligations which he is pledged to fulfil. With the exception of thetumult, this comes to the same thing as if the majority of the populaceheld its deliberations in the market-place. 

Several other circumstances concur in rendering the power of themajority in America not only preponderant, but irresistible. The moralauthority of the majority is partly based upon the notion that thereis more intelligence and more wisdom in a great number of men collectedtogether than in a single individual, and that the quantity oflegislators is more important than their quality. The theory of equalityis in fact applied to the intellect of man: and human pride is thusassailed in its last retreat by a doctrine which the minority hesitateto admit, and in which they very slowly concur. Like all other powers, and perhaps more than all other powers, the authority of the manyrequires the sanction of time; at first it enforces obedience byconstraint, but its laws are not respected until they have long beenmaintained. 

The right of governing society, which the majority supposes itself toderive from its superior intelligence, was introduced into the UnitedStates by the first settlers, and this idea, which would be sufficientof itself to create a free nation, has now been amalgamated with themanners of the people and the minor incidents of social intercourse. 

The French, under the old monarchy, held it for a maxim (which is stilla fundamental principle of the English Constitution) that the Kingcould do no wrong; and if he did do wrong, the blame was imputed to hisadvisers. This notion was highly favorable to habits of obedience, andit enabled the subject to complain of the law without ceasing to loveand honor the lawgiver. The Americans entertain the same opinion withrespect to the majority. 

The moral power of the majority is founded upon yet another principle, which is, that the interests of the many are to be preferred to thoseof the few. It will readily be perceived that the respect here professedfor the rights of the majority must naturally increase or diminishaccording to the state of parties. When a nation is divided intoseveral irreconcilable factions, the privilege of the majority is oftenoverlooked, because it is intolerable to comply with its demands. 

If there existed in America a class of citizens whom the legislatingmajority sought to deprive of exclusive privileges which they hadpossessed for ages, and to bring down from an elevated station to thelevel of the ranks of the multitude, it is probable that the minoritywould be less ready to comply with its laws. But as the United Stateswere colonized by men holding equal rank amongst themselves, there is asyet no natural or permanent source of dissension between the interestsof its different inhabitants. 

There are certain communities in which the persons who constitute theminority can never hope to draw over the majority to their side, becausethey must then give up the very point which is at issue between them. Thus, an aristocracy can never become a majority whilst it retains itsexclusive privileges, and it cannot cede its privileges without ceasingto be an aristocracy. 

In the United States political questions cannot be taken up in sogeneral and absolute a manner, and all parties are willing to recognizethe right of the majority, because they all hope to turn those rights totheir own advantage at some future time. The majority therefore in thatcountry exercises a prodigious actual authority, and a moral influencewhich is scarcely less preponderant; no obstacles exist which can impedeor so much as retard its progress, or which can induce it to heed thecomplaints of those whom it crushes upon its path. This state of thingsis fatal in itself and dangerous for the future. 

How The Unlimited Power Of The Majority Increases In America TheInstability Of Legislation And Administration Inherent In DemocracyThe Americans increase the mutability of the laws which is inherent indemocracy by changing the legislature every year, and by investingit with unbounded authority--The same effect is produced upon theadministration--In America social amelioration is conducted moreenergetically but less perseveringly than in Europe. 

I have already spoken of the natural defects of democratic institutions, and they all of them increase at the exact ratio of the power of themajority. To begin with the most evident of them all; the mutabilityof the laws is an evil inherent in democratic government, because it isnatural to democracies to raise men to power in very rapid succession. But this evil is more or less sensible in proportion to the authorityand the means of action which the legislature possesses. 

In America the authority exercised by the legislative bodies is supreme;nothing prevents them from accomplishing their wishes with celerity, andwith irresistible power, whilst they are supplied by new representativesevery year. That is to say, the circumstances which contribute mostpowerfully to democratic instability, and which admit of the freeapplication of caprice to every object in the State, are here in fulloperation. In conformity with this principle, America is, at the presentday, the country in the world where laws last the shortest time. Almostall the American constitutions have been amended within the course ofthirty years: there is therefore not a single American State which hasnot modified the principles of its legislation in that lapse of time. As for the laws themselves, a single glance upon the archives of thedifferent States of the Union suffices to convince one that in Americathe activity of the legislator never slackens. Not that the Americandemocracy is naturally less stable than any other, but that it isallowed to follow its capricious propensities in the formation of thelaws. *b

[Footnote b: The legislative acts promulgated by the State ofMassachusetts alone, from the year 1780 to the present time, alreadyfill three stout volumes; and it must not be forgotten that thecollection to which I allude was published in 1823, when many old lawswhich had fallen into disuse were omitted. The State of Massachusetts, which is not more populous than a department of France, may beconsidered as the most stable, the most consistent, and the mostsagacious in its undertakings of the whole Union. ]

The omnipotence of the majority, and the rapid as well as absolutemanner in which its decisions are executed in the United States, has notonly the effect of rendering the law unstable, but it exercises the sameinfluence upon the execution of the law and the conduct of the publicadministration. As the majority is the only power which it is importantto court, all its projects are taken up with the greatest ardor, but nosooner is its attention distracted than all this ardor ceases; whilst inthe free States of Europe the administration is at once independent andsecure, so that the projects of the legislature are put into execution, although its immediate attention may be directed to other objects. 

In America certain ameliorations are undertaken with much more zeal andactivity than elsewhere; in Europe the same ends are promoted by muchless social effort, more continuously applied. 

Some years ago several pious individuals undertook to ameliorate thecondition of the prisons. The public was excited by the statementswhich they put forward, and the regeneration of criminals became a verypopular undertaking. New prisons were built, and for the first time theidea of reforming as well as of punishing the delinquent formed a partof prison discipline. But this happy alteration, in which the public hadtaken so hearty an interest, and which the exertions of the citizens hadirresistibly accelerated, could not be completed in a moment. Whilst thenew penitentiaries were being erected (and it was the pleasure of themajority that they should be terminated with all possible celerity), theold prisons existed, which still contained a great number of offenders. These jails became more unwholesome and more corrupt in proportion asthe new establishments were beautified and improved, forming a contrastwhich may readily be understood. The majority was so eagerly employedin founding the new prisons that those which already existed wereforgotten; and as the general attention was diverted to a novel object, the care which had hitherto been bestowed upon the others ceased. Thesalutary regulations of discipline were first relaxed, and afterwardsbroken; so that in the immediate neighborhood of a prison which borewitness to the mild and enlightened spirit of our time, dungeons mightbe met with which reminded the visitor of the barbarity of the MiddleAges. 

Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of Majority, And Its Consequences--Part II

Tyranny Of The Majority

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 tocontrol its action--These precautions have not been taken in the UnitedStates--Consequences. 

I hold it to be an impious and an execrable maxim that, politicallyspeaking, a people has a right to do whatsoever it pleases, and yet Ihave asserted that all authority originates in the will of the majority. Am I then, in contradiction 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 bya majority of mankind. The rights of every people are consequentlyconfined within the limits of what is just. A nation may be consideredin the light of a jury which is empowered to represent society at large, and to apply the great and general law of justice. Ought such a jury, which represents society, to have more power than the society in whichthe laws it applies originate?

When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right whichthe majority has of commanding, but I simply appeal from the sovereigntyof the people to the sovereignty of mankind. It has been asserted thata people can never entirely outstep the boundaries of justice and ofreason in those affairs which are more peculiarly its own, and thatconsequently, full power may fearlessly be given to the majority bywhich it is represented. But this language is that of a slave. 

A majority taken collectively may be regarded as a being whose opinions, and most frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of anotherbeing, which is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by wronging hisadversaries, why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach?Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration; nordoes their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with theconsciousness 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. 

[Footnote c: No one will assert that a people cannot forcibly wronganother people; but parties may be looked upon as lesser nations withina greater one, and they are aliens to each other: if, therefore, it beadmitted that a nation can act tyrannically towards another nation, itcannot be denied that a party may do the same towards another party. ]

I do not think that it is possible to combine several principles in thesame government, so as at the same time to maintain freedom, and reallyto oppose them to one another. The form of government which is usuallytermed mixed has always appeared to me to be a mere chimera. Accuratelyspeaking there is no such thing as a mixed government (with the meaningusually given to that word), because in all communities some oneprinciple of action may be discovered which preponderates over theothers. England in the last century, which has been more especiallycited as an example of this form of Government, was in point of factan essentially aristocratic State, although it comprised very powerfulelements of democracy; for the laws and customs of the country were suchthat the aristocracy could not but preponderate in the end, and subjectthe direction of public affairs to its own will. The error arose fromtoo much attention being paid to the actual struggle which was goingon between the nobles and the people, without considering the probableissue of the contest, which was in reality the important point. Whena community really has a mixed government, that is to say, when it isequally divided between two adverse principles, it must either passthrough a revolution or fall into complete dissolution. 

I am therefore of opinion that some one social power must always be madeto predominate over the others; but I think that liberty is endangeredwhen this power is checked by no obstacles which may retard its course, and force it to moderate its own vehemence. 

Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing; human beingsare not competent to exercise it with discretion, and God alone can beomnipotent, because His wisdom and His justice are always equal to Hispower. But no power upon earth is so worthy of honor for itself, or ofreverential obedience to the rights which it represents, that I wouldconsent to admit its uncontrolled and all-predominant authority. When Isee that the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on apeople or upon a king, upon an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy ora republic, I recognize the germ of tyranny, and I journey onward to aland of more hopeful institutions. 

In my opinion the main evil of the present democratic institutions ofthe United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, fromtheir weakness, but from their overpowering strength; and I am not somuch alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as atthe very inadequate securities which exist against tyranny. 

When an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, towhom can he apply for redress? If to public opinion, public opinionconstitutes the majority; if to the legislature, it represents themajority, and implicitly obeys its injunctions; if to the executivepower, it is appointed by the majority, and remains a passive tool inits hands; the public troops consist of the majority under arms; thejury is the majority invested with the right of hearing judicial cases;and in certain States even the judges are elected by the majority. However iniquitous or absurd the evil of which you complain may be, youmust submit to it as well as you can. *d

[Footnote d: A striking instance of the excesses which may be occasionedby the despotism of the majority occurred at Baltimore in the year 1812. At that time the war was very popular in Baltimore. A journal whichhad taken the other side of the question excited the indignation ofthe inhabitants by its opposition. The populace assembled, broke theprinting-presses, and attacked the houses of the newspaper editors. Themilitia was called out, but no one obeyed the call; and the only meansof saving the poor wretches who were threatened by the frenzy of themob was to throw them into prison as common malefactors. But even thisprecaution was ineffectual; the mob collected again during the night, the magistrates again made a vain attempt to call out the militia, theprison was forced, one of the newspaper editors was killed upon thespot, and the others were left for dead; the guilty parties wereacquitted by the jury when they were 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, andcelebrated for its toleration, freed blacks are not allowed to exercisecivil rights. They pay the taxes; is it not fair that they should have avote?"

"You insult us, " replied my informant, "if you imagine that ourlegislators 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 unableto maintain its authority without the support of the majority. But inthis case the majority entertains very strong prejudices against theblacks, and the magistrates are unable to protect them in the exerciseof their legal privileges. "

"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 asto represent the majority without necessarily being the slave of itspassions; an executive, so as to retain a certain degree of uncontrolledauthority; and a judiciary, so as to remain independent of the two otherpowers; a government would be formed which would still be democraticwithout incurring any risk of tyrannical abuse. 

I do not say that tyrannical abuses frequently occur in America at thepresent day, but I maintain that no sure barrier is established againstthem, and that the causes which mitigate the government are to be foundin the circumstances and the manners of the country more than in itslaws. 

Effects Of The Unlimited Power Of The Majority Upon The ArbitraryAuthority Of The 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 be exercised by means of the law, and in that case it isnot arbitrary; arbitrary power may be exercised for the good of thecommunity at large, in which case it is not tyrannical. Tyranny usuallyemploys arbitrary means, but, if necessary, it can rule without them. 

In the United States the unbounded power of the majority, which isfavorable to the legal despotism of the legislature, is likewisefavorable to the arbitrary authority of the magistrate. The majority hasan entire control over the law when it is made and when it is executed;and as it possesses an equal authority over those who are in power andthe community at large, it considers public officers as its passiveagents, and readily confides the task of serving its designs to theirvigilance. The details of their office and the privileges which they areto enjoy are rarely defined beforehand; but the majority treats them asa 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 theFrench civil officers within the sphere which is prescribed to them. Sometimes, even, they are allowed by the popular authority to exceedthose bounds; and as they are protected by the opinion, and backed bythe co-operation, of the majority, they venture upon such manifestationsof their power as astonish a European. By this means habits are formedin the heart of a free country which may some day prove fatal to itsliberties. 

Power Exercised By The Majority In America Upon Opinion

In America, when the majority has once irrevocably decided a question, all discussion ceases--Reason of this--Moral power exercised by themajority upon opinion--Democratic republics have deprived despotism ofits physical instruments--Their despotism sways the minds of men. 

It is in the examination of the display of public opinion in the UnitedStates that we clearly perceive how far the power of the majoritysurpasses all the powers with which we are acquainted in Europe. Intellectual principles exercise an influence which is so invisible, andoften so inappreciable, that they baffle the toils of oppression. At thepresent time the most absolute monarchs in Europe are unable to preventcertain notions, which are opposed to their authority, from circulatingin secret throughout their dominions, and even in their courts. Suchis not the case in America; as long as the majority is still undecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision is irrevocablypronounced, a submissive silence is observed, and the friends, as wellas the opponents, of the measure unite in assenting to its propriety. The reason of this is perfectly clear: no monarch is so absolute as tocombine all the powers of society in his own hands, and to conquer allopposition with the energy of a majority which is invested with theright of making and of executing the laws. 

The authority of a king is purely physical, and it controls the actionsof the subject without subduing his private will; but the majoritypossesses a power which is physical and moral at the same time; it actsupon the will as well as upon the actions of men, and it represses notonly all contest, but all controversy. I know no country in which thereis so little true independence of mind and freedom of discussion as inAmerica. In any constitutional state in Europe every sort of religiousand political theory may be advocated and propagated abroad; for thereis no country in Europe so subdued by any single authority as not tocontain citizens who are ready to protect the man who raises his voicein the cause of truth from the consequences of his hardihood. If he isunfortunate enough to live under an absolute government, the peopleis upon his side; if he inhabits a free country, he may find a shelterbehind the authority of the throne, if he require one. The aristocraticpart of society supports him in some countries, and the democracy inothers. But in a nation where democratic institutions exist, organizedlike those of the United States, there is but one sole authority, onesingle element of strength and of success, with nothing beyond it. 

In America the majority raises very formidable barriers to the libertyof opinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever hepleases, but he will repent it if he ever step beyond them. Not that heis exposed to the terrors of an auto-da-fe, but he is tormented bythe slights and persecutions of daily obloquy. His political career isclosed forever, since he has offended the only authority which isable to promote his success. Every sort of compensation, even thatof celebrity, is refused to him. Before he published his opinions heimagined that he held them in common with many others; but no sooner hashe declared them openly than he is loudly censured by his overbearingopponents, whilst those who think without having the courage to speak, 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 hewas tormented 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 ofdespotism which seemed, however, to have been sufficiently perfectedbefore. The excesses of monarchical power had devised a variety ofphysical means of oppression: the democratic republics of the presentday have rendered it as entirely an affair of the mind as that willwhich it is intended to coerce. Under the absolute sway of an individualdespot the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul, and the soulescaped the blows which were directed against it and rose superior tothe attempt; but such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democraticrepublics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved. Thesovereign can no longer say, "You shall think as I do on pain of death;"but he says, "You are free to think differently from me, and to retainyour life, your property, and all that you possess; but if such be yourdetermination, you are henceforth an alien among your people. You mayretain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you willnever be chosen by your fellow-citizens if you solicit their suffrages, and they will affect to scorn you if you solicit their esteem. You willremain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow-creatures will shun you like an impure being, and those whoare most persuaded of your innocence will abandon you too, lest theyshould be shunned in their turn. Go in peace! I have given you yourlife, but it is an existence in comparably worse than death. "

Monarchical institutions have thrown an odium upon despotism; let usbeware lest democratic republics should restore oppression, and shouldrender it less odious and less degrading in the eyes of the many, bymaking it still more onerous to the few. 

Works have been published in the proudest nations of the Old Worldexpressly intended to censure the vices and deride the follies of thetimes; Labruyere inhabited the palace of Louis XIV when he composed hischapter upon the Great, and Moliere criticised the courtiers in the verypieces which were acted before the Court. But the ruling power in theUnited States is not to be made game of; the smallest reproach irritatesits sensibility, and the slightest joke which has any foundation intruth renders it indignant; from the style of its language to the moresolid virtues of its character, everything must be made the subjectof encomium. No writer, whatever be his eminence, can escape from thistribute of adulation to his fellow-citizens. The majority lives in theperpetual practice of self-applause, and there are certain truths whichthe Americans can only learn from strangers or from experience. 

If great writers have not at present existed in America, the reasonis very simply given in these facts; there can be no literary geniuswithout freedom of opinion, and freedom of opinion does not exist inAmerica. The Inquisition has never been able to prevent a vast numberof anti-religious books from circulating in Spain. The empire of themajority succeeds much better in the United States, since it actuallyremoves the wish of publishing them. Unbelievers are to be met with inAmerica, but, to say the truth, there is no public organ of infidelity. Attempts have been made by some governments to protect the morality ofnations by prohibiting licentious books. In the United States no one ispunished for this sort of works, but no one is induced to write 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 powerare unquestionable, and I am simply discussing the nature of thepower itself. This irresistible authority is a constant fact, and itsjudicious exercise is an accidental occurrence. 

Effects Of The Tyranny Of The Majority Upon The National Character OfThe Americans

Effects of the tyranny of the majority more sensibly felt hitherto inthe manners than in the conduct of society--They check the developmentof leading characters--Democratic republics organized like the UnitedStates bring the practice of courting favor within the reach of themany--Proofs of this spirit in the United States--Why there is morepatriotism in the people 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. Iam inclined to attribute the singular paucity of distinguished politicalcharacters to the ever-increasing activity of the despotism of themajority in the United States. When the American Revolution broke outthey arose in great numbers, for public opinion then served, not totyrannize over, but to direct the exertions of individuals. Thosecelebrated men took a full part in the general agitation of mind commonat that period, and they attained a high degree of personal fame, whichwas reflected back upon the nation, but which was by no means borrowedfrom it. 

In absolute governments the great nobles who are nearest to the throneflatter the passions of the sovereign, and voluntarily truckle tohis caprices. But the mass of the nation does not degrade itselfby servitude: it often submits from weakness, from habit, or fromignorance, and sometimes from loyalty. Some nations have been known tosacrifice their own desires to those of the sovereign with pleasure andwith pride, thus exhibiting a sort of independence in the very act ofsubmission. These peoples are miserable, but they are not degraded. There is a great difference between doing what one does not approve andfeigning to approve what one does; the one is the necessary case of aweak person, the other befits the temper of a lackey. 

In free countries, where everyone is more or less called upon to givehis opinion in the affairs of state; in democratic republics, wherepublic life is incessantly commingled with domestic affairs, where thesovereign authority is accessible on every side, and where its attentioncan almost always be attracted by vociferation, more persons are tobe met with who speculate upon its foibles and live at the cost of itspassions than in absolute monarchies. Not because men are naturallyworse in these States than elsewhere, but the temptation is stronger, and of easier access at the same time. The result is a far moreextensive debasement of the characters of citizens. 

Democratic republics extend the practice of currying favor with themany, and they introduce it into a greater number of classes at once:this is one of the most serious reproaches that can be addressed tothem. In democratic States organized on the principles of the Americanrepublics, this is more especially the case, where the authority of themajority is so absolute and so irresistible that a man must give up hisrights as a citizen, and almost abjure his quality as a human being, ifte intends to stray from the track which it lays down. 

In that immense crowd which throngs the avenues to power in the UnitedStates I found very few men who displayed any of that manly candor andthat masculine independence of opinion which frequently distinguishedthe Americans in former times, and which constitutes the leading featurein distinguished characters, wheresoever they may be found. It seems, atfirst sight, as if all the minds of the Americans were formed upon onemodel, so accurately do they correspond in their manner of judging. Astranger does, indeed, sometimes meet with Americans who dissent fromthese rigorous formularies; with men who deplore the defects of thelaws, the mutability and the ignorance of democracy; who even go so faras to observe the evil tendencies which impair the national character, and to point out such remedies as it might be possible to apply; butno one is there to hear these things besides yourself, and you, to whomthese secret reflections are confided, are a stranger and a bird ofpassage. They are very ready to communicate truths which are useless toyou, but they continue to hold a different language in public. 

If ever these lines are read in America, I am well assured of twothings: in the first place, that all who peruse them will raise theirvoices to condemn me; and in the second place, that very many of themwill acquit me at the bottom of their conscience. 

I have heard of patriotism in the United States, and it is a virtuewhich may be found among the people, but never among the leaders ofthe people. This may be explained by analogy; despotism debases theoppressed much more than the oppressor: in absolute monarchies the kinghas often great virtues, but the courtiers are invariably servile. It istrue that the American courtiers do not say "Sire, " or "Your Majesty"--adistinction without a difference. They are forever talking of thenatural intelligence of the populace they serve; they do not debate thequestion as to which of the virtues of their master is pre-eminentlyworthy of admiration, for they assure him that he possesses all thevirtues under heaven without having acquired them, or without caring toacquire them; they do not give him their daughters and their wives tobe raised at his pleasure to the rank of his concubines, but, bysacrificing their opinions, they prostitute themselves. Moralists andphilosophers in America are not obliged to conceal their opinions underthe veil of allegory; but, before they venture upon a harsh truth, they say, "We are aware that the people which we are addressing is toosuperior to all the weaknesses of human nature to lose the command ofits temper for an instant; and we should not hold this language ifwe were not speaking to men whom their virtues and their intelligencerender more worthy of freedom than all the rest of the world. " It wouldhave been impossible for the sycophants of Louis XIV to flatter moredexterously. For my part, I am persuaded that in all governments, whatever their nature may be, servility will cower to force, andadulation will cling to power. The only means of preventing men fromdegrading 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 TheUnlimited Power Of The Majority

Democratic republics liable to perish from a misuse of their power, andnot by impotence--The Governments of the American republics aremore centralized and more energetic than those of the monarchies ofEurope--Dangers resulting from this--Opinions of Hamilton and Jeffersonupon this point. 

Governments usually fall a sacrifice to impotence or to tyranny. Inthe former case their power escapes from them; it is wrested from theirgrasp in the latter. Many observers, who have witnessed the anarchy ofdemocratic States, have imagined that the government of those States wasnaturally weak and impotent. The truth is, that when once hostilitiesare begun between parties, the government loses its control oversociety. But I do not think that a democratic power is naturally withoutforce or without resources: say, rather, that it is almost always bythe abuse of its force and the misemployment of its resources that ademocratic government fails. Anarchy is almost always produced by itstyranny or its mistakes, but not by its want of strength. 

It is important not to confound stability with force, or the greatnessof a thing with its duration. In democratic republics, the power whichdirects *e society is not stable; for it often changes hands andassumes a new direction. But whichever way it turns, its force is almostirresistible. The Governments of the American republics appear to me tobe as much centralized as those of the absolute monarchies of Europe, and more energetic than they are. I do not, therefore, imagine that theywill perish from weakness. *f

[Footnote e: This power may be centred in an assembly, in which caseit will be strong without being stable; or it may be centred in anindividual, in which case it will be less strong, but more stable. ]

[Footnote f: I presume that it is scarcely necessary to remind thereader here, as well as throughout the remainder of this chapter, thatI am speaking, not of the Federal Government, but of the severalgovernments of each State, which the majority controls at its pleasure. ]

If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event maybe attributed to the unlimited authority of the majority, which may atsome future time urge the minorities to desperation, and oblige them tohave recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but itwill have been brought about 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 the societyagainst 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 everwill be, pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in thepursuit. In a society, under the forms of which the stronger faction canreadily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be saidto reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is notsecured against the violence of the stronger: and as in the latter stateeven the stronger individuals are prompted by the uncertainty of theircondition to submit to a government which may protect the weak as wellas themselves, so in the former state will the more powerful factions begradually induced by a like motive to wish for a government which willprotect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can belittle doubted that, if the State of Rhode Island was separated fromthe Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of right under thepopular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayedby such reiterated oppressions of the factious majorities, that somepower altogether independent of the people would soon be called for bythe voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity ofit. "

Jefferson has also thus expressed himself in a letter to Madison: *g"The executive power in our Government is not the only, perhaps not eventhe principal, object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the Legislatureis really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so formany years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in itsturn, but at a more distant period. " I am glad to cite the opinionof Jefferson upon this subject rather than that of another, because Iconsider him to be the most powerful advocate democracy has ever sentforth. 

[Footnote g: March 15, 1789. ]

Chapter XVI: Causes Mitigating Tyranny In The United States--Part I

Chapter Summary

The national majority does not pretend to conduct all business--Isobliged to employ the town and county magistrates to execute its supremedecisions. 

I have already pointed out the distinction which is to be made betweena centralized government and a centralized administration. The formerexists in America, but the latter is nearly unknown there. If thedirecting power of the American communities had both these instrumentsof government at its disposal, and united the habit of executing its owncommands to the right of commanding; if, after having established thegeneral principles of government, it descended to the details of publicbusiness; and if, having regulated the great interests of the country, it could penetrate into the privacy of individual interests, freedomwould soon be banished from the New World. 

But in the United States the majority, which so frequently displays thetastes and the propensities of a despot, is still destitute of the moreperfect instruments of tyranny. In the American republics the activityof the central Government has never as yet been extended beyond alimited number of objects sufficiently prominent to call forth itsattention. The secondary affairs of society have never been regulatedby its authority, and nothing has hitherto betrayed its desire ofinterfering in them. The majority is become more and more absolute, butit has not increased the prerogatives of the central government; thosegreat prerogatives have been confined to a certain sphere; and althoughthe despotism of the majority may be galling upon one point, it cannotbe said to extend to all. However the predominant party in the nationmay be carried away by its passions, however ardent it may be in thepursuit of its projects, it cannot oblige all the citizens to complywith its desires in the same manner and at the same time throughout thecountry. When the central Government which represents that majority hasissued a decree, it must entrust the execution of its will to agents, over whom it frequently has no control, and whom it cannot perpetuallydirect. The townships, municipal bodies, and counties may therefore belooked upon as concealed break-waters, which check or part the tide ofpopular excitement. If an oppressive law were passed, the liberties ofthe people would still be protected by the means by which that law wouldbe put in execution: the majority cannot descend to the details and (asI will venture to style them) the puerilities of administrative tyranny. Nor does the people entertain that full consciousness of its authoritywhich would prompt it to interfere in these matters; it knows theextent of its natural powers, but it is unacquainted with the increasedresources which the art of government might furnish. 

This point deserves attention, for if a democratic republic similar tothat of the United States were ever founded in a country where the powerof a single individual had previously subsisted, and the effects of acentralized administration had sunk deep into the habits and the lawsof the people, I do not hesitate to assert, that in that country a moreinsufferable despotism would prevail than any which now exists in themonarchical States of Europe, or indeed than any which could be found onthis side of the confines of Asia. 

The Profession Of The Law In The United States Serves To CounterpoiseThe Democracy

Utility of discriminating the natural propensities of the members ofthe legal profession--These men called upon to act a prominent part infuture society--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 legal men--Useof lawyers to a despot--The profession of the law constitutes the onlyaristocratic element with which the natural elements of democracy willcombine--Peculiar causes which tend to give an aristocratic turn of mindto the English and American lawyers--The aristocracy of America ison 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 thatthe authority they have entrusted to members of the legal profession, and the influence which these individuals exercise in the Government, isthe most powerful existing security against the excesses of democracy. This effect seems to me to result from a general cause which it isuseful to investigate, since it may produce analogous consequenceselsewhere. 

The members of the legal profession have taken an important part in allthe vicissitudes of political society in Europe during the last fivehundred years. At one time they have been the instruments of thosewho were invested with political authority, and at another they havesucceeded in converting political authorities into their instrument. Inthe Middle Ages they afforded a powerful support to the Crown, and sincethat period they have exerted themselves to the utmost to limit theroyal prerogative. In England they have contracted a close alliance withthe aristocracy; in France they have proved to be the most dangerousenemies of that class. It is my object to inquire whether, under allthese circumstances, the members of the legal profession have beenswayed by sudden and momentary impulses; or whether they have beenimpelled by principles which are inherent in their pursuits, and whichwill always recur in history. I am incited to this investigation byreflecting that this particular class of men will most likely play aprominent part in that order of things to which the events of our timeare giving birth. 

Men who have more especially devoted themselves to legal pursuits derivefrom those occupations certain habits of order, a taste for formalities, and a kind of instinctive regard for the regular connection of ideas, which naturally render them very hostile to the revolutionary spirit andthe unreflecting passions of the multitude. 

The special information which lawyers derive from their studies ensuresthem a separate station in society, and they constitute a sort ofprivileged body in the scale of intelligence. This notion of theirsuperiority perpetually recurs to them in the practice of theirprofession: they are the masters of a science which is necessary, butwhich is not very generally known; they serve as arbiters between thecitizens; and the habit of directing the blind passions of parties inlitigation to their purpose inspires them with a certain contemptfor the judgment of the multitude. To this it may be added that theynaturally constitute a body, not by any previous understanding, or by anagreement which directs them to a common end; but the analogy of theirstudies and the uniformity of their proceedings connect their mindstogether, as much as a common interest could combine their endeavors. 

A portion of the tastes and of the habits of the aristocracy mayconsequently be discovered in the characters of men in the profession ofthe law. They participate in the same instinctive love of order and offormalities; and they entertain the same repugnance to the actions ofthe multitude, and the same secret contempt of the government of thepeople. I do not mean to say that the natural propensities of lawyersare sufficiently strong to sway them irresistibly; for they, like mostother men, are governed by their private interests and the advantages ofthe 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 enjoyin private life, we may rest assured that they will be the foremostagents of revolution. But it must then be inquired whether the causewhich induces them to innovate and to destroy is accidental, or whetherit belongs to some lasting purpose which they entertain. It is true thatlawyers mainly contributed to the overthrow of the French monarchy in1789; but it remains to be seen whether they acted thus because they hadstudied the laws, or because they were prohibited from co-operating inthe work of legislation. 

Five hundred years ago the English nobles headed the people, and spokein its name; at the present time the aristocracy supports the throne, and defends the royal prerogative. But aristocracy has, notwithstandingthis, its peculiar instincts and propensities. We must be careful notto confound isolated members of a body with the body itself. In allfree governments, of whatsoever form they may be, members of the legalprofession will be found at the head of all parties. The same remarkis also applicable to the aristocracy; for almost all the democraticconvulsions which have agitated the world have been directed by nobles. 

A privileged body can never satisfy the ambition of all its members; ithas always more talents and more passions to content and to employ thanit can find places; so that a considerable number of individuals areusually to be met with who are inclined to attack those very privilegeswhich they find it impossible to turn to their own account. 

I do not, then, assert that all the members of the legal profession areat all times the friends of order and the opponents of innovation, butmerely that most of them usually are so. In a community in which lawyersare allowed to occupy, without opposition, that high station whichnaturally belongs to them, their general spirit will be eminentlyconservative and anti-democratic. When an aristocracy excludes theleaders of that profession from its ranks, it excites enemies whichare the more formidable to its security as they are independent of thenobility by their industrious pursuits; and they feel themselves to beits equal in point of intelligence, although they enjoy less opulenceand 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 offamily interests. 

I am, in like manner, inclined to believe that a monarch will alwaysbe able to convert legal practitioners into the most serviceableinstruments of his authority. There is a far greater affinity betweenthis class of individuals and the executive power than there is betweenthem and the people; just as there is a greater natural affinity betweenthe nobles and the monarch than between the nobles and the people, although the higher orders of society have occasionally resisted theprerogative of the Crown in concert with the lower classes. 

Lawyers are attached to public order beyond every other consideration, and the best security of public order is authority. It must not beforgotten that, if they prize the free institutions of their countrymuch, they nevertheless value the legality of those institutions farmore: they are less afraid of tyranny than of arbitrary power; andprovided that the legislature take upon itself to deprive men of theirindependence, they are not dissatisfied. 

I am therefore convinced that the prince who, in presence of anencroaching democracy, should endeavor to impair the judicial authorityin his dominions, and to diminish the political influence of lawyers, would commit a great mistake. He would let slip the substanceof authority to grasp at the shadow. He would act more wisely inintroducing men connected with the law into the government; and if heentrusted them with the conduct of a despotic power, bearing some marksof violence, that power would most likely assume the external featuresof justice and of legality in their hands. 

The government of democracy is favorable to the political power oflawyers; for when the wealthy, the noble, and the prince are excludedfrom the government, they are sure to occupy the highest stations, intheir own right, as it were, since they are the only men of informationand sagacity, beyond the sphere of the people, who can be the object ofthe popular choice. If, then, they are led by their tastes to combinewith the aristocracy and to support the Crown, they are naturallybrought into contact with the people by their interests. They like thegovernment of democracy, without participating in its propensitiesand without imitating its weaknesses; whence they derive a twofoldauthority, from it and over it. The people in democratic states does notmistrust the members of the legal profession, because it is well knownthat they are interested in serving the popular cause; and it listensto them without irritation, because it does not attribute to them anysinister designs. The object of lawyers is not, indeed, to overthrow theinstitutions of democracy, but they constantly endeavor to give it animpulse which diverts it from its real tendency, by means which areforeign to its nature. Lawyers belong to the people by birth andinterest, to the aristocracy by habit and by taste, and they may belooked upon as the natural bond and connecting link of the two greatclasses of society. 

The profession of the law is the only aristocratic element which can beamalgamated without violence with the natural elements of democracy, andwhich can be advantageously and permanently combined with them. I amnot unacquainted with the defects which are inherent in the characterof that body of men; but without this admixture of lawyer-likesobriety with the democratic principle, I question whether democraticinstitutions could long be maintained, and I cannot believe that arepublic could subsist at the present time if the influence of lawyersin public business did not increase in proportion to the power of thepeople. 

This aristocratic character, which I hold to be common to the legalprofession, is much more distinctly marked in the United States and inEngland than in any other country. This proceeds not only from the legalstudies of the English and American lawyers, but from the nature ofthe legislation, and the position which those persons occupy in thetwo countries. The English and the Americans have retained the law ofprecedents; that is to say, they continue to found their legal opinionsand the decisions of their courts upon the opinions and the decisions oftheir forefathers. In the mind of an English or American lawyer a tasteand a reverence for what is old is almost always united to a love ofregular and lawful proceedings. 

This predisposition has another effect upon the character of the legalprofession and upon the general course of society. The English andAmerican lawyers investigate what has been done; the French advocateinquires what should have been done; the former produce precedents, the latter reasons. A French observer is surprised to hear how oftenan English dr an American lawyer quotes the opinions of others, and howlittle he alludes to his own; whilst the reverse occurs in France. Therethe most trifling litigation is never conducted without the introductionof an entire system of ideas peculiar to the counsel employed; and thefundamental principles of law are discussed in order to obtain aperch of land by the decision of the court. This abnegation of his ownopinion, and this implicit deference to the opinion of his forefathers, which are common to the English and American lawyer, this subjection ofthought which he is obliged to profess, necessarily give him more timidhabits and more sluggish inclinations in England and America than inFrance. 

The French codes are often difficult of comprehension, but they can beread by every one; nothing, on the other hand, can be more impenetrableto the uninitiated than a legislation founded upon precedents. Theindispensable want of legal assistance which is felt in England and inthe United States, and the high opinion which is generally entertainedof the ability of the legal profession, tend to separate it more andmore from the people, and to place it in a distinct class. The Frenchlawyer is simply a man extensively acquainted with the statutes of hiscountry; but the English or American lawyer resembles the hierophants ofEgypt, for, like them, he is the sole interpreter of an occult science. 

The station which lawyers occupy in England and America exercises noless an influence upon their habits and their opinions. The Englisharistocracy, which has taken care to attract to its sphere whatever isat all analogous to itself, has conferred a high degree of importanceand of authority upon the members of the legal profession. In Englishsociety lawyers do not occupy the first rank, but they are contentedwith the station assigned to them; they constitute, as it were, theyounger branch of the English aristocracy, and they are attached totheir elder brothers, although they do not enjoy all their privileges. The English lawyers consequently mingle the taste and the ideas of thearistocratic circles in which they move with the aristocratic interestsof their profession. 

And indeed the lawyer-like character which I am endeavoring to depict ismost distinctly to be met with in England: there laws are esteemed notso much because they are good as because they are old; and if it benecessary to modify them in any respect, or to adapt them thechanges which time operates in society, recourse is had to the mostinconceivable contrivances in order to uphold the traditionary fabric, and to maintain that nothing has been done which does not square withthe intentions and complete the labors of former generations. Thevery individuals who conduct these changes disclaim all intention ofinnovation, and they had rather resort to absurd expedients than pleadguilty to so great a crime. This spirit appertains more especially tothe English lawyers; they seem indifferent to the real meaning of whatthey treat, and they direct all their attention to the letter, seeminginclined to infringe the rules of common sense and of humanity ratherthan to swerve one title from the law. The English legislation may becompared to the stock of an old tree, upon which lawyers have engraftedthe most various shoots, with the hope that, although their fruits maydiffer, their foliage at least will be confounded with the venerabletrunk which supports them all. 

In America there are no nobles or men of letters, and the people is aptto mistrust the wealthy; lawyers consequently form the highest politicalclass, and the most cultivated circle of society. They have thereforenothing to gain by innovation, which adds a conservative interest totheir natural taste for public order. If I were asked where I place theAmerican aristocracy, I should reply without hesitation that it is notcomposed of the rich, who are united together by no common tie, but thatit occupies the judicial bench and the bar. 

The more we reflect upon all that occurs in the United States the moreshall we be persuaded that the lawyers as a body form the most powerful, if not the only, counterpoise to the democratic element. In that countrywe perceive how eminently the legal profession is qualified by itspowers, and even by its defects, to neutralize the vices which areinherent in popular government. When the American people is intoxicatedby passion, or carried away by the impetuosity of its ideas, it ischecked and stopped by the almost invisible influence of its legalcounsellors, who secretly oppose their aristocratic propensities to itsdemocratic instincts, their superstitious attachment to what is antiqueto its love of novelty, their narrow views to its immense designs, andtheir habitual procrastination to its ardent impatience. 

The courts of justice are the most visible organs by which the legalprofession is enabled to control the democracy. The judge is a lawyer, who, independently of the taste for regularity and order which he hascontracted in the study of legislation, derives an additional love ofstability from his own inalienable functions. His legal attainments havealready raised him to a distinguished rank amongst his fellow-citizens;his political power completes the distinction of his station, and giveshim the inclinations natural to privileged classes. 

Armed with the power of declaring the laws to be unconstitutional, *athe American magistrate perpetually interferes in political affairs. Hecannot force the people to make laws, but at least he can oblige it notto disobey its own enactments; or to act inconsistently with its ownprinciples. I am aware that a secret tendency to diminish the judicialpower exists in the United States, and by most of the constitutions ofthe several States the Government can, upon the demand of the two housesof the legislature, remove the judges from their station. By some otherconstitutions the members of the tribunals are elected, and they areeven subjected to frequent re-elections. I venture to predict that theseinnovations will sooner or later be attended with fatal consequences, and that it will be found out at some future period that the attackwhich is made upon the judicial power has affected the democraticrepublic itself. 

[Footnote a: See chapter VI. On the "Judicial Power in the UnitedStates. "]

It must not, however, be supposed that the legal spirit of which I havebeen speaking has been confined, in the United States, to the courts ofjustice; it extends far beyond them. As the lawyers constitute the onlyenlightened class which the people does not mistrust, they are naturallycalled upon to occupy most of the public stations. They fill thelegislative assemblies, and they conduct the administration; theyconsequently exercise a powerful influence upon the formation of thelaw, and upon its execution. The lawyers are, however, obliged to yieldto the current of public opinion, which is too strong for them to resistit, but it is easy to find indications of what their conduct would be ifthey were free to act as they chose. The Americans, who have made suchcopious 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. The reason of this is, that in matters of civil law the majority isobliged to defer to the authority of the legal profession, and that theAmerican lawyers are disinclined to innovate when they are left to theirown choice. 

It is curious for a Frenchman, accustomed to a very different state ofthings, to hear the perpetual complaints which are made in the UnitedStates against the stationary propensities of legal men, and theirprejudices in favor of existing institutions. 

The influence of the legal habits which are common in America extendsbeyond the limits I have just pointed out. Scarcely any question arisesin the United States which does not become, sooner or later, a subjectof judicial debate; hence all parties are obliged to borrow the ideas, and even the language, usual in judicial proceedings in theirdaily controversies. As most public men are, or have been, legalpractitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of theirprofession into the affairs of the country. The jury extends thishabitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in somemeasure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced inthe schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond theirwalls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowestclasses, so that the whole people contracts the habits and the tastes ofthe magistrate. The lawyers of the United States form a party which isbut little feared and scarcely perceived, which has no badge peculiar toitself, which adapts itself with great flexibility to the exigenciesof the time, and accommodates itself to all the movements of the socialbody; but this party extends over the whole community, and it penetratesinto all classes of society; it acts upon the country imperceptibly, butit finally fashions it to suit its purposes. 

Chapter XVI: Causes Mitigating Tyranny In The United States--Part II

Trial By Jury In The 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 aknowledge of law among the people. 

Since I have been led by my subject to recur to the administration ofjustice in the United States, I will not pass over this point withoutadverting to the institution of the jury. Trial by jury may beconsidered in two separate points of view, as a judicial and as apolitical institution. If it entered into my present purpose to inquirehow far trial by jury (more especially in civil cases) contributes toinsure the best administration of justice, I admit that its utilitymight be contested. As the jury was first introduced at a time whensociety was in an uncivilized state, and when courts of justice weremerely called upon to decide on the evidence of facts, it is not an easytask to adapt it to the wants of a highly civilized community when themutual relations of men are multiplied to a surprising extent, and haveassumed the enlightened and intellectual character of the age. *b

[Footnote b: The investigation of trial by jury as a judicialinstitution, and the appreciation of its effects in the United States, together with the advantages the Americans have derived from it, wouldsuffice to form a book, and a book upon a very useful and curioussubject. The State of Louisiana would in particular afford the curiousphenomenon of a French and English legislation, as well as a French andEnglish population, which are gradually combining with each other. Seethe "Digeste des Lois de la Louisiane, " in two volumes; and the "Traitesur les Regles des Actions civiles, " printed in French and English atNew Orleans in 1830. ]

My present object is to consider the jury as a political institution, and any other course would divert me from my subject. Of trial by jury, considered as a judicial institution, I shall here say but very fewwords. When the English adopted trial by jury they were a semi-barbarouspeople; they are become, in course of time, one of the most enlightenednations of the earth; and their attachment to this institution seemsto have increased with their increasing cultivation. They soon spreadbeyond their insular boundaries to every corner of the habitable globe;some have formed colonies, others independent states; the mother-countryhas maintained its monarchical constitution; many of its offspring havefounded powerful republics; but wherever the English have been they haveboasted of the privilege of trial by jury. *c They have established it, or hastened to re-establish it, in all their settlements. A judicialinstitution which obtains the suffrages of a great people for so longa series of ages, which is zealously renewed at every epoch ofcivilization, in all the climates of the earth and under every form ofhuman government, cannot be contrary to the spirit of justice. *d

[Footnote c: All the English and American jurists are unanimous uponthis head. Mr. Story, judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, speaks, in his "Treatise on the Federal Constitution, " of the advantagesof trial by jury in civil cases:--"The inestimable privilege of atrial by jury in civil cases--a privilege scarcely inferior to thatin criminal cases, which is counted by all persons to be essential topolitical and civil liberty. . . . " (Story, book iii. , chap. Xxxviii. )]

[Footnote d: If it were our province to point out the utility of thejury as a judicial institution in this place, much might be said, andthe following arguments might be brought forward amongst others:--

By introducing the jury into the business of the courts you are enabledto diminish the number of judges, which is a very great advantage. Whenjudges are very numerous, death is perpetually thinning the ranks ofthe judicial functionaries, and laying places vacant for newcomers. Theambition of the magistrates is therefore continually excited, and theyare naturally made dependent upon the will of the majority, or theindividual who fills up the vacant appointments; the officers of thecourt then rise like the officers of an army. This state of things isentirely contrary to the sound administration of justice, and to theintentions of the legislator. The office of a judge is made inalienablein order that he may remain independent: but of what advantage is itthat 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 agreat magistrate is a man of no common powers; and I am inclined tobelieve that a half-enlightened tribunal is the worst of all instrumentsfor attaining those objects which it is the purpose of courts of justiceto accomplish. For my own part, I had rather submit the decision of acase to ignorant jurors directed by a skilful judge than to judges amajority of whom are imperfectly acquainted with jurisprudence and withthe laws. ]

I turn, however, from this part of the subject. To look upon the jury asa mere judicial institution is to confine our attention to a very narrowview of it; for however great its influence may be upon the decisionsof the law courts, that influence is very subordinate to the powerfuleffects which it produces on the destinies of the community at large. The jury is above all a political institution, and it must be regardedin this light in order to be duly appreciated. 

By the jury I mean a certain number of citizens chosen indiscriminately, and invested with a temporary right of judging. Trial by jury, asapplied to the repression of crime, appears to me to introduce aneminently republican element into the government upon the followinggrounds:--

The institution of the jury may be aristocratic or democratic, accordingto the class of society from which the jurors are selected; but italways preserves its republican character, inasmuch as it places thereal direction of society in the hands of the governed, or of a portionof the governed, instead of leaving it under the authority of theGovernment. Force is never more than a transient element of success; andafter force comes the notion of right. A government which should onlybe able to crush its enemies upon a field of battle would very soon bedestroyed. The true sanction of political laws is to be found in penallegislation, and if that sanction be wanting the law will sooner orlater lose its cogency. He who punishes infractions of the law istherefore the real master of society. Now the institution of the juryraises the people itself, or at least a class of citizens, to the benchof judicial authority. The institution of the jury consequently investsthe people, or that class of citizens, with the direction of society. *e

[Footnote e: An important remark must, however, be made. Trial by jurydoes unquestionably invest the people with a general control over theactions of citizens, but it does not furnish means of exercising thiscontrol in all cases, or with an absolute authority. When an absolutemonarch has the right of trying offences by his representatives, thefate of the prisoner is, as it were, decided beforehand. But even ifthe people were predisposed to convict, the composition and thenon-responsibility of the jury would still afford some chances favorableto the protection of innocence. ]

In England the jury is returned from the aristocratic portion ofthe nation; *f the aristocracy makes the laws, applies the laws, andpunishes all infractions of the laws; everything is established upon aconsistent footing, and England may with truth be said to constitute anaristocratic republic. In the United States the same system is appliedto the whole people. Every American citizen is qualified to be anelector, a juror, and is eligible to office. *g The system of the jury, as it is understood in America, appears to me to be as direct and asextreme a consequence of the sovereignty of the people as universalsuffrage. These institutions are two instruments of equal power, whichcontribute to the supremacy of the majority. All the sovereigns who havechosen to govern by their own authority, and to direct society insteadof obeying its directions, have destroyed or enfeebled the institutionof the jury. The monarchs of the House of Tudor sent to prison jurorswho refused to convict, and Napoleon caused them to be returned by hisagents. 

[Footnote f: [This may be true to some extent of special juries, butnot of common juries. The author seems not to have been aware that thequalifications of jurors in England vary exceedingly. ]]

[Footnote 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 byjury is still very imperfectly understood. If the question arises as tothe proper qualification of jurors, it is confined to a discussion ofthe intelligence and knowledge of the citizens who may be returned, asif the jury was merely a judicial institution. This appears to me tobe the least part of the subject. The jury is pre-eminently a politicalinstitution; it must be regarded as one form of the sovereignty of thepeople; when that sovereignty is repudiated, it must be rejected, or itmust be adapted to the laws by which that sovereignty is established. The jury is that portion of the nation to which the execution of thelaws is entrusted, as the Houses of Parliament constitute that partof the nation which makes the laws; and in order that society may begoverned with consistency and uniformity, the list of citizens qualifiedto serve on juries must increase and diminish with the list of electors. This I hold to be the point of view most worthy of the attention of thelegislator, and all that remains 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 incivil causes. Laws are always unstable unless they are founded upon themanners of a nation; manners are the only durable and resisting powerin a people. When the jury is reserved for criminal offences, the peopleonly witnesses its occasional action in certain particular cases; theordinary course of life goes on without its interference, and itis considered as an instrument, but not as the only instrument, ofobtaining justice. This is true a fortiori when the jury is only appliedto certain criminal causes. 

When, on the contrary, the influence of the jury is extended to civilcauses, its application is constantly palpable; it affects all theinterests of the community; everyone co-operates in its work: it thuspenetrates into all the usages of life, it fashions the human mind toits peculiar forms, and is gradually associated with the idea of justiceitself. 

The institution of the jury, if confined to criminal causes, is alwaysin danger, but when once it is introduced into civil proceedings itdefies the aggressions of time and of man. If it had been as easy toremove the jury from the manners as from the laws of England, it wouldhave perished under Henry VIII, and Elizabeth, and the civil jury did inreality, at that period, save the liberties of the country. In whatevermanner the jury be applied, it cannot fail to exercise a powerfulinfluence upon the national character; but this influence isprodigiously increased when it is introduced into civil causes. Thejury, and more especially the jury in civil cases, serves to communicatethe spirit of the judges to the minds of all the citizens; and thisspirit, with the habits which attend it, is the soundest preparation forfree institutions. It imbues all classes with a respect for the thingjudged, and with the notion of right. If these two elements be removed, the love of independence is reduced to a mere destructive passion. Itteaches men to practice equity, every man learns to judge his neighboras he would himself be judged; and this is especially true of the juryin civil causes, for, whilst the number of persons who have reason toapprehend a criminal prosecution is small, every one is liable to havea civil action brought against him. The jury teaches every man not torecoil before the responsibility of his own actions, and impresses himwith that manly confidence without which political virtue cannot exist. It invests each citizen with a kind of magistracy, it makes them allfeel the duties which they are bound to discharge towards society, andthe part which they take in the Government. By obliging men to turntheir attention to affairs which are not exclusively their own, it rubsoff that individual egotism which is the rust of society. 

The jury contributes most powerfully to form the judgement and toincrease the natural intelligence of a people, and this is, in myopinion, its greatest advantage. It may be regarded as a gratuitouspublic school ever open, in which every juror learns to exercise hisrights, enters into daily communication with the most learned andenlightened members of the upper classes, and becomes practicallyacquainted with the laws of his country, which are brought within thereach of his capacity by the efforts of the bar, the advice of thejudge, and even by the passions of the parties. I think that thepractical intelligence and political good sense of the Americans aremainly attributable to the long use which they have made of the jury incivil causes. I do not know whether the jury is useful to those who arein litigation; but I am certain it is highly beneficial to those whodecide the litigation; and I look upon it as one of the most efficaciousmeans for the education of the people which society can employ. 

What I have hitherto said applies to all nations, but the remark Iam now about to make is peculiar to the Americans and to democraticpeoples. I have already observed that in democracies the members of thelegal profession and the magistrates constitute the only aristocraticbody which can check the irregularities of the people. This aristocracyis invested with no physical power, but it exercises its conservativeinfluence upon the minds of men, and the most abundant source of itsauthority is the institution of the civil jury. In criminal causes, whensociety is armed against a single individual, the jury is apt tolook upon the judge as the passive instrument of social power, and tomistrust his advice. Moreover, criminal causes are entirely founded uponthe evidence of facts which common sense can readily appreciate; uponthis ground the judge and the jury are equal. Such, however, is not thecase in civil causes; then the judge appears as a disinterested arbiterbetween the conflicting passions of the parties. The jurors look up tohim with confidence and listen to him with respect, for in this instancetheir intelligence is completely under the control of his learning. Itis the judge who sums up the various arguments with which their memoryhas been wearied out, and who guides them through the devious course ofthe proceedings; he points their attention to the exact question offact which they are called upon to solve, and he puts the answer to thequestion of law into their mouths. His influence upon their verdict isalmost unlimited. 

If I am called upon to explain why I am but little moved by thearguments derived from the ignorance of jurors in civil causes, I reply, that in these proceedings, whenever the question to be solved is nota mere question of fact, the jury has only the semblance of a judicialbody. The jury sanctions the decision of the judge, they by theauthority of society which they represent, and he by that of reason andof law. *h

[Footnote h: See Appendix, R. ]

In England and in America the judges exercise an influence upon criminaltrials which the French judges have never possessed. The reason ofthis difference may easily be discovered; the English and Americanmagistrates establish their authority in civil causes, and only transferit afterwards to tribunals of another kind, where that authority wasnot acquired. In some cases (and they are frequently the most importantones) the American judges have the right of deciding causes alone. *iUpon these occasions they are accidentally placed in the position whichthe French judges habitually occupy, but they are invested with far morepower than the latter; they are still surrounded by the reminiscence ofthe jury, and their judgment has almost as much authority as the voiceof 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 inthe legislative assemblies, the American judge is constantly surroundedby men who are accustomed to regard his intelligence as superior totheir own, and after having exercised his power in the decisionof causes, he continues to influence the habits of thought and thecharacters of the individuals who took a part in his judgment. 

[Footnote i: The Federal judges decide upon their own authority almostall the questions most important to the country. ]

The jury, then, which seems to restrict the rights of magistracy, doesin reality consolidate its power, and in no country are the judges sopowerful as there, where the people partakes their privileges. It ismore especially by means of the jury in civil causes that the Americanmagistrates imbue all classes of society with the spirit of theirprofession. Thus the jury, which is the most energetic means of makingthe people rule, is also the most efficacious means of teaching it torule well. 

Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic--Part I

Principal Causes Which Tend To Maintain The Democratic Republic In TheUnited States

A democratic republic subsists in the United States, and the principalobject of this book has been to account for the fact of its existence. Several of the causes which contribute to maintain the institutions ofAmerica have been involuntarily passed by or only hinted at as I wasborne along by my subject. Others I have been unable to discuss, andthose on which I have dwelt most are, as it were, buried in the detailsof the former parts of this work. I think, therefore, that before Iproceed to speak of the future, I cannot do better than collect withina small compass the reasons which best explain the present. In thisretrospective chapter I shall be succinct, for I shall take care toremind the reader very summarily of what he already knows; and I shallonly select the most prominent of those facts which I have not yetpointed out. 

All the causes which contribute to the maintenance of the democraticrepublic in the United States are reducible to three heads:--

I. The peculiar and accidental situation in which Providence has placedthe Americans. 

II. The laws. 

III. The manners and customs of the people. 

Accidental Or Providential Causes Which Contribute To The MaintenanceOf The Democratic Republic In The United States The Union has noneighbors--No metropolis--The Americans have had the chances of birth intheir favor--America an empty country--How this circumstance 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 circumstances, independent of the will of man, concur tofacilitate the maintenance of a democratic republic in the UnitedStates. Some of these peculiarities are known, the others may easily bepointed out; but I shall confine myself to the most prominent amongstthem. 

The Americans have no neighbors, and consequently they have no greatwars, or financial crises, or inroads, or conquest to dread; theyrequire neither great taxes, nor great armies, nor great generals; andthey have nothing to fear from a scourge which is more formidable torepublics than all these evils combined, namely, military glory. Itis impossible to deny the inconceivable influence which militaryglory exercises upon the spirit of a nation. General Jackson, whom theAmericans have twice elected to the head of their Government, is a manof a violent temper and mediocre talents; no one circumstance in thewhole course of his career ever proved that he is qualified to govern afree people, and indeed the majority of the enlightened classes ofthe Union has always been opposed to him. But he was raised to thePresidency, and has been maintained in that lofty station, solely bythe recollection of a victory which he gained twenty years ago underthe walls of New Orleans, a victory which was, however, a very ordinaryachievement, and which could only be remembered in a country wherebattles are rare. Now the people which is thus carried away by theillusions of glory is unquestionably the most cold and calculating, themost unmilitary (if I may use the expression), and the most prosaic ofall the peoples of the earth. 

America has no great capital *a city, whose influence is directly orindirectly felt over the whole extent of the country, which I hold to beone of the first causes of the maintenance of republican institutionsin the United States. In cities men cannot be prevented from concertingtogether, and from awakening a mutual excitement which promptssudden and passionate resolutions. Cities may be looked upon as largeassemblies, of which all the inhabitants are members; their populaceexercises a prodigious influence upon the magistrates, and frequentlyexecutes its own wishes without their intervention. 

[Footnote a: The United States have no metropolis, but they alreadycontain several very large cities. Philadelphia reckoned 161, 000inhabitants and New York 202, 000 in the year 1830. The lower orderswhich inhabit these cities constitute a rabble even more formidablethan the populace of European towns. They consist of freed blacks in thefirst place, who are condemned by the laws and by public opinion toa hereditary state of misery and degradation. They also contain amultitude of Europeans who have been driven to the shores of the NewWorld by their misfortunes or their misconduct; and these men inoculatethe United States with all our vices, without bringing with them any ofthose interests which counteract their baneful influence. As inhabitantsof a country where they have no civil rights, they are ready to turn allthe passions which agitate the community to their own advantage; thus, within the last few months serious riots have broken out in Philadelphiaand in New York. Disturbances of this kind are unknown in the rest ofthe country, which is nowise alarmed by them, because the population ofthe cities has hitherto exercised neither power nor influence over therural districts. Nevertheless, I look upon the size of certain Americancities, and especially on the nature of their population, as a realdanger which threatens the future security of the democratic republicsof the New World; and I venture to predict that they will perish fromthis circumstance unless the government succeeds in creating an armedforce, which, whilst it remains under the control of the majority of thenation, will be independent of the town population, and able to repressits excesses. 

[The population of the city of New York had risen, in 1870, to 942, 292, and that of Philadelphia to 674, 022. Brooklyn, which may be said to formpart of New York city, has a population of 396, 099, in addition to thatof New York. The frequent disturbances in the great cities of America, and the excessive corruption of their local governments--over whichthere is no effectual control--are amongst the greatest evils anddangers of the country. ]]

To subject the provinces to the metropolis is therefore not onlyto place the destiny of the empire in the hands of a portion of thecommunity, which may be reprobated as unjust, but to place it in thehands of a populace acting under its own impulses, which must be avoidedas dangerous. The preponderance of capital cities is therefore a seriousblow upon the representative system, and it exposes modern republics tothe same defect as the republics of antiquity, which all perished fromnot having been acquainted with that form of government. 

It would be easy for me to adduce a great number of secondary causeswhich have contributed to establish, and which concur to maintain, thedemocratic republic of the United States. But I discern two principalcircumstances amongst these favorable elements, which I hasten to pointout. I have already observed that the origin of the American settlementsmay be looked upon as the first and most efficacious cause to which thepresent prosperity of the United States may be attributed. The Americanshad the chances of birth in their favor, and their forefathers importedthat equality of conditions into the country whence the democraticrepublic has very naturally taken its rise. Nor was this all they did;for besides this republican condition of society, the early settlerbequeathed to their descendants those customs, manners, and opinionswhich contribute most to the success of a republican form of government. When I reflect upon the consequences of this primary circumstance, methinks I see the destiny of America embodied in the first Puritan wholanded on those shores, just as the human race was represented by thefirst man. 

The chief circumstance which has favored the establishment and themaintenance of a democratic republic in the United States is the natureof the territory which the American inhabit. Their ancestors gave themthe love of equality and of freedom, but God himself gave them the meansof remaining equal and free, by placing them upon a boundless continent, which is open to their exertions. General prosperity is favorable tothe stability of all governments, but more particularly of a democraticconstitution, which depends upon the dispositions of the majority, andmore particularly of that portion of the community which is most exposedto feel the pressure of want. When the people rules, it must be renderedhappy, or it will overturn the State, and misery is apt to stimulate itto those excesses to which ambition rouses kings. The physical causes, independent of the laws, which contribute to promote general prosperity, are more numerous in America than they have ever been in any othercountry in the world, at any other period of history. In the UnitedStates not only is legislation democratic, but nature herself favors thecause of the people. 

In what part of human tradition can be found anything at all similar tothat which is occurring under our eyes in North America? The celebratedcommunities of antiquity were all founded in the midst of hostilenations, which they were obliged to subjugate before they could flourishin their place. Even the moderns have found, in some parts of SouthAmerica, vast regions inhabited by a people of inferior civilization, but which occupied and cultivated the soil. To found their new statesit was necessary to extirpate or to subdue a numerous population, untilcivilization has been made to blush for their success. But North Americawas only inhabited by wandering tribes, who took no thought of thenatural 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 ofthe inhabitants, as well as the laws; but the soil upon which theseinstitutions are founded is more extraordinary than all the rest. When man was first placed upon the earth by the Creator, the earth wasinexhaustible in its youth, but man was weak and ignorant; and when hehad learned to explore the treasures which it contained, hosts of hisfellow creatures covered its surface, and he was obliged to earn anasylum for repose and for freedom by the sword. At that same periodNorth America was discovered, as if it had been kept in reserve by theDeity, and had just risen from beneath the waters of the deluge. 

That continent still presents, as it did in the primeval time, riverswhich rise from never-failing sources, green and moist solitudes, andfields which the ploughshare of the husbandman has never turned. In thisstate it is offered to man, not in the barbarous and isolated conditionof the early ages, but to a being who is already in possession ofthe most potent secrets of the natural world, who is united to hisfellow-men, and instructed by the experience of fifty centuries. Atthis very time thirteen millions of civilized Europeans are peaceablyspreading 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 beforethem; these are followed by the pioneers, who pierce the woods, scareoff the beasts of prey, explore the courses of the inland streams, andmake ready the triumphal 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, and adverted to by myself, that I shall not enlarge upon it beyond theaddition of a few facts. An erroneous notion is generally entertainedthat the deserts of America are peopled by European emigrants, whoannually disembark upon the coasts of the New World, whilst the Americanpopulation increases and multiplies upon the soil which its forefatherstilled. The European settler, however, usually arrives in the UnitedStates without friends, and sometimes without resources; in order tosubsist he is obliged to work for hire, and he rarely proceeds beyondthat belt of industrious population which adjoins the ocean. The desertcannot be explored without capital or credit; and the body must beaccustomed to the rigors of a new climate before it can be exposed tothe chances of forest life. It is the Americans themselves who dailyquit the spots which gave them birth to acquire extensive domains ina remote country. Thus the European leaves his cottage for thetrans-Atlantic shores; and the American, who is born on that very coast, plunges in his turn into the wilds of Central America. This doubleemigration is incessant; it begins in the remotest parts of Europe, itcrosses the Atlantic Ocean, and it advances over the solitudes ofthe New World. Millions of men are marching at once towards the samehorizon; their language, their religion, their manners differ, theirobject is the same. The gifts of fortune are promised in the West, andto the West they bend their course. *b

[Footnote b: [The number of foreign immigrants into the United States inthe last fifty years (from 1820 to 1871) is stated to be 7, 556, 007. Ofthese, 4, 104, 553 spoke English--that is, they came from Great Britain, Ireland, or the British colonies; 2, 643, 069 came from Germany ornorthern Europe; and about half a million from the south of Europe. ]]

No event can be compared with this continuous removal of the human race, except perhaps those irruptions which preceded the fall of the RomanEmpire. Then, as well as now, generations of men were impelled forwardsin the same direction to meet and struggle on the same spot; but thedesigns of Providence were not the same; then, every newcomer was theharbinger of destruction and of death; now, every adventurer brings withhim the elements of prosperity and of life. The future still concealsfrom us the ulterior consequences of this emigration of the Americanstowards the West; but we can readily apprehend its more immediateresults. As a portion of the inhabitants annually leave the States inwhich they were born, the population of these States increases veryslowly, although they have long been established: thus in Connecticut, which only contains fifty-nine inhabitants to the square mile, thepopulation has not increased by more than one-quarter in forty years, whilst that of England has been augmented by one-third in the lapse ofthe same period. The European emigrant always lands, therefore, ina country which is but half full, and where hands are in request:he becomes a workman in easy circumstances; his son goes to seek hisfortune in unpeopled regions, and he becomes a rich landowner. Theformer amasses the capital which the latter invests, and the stranger aswell as the native is unacquainted with want. 

The laws of the United States are extremely favorable to the divisionof property; but a cause which is more powerful than the laws preventsproperty from being divided to excess. *c This is very perceptible inthe States which are beginning to be thickly peopled; Massachusettsis the most populous part of the Union, but it contains only eightyinhabitants to the square mile, which is must less than in France, where162 are reckoned to the same extent of country. But in Massachusettsestates are very rarely divided; the eldest son takes the land, and theothers go to seek their fortune in the desert. The law has abolishedthe rights of primogeniture, but circumstances have concurred tore-establish it under a form of which none can complain, and by which nojust rights are impaired. 

[Footnote c: In New England the estates are exceedingly small, but theyare rarely subjected to further division. ]

A single fact will suffice to show the prodigious number of individualswho leave New England, in this manner, to settle themselves in thewilds. We were assured in 1830 that thirty-six of the members ofCongress were born in the little State of Connecticut. The population ofConnecticut, which constitutes only one forty-third part of that ofthe United States, thus furnished one-eighth of the whole body ofrepresentatives. The States of Connecticut, however, only sends fivedelegates to Congress; and the thirty-one others sit for the new WesternStates. If these thirty-one individuals had remained in Connecticut, it is probable that instead of becoming rich landowners they wouldhave remained humble laborers, that they would have lived in obscuritywithout being able to rise into public life, and that, far from becominguseful members of the legislature, they might have been unruly citizens. 

These reflections do not escape the observation of the Americans anymore than of ourselves. "It cannot be doubted, " says Chancellor Kentin his "Treatise on American Law, " "that the division of landed estatesmust produce great evils when it is carried to such excess as thateach parcel of land is insufficient to support a family; but thesedisadvantages have never been felt in the United States, and manygenerations must elapse before they can be felt. The extent of ourinhabited territory, the abundance of adjacent land, and the continualstream of emigration flowing from the shores of the Atlantic towardsthe interior of the country, suffice as yet, and will long suffice, toprevent the parcelling out of estates. "

It is difficult to describe the rapacity with which the American rushesforward to secure the immense booty which fortune proffers to him. In the pursuit he fearlessly braves the arrow of the Indian and thedistempers of the forest; he is unimpressed by the silence of the woods;the approach of beasts of prey does not disturb him; for he is goadedonwards by a passion more intense than the love of life. Before him liesa boundless continent, and he urges onwards as if time pressed, and hewas afraid of finding no room for his exertions. I have spoken of theemigration from the older States, but how shall I describe that whichtakes place from the more recent ones? Fifty years have scarcely elapsedsince that of Ohio was founded; the greater part of its inhabitants werenot born within its confines; its capital has only been built thirtyyears, and its territory is still covered by an immense extent ofuncultivated fields; nevertheless the population of Ohio is alreadyproceeding westward, and most of the settlers who descend to the fertilesavannahs of Illinois are citizens of Ohio. These men left their firstcountry to improve their condition; they quit their resting-place toameliorate it still more; fortune awaits them everywhere, but happinessthey cannot attain. The desire of prosperity is become an ardent andrestless passion in their minds which grows by what it gains. They earlybroke the ties which bound them to their natal earth, and they havecontracted no fresh ones on their way. Emigration was at first necessaryto them as a means of subsistence; and it soon becomes a sort of game ofchance, 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 reappearsbehind him. The woods stoop to give him a passage, and spring up againwhen he has passed. It is not uncommon in crossing the new States ofthe West to meet with deserted dwellings in the midst of the wilds; thetraveller frequently discovers the vestiges of a log house in the mostsolitary retreats, which bear witness to the power, and no less to theinconstancy of man. In these abandoned fields, and over these ruins ofa day, the primeval forest soon scatters a fresh vegetation, the beastsresume the haunts which were once their own, and Nature covers thetraces of man's path with branches and with flowers, which obliteratehis evanescent track. 

I remember that, in crossing one of the woodland districts which stillcover the State of New York, I reached the shores of a lake embosomed inforests coeval with the world. A small island, covered with woods whosethick foliage concealed its banks, rose from the centre of the waters. Upon the shores of the lake no object attested the presence of manexcept a column of smoke which might be seen on the horizon rising fromthe tops of the trees to the clouds, and seeming to hang from heavenrather than to be mounting to the sky. An Indian shallop was hauledup on the sand, which tempted me to visit the islet that had firstattracted my attention, and in a few minutes I set foot upon its banks. The whole island formed one of those delicious solitudes of the NewWorld which almost lead civilized man to regret the haunts of thesavage. A luxuriant vegetation bore witness to the incomparablefruitfulness of the soil. The deep silence which is common to thewilds of North America was only broken by the hoarse cooing of thewood-pigeon, and the tapping of the woodpecker upon the bark of trees. I was far from supposing that this spot had ever been inhabited, socompletely did Nature seem to be left to her own caprices; but when Ireached the centre of the isle I thought that I discovered some tracesof man. I then proceeded to examine the surrounding objects with care, and I soon perceived that a European had undoubtedly been led to seek arefuge in this retreat. Yet what changes had taken place in the scene ofhis labors! The logs which he had hastily hewn to build himself ashed had sprouted afresh; the very props were intertwined with livingverdure, and his cabin was transformed into a bower. In the midst ofthese shrubs a few stones were to be seen, blackened with fire andsprinkled with thin ashes; here the hearth had no doubt been, and thechimney in falling had covered it with rubbish. I stood for some time insilent admiration of the exuberance of Nature and the littleness of man:and when I was obliged to leave that enchanting solitude, I exclaimedwith melancholy, "Are ruins, then, already here?"

In Europe we are wont to look upon a restless disposition, an unboundeddesire of riches, and an excessive love of independence, as propensitiesvery formidable to society. Yet these are the very elements which ensurea long and peaceful duration to the republics of America. Without theseunquiet passions the population would collect in certain spots, andwould soon be subject to wants like those of the Old World, which it isdifficult to satisfy; for such is the present good fortune of the NewWorld, that the vices of its inhabitants are scarcely less favorableto society than their virtues. These circumstances exercise a greatinfluence on the estimation in which human actions are held in the twohemispheres. The Americans frequently term what we should call cupiditya laudable industry; and they blame as faint-heartedness what weconsider to be the 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 uponas great guarantees of the tranquillity and happiness of the State. Butin America nothing seems to be more prejudicial to society than thesevirtues. The French Canadians, who have faithfully preserved thetraditions of their pristine manners, are already embarrassed for roomupon their small territory; and this little community, which has sorecently begun to exist, will shortly be a prey to the calamitiesincident to old nations. In Canada, the most enlightened, patriotic, and humane inhabitants make extraordinary efforts to render the peopledissatisfied with those simple enjoyments which still content it. There, the seductions of wealth are vaunted with as much zeal as the charms ofan honest but limited income in the Old World, and more exertions aremade to excite the passions of the citizens there than to calm themelsewhere. If we listen to their eulogies, we shall hear that nothing ismore praiseworthy than to exchange the pure and homely pleasures whicheven the poor man tastes in his own country for the dull delights ofprosperity under a foreign sky; to leave the patrimonial hearth andthe turf beneath which his forefathers sleep; in short, to abandon theliving 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. InAmerica too much knowledge cannot be diffused; for all knowledge, whilstit may serve him who possesses it, turns also to the advantage of thosewho are without it. New wants are not to be feared, since they can besatisfied without difficulty; the growth of human passions need not bedreaded, since all passions may find an easy and a legitimate object;nor can men be put in possession of too much freedom, since they arescarcely ever tempted to misuse their liberties. 

The American republics of the present day are like companies ofadventurers formed to explore in common the waste lands of the NewWorld, and busied in a flourishing trade. The passions which agitatethe Americans most deeply are not their political but their commercialpassions; or, to speak more correctly, they introduce the habits theycontract in business into their political life. They love order, withoutwhich affairs do not prosper; and they set an especial value upon aregular conduct, which is the foundation of a solid business; theyprefer the good sense which amasses large fortunes to that enterprisingspirit which frequently dissipates them; general ideas alarm theirminds, which are accustomed to positive calculations, and they holdpractice in more honor than theory. 

It is in America that one learns to understand the influence whichphysical prosperity exercises over political actions, and even overopinions which ought to acknowledge no sway but that of reason; and itis more especially amongst strangers that this truth is perceptible. Most of the European emigrants to the New World carry with them thatwild love of independence and of change which our calamities are so aptto engender. I sometimes met with Europeans in the United States who hadbeen obliged to leave their own country on account of their politicalopinions. They all astonished me by the language they held, but one ofthem surprised me more than all the rest. As I was crossing one of themost remote districts of Pennsylvania I was benighted, and obligedto beg for hospitality at the gate of a wealthy planter, who was aFrenchman by birth. He bade me sit down beside his fire, and we began totalk with that freedom which befits persons who meet in the backwoods, two thousand leagues from their native country. I was aware that my hosthad been a great leveller and an ardent demagogue forty years ago, andthat his name was not unknown to fame. I was, therefore, not a littlesurprised to hear him discuss the rights of property as an economist ora landowner might have done: he spoke of the necessary gradations whichfortune establishes among men, of obedience to established laws, ofthe influence of good morals in commonwealths, and of the support whichreligious opinions give to order and to freedom; he even went to faras to quote an evangelical authority in corroboration of one of hispolitical tenets. 

I listened, and marvelled at the feebleness of human reason. Aproposition is true or false, but no art can prove it to be one or theother, in the midst of the uncertainties of science and the conflictinglessons of experience, until a new incident disperses the clouds ofdoubt; I was poor, I become rich, and I am not to expect that prosperitywill act upon my conduct, and leave my judgment free; my opinionschange with my fortune, and the happy circumstances which I turn tomy advantage furnish me with that decisive argument which was beforewanting. The influence of prosperity acts still more freely uponthe American than upon strangers. The American has always seen theconnection of public order and public prosperity, intimately unitedas they are, go on before his eyes; he does not conceive that one cansubsist without the other; he has therefore nothing to forget; norhas he, like so many Europeans, to unlearn the lessons of his earlyeducation. 

Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic--Part II

Influence Of The Laws Upon The Maintenance Of The Democratic Republic InThe United States

Three principal causes of the maintenance of the democraticrepublic--Federal Constitutions--Municipal institutions--Judicial power. 

The principal aim of this book has been to make known the laws of theUnited States; if this purpose has been accomplished, the reader isalready enabled to judge for himself which are the laws that really tendto maintain the democratic republic, and which endanger its existence. If I have not succeeded in explaining this in the whole course of mywork, I cannot hope to do so within the limits of a single chapter. Itis not my intention to retrace the path I have already pursued, anda very few lines will suffice to recapitulate what I have previouslyexplained. 

Three circumstances seem to me to contribute most powerfully to themaintenance of the democratic republic in the United States. 

The first is that Federal form of Government which the Americans haveadopted, and which enables the Union to combine the power of a greatempire with the security of a small State. 

The second consists in those municipal institutions which limit thedespotism of the majority, and at the same time impart a taste forfreedom and a knowledge of the art of being free to the people. 

The third is to be met with in the constitution of the judicial power. I have shown in what manner the courts of justice serve to repress theexcesses of democracy, and how they check and direct the impulses of themajority without stopping its activity. 

Influence Of Manners Upon The Maintenance Of The Democratic Republic InThe United States

I have previously remarked that the manners of the people may beconsidered as one of the general causes to which the maintenance of ademocratic republic in the United States is attributable. I here usedthe word manners with the meaning which the ancients attached to theword mores, for I apply it not only to manners in their proper sense ofwhat constitutes the character of social intercourse, but I extend it tothe various notions and opinions current among men, and to the massof those ideas which constitute their character of mind. I comprise, therefore, under this term the whole moral and intellectual condition ofa people. My intention is not to draw a picture of American manners, but simply to point out such features of them as are favorable to themaintenance of political institutions. 

Religion Considered As A Political Institution, Which PowerfullyContributes To The Maintenance Of The Democratic Republic Amongst TheAmericans

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 presenttime. 

Every religion is to be found in juxtaposition to a political opinionwhich is connected with it by affinity. If the human mind be leftto follow its own bent, it will regulate the temporal and spiritualinstitutions of society upon one uniform principle; and man willendeavor, if I may use the expression, to harmonize the state in whichhe lives upon earth with the state which he believes to await him inheaven. The greatest part of British America was peopled by men who, after having shaken off the authority of the Pope, acknowledged no otherreligious supremacy; they brought with them into the New World a formof Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it ademocratic and republican religion. This sect contributed powerfully tothe establishment of a democracy and a republic, and from the earliestsettlement of the emigrants politics and religion contracted an alliancewhich has never been dissolved. 

About fifty years ago Ireland began to pour a Catholic population intothe United States; on the other hand, the Catholics of America madeproselytes, and at the present moment more than a million of Christiansprofessing the truths of the Church of Rome are to be met with inthe Union. *d The Catholics are faithful to the observances of theirreligion; they are fervent and zealous in the support and belief oftheir doctrines. Nevertheless they constitute the most republican andthe most democratic class of citizens which exists in the United States;and although this fact may surprise the observer at first, the causes bywhich it is occasioned may easily be discovered upon reflection. 

[Footnote d: [It is difficult to ascertain with accuracy the amount ofthe Roman Catholic population of the United States, but in 1868 an ablewriter in the "Edinburgh Review" (vol. Cxxvii. P. 521) affirmed that thewhole Catholic population of the United States was then about 4, 000, 000, divided into 43 dioceses, with 3, 795 churches, under the care of 45bishops and 2, 317 clergymen. But this rapid increase is mainly supportedby immigration from the Catholic countries of Europe. ]]

I think that the Catholic religion has erroneously been looked upon asthe natural enemy of democracy. Amongst the various sects of Christians, Catholicism seems to me, on the contrary, to be one of those which aremost favorable to the equality of conditions. In the Catholic Church, the religious community is composed of only two elements, the priest andthe people. The priest alone rises above the rank of his flock, and allbelow him are equal. 

On doctrinal points the Catholic faith places all human capacities uponthe same level; it subjects the wise and ignorant, the man of genius andthe vulgar crowd, to the details of the same creed; it imposes the sameobservances upon the rich and needy, it inflicts the same austeritiesupon the strong and the weak, it listens to no compromise with mortalman, but, reducing all the human race to the same standard, it confoundsall the distinctions of society at the foot of the same altar, even asthey are confounded in the sight of God. If Catholicism predisposesthe faithful to obedience, it certainly does not prepare them forinequality; but the contrary may be said of Protestantism, whichgenerally tends to make men independent, more than to render them equal. 

Catholicism is like an absolute monarchy; if the sovereign be removed, all the other classes of society are more equal than they are inrepublics. It has not unfrequently occurred that the Catholic priesthas left the service of the altar to mix with the governing powers ofsociety, and to take his place amongst the civil gradations of men. Thisreligious influence has sometimes been used to secure the interestsof that political state of things to which he belonged. At other timesCatholics have taken the side of aristocracy from a spirit of religion. 

But no sooner is the priesthood entirely separated from the government, as is the case in the United States, than is found that no class of menare more naturally disposed than the Catholics to transfuse the doctrineof the equality of conditions into the political world. If, then, theCatholic citizens of the United States are not forcibly led by thenature of their tenets to adopt democratic and republican principles, at least they are not necessarily opposed to them; and their socialposition, as well as their limited number, obliges them to adopt theseopinions. Most of the Catholics are poor, and they have no chance oftaking a part in the government unless it be open to all the citizens. They constitute a minority, and all rights must be respected in orderto insure to them the free exercise of their own privileges. These twocauses induce them, unconsciously, to adopt political doctrines, which they would perhaps support with less zeal if they were rich andpreponderant. 

The Catholic clergy of the United States has never attempted to opposethis political tendency, but it seeks rather to justify its results. Thepriests in America have divided the intellectual world into two parts:in the one they place the doctrines of revealed religion, which commandtheir assent; in the other they leave those truths which they believe tohave been freely left open to the researches of political inquiry. Thus the Catholics of the United States are at the same time the mostfaithful believers and the most zealous citizens. 

It may be asserted that in the United States no religious doctrinedisplays the slightest hostility to democratic and republicaninstitutions. The clergy of all the different sects hold the samelanguage, their opinions are consonant to the laws, and the humanintellect flows onwards in one sole current. 

I happened to be staying in one of the largest towns in the Union, whenI was invited to attend a public meeting which had been called for thepurpose of assisting the Poles, and of sending them supplies of arms andmoney. I found two or three thousand persons collected in a vast hallwhich had been prepared to receive them. In a short time a priest inhis ecclesiastical robes advanced to the front of the hustings: thespectators rose, and stood uncovered, whilst he spoke in the followingterms:--

"Almighty God! the God of Armies! Thou who didst strengthen the heartsand guide the arms of our fathers when they were fighting for the sacredrights of national independence; Thou who didst make them triumph overa hateful oppression, and hast granted to our people the benefitsof liberty and peace; Turn, O Lord, a favorable eye upon the otherhemisphere; pitifully look down upon that heroic nation which is evennow struggling as we did in the former time, and for the same rightswhich we defended with our blood. Thou, who didst create Man in thelikeness of the same image, let not tyranny mar Thy work, and establishinequality upon the earth. Almighty God! do Thou watch over the destinyof the Poles, and render them worthy to be free. May Thy wisdom directtheir councils, and may Thy strength sustain their arms! Shed forth Thyterror over their enemies, scatter the powers which take counsel againstthem; and vouchsafe that the injustice which the world has witnessed forfifty years, be not consummated in our time. O Lord, who holdest alikethe hearts of nations and of men in Thy powerful hand; raise up alliesto the sacred cause of right; arouse the French nation from the apathyin which its rulers retain it, that it go forth again to fight for theliberties 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. AlmightyGod, hear our supplications this day. Save the Poles, we beseech Thee, in the name of Thy well-beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who diedupon the cross for the salvation of men. Amen. "

The whole meeting responded "Amen!" with devotion. 

Indirect Influence Of Religious Opinions Upon Political Society In TheUnited States

Christian morality common to all sects--Influence of religion upon themanners of the Americans--Respect for the marriage tie--In what mannerreligion confines the imagination of the Americans within certainlimits, and checks the passion of innovation--Opinion of the Americanson the political utility of religion--Their exertions to extend andsecure its predominance. 

I have just shown what the direct influence of religion upon politicsis in the United States, but its indirect influence appears to me to bestill more considerable, and it never instructs the Americans more fullyin the art of being free than when it says nothing of freedom. 

The sects which exist in the United States are innumerable. They alldiffer in respect to the worship which is due from man to his Creator, but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man toman. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but allthe sects preach the same moral law in the name of God. If it be of thehighest importance to man, as an individual, that his religion should betrue, the case of society is not the same. Society has no future life tohope for or to fear; and provided the citizens profess a religion, thepeculiar tenets of that religion are of very little importance to itsinterests. Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States arecomprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian moralityis everywhere the same. 

It may be believed without unfairness that a certain number of Americanspursue a peculiar form of worship, from habit more than from conviction. In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, andconsequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in thewhole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influenceover the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proofof its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that itsinfluence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and freenation of the earth. 

I have remarked that the members of the American clergy in general, without even excepting those who do not admit religious liberty, areall in favor of civil freedom; but they do not support any particularpolitical system. They keep aloof from parties and from public affairs. In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon thelaws and upon the details of public opinion, but it directs the mannersof the community, and by regulating domestic life it regulates theState. 

I do not question that the great austerity of manners which isobservable in the United States, arises, in the first instance, fromreligious faith. Religion is often unable to restrain man from thenumberless temptations of fortune; nor can it check that passion forgain which every incident of his life contributes to arouse, butits influence over the mind of woman is supreme, and women are theprotectors of morals. There is certainly no country in the worldwhere the tie of marriage is so much respected as in America, or whereconjugal 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 ofhome, is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, andthe evil of fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passionswhich frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by theobedience which the legislative powers of the State exact. But when theAmerican retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of hisfamily, he finds in it the image of order and of peace. There hispleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm; andas he finds that an orderly life is the surest path to happiness, heaccustoms himself without difficulty to moderate his opinions as wellas his tastes. Whilst the European endeavors to forget his domestictroubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own homethat love of order which he afterwards carries with him into publicaffairs. 

In the United States the influence of religion is not confined to themanners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people. Amongstthe Anglo-Americans, there are some who profess the doctrines ofChristianity from a sincere belief in them, and others who do the samebecause they are afraid to be suspected of unbelief. Christianity, therefore, reigns without any obstacle, by universal consent; theconsequence is, as I have before observed, that every principle of themoral world is fixed and determinate, although the political world isabandoned to the debates and the experiments of men. Thus the human mindis never left to wander across a boundless field; and, whatever may beits pretensions, it is checked from time to time by barriers which itcannot surmount. Before it can perpetrate innovation, certain primal andimmutable principles are laid down, and the boldest conceptions ofhuman device are subjected to certain forms which retard and stop theircompletion. 

The imagination of the Americans, even in its greatest flights, iscircumspect and undecided; its impulses are checked, and its worksunfinished. These habits of restraint recur in political society, andare singularly favorable both to the tranquillity of the people andto the durability of the institutions it has established. Nature andcircumstances concurred to make the inhabitants of the United Statesbold men, as is sufficiently attested by the enterprising spirit withwhich they seek for fortune. If the mind of the Americans were free fromall trammels, they would very shortly become the most daring innovatorsand the most implacable disputants in the world. But the revolutionistsof America are obliged to profess an ostensible respect for Christianmorality and equity, which does not easily permit them to violate thelaws that oppose their designs; nor would they find it easy to surmountthe scruples of their partisans, even if they were able to get overtheir own. Hitherto no one in the United States has dared to advance themaxim, that everything is permissible with a view to the interests ofsociety; an impious adage which seems to have been invented in an age offreedom to shelter all the tyrants of future ages. Thus whilst the lawpermits the Americans to do what they please, religion prevents themfrom conceiving, and forbids them to commit, what is rash or unjust. 

Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the politicalinstitutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste forfreedom, it facilitates the use of free institutions. Indeed, it isin this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United Statesthemselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all theAmericans have a sincere faith in their religion, for who can search thehuman heart? but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable tothe maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiarto 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 maynot prevent even the partisans of that very sect from supporting him;but if he attacks all the sects together, everyone abandons him, and heremains alone. 

Whilst I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at theassizes of the county of Chester (State of New York), declared that hedid not believe in the existence of God, or in the immortality of thesoul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that thewitness had destroyed beforehand all the confidence of the Court inwhat he was about to say. *e The newspapers related the fact without anyfurther comment. 

[Footnote e: The New York "Spectator" of August 23, 1831, relates thefact in the following terms:--"The Court of Common Pleas of Chestercounty (New York) a few days since rejected a witness who declared hisdisbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked thathe had not before been aware that there was a man living who did notbelieve in the existence of God; that this belief constituted thesanction of all testimony in a court of justice, and that he knew ofno cause in a Christian country where a witness had been permitted totestify without such belief. "]

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty sointimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceivethe one without the other; and with them this conviction does not springfrom that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soulrather than to live. 

I have known of societies formed by the Americans to send out ministersof the Gospel into the new Western States to found schools and churchesthere, lest religion should be suffered to die away in those remotesettlements, and the rising States be less fitted to enjoy freeinstitutions than the people from which they emanated. I met withwealthy New Englanders who abandoned the country in which they were bornin order to lay the foundations of Christianity and of freedom on thebanks of the Missouri, or in the prairies of Illinois. Thus religiouszeal is perpetually stimulated in the United States by the duties ofpatriotism. These men do not act from an exclusive consideration of thepromises of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotionto the cause; and if you converse with these missionaries of Christiancivilization, you will be surprised to find how much value they set uponthe goods of this world, and that you meet with a politician where youexpected to find a priest. They will tell you that "all the Americanrepublics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics ofthe West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of theAtlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is, therefore, our interestthat the new States should be religious, in order to maintain ourliberties. "

Such are the opinions of the Americans, and if any hold that thereligious spirit which I admire is the very thing most amiss in America, and that the only element wanting to the freedom and happiness of thehuman race is to believe in some blind cosmogony, or to assert withCabanis the secretion of thought by the brain, I can only reply thatthose who hold this language have never been in America, and that theyhave never seen a religious or a free nation. When they return fromtheir expedition, we shall hear what they have to say. 

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, whateverbe the colors they wear: it is not to these that I address myself. Butthere are others who look forward to the republican form of governmentas a tranquil and lasting state, towards which modern society is dailyimpelled by the ideas and manners of the time, and who sincerely desireto prepare men to be free. When these men attack religious opinions, they obey the dictates of their passions to the prejudice of theirinterests. Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they set forth inglowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; and it is moreneeded in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possiblethat society should escape destruction if the moral tie be notstrengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? and what canbe done with a people which is its own master, if it be not submissiveto the Divinity?

Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic--Part III

Principal Causes Which Render Religion Powerful In America Care takenby the Americans to separate the Church from the State--The laws, publicopinion, and even the exertions of the clergy concur to promotethis end--Influence of religion upon the mind in the United Statesattributable to this cause--Reason of this--What is the natural state ofmen with regard to religion at the present time--What are the peculiarand incidental causes which prevent men, in certain countries, fromarriving at this state. 

The philosophers of the eighteenth century explained the gradual decayof religious faith in a very simple manner. Religious zeal, said they, must necessarily fail, the more generally liberty is established andknowledge diffused. Unfortunately, facts are by no means in accordancewith their theory. There are certain populations in Europe whoseunbelief is only equalled by their ignorance and their debasement, whilst in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in theworld fulfils all the outward duties of religious fervor. 

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of thecountry was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer Istayed there the more did I perceive the great political consequencesresulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. InFrance I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spiritof freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but inAmerica I found that they were intimately united, and that they reignedin common over the same country. My desire to discover the causes ofthis phenomenon increased from day to day. In order to satisfy it Iquestioned the members of all the different sects; and I more especiallysought the society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of thedifferent persuasions, and who are more especially interested intheir duration. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church I was moreparticularly brought into contact with several of its priests, withwhom I became intimately acquainted. To each of these men I expressed myastonishment and I explained my doubts; I found that they differed uponmatters of detail alone; and that they mainly attributed the peacefuldominion of religion in their country to the separation of Church andState. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I didnot meet with a single individual, of the clergy or of the laity, whowas not of the same opinion upon this point. 

This led me to examine more attentively than I had hitherto done, thestation which the American clergy occupy in political society. I learnedwith surprise that they filled no public appointments; *f not one ofthem is to be met with in the administration, and they are not evenrepresented in the legislative assemblies. In several States *g the lawexcludes them from political life, public opinion in all. And when Icame to inquire into the prevailing spirit of the clergy I found thatmost of its members seemed to retire of their own accord from theexercise of power, and that they made it the pride of their professionto abstain from politics. 

[Footnote f: Unless this term be applied to the functions which manyof them fill in the schools. Almost all education is entrusted to theclergy. ]

[Footnote g: See the Constitution of New York, art. 7, Section 4:-- "Andwhereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicatedto the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to bediverted from the great duties of their functions: therefore no ministerof the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall at anytime hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligibleto, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place withinthis 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 whateverpolitical opinions these vices might chance to lurk; but I learnedfrom their discourses that men are not guilty in the eye of God for anyopinions concerning political government which they may profess withsincerity, any more than they are for their mistakes in building a houseor in driving a furrow. I perceived that these ministers of the gospeleschewed all parties with the anxiety attendant upon personal interest. These facts convinced me that what I had been told was true; and itthen became my object to investigate their causes, and to inquire how ithappened that the real authority of religion was increased by a stateof things which diminished its apparent force: these causes did not longescape my researches. 

The short space of threescore years can never content the imaginationof man; nor can the imperfect joys of this world satisfy his heart. Manalone, of all created beings, displays a natural contempt of existence, and yet a boundless desire to exist; he scorns life, but he dreadsannihilation. These different feelings incessantly urge his soul tothe contemplation of a future state, and religion directs his musingsthither. Religion, then, is simply another form of hope; and it is noless natural to the human heart than hope itself. Men cannot abandontheir religious faith without a kind of aberration of intellect, anda sort of violent distortion of their true natures; but they areinvincibly brought back to more pious sentiments; for unbelief is anaccident, and faith is the only permanent state of mankind. If we onlyconsider religious institutions in a purely human point of view, theymay be said to derive an inexhaustible element of strength from manhimself, since they belong to one of the constituent principles of humannature. 

I am aware that at certain times religion may strengthen this influence, which originates in itself, by the artificial power of the laws, andby the support of those temporal institutions which direct society. Religions, intimately united to the governments of the earth, have beenknown to exercise a sovereign authority derived from the twofold sourceof terror and of faith; but when a religion contracts an alliance ofthis nature, I do not hesitate to affirm that it commits the same erroras a man who should sacrifice his future to his present welfare; andin obtaining a power to which it has no claim, it risks that authoritywhich is rightfully its own. When a religion founds its empire upon thedesire of immortality which lives in every human heart, it may aspireto universal dominion; but when it connects itself with a government, it must necessarily adopt maxims which are only applicable to certainnations. Thus, in forming an alliance with a political power, religionaugments its authority over a few, and forfeits the hope of reigningover all. 

As long as a religion rests upon those sentiments which are theconsolation of all affliction, it may attract the affections of mankind. But if it be mixed up with the bitter passions of the world, it may beconstrained to defend allies whom its interests, and not the principleof love, have given to it; or to repel as antagonists men who are stillattached to its own spirit, however opposed they may be to the powersto which it is allied. The Church cannot share the temporal power of theState without being the object of a portion of that animosity which thelatter excites. 

The political powers which seem to be most firmly established havefrequently no better guarantee for their duration than the opinions ofa generation, the interests of the time, or the life of an individual. A law may modify the social condition which seems to be most fixed anddeterminate; and with the social condition everything else must change. The powers of society are more or less fugitive, like the years whichwe spend upon the earth; they succeed each other with rapidity, like thefleeting cares of life; and no government has ever yet been founded uponan invariable disposition of the human heart, or upon an imperishableinterest. 

As long as a religion is sustained by those feelings, propensities, and passions which are found to occur under the same forms, at all thedifferent periods of history, it may defy the efforts of time; or atleast it can only be destroyed by another religion. But when religionclings to the interests of the world, it becomes almost as fragile athing as the powers of earth. It is the only one of them all whichcan hope for immortality; but if it be connected with their ephemeralauthority, it shares their fortunes, and may fall with those transientpassions which supported them for a day. The alliance which religioncontracts with political powers must needs be onerous to itself; sinceit does not require their assistance to live, and by giving them itsassistance to live, and by giving them its assistance it may be exposedto decay. 

The danger which I have just pointed out always exists, but it isnot always equally visible. In some ages governments seem to beimperishable; in others, the existence of society appears to be moreprecarious than the life of man. Some constitutions plunge thecitizens into a lethargic somnolence, and others rouse them to feverishexcitement. When governments appear to be so strong, and laws so stable, men do not perceive the dangers which may accrue from a union of Churchand State. When governments display so much weakness, and laws so muchinconstancy, the danger is self-evident, but it is no longer possibleto avoid it; to be effectual, measures must be taken to discover itsapproach. 

In proportion as a nation assumes a democratic condition of society, andas communities display democratic propensities, it becomes more and moredangerous to connect religion with political institutions; for thetime is coming when authority will be bandied from hand to hand, whenpolitical theories will succeed each other, and when men, laws, andconstitutions will disappear, or be modified from day to day, and this, not for a season only, but unceasingly. Agitation and mutability areinherent in the nature of democratic republics, just as stagnation andinertness are the law of absolute monarchies. 

If the Americans, who change the head of the Government once infour years, who elect new legislators every two years, and renew theprovincial officers every twelvemonth; if the Americans, who haveabandoned the political world to the attempts of innovators, had notplaced religion beyond their reach, where could it abide in the ebb andflow of human opinions? where would that respect which belongs to itbe paid, amidst the struggles of faction? and what would become of itsimmortality, in the midst of perpetual decay? The American clergy werethe first to perceive this truth, and to act in conformity with it. Theysaw that they must renounce their religious influence, if they were tostrive for political power; and they chose to give up the support of theState, rather than to share its vicissitudes. 

In America, religion is perhaps less powerful than it has been atcertain periods in the history of certain peoples; but its influenceis more lasting. It restricts itself to its own resources, but of thosenone can deprive it: its circle is limited to certain principles, butthose principles are entirely its own, and under its undisputed control. 

On every side in Europe we hear voices complaining of the absence ofreligious faith, and inquiring the means of restoring to religion someremnant of its pristine authority. It seems to me that we must firstattentively consider what ought to be the natural state of men withregard to religion at the present time; and when we know what we have tohope and to fear, we may discern the end to which our efforts ought tobe directed. 

The two great dangers which threaten the existence of religions areschism and indifference. In ages of fervent devotion, men sometimesabandon their religion, but they only shake it off in order to adoptanother. Their faith changes the objects to which it is directed, butit suffers no decline. The old religion then excites enthusiasticattachment or bitter enmity in either party; some leave it with anger, others cling to it with increased devotedness, and although persuasionsdiffer, irreligion is unknown. Such, however, is not the case when areligious belief is secretly undermined by doctrines which may be termednegative, since they deny the truth of one religion without affirmingthat of any other. Progidious revolutions then take place in the humanmind, without the apparent co-operation of the passions of man, andalmost without his knowledge. Men lose the objects of their fondesthopes, as if through forgetfulness. They are carried away by animperceptible current which they have not the courage to stem, but whichthey follow with regret, since it bears them from a faith they love, toa scepticism that plunges them into despair. 

In ages which answer to this description, men desert their religiousopinions from lukewarmness rather than from dislike; they do not rejectthem, but the sentiments by which they were once fostered disappear. Butif the unbeliever does not admit religion to be true, he still considersit useful. Regarding religious institutions in a human point of view, he acknowledges their influence upon manners and legislation. He admitsthat they may serve to make men live in peace with one another, and toprepare them gently for the hour of death. He regrets the faith whichhe has lost; and as he is deprived of a treasure which he has learned toestimate at its full value, he scruples to take it from those who stillpossess it. 

On the other hand, those who continue to believe are not afraid openlyto avow their faith. They look upon those who do not share theirpersuasion as more worthy of pity than of opposition; and they are awarethat to acquire the esteem of the unbelieving, they are not obliged tofollow their example. They are hostile to no one in the world; and asthey do not consider the society in which they live as an arena in whichreligion is bound to face its thousand deadly foes, they love theircontemporaries, whilst they condemn their weaknesses and lament theirerrors. 

As those who do not believe, conceal their incredulity; and as those whobelieve, display their faith, public opinion pronounces itself in favorof religion: love, support, and honor are bestowed upon it, and it isonly by searching the human soul that we can detect the wounds which ithas received. The mass of mankind, who are never without the feelingof religion, do not perceive anything at variance with the establishedfaith. The instinctive desire of a future life brings the crowd aboutthe altar, and opens the hearts of men to the precepts and consolationsof religion. 

But this picture is not applicable to us: for there are men amongst uswho have ceased to believe in Christianity, without adopting any otherreligion; others who are in the perplexities of doubt, and who alreadyaffect not to believe; and others, again, who are afraid to avow thatChristian faith which they still cherish in secret. 

Amidst these lukewarm partisans and ardent antagonists a small number ofbelievers exist, who are ready to brave all obstacles and to scorn alldangers in defence of their faith. They have done violence to humanweakness, in order to rise superior to public opinion. Excited by theeffort they have made, they scarcely knew where to stop; and as theyknow that the first use which the French made of independence was toattack religion, they look upon their contemporaries with dread, andthey recoil in alarm from the liberty which their fellow-citizens areseeking to obtain. As unbelief appears to them to be a novelty, theycomprise all that is new in one indiscriminate animosity. They are atwar 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 thepresent day; and some extraordinary or incidental cause must be atwork in France to prevent the human mind from following its originalpropensities and to drive it beyond the limits at which it oughtnaturally to stop. I am intimately convinced that this extraordinary andincidental cause is the close connection of politics and religion. The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their politicalopponents, rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate theChristian 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 ofauthority. 

In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers ofthe earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buriedunder their ruins. The living body of religion has been bound downto the dead corpse of superannuated polity: cut but the bonds whichrestrain it, and that which is alive will rise once more. I know notwhat could restore the Christian Church of Europe to the energy of itsearlier days; that power belongs to God alone; but it may be the effectof human policy to leave the faith in the full exercise of the strengthwhich it still retains. 

How The Instruction, The Habits, And The Practical Experience Of TheAmericans Promote 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--Rapidity withwhich 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 theinfluence which the instruction and the habits of the Americans exerciseupon the maintenance of their political institutions. 

America has hitherto produced very few writers of distinction; itpossesses no great historians, and not a single eminent poet. Theinhabitants of that country look upon what are properly styled literarypursuits with a kind of disapprobation; and there are towns of verysecond-rate importance in Europe in which more literary works areannually published than in the twenty-four States of the Union puttogether. The spirit of the Americans is averse to general ideas; and itdoes not seek theoretical discoveries. Neither politics nor manufacturesdirect them to these occupations; and although new laws are perpetuallyenacted in the United States, no great writers have hitherto inquiredinto the general principles of their legislation. The Americans havelawyers and commentators, but no jurists; *h and they furnish examplesrather than lessons to the world. The same observation applies to themechanical arts. In America, the inventions of Europe are adopted withsagacity; they are perfected, and adapted with admirable skill to thewants of the country. Manufactures exist, but the science of manufactureis not cultivated; and they have good workmen, but very few inventors. Fulton was obliged to proffer his services to foreign nations for a longtime before he was able to devote them to his own country. 

[Footnote 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 ofinstruction amongst the Anglo-Americans must consider the same objectfrom two different points of view. If he only singles out the learned, he will be astonished to find how rare they are; but if he counts theignorant, the American people will appear to be the most enlightenedcommunity in the world. The whole population, as I observed in anotherplace, is situated between these two extremes. In New England, everycitizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he ismoreover taught the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, thehistory of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution. In the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts, it is extremely rare tofind a man imperfectly acquainted with all these things, and a personwholly ignorant of them is a sort of phenomenon. 

When I compare the Greek and Roman republics with these American States;the manuscript libraries of the former, and their rude population, withthe innumerable journals and the enlightened people of the latter; whenI remember all the attempts which are made to judge the modern republicsby the assistance of those of antiquity, and to infer what will happenin our time from what took place two thousand years ago, I am temptedto burn my books, in order to apply none but novel ideas to so novel acondition of society. 

What I have said of New England must not, however, be appliedindistinctly to the whole Union; as we advance towards the West or theSouth, the instruction of the people diminishes. In the States which areadjacent to the Gulf of Mexico, a certain number of individuals maybe found, as in our own countries, who are devoid of the rudiments ofinstruction. But there is not a single district in the United Statessunk in complete ignorance; and for a very simple reason: the peoplesof Europe started from the darkness of a barbarous condition, to advancetoward the light of civilization; their progress has been unequal;some of them have improved apace, whilst others have loitered in theircourse, and some have stopped, and are still sleeping upon the way. *i

[Footnote i: [In the Northern States the number of persons destitute ofinstruction is inconsiderable, the largest number being 241, 152 inthe State of New York (according to Spaulding's "Handbook of AmericanStatistics" for 1874); but in the South no less than 1, 516, 339 whitesand 2, 671, 396 colored persons are returned as "illiterate. "]]

Such has not been the case in the United States. The Anglo-Americanssettled in a state of civilization, upon that territory which theirdescendants occupy; they had not to begin to learn, and it wassufficient for them not to forget. Now the children of these sameAmericans are the persons who, year by year, transport their dwellingsinto the wilds; and with their dwellings their acquired information andtheir esteem for knowledge. Education has taught them the utility ofinstruction, and has enabled them to transmit that instruction to theirposterity. 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 no idea ofthe peculiar class which that term denotes; the ignorance of more remoteages, the simplicity of rural life, and the rusticity of the villagerhave not been preserved amongst them; and they are alike unacquaintedwith the virtues, the vices, the coarse habits, and the simple gracesof an early stage of civilization. At the extreme borders of theConfederate States, upon the confines of society and of the wilderness, a population of bold adventurers have taken up their abode, who piercethe solitudes of the American woods, and seek a country there, in orderto escape that poverty which awaited them in their native provinces. Assoon as the pioneer arrives upon the spot which is to serve him for aretreat, he fells a few trees and builds a loghouse. Nothing can offera 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 windrises, he hears the roof of boughs shake to and fro in the midst ofthe great forest trees. Who would not suppose that this poor hut is theasylum of rudeness and ignorance? Yet no sort of comparison can be drawnbetween the pioneer and the dwelling which shelters him. Everythingabout him is primitive and unformed, but he is himself the result of thelabor and the experience of eighteen centuries. He wears the dress, and he speaks the language of cities; he is acquainted with the past, curious of the future, and ready for argument upon the present; he is, in short, a highly civilized being, who consents, for a time, to inhabitthe backwoods, and who penetrates into the wilds of the New World withthe Bible, an axe, and a file of newspapers. 

It is difficult to imagine the incredible rapidity with which publicopinion circulates in the midst of these deserts. *j I do not think thatso much intellectual intercourse takes place in the most enlightenedand populous districts of France. *k It cannot be doubted that, in theUnited States, the instruction of the people powerfully contributes tothe support of a democratic republic; and such must always be the case, I believe, where instruction which awakens the understanding is notseparated from moral education which amends the heart. But I by no meansexaggerate this benefit, and I am still further from thinking, as somany people do think in Europe, that men can be instantaneously madecitizens by teaching them to read and write. True information is mainlyderived from experience; and if the Americans had not been graduallyaccustomed to govern themselves, their book-learning would not assistthem much at the present day. 

[Footnote j: I travelled along a portion of the frontier of the UnitedStates in a sort of cart which was termed the mail. We passed, day andnight, with great rapidity along the roads which were scarcely markedout, through immense forests; when the gloom of the woods becameimpenetrable the coachman lighted branches of fir, and we journeyedalong by the light they cast. From time to time we came to a hut inthe midst of the forest, which was a post-office. The mail dropped anenormous bundle of letters at the door of this isolated dwelling, andwe pursued our way at full gallop, leaving the inhabitants of theneighboring log houses to send for their share of the treasure. 

[When the author visited America the locomotive and the railroad werescarcely invented, and not yet introduced in the United States. Itis superfluous to point out the immense effect of those inventionsin extending civilization and developing the resources of that vastcontinent. In 1831 there were 51 miles of railway in the United States;in 1872 there were 60, 000 miles of railway. ]]

[Footnote k: In 1832 each inhabitant of Michigan paid a sum equivalentto 1 fr. 22 cent. (French money) to the post-office revenue, and eachinhabitant of the Floridas paid 1 fr. 5 cent. (See "National Calendar, "1833, p. 244. ) In the same year each inhabitant of the Departement duNord paid 1 fr. 4 cent. To the revenue of the French post-office. (Seethe "Compte rendu de l'administration des Finances, " 1833, p. 623. )Now the State of Michigan only contained at that time 7 inhabitantsper square league and Florida only 5: the public instruction and thecommercial activity of these districts is inferior to that of most ofthe States in the Union, whilst the Departement du Nord, which contains3, 400 inhabitants per square league, is one of the most enlightened andmanufacturing parts of France. ]

I have lived a great deal with the people in the United States, and Icannot express how much I admire their experience and their good sense. An American should never be allowed to speak of Europe; for he will thenprobably display a vast deal of presumption and very foolish pride. Hewill take up with those crude and vague notions which are so useful tothe ignorant all over the world. But if you question him respecting hisown country, the cloud which dimmed his intelligence will immediatelydisperse; his language will become as clear and as precise as histhoughts. He will inform you what his rights are, and by what means heexercises them; he will be able to point out the customs which obtain inthe political world. You will find that he is well acquainted with therules of the administration, and that he is familiar with the mechanismof the laws. The citizen of the United States does not acquire hispractical science and his positive notions from books; the instructionhe has acquired may have prepared him for receiving those ideas, butit did not furnish them. The American learns to know the laws byparticipating in the act of legislation; and he takes a lesson in theforms of government from governing. The great work of society is evergoing 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 its principal object is to fit men for private life. Theinterference of the citizens in public affairs is too rare an occurrencefor it to be anticipated beforehand. Upon casting a glance over societyin the two hemispheres, these differences are indicated even by itsexternal aspect. 

In Europe we frequently introduce the ideas and the habits of privatelife into public affairs; and as we pass at once from the domesticcircle to the government of the State, we may frequently be heard todiscuss the great interests of society in the same manner in which weconverse with our friends. The Americans, on the other hand, transfusethe habits of public life into their manners in private; and in theircountry the jury is introduced into the games of schoolboys, andparliamentary forms are observed in the order of a feast. 

Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic--Part IV

The Laws Contribute More To The Maintenance Of The Democratic RepublicIn The United States Than The Physical Circumstances Of The Country, AndThe Manners More 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, which has adopted the Constitution of the United States, in the samepredicament--The Anglo-Americans of the West less able to maintain itthan those of the East--Reason of these different results. 

I have remarked that the maintenance of democratic institutions in theUnited States is attributable to the circumstances, the laws, and themanners of that country. *l Most Europeans are only acquainted withthe first of these three causes, and they are apt to give it apreponderating importance which it does not really possess. 

[Footnote l: I remind the reader of the general signification whichI give to the word "manners, " namely, the moral and intellectualcharacteristics of social man taken collectively. ]

It is true that the Anglo-Saxons settled in the New World in a state ofsocial equality; the low-born and the noble were not to be found amongstthem; and professional prejudices were always as entirely unknown as theprejudices of birth. Thus, as the condition of society was democratic, the empire of democracy was established without difficulty. But thiscircumstance is by no means peculiar to the United States; almostall the trans-Atlantic colonies were founded by men equal amongstthemselves, or who became so by inhabiting them. In no one part ofthe New World have Europeans been able to create an aristocracy. Nevertheless, democratic institutions prosper nowhere but in the UnitedStates. 

The American Union has no enemies to contend with; it stands in thewilds like an island in the ocean. But the Spaniards of South Americawere no less isolated by nature; yet their position has not relievedthem from the charge of standing armies. They make war upon each otherwhen they have no foreign enemies to oppose; and the Anglo-Americandemocracy is the only one which has hitherto been able to maintainitself in peace. *m

[Footnote m: [A remark which, since the great Civil War of 1861-65, ceases to be applicable. ]]

The territory of the Union presents a boundless field to human activity, and inexhaustible materials for industry and labor. The passion ofwealth takes the place of ambition, and the warmth of faction ismitigated by a sense of prosperity. But in what portion of the globeshall we meet with more fertile plains, with mightier rivers, or withmore unexplored and inexhaustible riches than in South America?

Nevertheless, South America has been unable to maintain democraticinstitutions. If the welfare of nations depended on their being placedin a remote position, with an unbounded space of habitable territorybefore them, the Spaniards of South America would have no reason tocomplain of their fate. And although they might enjoy less prosperitythan the inhabitants of the United States, their lot might still be suchas to excite the envy of some nations in Europe. There are, however, nonations upon the face of the earth more miserable than those of SouthAmerica. 

Thus, not only are physical causes inadequate to produce resultsanalogous to those which occur in North America, but they are unableto raise the population of South America above the level of EuropeanStates, where they act in a contrary direction. Physical causes do not, therefore, affect the destiny of nations so much as has been supposed. 

I have met with men in New England who were on the point of leaving acountry, where they might have remained in easy circumstances, to go toseek their fortune in the wilds. Not far from that district I founda French population in Canada, which was closely crowded on a narrowterritory, although the same wilds were at hand; and whilst the emigrantfrom the United States purchased an extensive estate with the earningsof a short term of labor, the Canadian paid as much for land as he wouldhave done in France. Nature offers the solitudes of the New World toEuropeans; but they are not always acquainted with the means of turningher gifts to account. Other peoples of America have the same physicalconditions of prosperity as the Anglo-Americans, but without their lawsand their manners; and these peoples are wretched. The laws and mannersof the Anglo-Americans are therefore that efficient cause of theirgreatness which is the object of my inquiry. 

I am far from supposing that the American laws are preeminently goodin themselves; I do not hold them to be applicable to all democraticpeoples; and several of them seem to be dangerous, even in the UnitedStates. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the American legislation, taken collectively, is extremely well adapted to the genius of thepeople and the nature of the country which it is intended to govern. TheAmerican laws are therefore good, and to them must be attributed a largeportion of the success which attends the government of democracy inAmerica: but I do not believe them to be the principal cause of thatsuccess; and if they seem to me to have more influence upon the socialhappiness of the Americans than the nature of the country, on the otherhand there is reason to believe that their effect is still inferior tothat 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, butis unable to accustom itself to the government of democracy. Someother cause is therefore at work, independently of those physicalcircumstances and peculiar laws which enable the democracy to rule inthe United States. 

Another still more striking proof may be adduced. Almost all theinhabitants of the territory of the Union are the descendants of acommon stock; they speak the same language, they worship God in the samemanner, they are affected by the same physical causes, and they obey thesame laws. Whence, then, do their characteristic differences arise?Why, in the Eastern States of the Union, does the republican governmentdisplay vigor and regularity, and proceed with mature deliberation?Whence does it derive the wisdom and the durability which mark its acts, whilst in the Western States, on the contrary, society seems to be ruledby the powers of chance? There, public business is conducted with anirregularity and a passionate and feverish excitement, which does notannounce a long or sure duration. 

I am no longer comparing the Anglo-American States to foreign nations;but I am contrasting them with each other, and endeavoring to discoverwhy they are so unlike. The arguments which are derived from the natureof the country and the difference of legislation are here all set aside. Recourse must be had to some other cause; and what other cause can therebe except the manners of the people?

It is in the Eastern States that the Anglo-Americans have been longestaccustomed to the government of democracy, and that they have adoptedthe habits and conceived the notions most favorable to its maintenance. Democracy has gradually penetrated into their customs, their opinions, and the forms of social intercourse; it is to be found in all thedetails of daily life equally as in the laws. In the Eastern Statesthe instruction and practical education of the people have been mostperfected, and religion has been most thoroughly amalgamated withliberty. Now these habits, opinions, customs, and convictions areprecisely the constituent elements of that which I have denominatedmanners. 

In the Western States, on the contrary, a portion of the same advantagesis still wanting. Many of the Americans of the West were born in thewoods, and they mix the ideas and the customs of savage life with thecivilization of their parents. Their passions are more intense; theirreligious morality less authoritative; and their convictions lesssecure. The inhabitants exercise no sort of control over theirfellow-citizens, for they are scarcely acquainted with each other. Thenations of the West display, to a certain extent, the inexperienceand the rude habits of a people in its infancy; for although they arecomposed of old elements, their assemblage is of recent date. 

The manners of the Americans of the United States are, then, the realcause which renders that people the only one of the American nationsthat is able to support a democratic government; and it is the influenceof manners which produces the different degrees of order and ofprosperity that may be distinguished in the several Anglo-Americandemocracies. Thus the effect which the geographical position of acountry may have upon the duration of democratic institutions isexaggerated in Europe. Too much importance is attributed to legislation, too little to manners. These three great causes serve, no doubt, toregulate and direct the American democracy; but if they were tobe classed in their proper order, I should say that the physicalcircumstances are less efficient than the laws, and the laws verysubordinate to the manners of the people. I am convinced that the mostadvantageous situation and the best possible laws cannot maintain aconstitution in spite of the manners of a country; whilst the lattermay turn the most unfavorable positions and the worst laws to someadvantage. The importance of manners is a common truth to which studyand experience incessantly direct our attention. It may be regarded asa central point in the range of human observation, and the commontermination of all inquiry. So seriously do I insist upon this head, that if I have hitherto failed in making the reader feel the importantinfluence which I attribute to the practical experience, the habits, the opinions, in short, to the manners of the Americans, upon themaintenance of their institutions, I have failed in the principal objectof my work. 

Whether Laws And Manners Are Sufficient To Maintain DemocraticInstitutions In Other Countries Besides America

The Anglo-Americans, if transported into Europe, would be obligedto modify their laws--Distinction to be made between democraticinstitutions and American institutions--Democratic laws may be conceivedbetter than, or at least different from, those which the Americandemocracy has adopted--The example of America only proves that itis possible to regulate democracy by the assistance of manners andlegislation. 

I have asserted that the success of democratic institutions in theUnited States is more intimately connected with the laws themselves, andthe manners of the people, than with the nature of the country. Butdoes it follow that the same causes would of themselves produce the sameresults, if they were put into operation elsewhere; and if the countryis no adequate substitute for laws and manners, can laws and mannersin their turn prove a substitute for the country? It will readily beunderstood that the necessary elements of a reply to this question arewanting: other peoples are to be found in the New World besides theAnglo-Americans, and as these people are affected by the same physicalcircumstances as the latter, they may fairly be compared together. Butthere are no nations out of America which have adopted the same lawsand manners, being destitute of the physical advantages peculiar to theAnglo-Americans. No standard of comparison therefore exists, and we canonly hazard an opinion upon this subject. 

It appears to me, in the first place, that a careful distinction mustbe made between the institutions of the United States and democraticinstitutions in general. When I reflect upon the state of Europe, itsmighty nations, its populous cities, its formidable armies, andthe complex nature of its politics, I cannot suppose that even theAnglo-Americans, if they were transported to our hemisphere, withtheir ideas, their religion, and their manners, could exist withoutconsiderably altering their laws. But a democratic nation may beimagined, organized differently from the American people. It is notimpossible to conceive a government really established upon the willof the majority; but in which the majority, repressing its naturalpropensity to equality, should consent, with a view to the order and thestability of the State, to invest a family or an individual with allthe prerogatives of the executive. A democratic society might exist, inwhich the forces of the nation would be more centralized than they arein the United States; the people would exercise a less direct andless irresistible influence upon public affairs, and yet every citizeninvested with certain rights would participate, within his sphere, in the conduct of the government. The observations I made amongst theAnglo-Americans induce me to believe that democratic institutions ofthis kind, prudently introduced into society, so as gradually to mixwith the habits and to be interfused with the opinions of the people, might subsist in other countries besides America. If the laws of theUnited States were the only imaginable democratic laws, or the mostperfect which it is possible to conceive, I should admit that thesuccess of those institutions affords no proof of the success ofdemocratic institutions in general, in a country less favored by naturalcircumstances. But as the laws of America appear to me to be defectivein several respects, and as I can readily imagine others of the samegeneral nature, the peculiar advantages of that country do not provethat democratic institutions cannot succeed in a nation less favored bycircumstances, if ruled by better laws. 

If human nature were different in America from what it is elsewhere; orif the social condition of the Americans engendered habits and opinionsamongst them different from those which originate in the same socialcondition in the Old World, the American democracies would affordno means of predicting what may occur in other democracies. If theAmericans displayed the same propensities as all other democraticnations, and if their legislators had relied upon the nature of thecountry and the favor of circumstances to restrain those propensitieswithin 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, withoutsharing their natural advantages. But neither of these suppositions isborne out by facts. 

In America the same passions are to be met with as in Europe; someoriginating in human nature, others in the democratic condition ofsociety. Thus in the United States I found that restlessness of heartwhich is natural to men, when all ranks are nearly equal and the chancesof elevation are the same to all. I found the democratic feeling of envyexpressed under a thousand different forms. I remarked that the peoplefrequently displayed, in the conduct of affairs, a consummate mixtureof ignorance and presumption; and I inferred that in America, menare liable to the same failings and the same absurdities as amongstourselves. But upon examining the state of society more attentively, I speedily discovered that the Americans had made great and successfulefforts to counteract these imperfections of human nature, and tocorrect the natural defects of democracy. Their divers municipal lawsappeared to me to be a means of restraining the ambition of the citizenswithin a narrow sphere, and of turning those same passions which mighthave worked havoc in the State, to the good of the township or theparish. The American legislators have succeeded to a certain extent inopposing the notion of rights to the feelings of envy; the permanenceof 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 andin their political laws. To evils which are common to all democraticpeoples they have applied remedies which none but themselves hadever thought of before; and although they were the first to make theexperiment, they have succeeded in it. 

The manners and laws of the Americans are not the only ones which maysuit a democratic people; but the Americans have shown that it would bewrong to despair of regulating democracy by the aid of manners and oflaws. If other nations should borrow this general and pregnant idea fromthe Americans, without however intending to imitate them in the peculiarapplication which they have made of it; if they should attempt to fitthemselves for that social condition, which it seems to be the will ofProvidence to impose upon the generations of this age, and so to escapefrom the despotism or the anarchy which threatens them; what reason isthere to suppose that their efforts would not be crowned with success?The organization and the establishment of democracy in Christendom isthe great political problem of the time. The Americans, unquestionably, have not resolved this problem, but they furnish useful data to thosewho undertake the task. 

Importance Of What Precedes With Respect To The State Of Europe

It may readily be discovered with what intention I undertook theforegoing inquiries. The question here discussed is interesting not onlyto the United States, but to the whole world; it concerns, not a nation, but all mankind. If those nations whose social condition is democraticcould only remain free as long as they are inhabitants of the wilds, we could not but despair of the future destiny of the human race; fordemocracy is rapidly acquiring a more extended sway, and the wilds aregradually peopled with men. If it were true that laws and manners areinsufficient to maintain democratic institutions, what refuge wouldremain open to the nations, except the despotism of a single individual?I am aware that there are many worthy persons at the present time whoare not alarmed at this latter alternative, and who are so tired ofliberty as to be glad of repose, far from those storms by which itis attended. But these individuals are ill acquainted with thehaven towards which they are bound. They are so deluded by theirrecollections, as to judge the tendency of absolute power by what it wasformerly, and not by what it might become at the present time. 

If absolute power were re-established amongst the democratic nations ofEurope, I am persuaded that it would assume a new form, and appear underfeatures unknown to our forefathers. There was a time in Europe whenthe laws and the consent of the people had invested princes with almostunlimited authority; but they scarcely ever availed themselves of it. I do not speak of the prerogatives of the nobility, of the authority ofsupreme courts of justice, of corporations and their chartered rights, or of provincial privileges, which served to break the blows of thesovereign authority, and to maintain a spirit of resistance in thenation. Independently of these political institutions--which, howeveropposed they might be to personal liberty, served to keep alive the loveof freedom in the mind of the public, and which may be esteemed to havebeen useful in this respect--the manners and opinions of the nationconfined the royal authority within barriers which were not lesspowerful, although they were less conspicuous. Religion, the affectionsof the people, the benevolence of the prince, the sense of honor, familypride, provincial prejudices, custom, and public opinion limited thepower of kings, and restrained their authority within an invisiblecircle. The constitution of nations was despotic at that time, but theirmanners were free. Princes had the right, but they had neither the meansnor the desire, of doing whatever they pleased. 

But what now remains of those barriers which formerly arrested theaggressions of tyranny? Since religion has lost its empire over thesouls of men, the most prominent boundary which divided good from evilis overthrown; the very elements of the moral world are indeterminate;the princes and the peoples of the earth are guided by chance, and nonecan define the natural limits of despotism and the bounds of license. Long revolutions have forever destroyed the respect which surrounded therulers of the State; and since they have been relieved from the burdenof public esteem, princes may henceforward surrender themselves withoutfear to the seductions of arbitrary power. 

When kings find that the hearts of their subjects are turned towardsthem, they are clement, because they are conscious of their strength, and they are chary of the affection of their people, because theaffection of their people is the bulwark of the throne. A mutualinterchange of good-will then takes place between the prince and thepeople, which resembles the gracious intercourse of domestic society. The subjects may murmur at the sovereign's decree, but they are grievedto displease him; and the sovereign chastises his subjects with thelight hand of parental affection. 

But when once the spell of royalty is broken in the tumult ofrevolution; when successive monarchs have crossed the throne, so asalternately to display to the people the weakness of their right and theharshness of their power, the sovereign is no longer regarded by any asthe Father of the State, and he is feared by all as its master. If hebe weak, he is despised; if he be strong, he is detested. He himself isfull of animosity and alarm; he finds that he is as a stranger in hisown country, and he treats his subjects like conquered enemies. 

When the provinces and the towns formed so many different nations in themidst of their common country, each of them had a will of its own, whichwas opposed to the general spirit of subjection; but now that all theparts of the same empire, after having lost their immunities, theircustoms, their prejudices, their traditions, and their names, aresubjected and accustomed to the same laws, it is not more difficult tooppress them collectively than it was formerly to oppress them singly. 

Whilst the nobles enjoyed their power, and indeed long after that powerwas lost, the honor of aristocracy conferred an extraordinary degree offorce upon their personal opposition. They afford instances of men who, notwithstanding their weakness, still entertained a high opinion oftheir personal value, and dared to cope single-handed with the effortsof the public authority. But at the present day, when all ranks are moreand more confounded, when the individual disappears in the throng, andis easily lost in the midst of a common obscurity, when the honor ofmonarchy has almost lost its empire without being succeeded by publicvirtue, and when nothing can enable man to rise above himself, who shallsay at what point the exigencies of power and the servility of weaknesswill stop?

As long as family feeling was kept alive, the antagonist of oppressionwas never alone; he looked about him, and found his clients, hishereditary friends, and his kinsfolk. If this support was wanting, hewas sustained by his ancestors and animated by his posterity. Butwhen patrimonial estates are divided, and when a few years suffice toconfound the distinctions of a race, where can family feeling be found?What force can there be in the customs of a country which has changedand is still perpetually changing, its aspect; in which every act oftyranny has a precedent, and every crime an example; in which thereis nothing so old that its antiquity can save it from destruction, andnothing so unparalleled that its novelty can prevent it from being done?What resistance can be offered by manners of so pliant a make that theyhave already often yielded? What strength can even public opinion haveretained, when no twenty persons are connected by a common tie; whennot a man, nor a family, nor chartered corporation, nor class, nor freeinstitution, has the power of representing or exerting that opinion;and when every citizen--being equally weak, equally poor, and equallydependent--has only his personal impotence to oppose to the organizedforce of the government?

The annals of France furnish nothing analogous to the condition in whichthat country might then be thrown. But it may more aptly be assimilatedto the times of old, and to those hideous eras of Roman oppression, whenthe manners of the people were corrupted, their traditions obliterated, their habits destroyed, their opinions shaken, and freedom, expelledfrom the laws, could find no refuge in the land; when nothing protectedthe citizens, and the citizens no longer protected themselves; whenhuman nature was the sport of man, and princes wearied out the clemencyof Heaven before they exhausted the patience of their subjects. Thosewho hope to revive the monarchy of Henry IV or of Louis XIV, appearto me to be afflicted with mental blindness; and when I consider thepresent condition of several European nations--a condition to which allthe others tend--I am led to believe that they will soon be left withno other alternative than democratic liberty, or the tyranny of theCaesars. *n

[Footnote n: [This prediction of the return of France to imperialdespotism, and of the true character of that despotic power, was writtenin 1832, and realized to the letter in 1852. ]]

And indeed it is deserving of consideration, whether men are to beentirely emancipated or entirely enslaved; whether their rights are tobe made equal, or wholly taken away from them. If the rulers of societywere reduced either gradually to raise the crowd to their own level, or to sink the citizens below that of humanity, would not the doubts ofmany be resolved, the consciences of many be healed, and the communityprepared to make great sacrifices with little difficulty? In that case, the gradual growth of democratic manners and institutions should beregarded, not as the best, but as the only means of preserving freedom;and without liking the government of democracy, it might be adoptedas 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 itis still more difficult to supply it with experience, and to inspireit with the feelings which it requires in order to govern well. I grantthat the caprices of democracy are perpetual; its instruments are rude;its laws imperfect. But if it were true that soon no just medium wouldexist between the empire of democracy and the dominion of a single arm, should we not rather incline towards the former than submit voluntarilyto the latter? And if complete equality be our fate, is it not better tobe levelled by free institutions than by despotic power?

Those who, after having read this book, should imagine that myintention in writing it has been to propose the laws and manners ofthe Anglo-Americans for the imitation of all democratic peoples, wouldcommit a very great mistake; they must have paid more attention to theform than to the substance of my ideas. My aim has been to show, by theexample of America, that laws, and especially manners, may exist whichwill allow a democratic people to remain free. But I am very far fromthinking that we ought to follow the example of the American democracy, and copy the means which it has employed to attain its ends; for Iam well aware of the influence which the nature of a country and itspolitical precedents exercise upon a constitution; and I should regardit as a great misfortune for mankind if liberty were to exist all overthe world under 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 tothe citizens those ideas and sentiments which first prepare themfor freedom, and afterwards allow them to enjoy it, there will be noindependence at all, either for the middling classes or the nobility, for the poor or for the rich, but an equal tyranny over all; and Iforesee that if the peaceable empire of the majority be not foundedamongst us in time, we shall sooner or later arrive at the unlimitedauthority of a single despot. 

Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races In The United States--Part I

The Present And Probable Future Condition Of The Three Races WhichInhabit The Territory 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 mannersof the American democracy. Here I might stop; but the reader wouldperhaps feel that I had not satisfied his expectations. 

The absolute supremacy of democracy is not all that we meet with inAmerica; the inhabitants of the New World may be considered from morethan one point of view. In the course of this work my subject has oftenled me to speak of the Indians and the Negroes; but I have never beenable to stop in order to show what place these two races occupy in themidst of the democratic people whom I was engaged in describing. I havementioned in what spirit, and according to what laws, the Anglo-AmericanUnion was formed; but I could only glance at the dangers which menacethat confederation, whilst it was equally impossible for me to give adetailed account of its chances of duration, independently of its lawsand manners. When speaking of the united republican States, I hazardedno conjectures upon the permanence of republican forms in the New World, and when making frequent allusion to the commercial activity whichreigns in the Union, I was unable to inquire into the future conditionof the Americans as a commercial people. 

These topics are collaterally connected with my subject without forminga part of it; they are American without being democratic; and to portraydemocracy has been my principal aim. It was therefore necessary topostpone these questions, which I now take up as the proper terminationof my work. 

The territory now occupied or claimed by the American Union spreads fromthe shores of the Atlantic to those of the Pacific Ocean. On the eastand west its limits are those of the continent itself. On the south itadvances nearly to the tropic, and it extends upwards to the icy regionsof the North. The human beings who are scattered over this space do notform, as in Europe, so many branches of the same stock. Three races, naturally distinct, and, I might almost say, hostile to each other, arediscoverable amongst them at the first glance. Almost insurmountablebarriers had been raised between them by education and by law, as wellas by their origin and outward characteristics; but fortune has broughtthem together on the same soil, where, although they are mixed, they donot 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, isthe white or European, the man pre-eminent; and in subordinate grades, the negro and the Indian. These two unhappy races have nothing incommon; neither birth, nor features, nor language, nor habits. Theironly resemblance lies in their misfortunes. Both of them occupy aninferior rank in the country they inhabit; both suffer from tyranny; andif their wrongs are not the same, they originate, at any rate, with thesame authors. 

If we reasoned from what passes in the world, we should almost say thatthe European is to the other races of mankind, what man is to the loweranimals;--he makes them subservient to his use; and when he cannotsubdue, he destroys them. Oppression has, at one stroke, deprived thedescendants of the Africans of almost all the privileges of humanity. The negro of the United States has lost all remembrance of his country;the language which his forefathers spoke is never heard around him; heabjured their religion and forgot their customs when he ceased to belongto Africa, without acquiring any claim to European privileges. But heremains half way between the two communities; sold by the one, repulsedby the other; finding not a spot in the universe to call by the nameof country, except the faint image of a home which the shelter of hismaster'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 fromthe moment of their birth. Am I to call it a proof of God's mercy ora visitation of his wrath, that man in certain states appears to beinsensible to his extreme wretchedness, and almost affects, with adepraved taste, the cause of his misfortunes? The negro, who is plungedin this abyss of evils, scarcely feels his own calamitous situation. Violence made him a slave, and the habit of servitude gives him thethoughts and desires of a slave; he admires his tyrants more than hehates them, and finds his joy and his pride in the servile imitation ofthose who oppress him: his understanding is degraded to the level of hissoul. 

The negro enters upon slavery as soon as he is born: nay, he may havebeen purchased in the womb, and have begun his slavery before he beganhis existence. Equally devoid of wants and of enjoyment, and useless tohimself, he learns, with his first notions of existence, that he is theproperty of another, who has an interest in preserving his life, andthat the care of it does not devolve upon himself; even the power ofthought appears to him a useless gift of Providence, and he quietlyenjoys the privileges of his debasement. If he becomes free, independence is often felt by him to be a heavier burden than slavery;for having learned, in the course of his life, to submit to everythingexcept reason, he is too much unacquainted with her dictates to obeythem. A thousand new desires beset him, and he is destitute of theknowledge and energy necessary to resist them: these are masters whichit is necessary to contend with, and he has learnt only to submit andobey. In short, he sinks to such a depth of wretchedness, that whileservitude brutalizes, liberty destroys him. 

Oppression has been no less fatal to the Indian than to the negro race, but its effects are different. Before the arrival of white men in theNew World, the inhabitants of North America lived quietly in theirwoods, enduring the vicissitudes and practising the virtues and vicescommon to savage nations. The Europeans, having dispersed the Indiantribes and driven them into the deserts, condemned them to a wanderinglife full of inexpressible sufferings. 

Savage nations are only controlled by opinion and by custom. When theNorth American Indians had lost the sentiment of attachment to theircountry; when their families were dispersed, their traditions obscured, and the chain of their recollections broken; when all their habits werechanged, and their wants increased beyond measure, European tyrannyrendered them more disorderly and less civilized than they were before. The moral and physical condition of these tribes continually grewworse, and they became more barbarous as they became more wretched. Nevertheless, the Europeans have not been able to metamorphose thecharacter of the Indians; and though they have had power to destroythem, they have never been able to make them submit to the rules ofcivilized society. 

The lot of the negro is placed on the extreme limit of servitude, whilethat of the Indian lies on the uttermost verge of liberty; and slaverydoes not produce more fatal effects upon the first, than independenceupon the second. The negro has lost all property in his own person, andhe cannot dispose of his existence without committing a sort of fraud:but the savage is his own master as soon as he is able to act; parentalauthority is scarcely known to him; he has never bent his will tothat of any of his kind, nor learned the difference between voluntaryobedience and a shameful subjection; and the very name of law is unknownto him. To be free, with him, signifies to escape from all the shacklesof society. As he delights in this barbarous independence, and wouldrather perish than sacrifice the least part of it, civilization haslittle power over him. 

The negro makes a thousand fruitless efforts to insinuate himselfamongst men who repulse him; he conforms to the tastes of hisoppressors, adopts their opinions, and hopes by imitating them to form apart of their community. Having been told from infancy that his race isnaturally inferior to that of the whites, he assents to the propositionand is ashamed of his own nature. In each of his features he discoversa trace of slavery, and, if it were in his power, he would willingly ridhimself of everything that makes him what he is. 

The Indian, on the contrary, has his imagination inflated with thepretended nobility of his origin, and lives and dies in the midst ofthese dreams of pride. Far from desiring to conform his habits to ours, he loves his savage life as the distinguishing mark of his race, and herepels every advance to civilization, less perhaps from the hatred whichhe entertains for it, than from a dread of resembling the Europeans. *a While he has nothing to oppose to our perfection in the arts butthe resources of the desert, to our tactics nothing but undisciplinedcourage; whilst our well-digested plans are met by the spontaneousinstincts of savage life, who can wonder if he fails in this unequalcontest?

[Footnote a: The native of North America retains his opinions and themost insignificant of his habits with a degree of tenacity which hasno parallel in history. For more than two hundred years the wanderingtribes of North America have had daily intercourse with the whites, andthey have never derived from them either a custom or an idea. Yet theEuropeans have exercised a powerful influence over the savages: theyhave made them more licentious, but not more European. In the summer of1831 I happened to be beyond Lake Michigan, at a place called Green Bay, which serves as the extreme frontier between the United States and theIndians on the north-western side. Here I became acquainted with anAmerican officer, Major H. , who, after talking to me at length on theinflexibility of the Indian character, related the following fact:--"Iformerly knew a young Indian, " said he, "who had been educated at acollege in New England, where he had greatly distinguished himself, andhad acquired the external appearance of a member of civilized society. When the war broke out between ourselves and the English in 1810, I sawthis young man again; he was serving in our army, at the head of thewarriors of his tribe, for the Indians were admitted amongst the ranksof the Americans, upon condition that they would abstain from theirhorrible custom of scalping their victims. On the evening of the battleof . . . , C. Came and sat himself down by the fire of our bivouac. Iasked him what had been his fortune that day: he related his exploits;and growing warm and animated by the recollection of them, he concludedby suddenly opening the breast of his coat, saying, 'You must not betrayme--see here!' And I actually beheld, " said the Major, "between his bodyand his shirt, the skin and hair of an English head, still dripping withgore. "]

The negro, who earnestly desires to mingle his race with that of theEuropean, cannot effect if; while the Indian, who might succeed to acertain extent, disdains to make the attempt. The servility of the onedooms him to slavery, the pride of the other to death. 

I remember that while I was travelling through the forests which stillcover the State of Alabama, I arrived one day at the log house of apioneer. I did not wish to penetrate into the dwelling of the American, but retired to rest myself for a while on the margin of a spring, whichwas not far off, in the woods. While I was in this place (which wasin the neighborhood of the Creek territory), an Indian woman appeared, followed by a negress, and holding by the hand a little white girl offive or six years old, whom I took to be the daughter of the pioneer. A sort of barbarous luxury set off the costume of the Indian; ringsof metal were hanging from her nostrils and ears; her hair, which wasadorned with glass beads, fell loosely upon her shoulders; and I sawthat she was not married, for she still wore that necklace of shellswhich the bride always deposits on the nuptial couch. The negresswas clad in squalid European garments. They all three came and seatedthemselves upon the banks of the fountain; and the young Indian, takingthe child in her arms, lavished upon her such fond caresses as mothersgive; while the negress endeavored by various little artifices toattract the attention of the young Creole. 

The child displayed in her slightest gestures a consciousness ofsuperiority which formed a strange contrast with her infantine weakness;as if she received the attentions of her companions with a sort ofcondescension. The negress was seated on the ground before her mistress, watching her smallest desires, and apparently divided between strongaffection for the child and servile fear; whilst the savage displayed, in the midst of her tenderness, an air of freedom and of pride which wasalmost ferocious. I had approached the group, and I contemplated them insilence; but my curiosity was probably displeasing to the Indian woman, for she suddenly rose, pushed the child roughly from her, and givingme an angry look plunged into the thicket. I had often chanced to seeindividuals met together in the same place, who belonged to the threeraces of men which people North America. I had perceived from manydifferent results the preponderance of the whites. But in the picturewhich I have just been describing there was something peculiarlytouching; a bond of affection here united the oppressors with theoppressed, and the effort of nature to bring them together renderedstill more striking the immense distance placed between them byprejudice and by law. 

The Present And Probable Future Condition Of The Indian Tribes WhichInhabit The Territory Possessed By The Union

Gradual disappearance of the native tribes--Manner in which it takesplace--Miseries accompanying the forced migrations of the Indians--Thesavages of North America had only two ways of escaping destruction; waror civilization--They are no longer able to make war--Reasons why theyrefused to become civilized when it was in their power, and why theycannot become so now that they desire it--Instance of the Creeks andCherokees--Policy of the particular States towards these Indians--Policyof the Federal Government. 

None of the Indian tribes which formerly inhabited the territory of NewEngland--the Naragansetts, the Mohicans, the Pecots--have any existencebut in the recollection of man. The Lenapes, who received William Penn, a hundred and fifty years ago, upon the banks of the Delaware, havedisappeared; and I myself met with the last of the Iroquois, who werebegging alms. The nations I have mentioned formerly covered the countryto the sea-coast; but a traveller at the present day must penetrate morethan a hundred leagues into the interior of the continent to find anIndian. Not only have these wild tribes receded, but they are destroyed;*b and as they give way or perish, an immense and increasing peoplefills their place. There is no instance upon record of so prodigious agrowth, or so rapid a destruction: the manner in which the latter changetakes place is not difficult to describe. 

[Footnote b: In the thirteen original States there are only 6, 273Indians remaining. (See Legislative Documents, 20th Congress, No. 117, p. 90. ) [The decrease in now far greater, and is verging on extinction. See page 360 of this volume. ]]

When the Indians were the sole inhabitants of the wilds from whence theyhave since been expelled, their wants were few. Their arms were of theirown manufacture, their only drink was the water of the brook, and theirclothes consisted of the skins of animals, whose flesh furnished themwith food. 

The Europeans introduced amongst the savages of North America fire-arms, ardent spirits, and iron: they taught them to exchange for manufacturedstuffs, the rough garments which had previously satisfied theiruntutored simplicity. Having acquired new tastes, without the arts bywhich they could be gratified, the Indians were obliged to have recourseto the workmanship of the whites; but in return for their productionsthe savage had nothing to offer except the rich furs which stillabounded in his woods. Hence the chase became necessary, not merely toprovide for his subsistence, but in order to procure the only objectsof barter which he could furnish to Europe. *c Whilst the wants of thenatives were thus increasing, their resources continued to diminish. 

[Footnote c: Messrs. Clarke and Cass, in their Report to Congress onFebruary 4, 1829, p. 23, expressed themselves thus:--"The time whenthe Indians generally could supply themselves with food and clothing, without any of the articles of civilized life, has long since passedaway. The more remote tribes, beyond the Mississippi, who live whereimmense herds of buffalo are yet to be found and who follow thoseanimals in their periodical migrations, could more easily than anyothers recur to the habits of their ancestors, and live without thewhite man or any of his manufactures. But the buffalo is constantlyreceding. The smaller animals, the bear, the deer, the beaver, theotter, the muskrat, etc. , principally minister to the comfort andsupport of the Indians; and these cannot be taken without guns, ammunition, and traps. Among the Northwestern Indians particularly, thelabor of supplying a family with food is excessive. Day after day isspent by the hunter without success, and during this interval his familymust subsist upon bark or roots, or perish. Want and misery are aroundthem and among them. Many die every winter from actual starvation. "

The Indians will not live as Europeans live, and yet they can neithersubsist without them, nor exactly after the fashion of their fathers. This is demonstrated by a fact which I likewise give upon officialauthority. Some Indians of a tribe on the banks of Lake Superior hadkilled a European; the American government interdicted all trafficwith the tribe to which the guilty parties belonged, until they weredelivered up to justice. This measure had the desired effect. ]

From the moment when a European settlement is formed in the neighborhoodof the territory occupied by the Indians, the beasts of chase take thealarm. *d Thousands of savages, wandering in the forests and destituteof any fixed dwelling, did not disturb them; but as soon as thecontinuous sounds of European labor are heard in their neighborhood, they begin to flee away, and retire to the West, where their instinctteaches them that they will find deserts of immeasurable extent. "Thebuffalo is constantly receding, " say Messrs. Clarke and Cass in theirReport of the year 1829; "a few years since they approached the baseof the Alleghany; and a few years hence they may even be rare upon theimmense plains which extend to the base of the Rocky Mountains. " I havebeen assured that this effect of the approach of the whites is oftenfelt at two hundred leagues' distance from their frontier. Theirinfluence is thus exerted over tribes whose name is unknown to them; andwho suffer the evils of usurpation long before they are acquainted withthe authors of their distress. *e

[Footnote d: "Five years ago, " (says Volney in his "Tableau desEtats-Unis, " p. 370) "in going from Vincennes to Kaskaskia, a territorywhich now forms part of the State of Illinois, but which at the timeI mention was completely wild (1797), you could not cross a prairiewithout seeing herds of from four to five hundred buffaloes. There arenow none remaining; they swam across the Mississippi to escape from thehunters, and more particularly from the bells of the American cows. "]

[Footnote e: The truth of what I here advance may be easily proved byconsulting the tabular statement of Indian tribes inhabiting the UnitedStates and their territories. (Legislative Documents, 20th Congress, No. 117, pp. 90-105. ) It is there shown that the tribes in the centreof America are rapidly decreasing, although the Europeans are still at aconsiderable distance from them. ]

Bold adventurers soon penetrate into the country the Indians havedeserted, and when they have advanced about fifteen or twentyleagues from the extreme frontiers of the whites, they begin to buildhabitations for civilized beings in the midst of the wilderness. Thisis done without difficulty, as the territory of a hunting-nation isill-defined; it is the common property of the tribe, and belongs to noone in particular, so that individual interests are not concerned in theprotection of any part of it. 

A few European families, settled in different situations at aconsiderable distance from each other, soon drive away the wild animalswhich remain between their places of abode. The Indians, who hadpreviously lived in a sort of abundance, then find it difficult tosubsist, and still more difficult to procure the articles of barterwhich they stand in need of. 

To drive away their game is to deprive them of the means of existence, as effectually as if the fields of our agriculturists were stricken withbarrenness; and they are reduced, like famished wolves, to prowl throughthe forsaken woods in quest of prey. Their instinctive love of theircountry attaches them to the soil which gave them birth, *f even afterit has ceased to yield anything but misery and death. At length theyare compelled to acquiesce, and to depart: they follow the traces of theelk, the buffalo, and the beaver, and are guided by these wild animalsin the choice of their future country. Properly speaking, therefore, itis not the Europeans who drive away the native inhabitants of America;it is famine which compels them to recede; a happy distinction which hadescaped the casuists of former times, and for which we are indebted tomodern discovery!

[Footnote f: "The Indians, " say Messrs. Clarke and Cass in their Reportto Congress, p. 15, "are attached to their country by the same feelingswhich bind us to ours; and, besides, there are certain superstitiousnotions connected with the alienation of what the Great Spirit gave totheir ancestors, which operate strongly upon the tribes who have madefew or no cessions, but which are gradually weakened as our intercoursewith them is extended. 'We will not sell the spot which containsthe bones of our fathers, ' is almost always the first answer to aproposition for a sale. "]

It is impossible to conceive the extent of the sufferings which attendthese forced emigrations. They are undertaken by a people alreadyexhausted and reduced; and the countries to which the newcomers betakethemselves are inhabited by other tribes which receive them with jealoushostility. Hunger is in the rear; war awaits them, and misery besetsthem on all sides. In the hope of escaping from such a host of enemies, they separate, and each individual endeavors to procure the meansof supporting his existence in solitude and secrecy, living in theimmensity of the desert like an outcast in civilized society. The socialtie, which distress had long since weakened, is then dissolved; theyhave lost their country, and their people soon desert them: their veryfamilies are obliterated; the names they bore in common are forgotten, their language perishes, and all traces of their origin disappear. Their nation has ceased to exist, except in the recollection of theantiquaries of America and a few of the learned of Europe. 

I should be sorry to have my reader suppose that I am coloring thepicture too highly; I saw with my own eyes several of the cases ofmisery which I have been describing; and I was the witness of sufferingswhich I have not the power to portray. 

At the end of the year 1831, whilst I was on the left bank of theMississippi at a place named by Europeans, Memphis, there arrived anumerous band of Choctaws (or Chactas, as they are called by theFrench in Louisiana). These savages had left their country, and wereendeavoring to gain the right bank of the Mississippi, where theyhoped to find an asylum which had been promised them by the Americangovernment. It was then the middle of winter, and the cold was unusuallysevere; the snow had frozen hard upon the ground, and the river wasdrifting huge masses of ice. The Indians had their families with them;and they brought in their train the wounded and sick, with childrennewly born, and old men upon the verge of death. They possessed neithertents nor wagons, but only their arms and some provisions. I saw themembark to pass the mighty river, and never will that solemn spectaclefade from my remembrance. No cry, no sob was heard amongst the assembledcrowd; all were silent. Their calamities were of ancient date, and theyknew them to be irremediable. The Indians had all stepped into the barkwhich was to carry them across, but their dogs remained upon the bank. As soon as these animals perceived that their masters were finallyleaving the shore, they set up a dismal howl, and, plunging all togetherinto the icy waters of the Mississippi, they swam after the boat. 

The ejectment of the Indians very often takes place at the presentday, in a regular, and, as it were, a legal manner. When the Europeanpopulation begins to approach the limit of the desert inhabited by asavage tribe, the government of the United States usually dispatchesenvoys to them, who assemble the Indians in a large plain, and havingfirst eaten and drunk with them, accost them in the following manner:"What have you to do in the land of your fathers? Before long, you mustdig up their bones in order to live. In what respect is the country youinhabit better than another? Are there no woods, marshes, or prairies, except where you dwell? And can you live nowhere but under your own sun?Beyond those mountains which you see at the horizon, beyond the lakewhich bounds your territory on the west, there lie vast countries wherebeasts of chase are found in great abundance; sell your lands to us, and go to live happily in those solitudes. " After holding this language, they spread before the eyes of the Indians firearms, woollen garments, kegs of brandy, glass necklaces, bracelets of tinsel, earrings, andlooking-glasses. *g If, when they have beheld all these riches, theystill hesitate, it is insinuated that they have not the means ofrefusing their required consent, and that the government itself will notlong have the power of protecting them in their rights. What are they todo? Half convinced, and half compelled, they go to inhabit new deserts, where the importunate whites will not let them remain ten years intranquillity. In this manner do the Americans obtain, at a very lowprice, whole provinces, which the richest sovereigns of Europe could notpurchase. *h

[Footnote g: See, in the Legislative Documents of Congress (Doc. 117), the narrative of what takes place on these occasions. This curiouspassage is from the above-mentioned report, made to Congress by Messrs. Clarke and Cass in February, 1829. Mr. Cass is now the Secretary of War. 

"The Indians, " says the report, "reach the treaty-ground poor and almostnaked. Large quantities of goods are taken there by the traders, andare seen and examined by the Indians. The women and children becomeimportunate to have their wants supplied, and their influence issoon exerted to induce a sale. Their improvidence is habitual andunconquerable. The gratification of his immediate wants and desires isthe ruling passion of an Indian. The expectation of future advantagesseldom produces much effect. The experience of the past is lost, andthe prospects of the future disregarded. It would be utterly hopelessto demand a cession of land, unless the means were at hand of gratifyingtheir immediate wants; and when their condition and circumstances arefairly considered, it ought not to surprise us that they are so anxiousto relieve themselves. "]

[Footnote h: On May 19, 1830, Mr. Edward Everett affirmed before theHouse of Representatives, that the Americans had already acquired bytreaty, to the east and west of the Mississippi, 230, 000, 000 of acres. In 1808 the Osages gave up 48, 000, 000 acres for an annual payment of$1, 000. In 1818 the Quapaws yielded up 29, 000, 000 acres for $4, 000. They reserved for themselves a territory of 1, 000, 000 acres for ahunting-ground. A solemn oath was taken that it should be respected: butbefore long it was invaded like the rest. Mr. Bell, in his Report of theCommittee on Indian Affairs, February 24, 1830, has these words:--"Topay an Indian tribe what their ancient hunting-grounds are worth tothem, after the game is fled or destroyed, as a mode of appropriatingwild lands claimed by Indians, has been found more convenient, andcertainly it is more agreeable to the forms of justice, as well as moremerciful, than to assert the possession of them by the sword. Thus thepractice of buying Indian titles is but the substitute which humanityand expediency have imposed, in place of the sword, in arriving at theactual enjoyment of property claimed by the right of discovery, andsanctioned by the natural superiority allowed to the claims of civilizedcommunities over those of savage tribes. Up to the present timeso invariable has been the operation of certain causes, first indiminishing the value of forest lands to the Indians, and secondly indisposing them to sell readily, that the plan of buying their right ofoccupancy 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: Future Condition Of Three Races--Part II

These are great evils; and it must be added that they appear to me tobe irremediable. I believe that the Indian nations of North America aredoomed to perish; and that whenever the Europeans shall be establishedon the shores of the Pacific Ocean, that race of men will be no more. *i The Indians had only the two alternatives of war or civilization;in other words, they must either have destroyed the Europeans or becometheir equals. 

[Footnote i: This seems, indeed, to be the opinion of almost allAmerican statesmen. "Judging of the future by the past, " says Mr. Cass, "we cannot err in anticipating a progressive diminution of theirnumbers, and their eventual extinction, unless our border should becomestationary, and they be removed beyond it, or unless some radical changeshould take place in the principles of our intercourse with them, whichit is easier to hope for than to expect. "]

At the first settlement of the colonies they might have found itpossible, by uniting their forces, to deliver themselves from the smallbodies of strangers who landed on their continent. *j They severaltimes attempted to do it, and were on the point of succeeding; but thedisproportion of their resources, at the present day, when comparedwith those of the whites, is too great to allow such an enterprise tobe thought of. Nevertheless, there do arise from time to time among theIndians men of penetration, who foresee the final destiny which awaitsthe native population, and who exert themselves to unite all the tribesin common hostility to the Europeans; but their efforts are unavailing. Those tribes which are in the neighborhood of the whites, are too muchweakened to offer an effectual resistance; whilst the others, giving wayto that childish carelessness of the morrow which characterizes savagelife, wait for the near approach of danger before they prepare to meetit; some are unable, the others are unwilling, to exert themselves. 

[Footnote j: Amongst other warlike enterprises, there was one of theWampanaogs, and other confederate tribes, under Metacom in 1675, againstthe colonists of New England; the English were also engaged in war inVirginia in 1622. ]

It is easy to foresee that the Indians will never conform tocivilization; or that it will be too late, whenever they may be inclinedto make the experiment. 

Civilization is the result of a long social process which takes place inthe same spot, and is handed down from one generation to another, eachone profiting by the experience of the last. Of all nations, thosesubmit to civilization with the most difficulty which habitually live bythe chase. Pastoral tribes, indeed, often change their place of abode;but they follow a regular order in their migrations, and often returnagain to their old stations, whilst the dwelling of the hunter varieswith that of the animals he pursues. 

Several attempts have been made to diffuse knowledge amongst theIndians, without controlling their wandering propensities; by theJesuits in Canada, and by the Puritans in New England; *k but none ofthese endeavors were crowned by any lasting success. Civilization beganin the cabin, but it soon retired to expire in the woods. The greaterror of these legislators of the Indians was their not understandingthat, in order to succeed in civilizing a people, it is first necessaryto fix it; which cannot be done without inducing it to cultivate thesoil; the Indians ought in the first place to have been accustomedto agriculture. But not only are they destitute of this indispensablepreliminary to civilization, they would even have great difficulty inacquiring it. Men who have once abandoned themselves to the restless andadventurous life of the hunter, feel an insurmountable disgust for theconstant and regular labor which tillage requires. We see this proved inthe bosom of our own society; but it is far more visible among peopleswhose partiality for the chase is a part of their national character. 

[Footnote k: See the "Histoire de la Nouvelle France, " by Charlevoix, and the work entitled "Lettres edifiantes. "]

Independently of this general difficulty, there is another, whichapplies peculiarly to the Indians; they consider labor not merely as anevil, but as a disgrace; so that their pride prevents them from becomingcivilized, as much as their indolence. *l

[Footnote l: "In all the tribes, " says Volney, in his "Tableau desEtats-Unis, " p. 423, "there still exists a generation of old warriors, who cannot forbear, when they see their countrymen using the hoe, fromexclaiming against the degradation of ancient manners, and assertingthat the savages owe their decline to these innovations; adding, thatthey have only to return to their primitive habits in order to recovertheir power and their glory. "]

There is no Indian so wretched as not to retain under his hut of bark alofty idea of his personal worth; he considers the cares of industryand labor as degrading occupations; he compares the husbandman to the oxwhich traces the furrow; and even in our most ingenious handicraft, he can see nothing but the labor of slaves. Not that he is devoid ofadmiration for the power and intellectual greatness of the whites; butalthough the result of our efforts surprises him, he contemns the meansby which we obtain it; and while he acknowledges our ascendancy, hestill believes in his superiority. War and hunting are the only pursuitswhich appear to him worthy to be the occupations of a man. *m TheIndian, in the dreary solitude of his woods, cherishes the same ideas, the same opinions as the noble of the Middle ages in his castle, and heonly 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 not amongst the Europeans who people its coasts, that the ancientprejudices of Europe are still in existence. 

[Footnote m: The following description occurs in an official document:"Until a young man has been engaged with an enemy, and has performedsome acts of valor, he gains no consideration, but is regarded nearly asa woman. In their great war-dances all the warriors in successionstrike the post, as it is called, and recount their exploits. On theseoccasions their auditory consists of the kinsmen, friends, and comradesof the narrator. The profound impression which his discourse produces onthem is manifested by the silent attention it receives, and by the loudshouts which hail its termination. The young man who finds himselfat such a meeting without anything to recount is very unhappy; andinstances have sometimes occurred of young warriors, whose passions hadbeen thus inflamed, quitting the war-dance suddenly, and going off aloneto seek for trophies which they might exhibit, and adventures which theymight be allowed to relate. "]

More than once, in the course of this work, I have endeavored to explainthe prodigious influence which the social condition appears to exerciseupon the laws and the manners of men; and I beg to add a few words onthe same subject. 

When I perceive the resemblance which exists between the politicalinstitutions of our ancestors, the Germans, and of the wandering tribesof North America; between the customs described by Tacitus, and those ofwhich I have sometimes been a witness, I cannot help thinking that thesame cause has brought about the same results in both hemispheres; andthat in the midst of the apparent diversity of human affairs, a certainnumber of primary facts may be discovered, from which all the othersare derived. In what we usually call the German institutions, then, I aminclined only to perceive barbarian habits; and the opinions of savagesin what we style feudal principles. 

However strongly the vices and prejudices of the North American Indiansmay be opposed to their becoming agricultural and civilized, necessitysometimes obliges them to it. Several of the Southern nations, andamongst others the Cherokees and the Creeks, *n were surrounded byEuropeans, who had landed on the shores of the Atlantic; and who, either descending the Ohio or proceeding up the Mississippi, arrivedsimultaneously upon their borders. These tribes have not been drivenfrom place to place, like their Northern brethren; but they have beengradually enclosed within narrow limits, like the game within thethicket, before the huntsmen plunge into the interior. The Indianswho were thus placed between civilization and death, found themselvesobliged to live by ignominious labor like the whites. They took toagriculture, and without entirely forsaking their old habits or manners, sacrificed only as much as was necessary to their existence. 

[Footnote n: These nations are now swallowed up in the States ofGeorgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. There were formerly in theSouth four great nations (remnants of which still exist), the Choctaws, the Chickasaws, the Creeks, and the Cherokees. The remnants of thesefour nations amounted, in 1830, to about 75, 000 individuals. It iscomputed that there are now remaining in the territory occupiedor claimed by the Anglo-American Union about 300, 000 Indians. (SeeProceedings of the Indian Board in the City of New York. ) The officialdocuments supplied to Congress make the number amount to 313, 130. Thereader who is curious to know the names and numerical strength of allthe tribes which inhabit the Anglo-American territory should consult thedocuments I refer to. (Legislative Documents, 20th Congress, No. 117, pp. 90-105. ) [In the Census of 1870 it is stated that the Indianpopulation of the United States is only 25, 731, of whom 7, 241 are inCalifornia. ]]

The Cherokees went further; they created a written language; establisheda permanent form of government; and as everything proceeds rapidlyin the New World, before they had all of them clothes, they set up anewspaper. *o

[Footnote o: I brought back with me to France one or two copies of thissingular publication. ]

The growth of European habits has been remarkably accelerated amongthese Indians by the mixed race which has sprung up. *p Derivingintelligence from their father's side, without entirely losing thesavage customs of the mother, the half-blood forms the natural linkbetween civilization and barbarism. Wherever this race has multipliedthe savage state has become modified, and a great change has taken placein the manners of the people. *q

[Footnote p: See in the Report of the Committee on Indian Affairs, 21stCongress, No. 227, p. 23, the reasons for the multiplication of Indiansof mixed blood among the Cherokees. The principal cause dates from theWar of Independence. Many Anglo-Americans of Georgia, having taken theside of England, were obliged to retreat among the Indians, where theymarried. ]

[Footnote q: Unhappily the mixed race has been less numerous and lessinfluential in North America than in any other country. The Americancontinent was peopled by two great nations of Europe, the French andthe English. The former were not slow in connecting themselves with thedaughters of the natives, but there was an unfortunate affinity betweenthe Indian character and their own: instead of giving the tastes andhabits of civilized life to the savages, the French too often grewpassionately fond of the state of wild freedom they found them in. Theybecame the most dangerous of the inhabitants of the desert, and won thefriendship of the Indian by exaggerating his vices and his virtues. M. De Senonville, the governor of Canada, wrote thus to Louis XIV in 1685:"It has long been believed that in order to civilize the savages weought to draw them nearer to us. But there is every reason to suppose wehave been mistaken. Those which have been brought into contact with ushave not become French, and the French who have lived among them arechanged into savages, affecting to dress and live like them. " ("Historyof New France, " by Charlevoix, vol. Ii. , p. 345. ) The Englishman, on thecontrary, continuing obstinately attached to the customs and the mostinsignificant habits of his forefathers, has remained in the midst ofthe American solitudes just what he was in the bosom of European cities;he would not allow of any communication with savages whom he despised, and avoided with care the union of his race with theirs. Thus while theFrench exercised no salutary influence over the Indians, the Englishhave 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 proceedsfrom the influence of a general cause, which it is almost impossiblefor them to escape. An attentive survey of history demonstrates that, in general, barbarous nations have raised themselves to civilization bydegrees, and by their own efforts. Whenever they derive knowledge from aforeign people, they stood towards it in the relation of conquerors, andnot of a conquered nation. When the conquered nation is enlightened, andthe conquerors are half savage, as in the case of the invasion of Romeby the Northern nations or that of China by the Mongols, the powerwhich victory bestows upon the barbarian is sufficient to keep up hisimportance among civilized men, and permit him to rank as their equal, 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 barbariansat length admit civilized man into their palaces, and he in turn openshis schools to the barbarians. But when the side on which the physicalforce lies, also possesses an intellectual preponderance, the conqueredparty seldom become civilized; it retreats, or is destroyed. It maytherefore be said, in a general way, that savages go forth in arms toseek knowledge, but that they do not receive it when it comes to them. 

If the Indian tribes which now inhabit the heart of the continent couldsummon up energy enough to attempt to civilize themselves, they mightpossibly succeed. Superior already to the barbarous nations whichsurround them, they would gradually gain strength and experience, andwhen the Europeans should appear upon their borders, they would be in astate, if not to maintain their independence, at least to assert theirright to the soil, and to incorporate themselves with the conquerors. But it is the misfortune of Indians to be brought into contact with acivilized people, which is also (it must be owned) the most avariciousnation on the globe, whilst they are still semi-barbarian: to finddespots in their instructors, and to receive knowledge from the handof oppression. Living in the freedom of the woods, the North AmericanIndian was destitute, but he had no feeling of inferiority towardsanyone; as soon, however, as he desires to penetrate into the socialscale of the whites, he takes the lowest rank in society, for he enters, ignorant and poor, within the pale of science and wealth. After havingled a life of agitation, beset with evils and dangers, but at thesame time filled with proud emotions, *r he is obliged to submit toa wearisome, obscure, and degraded state; and to gain the bread whichnourishes him by hard and ignoble labor; such are in his eyes the onlyresults of which civilization can boast: and even this much he is notsure to obtain. 

[Footnote r: There is in the adventurous life of the hunter a certainirresistible charm, which seizes the heart of man and carries him awayin spite of reason and experience. This is plainly shown by the memoirsof Tanner. Tanner is a European who was carried away at the age of sixby the Indians, and has remained thirty years with them in the woods. Nothing can be conceived more appalling that the miseries which hedescribes. He tells us of tribes without a chief, families withouta nation to call their own, men in a state of isolation, wrecks ofpowerful tribes wandering at random amid the ice and snow and desolatesolitudes of Canada. Hunger and cold pursue them; every day their lifeis in jeopardy. Amongst these men, manners have lost their empire, traditions are without power. They become more and more savage. Tannershared in all these miseries; he was aware of his European origin; hewas not kept away from the whites by force; on the contrary, he cameevery year to trade with them, entered their dwellings, and witnessedtheir enjoyments; he knew that whenever he chose to return to civilizedlife he was perfectly able to do so--and he remained thirty years in thedeserts. When he came into civilized society he declared that the rudeexistence which he described, had a secret charm for him which hewas unable to define: he returned to it again and again: at length heabandoned it with poignant regret; and when he was at length fixed amongthe whites, several of his children refused to share his tranquil andeasy situation. I saw Tanner myself at the lower end of Lake Superior;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, thevices, and, above all, of the destitution in which he lived. ]

When the Indians undertake to imitate their European neighbors, and totill the earth like the settlers, they are immediately exposed to avery formidable competition. The white man is skilled in the craft ofagriculture; the Indian is a rough beginner in an art with which he isunacquainted. The former reaps abundant crops without difficulty, thelatter meets with a thousand obstacles in raising the fruits of theearth. 

The European is placed amongst a population whose wants he knows andpartakes. The savage is isolated in the midst of a hostile people, withwhose manners, language, and laws he is imperfectly acquainted, butwithout whose assistance he cannot live. He can only procure thematerials of comfort by bartering his commodities against the goodsof the European, for the assistance of his countrymen is whollyinsufficient to supply his wants. When the Indian wishes to sell theproduce of his labor, he cannot always meet with a purchaser, whilst theEuropean readily finds a market; and the former can only produce at aconsiderable cost that which the latter vends at a very low rate. Thusthe Indian has no sooner escaped those evils to which barbarous nationsare exposed, than he is subjected to the still greater miseries ofcivilized communities; and he finds is scarcely less difficult to livein the midst of our abundance, than in the depth of his own wilderness. 

He has not yet lost the habits of his erratic life; the traditions ofhis fathers and his passion for the chase are still alive within him. The wild enjoyments which formerly animated him in the woods, painfullyexcite his troubled imagination; and his former privations appear tobe less keen, his former perils less appalling. He contrasts theindependence which he possessed amongst his equals with the servileposition which he occupies in civilized society. On the other hand, the solitudes which were so long his free home are still at hand; a fewhours' march will bring him back to them once more. The whites offer hima sum, which seems to him to be considerable, for the ground which hehas begun to clear. This money of the Europeans may possibly furnish himwith the means of a happy and peaceful subsistence in remoter regions;and he quits the plough, resumes his native arms, and returns to thewilderness forever. *s The condition of the Creeks and Cherokees, towhich I have already alluded, sufficiently corroborates the truth ofthis deplorable picture. 

[Footnote s: The destructive influence of highly civilized nationsupon others which are less so, has been exemplified by the Europeansthemselves. About a century ago the French founded the town of Vincennesup on the Wabash, in the middle of the desert; and they lived therein great plenty until the arrival of the American settlers, who firstruined the previous inhabitants by their competition, and afterwardspurchased their lands at a very low rate. At the time when M. De Volney, from whom I borrow these details, passed through Vincennes, the numberof the French was reduced to a hundred individuals, most of whom wereabout to pass over to Louisiana or to Canada. These French settlers wereworthy people, but idle and uninstructed: they had contracted many ofthe habits of savages. The Americans, who were perhaps their inferiors, in a moral point of view, were immeasurably superior to them inintelligence: they were industrious, well informed, rich, and accustomedto govern their own community. 

I myself saw in Canada, where the intellectual difference between thetwo races is less striking, that the English are the masters of commerceand manufacture in the Canadian country, that they spread on all sides, and confine the French within limits which scarcely suffice to containthem. In like manner, in Louisiana, almost all activity in commerce andmanufacture centres in the hands of the Anglo-Americans. 

But the case of Texas is still more striking: the State of Texas is apart of Mexico, and lies upon the frontier between that country and theUnited States. In the course of the last few years the Anglo-Americanshave penetrated into this province, which is still thinly peopled; theypurchase land, they produce the commodities of the country, and supplantthe original population. It may easily be foreseen that if Mexico takesno steps to check this change, the province of Texas will very shortlycease to belong to that government. 

If the different degrees--comparatively so slight--which existin European civilization produce results of such magnitude, theconsequences which must ensue from the collision of the most perfectEuropean civilization with Indian savages may readily be conceived. ]

The Indians, in the little which they have done, have unquestionablydisplayed as much natural genius as the peoples of Europe in their mostimportant designs; but nations as well as men require time to learn, whatever may be their intelligence and their zeal. Whilst the savageswere engaged in the work of civilization, the Europeans continued tosurround them on every side, and to confine them within narrower limits;the two races gradually met, and they are now in immediate juxtapositionto each other. The Indian is already superior to his barbarous parent, but he is still very far below his white neighbor. With their resourcesand acquired knowledge, the Europeans soon appropriated to themselvesmost of the advantages which the natives might have derived from thepossession of the soil; they have settled in the country, they havepurchased land at a very low rate or have occupied it by force, and theIndians have been ruined by a competition which they had not the meansof resisting. They were isolated in their own country, and their raceonly constituted a colony of troublesome aliens in the midst of anumerous and domineering people. *t

[Footnote t: See in the Legislative Documents (21st Congress, No. 89)instances of excesses of every kind committed by the whites upon theterritory of the Indians, either in taking possession of a part of theirlands, until compelled to retire by the troops of Congress, or carryingoff their cattle, burning their houses, cutting down their corn, anddoing violence to their persons. It appears, nevertheless, from allthese documents that the claims of the natives are constantlyprotected by the government from the abuse of force. The Union has arepresentative agent continually employed to reside among the Indians;and the report of the Cherokee agent, which is among the documentsI have referred to, is almost always favorable to the Indians. "Theintrusion of whites, " he says, "upon the lands of the Cherokees wouldcause ruin to the poor, helpless, and inoffensive inhabitants. " And hefurther remarks upon the attempt of the State of Georgia to establisha division line for the purpose of limiting the boundaries of theCherokees, that the line drawn having been made by the whites, andentirely upon ex parte evidence of their several rights, was of novalidity whatever. ]

Washington said in one of his messages to Congress, "We are moreenlightened and more powerful than the Indian nations, we are thereforebound in honor to treat them with kindness and even with generosity. "But this virtuous and high-minded policy has not been followed. Therapacity of the settlers is usually backed by the tyranny of thegovernment. Although the Cherokees and the Creeks are establishedupon the territory which they inhabited before the settlement of theEuropeans, and although the Americans have frequently treated with themas with foreign nations, the surrounding States have not consented toacknowledge them as independent peoples, and attempts have been made tosubject these children of the woods to Anglo-American magistrates, laws, and customs. *u Destitution had driven these unfortunate Indians tocivilization, and oppression now drives them back to their formercondition: many of them abandon the soil which they had begun to clear, and return to their savage course of life. 

[Footnote u: In 1829 the State of Alabama divided the Creek territoryinto counties, and subjected the Indian population to the power ofEuropean magistrates. 

Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races--Part III

In 1830 the State of Mississippi assimilated the Choctaws and Chickasawsto the white population, and declared that any of them that should takethe title of chief would be punished by a fine of $1, 000 and a year'simprisonment. When these laws were enforced upon the Choctaws, whoinhabited that district, the tribe assembled, their chief communicatedto them the intentions of the whites, and read to them some of the lawsto which it was intended that they should submit; and they unanimouslydeclared that it was better at once to retreat again into the wilds. ]

If we consider the tyrannical measures which have been adopted by thelegislatures of the Southern States, the conduct of their Governors, andthe decrees of their courts of justice, we shall be convinced that theentire expulsion of the Indians is the final result to which the effortsof their policy are directed. The Americans of that part of the Unionlook with jealousy upon the aborigines, *v they are aware that thesetribes have not yet lost the traditions of savage life, and beforecivilization has permanently fixed them to the soil, it is intendedto force them to recede by reducing them to despair. The Creeks andCherokees, oppressed by the several States, have appealed to the centralgovernment, which is by no means insensible to their misfortunes, andis sincerely desirous of saving the remnant of the natives, and ofmaintaining them in the free possession of that territory, whichthe Union is pledged to respect. *w But the several States opposeso formidable a resistance to the execution of this design, that thegovernment is obliged to consent to the extirpation of a few barbaroustribes in order not to endanger the safety of the American Union. 

[Footnote v: The Georgians, who are so much annoyed by the proximity ofthe Indians, inhabit a territory which does not at present containmore than seven inhabitants to the square mile. In France there are onehundred and sixty-two inhabitants to the same extent of country. ]

[Footnote w: In 1818 Congress appointed commissioners to visit theArkansas Territory, accompanied by a deputation of Creeks, Choctaws, andChickasaws. This expedition was commanded by Messrs. Kennerly, M'Coy, Wash Hood, and John Bell. See the different reports of thecommissioners, and their journal, in the Documents of Congress, No. 87, House of Representatives. ]

But the federal government, which is not able to protect the Indians, would fain mitigate the hardships of their lot; and, with thisintention, proposals have been made to transport them into more remoteregions at the public cost. 

Between the thirty-third and thirty-seventh degrees of north latitude, a vast tract of country lies, which has taken the name of Arkansas, fromthe principal river that waters its extent. It is bounded on theone side by the confines of Mexico, on the other by the Mississippi. Numberless streams cross it in every direction; the climate is mild, andthe soil productive, but it is only inhabited by a few wandering hordesof savages. The government of the Union wishes to transport the brokenremnants of the indigenous population of the South to the portion ofthis country which is nearest to Mexico, and at a great distance fromthe American settlements. 

We were assured, towards the end of the year 1831, that 10, 000Indians had already gone down to the shores of the Arkansas; and freshdetachments were constantly following them; but Congress has been unableto excite a unanimous determination in those whom it is disposed toprotect. Some, indeed, are willing to quit the seat of oppression, butthe most enlightened members of the community refuse to abandon theirrecent dwellings and their springing crops; they are of opinion that thework of civilization, once interrupted, will never be resumed; they fearthat those domestic habits which have been so recently contracted, maybe irrevocably lost in the midst of a country which is still barbarous, and where nothing is prepared for the subsistence of an agriculturalpeople; they know that their entrance into those wilds will be opposedby inimical hordes, and that they have lost the energy of barbarians, without acquiring the resources of civilization to resist their attacks. Moreover, the Indians readily discover that the settlement which isproposed to them is merely a temporary expedient. Who can assure themthat they will at length be allowed to dwell in peace in their newretreat? The United States pledge themselves to the observance of theobligation; but the territory which they at present occupy was formerlysecured to them by the most solemn oaths of Anglo-American faith. *xThe American government does not indeed rob them of their lands, but itallows perpetual incursions to be made on them. In a few years the samewhite population which now flocks around them, will track them to thesolitudes of the Arkansas; they will then be exposed to the same evilswithout the same remedies, and as the limits of the earth will at lastfail them, their only refuge is the grave. 

[Footnote x: The fifth article of the treaty made with the Creeks inAugust, 1790, is in the following words:--"The United States solemnlyguarantee to the Creek nation all their land within the limits of theUnited States. "

The seventh article of the treaty concluded in 1791 with the Cherokeessays:--"The United States solemnly guarantee to the Cherokee nation alltheir lands not hereby ceded. " The following article declared that ifany citizen of the United States or other settler not of the Indian raceshould establish himself upon the territory of the Cherokees, the UnitedStates would withdraw their protection from that individual, and givehim up to be punished as the Cherokee nation should think fit. ]

The Union treats the Indians with less cupidity and rigor than thepolicy of the several States, but the two governments are alikedestitute of good faith. The States extend what they are pleased to termthe benefits of their laws to the Indians, with a belief that thetribes will recede rather than submit; and the central government, whichpromises a permanent refuge to these unhappy beings is well aware of itsinability to secure it to them. *y

[Footnote y: This does not prevent them from promising in the mostsolemn manner to do so. See the letter of the President addressed to theCreek Indians, March 23, 1829 (Proceedings of the Indian Board, in thecity of New York, p. 5): "Beyond the great river Mississippi, where apart of your nation has gone, your father has provided a country largeenough for all of you, and he advises you to remove to it. There yourwhite brothers will not trouble you; they will have no claim to theland, and you can live upon it, you and all your children, as long asthe grass grows, or the water runs, in peace and plenty. It will beyours forever. "

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 cannotexpect to retain possession of the lands at that time occupied by them, but gives them the most positive assurance of uninterrupted peace ifthey would remove beyond the Mississippi: as if the power whichcould not grant them protection then, would be able to afford it themhereafter!]

Thus the tyranny of the States obliges the savages to retire, the Union, by its promises and resources, facilitates their retreat; and thesemeasures tend to precisely the same end. *z "By the will of our Fatherin Heaven, the Governor of the whole world, " said the Cherokees in theirpetition to Congress, *a "the red man of America has become small, andthe white man great and renowned. When the ancestors of the people ofthese United States first came to the shores of America they found thered man strong: though he was ignorant and savage, yet he received themkindly, and gave them dry land to rest their weary feet. They met inpeace, and shook hands in token of friendship. Whatever the white manwanted and asked of the Indian, the latter willingly gave. At that timethe Indian was the lord, and the white man the suppliant. But now thescene has changed. The strength of the red man has become weakness. Ashis neighbors increased in numbers his power became less and less, and now, of the many and powerful tribes who once covered these UnitedStates, only a few are to be seen--a few whom a sweeping pestilence hasleft. The northern tribes, who were once so numerous and powerful, arenow nearly extinct. Thus it has happened to the red man of America. Shall we, who are remnants, share the same fate?"

[Footnote z: To obtain a correct idea of the policy pursued by theseveral States and the Union with respect to the Indians, it isnecessary to consult, 1st, "The Laws of the Colonial and StateGovernments relating to the Indian Inhabitants. " (See the LegislativeDocuments, 21st Congress, No. 319. ) 2d, The Laws of the Union on thesame subject, and especially that of March 30, 1802. (See Story's "Lawsof the United States. ") 3d, The Report of Mr. Cass, Secretary of War, relative to Indian Affairs, November 29, 1823. ]

[Footnote a: December 18, 1829. ]

"The land on which we stand we have received as an inheritance fromour fathers, who possessed it from time immemorial, as a gift from ourcommon Father in Heaven. They bequeathed it to us as their children, andwe have sacredly kept it, as containing the remains of our beloved men. This right of inheritance we have never ceded nor ever forfeited. Permitus to ask what better right can the people have to a country than theright of inheritance and immemorial peaceable possession? We know it issaid of late by the State of Georgia and by the Executive of the UnitedStates, that we have forfeited this right; but we think this is saidgratuitously. At what time have we made the forfeit? What great crimehave we committed, whereby we must forever be divested of our countryand rights? Was it when we were hostile to the United States, andtook part with the King of Great Britain, during the struggle forindependence? If so, why was not this forfeiture declared in the firsttreaty of peace between the United States and our beloved men? Whywas not such an article as the following inserted in the treaty:--'TheUnited States give peace to the Cherokees, but, for the part they tookin the late war, declare them to be but tenants at will, to be removedwhen the convenience of the States, within whose chartered limits theylive, shall require it'? That was the proper time to assume such apossession. But it was not thought of, nor would our forefathers haveagreed to any treaty whose tendency was to deprive them of their rightsand their country. "

Such is the language of the Indians: their assertions are true, theirforebodings inevitable. From whichever side we consider the destiniesof the aborigines of North America, their calamities appear to beirremediable: if they continue barbarous, they are forced to retire; ifthey attempt to civilize their manners, the contact of a more civilizedcommunity subjects them to oppression and destitution. They perish ifthey continue to wander from waste to waste, and if they attempt tosettle they still must perish; the assistance of Europeans is necessaryto instruct them, but the approach of Europeans corrupts and repels theminto savage life; they refuse to change their habits as long as theirsolitudes are their own, and it is too late to change them when they areconstrained to submit. 

The Spaniards pursued the Indians with bloodhounds, like wild beasts;they sacked the New World with no more temper or compassion than a citytaken by storm; but destruction must cease, and frenzy be stayed; theremnant of the Indian population which had escaped the massacre mixedwith its conquerors, and adopted in the end their religion and theirmanners. *b The conduct of the Americans of the United States towardsthe aborigines is characterized, on the other hand, by a singularattachment to the formalities of law. Provided that the Indians retaintheir barbarous condition, the Americans take no part in their affairs;they treat them as independent nations, and do not possess themselvesof their hunting grounds without a treaty of purchase; and if an Indiannation happens to be so encroached upon as to be unable to subsist uponits territory, they afford it brotherly assistance in transporting it toa grave sufficiently remote from the land of its fathers. 

[Footnote b: The honor of this result is, however, by no means due tothe Spaniards. If the Indian tribes had not been tillers of the groundat the time of the arrival of the Europeans, they would unquestionablyhave been destroyed in South as well as in North America. ]

The Spaniards were unable to exterminate the Indian race by thoseunparalleled atrocities which brand them with indelible shame, nordid they even succeed in wholly depriving it of its rights; but theAmericans of the United States have accomplished this twofold purposewith singular felicity; tranquilly, legally, philanthropically, withoutshedding blood, and without violating a single great principle ofmorality in the eyes of the world. *c It is impossible to destroy menwith more respect for the laws of humanity. 

[Footnote c: See, amongst other documents, the report made by Mr. Bellin the name of the Committee on Indian Affairs, February 24, 1830, inwhich is most logically established and most learnedly proved, that "thefundamental principle that the Indians had no right by virtue oftheir ancient possession either of will or sovereignty, has never beenabandoned either expressly or by implication. " In perusing this report, which is evidently drawn up by an experienced hand, one is astonishedat the facility with which the author gets rid of all arguments foundedupon reason and natural right, which he designates as abstract andtheoretical principles. The more I contemplate the difference betweencivilized and uncivilized man with regard to the principles of justice, the more I observe that the former contests the justice of those rightswhich the latter simply violates. ]

[I leave this chapter wholly unchanged, for it has always appeared to meto be one of the most eloquent and touching parts of this book. But ithas ceased to be prophetic; the destruction of the Indian race in theUnited States is already consummated. In 1870 there remained but 25, 731Indians in the whole territory of the Union, and of these by far thelargest part exist in California, Michigan, Wisconsin, Dakota, and NewMexico and Nevada. In New England, Pennsylvania, and New York the raceis extinct; and the predictions of M. De Tocqueville are fulfilled. --Translator's Note. ]

Situation Of The Black Population In The United States, And Dangers WithWhich Its Presence Threatens The Whites

Why it is more difficult to abolish slavery, and to efface all vestigesof it amongst the moderns than it was amongst the ancients--In theUnited States the prejudices of the Whites against the Blacks seem toincrease in proportion as slavery is abolished--Situation of theNegroes in the Northern and Southern States--Why the Americansabolish slavery--Servitude, which debases the slave, impoverishes themaster--Contrast between the left and the right bank of the Ohio--Towhat attributable--The Black race, as well as slavery, recedes towardsthe South--Explanation of this fact--Difficulties attendant uponthe abolition of slavery in the South--Dangers to come--Generalanxiety--Foundation of a Black colony in Africa--Why the Americans ofthe South increase the hardships of slavery, whilst they are distressedat its continuance. 

The Indians will perish in the same isolated condition in which theyhave lived; but the destiny of the negroes is in some measure interwovenwith that of the Europeans. These two races are attached to each otherwithout intermingling, and they are alike unable entirely to separateor to combine. The most formidable of all the ills which threatenthe future existence of the Union arises from the presence of a blackpopulation upon its territory; and in contemplating the cause of thepresent embarrassments or of the future dangers of the United States, the observer is invariably led to consider this as a primary fact. 

The permanent evils to which mankind is subjected are usually producedby the vehement or the increasing efforts of men; but there is onecalamity which penetrated furtively into the world, and which was atfirst scarcely distinguishable amidst the ordinary abuses of power; itoriginated with an individual whose name history has not preserved; itwas wafted like some accursed germ upon a portion of the soil, but itafterwards nurtured itself, grew without effort, and spreads naturallywith the society to which it belongs. I need scarcely add that thiscalamity is slavery. Christianity suppressed slavery, but the Christiansof the sixteenth century re-established it--as an exception, indeed, totheir social system, and restricted to one of the races of mankind; butthe wound thus inflicted upon humanity, though less extensive, was atthe same time rendered far more difficult of cure. 

It is important to make an accurate distinction between slavery itselfand its consequences. The immediate evils which are produced by slaverywere very nearly the same in antiquity as they are amongst the moderns;but the consequences of these evils were different. The slave, amongstthe ancients, belonged to the same race as his master, and he was oftenthe superior of the two in education *d and instruction. Freedom was theonly distinction between them; and when freedom was conferred they wereeasily confounded together. The ancients, then, had a very simplemeans of avoiding slavery and its evil consequences, which was that ofaffranchisement; and they succeeded as soon as they adopted thismeasure generally. Not but, in ancient States, the vestiges of servitudesubsisted for some time after servitude itself was abolished. There is anatural prejudice which prompts men to despise whomsoever has been theirinferior long after he is become their equal; and the real inequalitywhich is produced by fortune or by law is always succeeded by animaginary inequality which is implanted in the manners of the people. Nevertheless, this secondary consequence of slavery was limited to acertain term amongst the ancients, for the freedman bore so entirea resemblance to those born free, that it soon became impossible todistinguish him from amongst them. 

[Footnote d: It is well known that several of the most distinguishedauthors of antiquity, and amongst them Aesop and Terence, were, or hadbeen slaves. Slaves were not always taken from barbarous nations, andthe chances of war reduced highly civilized men to servitude. ]

The greatest difficulty in antiquity was that of altering the law;amongst the moderns it is that of altering the manners; and, as far aswe are concerned, the real obstacles begin where those of the ancientsleft off. This arises from the circumstance that, amongst the moderns, the abstract and transient fact of slavery is fatally united to thephysical and permanent fact of color. The tradition of slavery dishonorsthe race, and the peculiarity of the race perpetuates the tradition ofslavery. No African has ever voluntarily emigrated to the shores of theNew World; whence it must be inferred, that all the blacks who are nowto be found in that hemisphere are either slaves or freedmen. Thus thenegro transmits the eternal mark of his ignominy to all his descendants;and although the law may abolish slavery, God alone can obliterate thetraces of its existence. 

The modern slave differs from his master not only in his condition, but in his origin. You may set the negro free, but you cannot make himotherwise than an alien to the European. Nor is this all; we scarcelyacknowledge the common features of mankind in this child of debasementwhom slavery has brought amongst us. His physiognomy is to our eyeshideous, his understanding weak, his tastes low; and we are almostinclined to look upon him as a being intermediate between man and thebrutes. *e The moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, havethree prejudices to contend against, which are less easy to attack andfar less easy to conquer than the mere fact of servitude: the prejudiceof the master, the prejudice of the race, and the prejudice of color. 

[Footnote e: To induce the whites to abandon the opinion they haveconceived of the moral and intellectual inferiority of their formerslaves, 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 amongstmen like ourselves by nature, and equal to ourselves by law, to conceivethe irreconcilable differences which separate the negro from theEuropean in America. But we may derive some faint notion of them fromanalogy. France was formerly a country in which numerous distinctions ofrank existed, that had been created by the legislation. Nothing can bemore fictitious than a purely legal inferiority; nothing more contraryto the instinct of mankind than these permanent divisions which hadbeen established between beings evidently similar. Nevertheless thesedivisions subsisted for ages; they still subsist in many places; andon all sides they have left imaginary vestiges, which time alone canefface. If it be so difficult to root out an inequality which solelyoriginates in the law, how are those distinctions to be destroyed whichseem to be based upon the immutable laws of Nature herself? When Iremember the extreme difficulty with which aristocratic bodies, ofwhatever nature they may be, are commingled with the mass of the people;and the exceeding care which they take to preserve the ideal boundariesof their caste inviolate, I despair of seeing an aristocracy disappearwhich is founded upon visible and indelible signs. Those who hope thatthe Europeans will ever mix with the negroes, appear to me to deludethemselves; and I am not led to any such conclusion by my own reason, orby the evidence of facts. 

Hitherto, wherever the whites have been the most powerful, they havemaintained the blacks in a subordinate or a servile position; whereverthe negroes have been strongest they have destroyed the whites; suchhas been the only retribution which has ever taken place between the tworaces. 

I see that in a certain portion of the territory of the United Statesat the present day, the legal barrier which separated the two races istending to fall away, but not that which exists in the manners of thecountry; slavery recedes, but the prejudice to which it has given birthremains stationary. Whosoever has inhabited the United States must haveperceived that in those parts of the Union in which the negroes are nolonger slaves, they have in no wise drawn nearer to the whites. On thecontrary, the prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the Stateswhich have abolished slavery, than in those where it still exists; andnowhere is it so intolerant as in those States where servitude has neverbeen known. 

It is true, that in the North of the Union, marriages may be legallycontracted between negroes and whites; but public opinion wouldstigmatize a man who should connect himself with a negress as infamous, and it would be difficult to meet with a single instance of such aunion. The electoral franchise has been conferred upon the negroes inalmost all the States in which slavery has been abolished; but if theycome forward to vote, their lives are in danger. If oppressed, they maybring an action at law, but they will find none but whites amongsttheir judges; and although they may legally serve as jurors, prejudicerepulses them from that office. The same schools do not receive thechild of the black and of the European. In the theatres, gold cannotprocure a seat for the servile race beside their former masters; in thehospitals they lie apart; and although they are allowed to invoke thesame Divinity as the whites, it must be at a different altar, and intheir own churches, with their own clergy. The gates of Heaven are notclosed against these unhappy beings; but their inferiority is continuedto the very confines of the other world; when the negro is defunct, hisbones are cast aside, and the distinction of condition prevails even inthe equality of death. The negro is free, but he can share neither therights, nor the pleasures, nor the labor, nor the afflictions, nor thetomb of him whose equal he has been declared to be; and he cannot meethim upon fair terms in life or in death. 

In the South, where slavery still exists, the negroes are less carefullykept apart; they sometimes share the labor and the recreations of thewhites; the whites consent to intermix with them to a certain extent, and although the legislation treats them more harshly, the habits of thepeople are more tolerant and compassionate. In the South the master isnot afraid to raise his slave to his own standing, because he knows thathe can in a moment reduce him to the dust at pleasure. In the North thewhite no longer distinctly perceives the barrier which separateshim from the degraded race, and he shuns the negro with the morepertinacity, since he fears lest they should some day be confoundedtogether. 

Amongst the Americans of the South, nature sometimes reasserts herrights, and restores a transient equality between the blacks and thewhites; but in the North pride restrains the most imperious of humanpassions. The American of the Northern States would perhaps allow thenegress to share his licentious pleasures, if the laws of his countrydid not declare that she may aspire to be the legitimate partner of hisbed; but he recoils with horror from her who might become his wife. 

Thus it is, in the United States, that the prejudice which repels thenegroes seems to increase in proportion as they are emancipated, andinequality is sanctioned by the manners whilst it is effaced from thelaws of the country. But if the relative position of the two races whichinhabit the United States is such as I have described, it may be askedwhy the Americans have abolished slavery in the North of the Union, why they maintain it in the South, and why they aggravate its hardshipsthere? The answer is easily given. It is not for the good of thenegroes, but for that of the whites, that measures are taken to abolishslavery in the United States. 

The first negroes were imported into Virginia about the year 1621. *fIn America, therefore, as well as in the rest of the globe, slaveryoriginated in the South. Thence it spread from one settlement toanother; but the number of slaves diminished towards the NorthernStates, and the negro population was always very limited in New England. *g

[Footnote f: See Beverley's "History of Virginia. " See also inJefferson's "Memoirs" some curious details concerning the introductionof negroes into Virginia, and the first Act which prohibited theimportation of them in 1778. ]

[Footnote g: The number of slaves was less considerable in the North, but the advantages resulting from slavery were not more contested therethan in the South. In 1740, the Legislature of the State of New Yorkdeclared that the direct importation of slaves ought to be encouragedas much as possible, and smuggling severely punished in order not todiscourage the fair trader. (Kent's "Commentaries, " vol. Ii. P. 206. )Curious researches, by Belknap, upon slavery in New England, are to befound in the "Historical Collection of Massachusetts, " vol. Iv. P. 193. It appears that negroes were introduced there in 1630, but that thelegislation and manners of the people were opposed to slavery from thefirst; see also, in the same work, the manner in which public opinion, and afterwards the laws, finally put an end to slavery. ]

A century had scarcely elapsed since the foundation of the colonies, when the attention of the planters was struck by the extraordinaryfact, that the provinces which were comparatively destitute of slaves, increased in population, in wealth, and in prosperity more rapidly thanthose which contained the greatest number of negroes. In the former, however, the inhabitants were obliged to cultivate the soil themselves, or by hired laborers; in the latter they were furnished with hands forwhich they paid no wages; yet although labor and expenses were onthe one side, and ease with economy on the other, the former were inpossession of the most advantageous system. This consequence seemed tobe the more difficult to explain, since the settlers, who all belongedto the same European race, had the same habits, the same civilization, the same laws, and their shades of difference were extremely slight. 

Time, however, continued to advance, and the Anglo-Americans, spreadingbeyond the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean, penetrated farther and fartherinto the solitudes of the West; they met with a new soil and an unwontedclimate; the obstacles which opposed them were of the most variouscharacter; their races intermingled, the inhabitants of the South wentup towards the North, those of the North descended to the South; but inthe midst of all these causes, the same result occurred at every step, and in general, the colonies in which there were no slaves became morepopulous and more rich than those in which slavery flourished. The moreprogress was made, the more was it shown that slavery, which is so cruelto the slave, is prejudicial to the master. 

Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races--Part IV

But this truth was most satisfactorily demonstrated when civilizationreached the banks of the Ohio. The stream which the Indians haddistinguished by the name of Ohio, or Beautiful River, waters one ofthe most magnificent valleys that has ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affordsinexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air iswholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extremefrontier of a vast State: That which follows the numerous windings ofthe Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky, that upon the right bearsthe 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

[Footnote h: Not only is slavery prohibited in Ohio, but no free negroesare allowed to enter the territory of that State, or to hold property init. See the Statutes of Ohio. ]

Thus the traveller who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spotwhere that river falls into the Mississippi, may be said to sail betweenliberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of the surroundingobjects will convince him as to which of the two is most favorable tomankind. Upon the left bank of the stream the population is rare; fromtime to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desertfields; the primaeval forest recurs at every turn; society seems to beasleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity andof life. From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heardwhich proclaims the presence of industry; the fields are covered withabundant harvests, the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste andactivity of the laborer, and man appears to be in the enjoyment of thatwealth and contentment which is the reward of labor. *i

[Footnote i: The activity of Ohio is not confined to individuals, butthe undertakings of the State are surprisingly great; a canal has beenestablished between Lake Erie and the Ohio, by means of which the valleyof the Mississippi communicates with the river of the North, and theEuropean commodities which arrive at New York may be forwarded by waterto New Orleans across five hundred leagues of continent. ]

The State of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the State of Ohio only twelveyears later; but twelve years are more in America than half a century inEurope, and, at the present day, the population of Ohio exceeds thatof Kentucky by two hundred and fifty thousand souls. *j These oppositeconsequences of slavery and freedom may readily be understood, and theysuffice to explain many of the differences which we remark between thecivilization of antiquity and that of our own time. 

[Footnote j: The exact numbers given by the census of 1830 were:Kentucky, 688, -844; Ohio, 937, 679. [In 1890 the population of Ohio was3, 672, 316, that of Kentucky, 1, 858, 635. ]]

Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea ofslavery, upon the right bank it is identified with that of prosperityand improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it ishonored; on the former territory no white laborers can be found, forthey would be afraid of assimilating themselves to the negroes; on thelatter no one is idle, for the white population extends its activity andits intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men whose taskit is to cultivate the rich soil of Kentucky are ignorant and lukewarm;whilst those who are active and enlightened either do nothing or passover into the State of Ohio, where they may work without dishonor. 

It is true that in Kentucky the planters are not obliged to pay wagesto the slaves whom they employ; but they derive small profits from theirlabor, whilst the wages paid to free workmen would be returned withinterest in the value of their services. The free workman is paid, buthe does his work quicker than the slave, and rapidity of execution isone of the great elements of economy. The white sells his services, butthey are only purchased at the times at which they may be useful; theblack can claim no remuneration for his toil, but the expense of hismaintenance is perpetual; he must be supported in his old age as wellas in the prime of manhood, in his profitless infancy as well as inthe productive years of youth. Payment must equally be made in order toobtain the services of either class of men: the free workman receiveshis wages in money, the slave in education, in food, in care, and inclothing. The money which a master spends in the maintenance of hisslaves goes gradually and in detail, so that it is scarcely perceived;the salary of the free workman is paid in a round sum, which appearsonly to enrich the individual who receives it, but in the end the slavehas cost more than the free servant, and his labor is less productive. *k

[Footnote k: Independently of these causes, which, wherever free workmenabound, render their labor more productive and more economical than thatof slaves, another cause may be pointed out which is peculiar to theUnited States: the sugar-cane has hitherto been cultivated with successonly upon the banks of the Mississippi, near the mouth of that river inthe Gulf of Mexico. In Louisiana the cultivation of the sugar-cane isexceedingly lucrative, and nowhere does a laborer earn so much by hiswork, and, as there is always a certain relation between the cost ofproduction and the value of the produce, the price of slaves is veryhigh in Louisiana. But Louisiana is one of the confederated States, andslaves may be carried thither from all parts of the Union; the pricegiven for slaves in New Orleans consequently raises the value of slavesin all the other markets. The consequence of this is, that in thecountries where the land is less productive, the cost of slave laboris still very considerable, which gives an additional advantage to thecompetition of free labor. ]

The influence of slavery extends still further; it affects the characterof the master, and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas and histastes. Upon both banks of the Ohio, the character of the inhabitants isenterprising and energetic; but this vigor is very differently exercisedin the two States. The white inhabitant of Ohio, who is obliged tosubsist by his own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as theprincipal aim of his existence; and as the country which he occupiespresents inexhaustible resources to his industry and ever-varying luresto his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses the ordinary limits ofhuman cupidity: he is tormented by the desire of wealth, and he boldlyenters upon every path which fortune opens to him; he becomes a sailor, a pioneer, an artisan, or a laborer with the same indifference, and hesupports, with equal constancy, the fatigues and the dangers incidentalto these various professions; the resources of his intelligence areastonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a speciesof heroism. 

But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor, but all the undertakings whichlabor promotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes arethose of an idle man; money loses a portion of its value in his eyes;he covets wealth much less than pleasure and excitement; and the energywhich his neighbor devotes to gain, turns with him to a passionate loveof field sports and military exercises; he delights in violent bodilyexertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed froma very early age to expose his life in single combat. Thus slavery notonly prevents the whites from becoming opulent, but even from desiringto become so. 

As the same causes have been continually producing opposite effects forthe last two centuries in the British colonies of North America, theyhave established a very striking difference between the commercialcapacity of the inhabitants of the South and those of the North. At thepresent day it is only the Northern States which are in possessionof shipping, manufactures, railroads, and canals. This difference isperceptible not only in comparing the North with the South, but incomparing the several Southern States. Almost all the individuals whocarry on commercial operations, or who endeavor to turn slave labor toaccount in the most Southern districts of the Union, have emigrated fromthe North. The natives of the Northern States are constantly spreadingover that portion of the American territory where they have less to fearfrom 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 whofirst founded and who still maintain it. 

Were I inclined to continue this parallel, I could easily prove thatalmost all the differences which may be remarked between the charactersof the Americans in the Southern and in the Northern States haveoriginated in slavery; but this would divert me from my subject, and mypresent intention is not to point out all the consequences of servitude, but those effects which it has produced upon the prosperity of thecountries which have admitted it. 

The influence of slavery upon the production of wealth must have beenvery imperfectly known in antiquity, as slavery then obtained throughoutthe civilized world; and the nations which were unacquainted withit were barbarous. And indeed Christianity only abolished slaveryby advocating the claims of the slave; at the present time it may beattacked in the name of the master, and, upon this point, interest isreconciled with morality. 

As these truths became apparent in the United States, slavery recededbefore the progress of experience. Servitude had begun in the South, andhad thence spread towards the North; but it now retires again. Freedom, which started from the North, now descends uninterruptedly towardsthe South. Amongst the great States, Pennsylvania now constitutes theextreme limit of slavery to the North: but even within those limitsthe slave system is shaken: Maryland, which is immediately belowPennsylvania, is preparing for its abolition; and Virginia, which comesnext to Maryland, is already discussing its utility and its dangers. *l

[Footnote l: A peculiar reason contributes to detach the twolast-mentioned States from the cause of slavery. The former wealth ofthis part of the Union was principally derived from the cultivation oftobacco. This cultivation is specially carried on by slaves; but withinthe last few years the market-price of tobacco has diminished, whilstthe value of the slaves remains the same. Thus the ratio between thecost of production and the value of the produce is changed. The nativesof Maryland and Virginia are therefore more disposed than they werethirty years ago, to give up slave labor in the cultivation of tobacco, or to give up slavery and tobacco at the same time. ]

No great change takes place in human institutions without involvingamongst its causes the law of inheritance. When the law of primogenitureobtained in the South, each family was represented by a wealthyindividual, who was neither compelled nor induced to labor; and he wassurrounded, as by parasitic plants, by the other members of his familywho were then excluded by law from sharing the common inheritance, and who led the same kind of life as himself. The very same thingthen occurred in all the families of the South as still happens in thewealthy families of some countries in Europe, namely, that the youngersons remain in the same state of idleness as their elder brother, without being as rich as he is. This identical result seems to beproduced in Europe and in America by wholly analogous causes. Inthe South of the United States the whole race of whites formed anaristocratic body, which was headed by a certain number of privilegedindividuals, whose wealth was permanent, and whose leisure washereditary. These leaders of the American nobility kept alive thetraditional prejudices of the white race in the body of which they werethe representatives, and maintained the honor of inactive life. Thisaristocracy contained many who were poor, but none who would work; itsmembers preferred want to labor, consequently no competition was set onfoot against negro laborers and slaves, and, whatever opinion might beentertained as to the utility of their efforts, it was indispensable toemploy them, since there was no one else to work. 

No sooner was the law of primogeniture abolished than fortunes beganto diminish, and all the families of the country were simultaneouslyreduced to a state in which labor became necessary to procure the meansof subsistence: several of them have since entirely disappeared, andall of them learned to look forward to the time at which it would benecessary for everyone to provide for his own wants. Wealthy individualsare still to be met with, but they no longer constitute a compact andhereditary body, nor have they been able to adopt a line of conduct inwhich they could persevere, and which they could infuse into all ranksof society. The prejudice which stigmatized labor was in the first placeabandoned by common consent; the number of needy men was increased, andthe needy were allowed to gain a laborious subsistence without blushingfor their exertions. Thus one of the most immediate consequences of thepartible quality of estates has been to create a class of free laborers. As soon as a competition was set on foot between the free laborer andthe slave, the inferiority of the latter became manifest, and slaverywas attacked in its fundamental principle, which is the interest of themaster. 

As slavery recedes, the black population follows its retrograde course, and returns with it towards those tropical regions from which itoriginally came. However singular this fact may at first appear tobe, it may readily be explained. Although the Americans abolish theprinciple of slavery, they do not set their slaves free. To illustratethis remark, I will quote the example of the State of New York. In 1788, the State of New York prohibited the sale of slaves within its limits, which was an indirect method of prohibiting the importation of blacks. Thenceforward the number of negroes could only increase according tothe ratio of the natural increase of population. But eight years latera more decisive measure was taken, and it was enacted that all childrenborn of slave parents after July 4, 1799, should be free. No increasecould then take place, and although slaves still existed, slavery mightbe said to be abolished. 

From the time at which a Northern State prohibited the importation ofslaves, no slaves were brought from the South to be sold in its markets. On the other hand, as the sale of slaves was forbidden in that State, an owner was no longer able to get rid of his slave (who thus became aburdensome possession) otherwise than by transporting him to the South. But when a Northern State declared that the son of the slave should beborn free, the slave lost a large portion of his market value, since hisposterity was no longer included in the bargain, and the owner had thena strong interest in transporting him to the South. Thus the same lawprevents the slaves of the South from coming to the Northern States, anddrives those of the North to the South. 

The want of free hands is felt in a State in proportion as the number ofslaves decreases. But in proportion as labor is performed by free hands, slave labor becomes less productive; and the slave is then a uselessor onerous possession, whom it is important to export to those SouthernStates where the same competition is not to be feared. Thus theabolition of slavery does not set the slave free, but it merelytransfers him from one master to another, and from the North to theSouth. 

The emancipated negroes, and those born after the abolition of slavery, do not, indeed, migrate from the North to the South; but their situationwith regard to the Europeans is not unlike that of the aborigines ofAmerica; they remain half civilized, and deprived of their rights inthe midst of a population which is far superior to them in wealth and inknowledge; where they are exposed to the tyranny of the laws *m and theintolerance of the people. On some accounts they are still more to bepitied than the Indians, since they are haunted by the reminiscence ofslavery, and they cannot claim possession of a single portion of thesoil: many of them perish miserably, *n and the rest congregate in thegreat towns, where they perform the meanest offices, and lead a wretchedand precarious existence. 

[Footnote m: The States in which slavery is abolished usually do whatthey can to render their territory disagreeable to the negroes asa place of residence; and as a kind of emulation exists between thedifferent States in this respect, the unhappy blacks can only choose theleast of the evils which beset them. ]

[Footnote n: There is a very great difference between the mortalityof the blacks and of the whites in the States in which slavery isabolished; from 1820 to 1831 only one out of forty-two individualsof the white population died in Philadelphia; but one negro out oftwenty-one individuals of the black population died in the same space oftime. The mortality is by no means so great amongst the negroes who arestill slaves. (See Emerson's "Medical Statistics, " p. 28. )]

But even if the number of negroes continued to increase as rapidly aswhen they were still in a state of slavery, as the number of whitesaugments with twofold rapidity since the abolition of slavery, theblacks would soon be, as it were, lost in the midst of a strangepopulation. 

A district which is cultivated by slaves is in general more scantilypeopled than a district cultivated by free labor: moreover, America isstill a new country, and a State is therefore not half peopled at thetime when it abolishes slavery. No sooner is an end put to slavery thanthe want of free labor is felt, and a crowd of enterprising adventurersimmediately arrive from all parts of the country, who hasten to profitby the fresh resources which are then opened to industry. The soilis soon divided amongst them, and a family of white settlers takespossession of each tract of country. Besides which, European emigrationis exclusively directed to the free States; for what would be thefate 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 sametime by the immense influx of emigrants; whilst the black populationreceives no emigrants, and is upon its decline. The proportion whichexisted between the two races is soon inverted. The negroes constitute ascanty remnant, a poor tribe of vagrants, which is lost in the midst ofan immense people in full possession of the land; and the presence ofthe blacks is only marked by the injustice and the hardships of whichthey are the unhappy victims. 

In several of the Western States the negro race never made itsappearance, and in all the Northern States it is rapidly declining. Thusthe great question of its future condition is confined within a narrowcircle, where it becomes less formidable, though not more easy ofsolution. 

The more we descend towards the South, the more difficult does it becometo abolish slavery with advantage: and this arises from several physicalcauses which it is important to point out. 

The first of these causes is the climate; it is well known that inproportion as Europeans approach the tropics they suffer more fromlabor. Many of the Americans even assert that within a certain latitudethe exertions which a negro can make without danger are fatal to them;*o but I do not think that this opinion, which is so favorable tothe indolence of the inhabitants of southern regions, is confirmed byexperience. The southern parts of the Union are not hotter than theSouth of Italy and of Spain; *p and it may be asked why the Europeancannot work as well there as in the two latter countries. If slavery hasbeen abolished in Italy and in Spain without causing the destruction ofthe masters, why should not the same thing take place in the Union? Icannot believe that nature has prohibited the Europeans in Georgia andthe Floridas, under pain of death, from raising the means of subsistencefrom the soil, but their labor would unquestionably be more irksome andless productive to them than to the inhabitants of New England. As thefree workman thus loses a portion of his superiority over the slave inthe Southern States, there are fewer inducements to abolish slavery. 

[Footnote o: This is true of the spots in which rice is cultivated;rice-grounds, which are unwholesome in all countries, are particularlydangerous in those regions which are exposed to the beams of a tropicalsun. Europeans would not find it easy to cultivate the soil in that partof the New World if it must be necessarily be made to produce rice; butmay they not subsist without rice-grounds?]

[Footnote p: These States are nearer to the equator than Italy andSpain, but the temperature of the continent of America is very muchlower than that of Europe. 

The Spanish Government formerly caused a certain number of peasantsfrom the Acores to be transported into a district of Louisiana calledAttakapas, by way of experiment. These settlers still cultivate the soilwithout the assistance of slaves, but their industry is so languid asscarcely to supply their most necessary wants. ]

All the plants of Europe grow in the northern parts of the Union; theSouth has special productions of its own. It has been observed thatslave labor is a very expensive method of cultivating corn. The farmerof corn land in a country where slavery is unknown habitually retains asmall number of laborers in his service, and at seed-time and harvesthe hires several additional hands, who only live at his cost for a shortperiod. But the agriculturist in a slave State is obliged to keep alarge number of slaves the whole year round, in order to sow his fieldsand to gather in his crops, although their services are only requiredfor a few weeks; but slaves are unable to wait till they are hired, andto subsist by their own labor in the mean time like free laborers; inorder to have their services they must be bought. Slavery, independentlyof its general disadvantages, is therefore still more inapplicable tocountries in which corn is cultivated than to those which producecrops of a different kind. The cultivation of tobacco, of cotton, andespecially of the sugar-cane, demands, on the other hand, unremittingattention: and women and children are employed in it, whose services areof but little use in the cultivation of wheat. Thus slavery is naturallymore fitted to the countries from which these productions are derived. Tobacco, cotton, and the sugar-cane are exclusively grown in the South, and they form one of the principal sources of the wealth of thoseStates. If slavery were abolished, the inhabitants of the South wouldbe constrained to adopt one of two alternatives: they must either changetheir system of cultivation, and then they would come into competitionwith the more active and more experienced inhabitants of the North; or, if they continued to cultivate the same produce without slave labor, they would have to support the competition of the other States of theSouth, which might still retain their slaves. Thus, peculiar reasonsfor maintaining slavery exist in the South which do not operate in theNorth. 

But there is yet another motive which is more cogent than all theothers: the South might indeed, rigorously speaking, abolish slavery;but how should it rid its territory of the black population? Slavesand slavery are driven from the North by the same law, but this twofoldresult cannot be hoped for in the South. 

The arguments which I have adduced to show that slavery is more naturaland more advantageous in the South than in the North, sufficiently provethat the number of slaves must be far greater in the former districts. It was to the southern settlements that the first Africans were brought, and it is there that the greatest number of them have always beenimported. As we advance towards the South, the prejudice which sanctionsidleness increases in power. In the States nearest to the tropics thereis not a single white laborer; the negroes are consequently muchmore numerous in the South than in the North. And, as I have alreadyobserved, this disproportion increases daily, since the negroes aretransferred to one part of the Union as soon as slavery is abolished inthe other. Thus the black population augments in the South, not only byits natural fecundity, but by the compulsory emigration of the negroesfrom the North; and the African race has causes of increase in the Southvery analogous to those which so powerfully accelerate the growth of theEuropean race in the North. 

In the State of Maine there is one negro in 300 inhabitants; inMassachusetts, 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. Suchwas the proportion of the black population to the whites in the year1830. But this proportion is perpetually changing, as it constantlydecreases in the North and augments in the South. 

[Footnote q: We find it asserted in an American work, entitled "Letterson the Colonization Society, " by Mr. Carey, 1833, "That for the lastforty years the black race has increased more rapidly than the whiterace in the State of South Carolina; and that if we take the averagepopulation of the five States of the South into which slaves were firstintroduced, viz. , Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia, we shall find that from 1790 to 1830 the whites haveaugmented in the proportion of 80 to 100, and the blacks in that of 112to 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. Slave States, 3, 960, 814 whites; 2, 208, 102 blacks. [In 1890 the UnitedStates contained a population of 54, 983, 890 whites, and 7, 638, 360negroes. ]]

It is evident that the most Southern States of the Union cannot abolishslavery without incurring very great dangers, which the North had noreason to apprehend when it emancipated its black population. Wehave already shown the system by which the Northern States secure thetransition from slavery to freedom, by keeping the present generationin chains, and setting their descendants free; by this means the negroesare gradually introduced into society; and whilst the men who mightabuse their freedom are kept in a state of servitude, those who areemancipated may learn the art of being free before they become their ownmasters. But it would be difficult to apply this method in the South. Todeclare that all the negroes born after a certain period shall be 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 slaveryfrom which their children are delivered, are astonished at so unequal afate, and their astonishment is only the prelude to their impatienceand irritation. Thenceforward slavery loses, in their eyes, that kindof moral power which it derived from time and habit; it is reduced toa mere palpable abuse of force. The Northern States had nothing to fearfrom the contrast, because in them the blacks were few in number, andthe white population was very considerable. But if this faint dawnof freedom were to show two millions of men their true position, theoppressors would have reason to tremble. After having affranchised thechildren of their slaves the Europeans of the Southern States wouldvery shortly be obliged to extend the same benefit to the whole blackpopulation. 

Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races--Part V

In the North, as I have already remarked, a twofold migration ensuesupon the abolition of slavery, or even precedes that event whencircumstances have rendered it probable; the slaves quit the countryto be transported southwards; and the whites of the Northern States, aswell as the emigrants from Europe, hasten to fill up their place. Butthese two causes cannot operate in the same manner in the SouthernStates. On the one hand, the mass of slaves is too great for anyexpectation of their ever being removed from the country to beentertained; and on the other hand, the Europeans and Anglo-Americans ofthe North are afraid to come to inhabit a country in which labor has notyet been reinstated in its rightful honors. Besides, they very justlylook upon the States in which the proportion of the negroes equals orexceeds that of the whites, as exposed to very great dangers; and theyrefrain from turning their activity 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 theblack population, and they would remain unsupported to repress itsexcesses. So that in the course of a few years, a great people of freenegroes would exist in the heart of a white nation of equal size. 

The same abuses of power which still maintain slavery, would then becomethe source of the most alarming perils which the white population of theSouth might have to apprehend. At the present time the descendants ofthe Europeans are the sole owners of the land; the absolute masters ofall labor; and the only persons who are possessed of wealth, knowledge, and arms. The black is destitute of all these advantages, but hesubsists without them because he is a slave. If he were free, andobliged to provide for his own subsistence, would it be possible forhim to remain without these things and to support life? Or would not thevery instruments of the present superiority of the white, whilst slaveryexists, expose him to a thousand dangers if it were abolished?

As long as the negro remains a slave, he may be kept in a conditionnot very far removed from that of the brutes; but, with his liberty, he cannot but acquire a degree of instruction which will enable him toappreciate his misfortunes, and to discern a remedy for them. Moreover, there exists a singular principle of relative justice which is veryfirmly implanted in the human heart. Men are much more forcibly struckby those inequalities which exist within the circle of the same class, than with those which may be remarked between different classes. It ismore easy for them to admit slavery, than to allow several millionsof citizens to exist under a load of eternal infamy and hereditarywretchedness. In the North the population of freed negroes feels thesehardships and resents these indignities; but its numbers and its powersare small, whilst in the South it would be numerous and strong. 

As soon as it is admitted that the whites and the emancipated blacksare placed upon the same territory in the situation of two aliencommunities, it will readily be understood that there are but twoalternatives for the future; the negroes and the whites must eitherwholly part or wholly mingle. I have already expressed the convictionwhich I entertain as to the latter event. *r I do not imagine thatthe white and black races will ever live in any country upon an equalfooting. But I believe the difficulty to be still greater in theUnited States than elsewhere. An isolated individual may surmount theprejudices of religion, of his country, or of his race, and if thisindividual is a king he may effect surprising changes in society; but awhole people cannot rise, as it were, above itself. A despot who shouldsubject the Americans and their former slaves to the same yoke, mightperhaps succeed in commingling their races; but as long as the Americandemocracy remains at the head of affairs, no one will undertake sodifficult a task; and it may be foreseen that the freer the whitepopulation of the United States becomes, the more isolated will itremain. *s

[Footnote r: This opinion is sanctioned by authorities infinitelyweightier than anything that I can say: thus, for instance, it is statedin the "Memoirs of Jefferson" (as collected by M. Conseil), "Nothing ismore clearly written in the book of destiny than the emancipation of theblacks; and it is equally certain that the two races will never live ina state of equal freedom under the same government, so insurmountableare the barriers which nature, habit, and opinions have establishedbetween them. "]

[Footnote s: If the British West India planters had governed themselves, they would assuredly not have passed the Slave Emancipation Bill whichthe mother-country has 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 thetrue means of transition between the white and the negro; so thatwherever mulattoes abound, the intermixture of the two races is notimpossible. In some parts of America, the European and the negro racesare so crossed by one another, that it is rare to meet with a man who isentirely black, or entirely white: when they are arrived at this point, the two races may really be said to be combined; or rather to have beenabsorbed in a third race, which is connected with both without beingidentical 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 inthe North, but still they are infinitely more scarce than in any otherEuropean colony: mulattoes are by no means numerous in the UnitedStates; they have no force peculiar to themselves, and when quarrelsoriginating in differences of color take place, they generally sidewith the whites; just as the lackeys of the great, in Europe, assume thecontemptuous airs of nobility to the lower orders. 

The pride of origin, which is natural to the English, is singularlyaugmented by the personal pride which democratic liberty fosters amongstthe Americans: the white citizen of the United States is proud of hisrace, and proud of himself. But if the whites and the negroes do notintermingle in the North of the Union, how should they mix in the South?Can it be supposed for an instant, that an American of the SouthernStates, placed, as he must forever be, between the white man with allhis physical and moral superiority and the negro, will ever think ofpreferring the latter? The Americans of the Southern States have twopowerful passions which will always keep them aloof; the first is thefear of being assimilated to the negroes, their former slaves; and thesecond the dread of sinking below the whites, their neighbors. 

If I were called upon to predict what will probably occur at some futuretime, I should say, that the abolition of slavery in the South will, in the common course of things, increase the repugnance of the whitepopulation for the men of color. I found this opinion upon the analogousobservation which I already had occasion to make in the North. I thereremarked that the white inhabitants of the North avoid the negroes withincreasing care, in proportion as the legal barriers of separation areremoved by the legislature; and why should not the same resulttake place in the South? In the North, the whites are deterred fromintermingling with the blacks by the fear of an imaginary danger; in theSouth, where the danger would be real, I cannot imagine that the fearwould be less general. 

If, on the one hand, it be admitted (and the fact is unquestionable)that the colored population perpetually accumulates in the extremeSouth, and that it increases more rapidly than that of the whites; andif, on the other hand, it be allowed that it is impossible to foreseea time at which the whites and the blacks will be so intermingled as toderive the same benefits from society; must it not be inferred that theblacks and the whites will, sooner or later, come to open strife in theSouthern States of the Union? But if it be asked what the issue of thestruggle is likely to be, it will readily be understood that we arehere left to form a very vague surmise of the truth. The human mind maysucceed in tracing a wide circle, as it were, which includes the courseof future events; but within that circle a thousand various chancesand circumstances may direct it in as many different ways; and inevery picture of the future there is a dim spot, which the eye of theunderstanding cannot penetrate. It appears, however, to be extremelyprobable that in the West Indian Islands the white race is destined tobe subdued, and the black population to share the same fate upon thecontinent. 

In the West India Islands the white planters are surrounded by animmense black population; on the continent, the blacks are placedbetween the ocean and an innumerable people, which already extends overthem in a dense mass, from the icy confines of Canada to the frontiersof Virginia, and from the banks of the Missouri to the shores of theAtlantic. If the white citizens of North America remain united, itcannot be supposed that the negroes will escape the destruction withwhich they are menaced; they must be subdued by want or by the sword. But the black population which is accumulated along the coast ofthe Gulf of Mexico, has a chance of success if the American Union isdissolved when the struggle between the two races begins. If the federaltie were broken, the citizens of the South would be wrong to rely uponany lasting succor from their Northern countrymen. The latter arewell aware that the danger can never reach them; and unless they areconstrained to march to the assistance of the South by a positiveobligation, 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 theSouth, even if they are abandoned to their own resources, will enterthe lists with an immense superiority of knowledge and of the means ofwarfare; but the blacks will have numerical strength and the energy ofdespair upon their side, and these are powerful resources to men whohave taken up arms. The fate of the white population of the SouthernStates will, perhaps, be similar to that of the Moors in Spain. Afterhaving occupied the land for centuries, it will perhaps be forced toretire to the country whence its ancestors came, and to abandon to thenegroes the possession of a territory, which Providence seems to havemore peculiarly destined for them, since they can subsist and labor init more easily that the whites. 

The danger of a conflict between the white and the black inhabitants ofthe Southern States of the Union--a danger which, however remote it maybe, is inevitable--perpetually haunts the imagination of the Americans. The inhabitants of the North make it a common topic of conversation, although they have no direct injury to fear from the struggle; but theyvainly endeavor to devise some means of obviating the misfortunes whichthey foresee. In the Southern States the subject is not discussed: theplanter does not allude to the future in conversing with strangers; thecitizen does not communicate his apprehensions to his friends; he seeksto conceal them from himself; but there is something more alarming inthe tacit forebodings of the South, than in the clamorous fears of theNorthern States. 

This all-pervading disquietude has given birth to an undertaking whichis but little known, but which may have the effect of changing the fateof a portion of the human race. From apprehension of the dangers whichI have just been describing, a certain number of American citizens haveformed a society for the purpose of exporting to the coast of Guinea, at their own expense, such free negroes as may be willing to escape fromthe oppression to which they are subject. *t In 1820, the society towhich I allude formed a settlement in Africa, upon the seventh degreeof north latitude, which bears the name of Liberia. The most recentintelligence informs us that 2, 500 negroes are collected there; theyhave introduced the democratic institutions of America into the countryof their forefathers; and Liberia has a representative system ofgovernment, negro jurymen, negro magistrates, and negro priests;churches have been built, newspapers established, and, by a singularchange in the vicissitudes of the world, white men are prohibited fromsojourning within the settlement. *u

[Footnote t: This society assumed the name of "The Society forthe Colonization of the Blacks. " See its annual reports; and moreparticularly the fifteenth. See also the pamphlet, to which allusion hasalready been made, entitled "Letters on the Colonization Society, and onits probable Results, " by Mr. Carey, Philadelphia, 1833. ]

[Footnote u: This last regulation was laid down by the founders ofthe settlement; they apprehended that a state of things might arisein Africa similar to that which exists on the frontiers of the UnitedStates, and that if the negroes, like the Indians, were brought intocollision with a people more enlightened than themselves, they would bedestroyed before they could be civilized. ]

This is indeed a strange caprice of fortune. Two hundred years have nowelapsed since the inhabitants of Europe undertook to tear the negrofrom his family and his home, in order to transport him to the shores ofNorth America; at the present day, the European settlers are engaged insending back the descendants of those very negroes to the Continent fromwhich they were originally taken; and the barbarous Africans have beenbrought into contact with civilization in the midst of bondage, and havebecome acquainted with free political institutions in slavery. Up to thepresent time Africa has been closed against the arts and sciences of thewhites; but the inventions of Europe will perhaps penetrate into thoseregions, now that they are introduced by Africans themselves. Thesettlement of Liberia is founded upon a lofty and a most fruitful idea;but whatever may be its results with regard to the Continent of Africa, it can afford no remedy to the New World. 

In twelve years the Colonization Society has transported 2, 500 negroesto Africa; in the same space of time about 700, 000 blacks were born inthe United States. If the colony of Liberia were so situated as to beable to receive thousands of new inhabitants every year, and if thenegroes were in a state to be sent thither with advantage; if the Unionwere to supply the society with annual subsidies, *v and to transportthe negroes to Africa in the vessels of the State, it would still beunable to counterpoise the natural increase of population amongst theblacks; and as it could not remove as many men in a year as are bornupon its territory within the same space of time, it would fail insuspending the growth of the evil which is daily increasing in theStates. *w The negro race will never leave those shores of the Americancontinent, to which it was brought by the passions and the vices ofEuropeans; and it will not disappear from the New World as long as itcontinues to exist. The inhabitants of the United States may retardthe calamities which they apprehend, but they cannot now destroy theirefficient cause. 

[Footnote v: Nor would these be the only difficulties attendant uponthe undertaking; if the Union undertook to buy up the negroes now inAmerica, in order to transport them to Africa, the price of slaves, increasing with their scarcity, would soon become enormous; and theStates of the North would never consent to expend such great sums for apurpose which would procure such small advantages to themselves. If theUnion took possession of the slaves in the Southern States by force, orat a rate determined by law, an insurmountable resistance would arise inthat part of the country. Both alternatives are equally impossible. ]

[Footnote w: In 1830 there were in the United States 2, 010, 327 slavesand 319, 439 free blacks, in all 2, 329, 766 negroes: which formed aboutone-fifth of the total population of the United States at that time. ]

I am obliged to confess that I do not regard the abolition of slaveryas a means of warding off the struggle of the two races in the UnitedStates. The negroes may long remain slaves without complaining; but ifthey are once raised to the level of free men, they will soon revolt atbeing deprived of all their civil rights; and as they cannot become theequals of the whites, they will speedily declare themselves as enemies. In the North everything contributed to facilitate the emancipation ofthe slaves; and slavery was abolished, without placing the free negroesin a position which could become formidable, since their number was toosmall for them ever to claim the exercise of their rights. But such isnot the case in the South. The question of slavery was a question ofcommerce and manufacture for the slave-owners in the North; for those ofthe South, it is a question of life and death. God forbid that I shouldseek to justify the principle of negro slavery, as has been done bysome American writers! But I only observe that all the countries whichformerly adopted that execrable principle are not equally able toabandon 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 thoseStates; viz. , either to emancipate the negroes, and to interminglewith them; or, remaining isolated from them, to keep them in a state ofslavery as long as possible. All intermediate measures seem to me likelyto terminate, and that shortly, in the most horrible of civil wars, andperhaps in the extirpation of one or other of the two races. Such is theview which the Americans of the South take of the question, and theyact consistently with it. As they are determined not to mingle with thenegroes, they refuse to emancipate them. 

Not that the inhabitants of the South regard slavery as necessary to thewealth of the planter, for on this point many of them agree with theirNorthern countrymen in freely admitting that slavery is prejudicial totheir interest; but they are convinced that, however prejudicial it maybe, they hold their lives upon no other tenure. The instruction which isnow diffused in the South has convinced the inhabitants that slavery isinjurious to the slave-owner, but it has also shown them, more clearlythan before, that no means exist of getting rid of its bad consequences. Hence arises a singular contrast; the more the utility of slavery iscontested, the more firmly is it established in the laws; and whilstthe principle of servitude is gradually abolished in the North, thatself-same principle gives rise to more and more rigorous consequences inthe South. 

The legislation of the Southern States with regard to slaves, presentsat the present day such unparalleled atrocities as suffice to show howradically the laws of humanity have been perverted, and to betray thedesperate position of the community in which that legislation hasbeen promulgated. The Americans of this portion of the Union have not, indeed, augmented the hardships of slavery; they have, on the contrary, bettered the physical condition of the slaves. The only means by whichthe ancients maintained slavery were fetters and death; the Americans ofthe South of the Union have discovered more intellectual securitiesfor the duration of their power. They have employed their despotism andtheir violence against the human mind. In antiquity, precautions weretaken to prevent the slave from breaking his chains; at the present daymeasures are adopted to deprive him even of the desire of freedom. Theancients kept the bodies of their slaves in bondage, but they placedno restraint upon the mind and no check upon education; and theyacted consistently with their established principle, since a naturaltermination of slavery then existed, and one day or other the slavemight be set free, and become the equal of his master. But the Americansof the South, who do not admit that the negroes can ever be commingledwith themselves, have forbidden them to be taught to read or to write, 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 thehardships of his condition. But the Americans of the South are wellaware that emancipation cannot but be dangerous, when the freed man cannever be assimilated to his former master. To give a man his freedom, and to leave him in wretchedness and ignominy, is nothing less than toprepare a future chief for a revolt of the slaves. Moreover, it has longbeen remarked that the presence of a free negro vaguely agitates theminds of his less fortunate brethren, and conveys to them a dim notionof their rights. The Americans of the South have consequently takenmeasures to prevent slave-owners from emancipating their slaves in mostcases; not indeed by a positive prohibition, but by subjecting that stepto various forms which it is difficult to comply with. I happenedto meet with an old man, in the South of the Union, who had lived inillicit 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; butyears had elapsed without his being able to surmount the legal obstaclesto their emancipation, and in the mean while his old age was come, andhe was about to die. He pictured to himself his sons dragged from marketto market, and passing from the authority of a parent to the rod ofthe stranger, until these horrid anticipations worked his expiringimagination into frenzy. When I saw him he was a prey to all the anguishof despair, and he made me feel how awful is the retribution of natureupon those who have broken her laws. 

These evils are unquestionably great; but they are the necessary andforeseen consequence of the very principle of modern slavery. When theEuropeans chose their slaves from a race differing from their own, whichmany of them considered as inferior to the other races of mankind, and which they all repelled with horror from any notion of intimateconnection, they must have believed that slavery would last forever;since there is no intermediate state which can be durable between theexcessive inequality produced by servitude and the complete equalitywhich originates in independence. The Europeans did imperfectly feelthis truth, but without acknowledging it even to themselves. Wheneverthey have had to do with negroes, their conduct has either been dictatedby their interest and their pride, or by their compassion. They firstviolated every right of humanity by their treatment of the negroand they afterwards informed him that those rights were precious andinviolable. They affected to open their ranks to the slaves, but thenegroes who attempted to penetrate into the community were driven backwith scorn; and they have incautiously and involuntarily been led toadmit of freedom instead of slavery, without having the courage to bewholly iniquitous, or wholly just. 

If it be impossible to anticipate a period at which the Americans of theSouth will mingle their blood with that of the negroes, can they allowtheir slaves to become free without compromising their own security? Andif they are obliged to keep that race in bondage in order to save theirown families, may they not be excused for availing themselves of themeans best adapted to that end? The events which are taking place inthe Southern States of the Union appear to me to be at once the mosthorrible and the most natural results of slavery. When I see the orderof nature overthrown, and when I hear the cry of humanity in its vainstruggle against the laws, my indignation does not light upon the men ofour own time who are the instruments of these outrages; but I reservemy execration for those who, after a thousand years of freedom, broughtback slavery into the world once more. 

Whatever may be the efforts of the Americans of the South to maintainslavery, they will not always succeed. Slavery, which is now confined toa single tract of the civilized earth, which is attacked by Christianityas unjust, and by political economy as prejudicial; and which is nowcontrasted with democratic liberties and the information of our age, cannot survive. By the choice of the master, or by the will of theslave, it will cease; and in either case great calamities may beexpected to ensue. If liberty be refused to the negroes of the South, they will in the end seize it for themselves by force; if it be given, they will abuse it ere long. *x

[Footnote x: [This chapter is no longer applicable to the condition ofthe negro race in the United States, since the abolition of slaverywas the result, though not the object, of the great Civil War, and thenegroes have been raised to the condition not only of freedmen, but ofcitizens; and in some States they exercise a preponderating politicalpower by reason of their numerical majority. Thus, in South Carolinathere were in 1870, 289, 667 whites and 415, 814 blacks. But theemancipation of the slaves has not solved the problem, how two races sodifferent and so hostile are to live together in peace in one country onequal terms. That problem is as difficult, perhaps more difficult thanever; and to this difficulty the author's remarks are still perfectlyapplicable. ]]

Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races--Part VI

What Are The Chances In Favor Of The Duration Of The American Union, AndWhat Dangers Threaten It *y

[Footnote y: [This chapter is one of the most curious and interestingportions of the work, because it embraces almost all the constitutionaland social questions which were raised by the great secession of theSouth and decided by the results of the Civil War. But it must beconfessed that the sagacity of the author is sometimes at fault in thesespeculations, and did not save him from considerable errors, which thecourse of events has since made apparent. He held that "the legislatorsof the Constitution of 1789 were not appointed to constitute thegovernment of a single people, but to regulate the association ofseveral States; that the Union was formed by the voluntary agreementof the States, and in uniting together they have not forfeited theirnationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and thesame people. " Whence he inferred that "if one of the States chose towithdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disproveits right of doing so; and that the Federal Government would have nomeans of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. "This is the Southern theory of the Constitution, and the whole case ofthe South in favor of secession. To many Europeans, and to someAmerican (Northern) jurists, this view appeared to be sound; but it wasvigorously 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 theirlives for it. He was also mistaken in supposing that the FederalExecutive is so weak that it requires the free consent of the governedto enable it to subsist, and that it would be defeated in a struggleto maintain the Union against one or more separate States. In 1861 nineStates, with a population of 8, 753, 000, seceded, and maintained for fouryears a resolute but unequal contest for independence, but they weredefeated. 

Lastly, the author was mistaken in supposing that a community ofinterests would always prevail between North and South sufficientlypowerful to bind them together. He overlooked the influence which thequestion of slavery must have on the Union the moment that the majorityof the people of the North declared against it. In 1831, when the authorvisited America, the anti-slavery agitation had scarcely begun; and thefact of Southern slavery was accepted by men of all parties, even in theStates where there were no slaves: and that was unquestionably the viewtaken by all the States and by all American statesmen at the time of theadoption of the Constitution, in 1789. But in the course of thirty yearsa great change took place, and the North refused to perpetuate what hadbecome the "peculiar institution" of the South, especially as it gavethe South a species of aristocratic preponderance. The result was theratification, 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, orprevious servitude. " The emancipation of several millions of negroslaves without compensation, and the transfer to them of politicalpreponderance in the States in which they outnumber the whitepopulation, were acts of the North totally opposed to the interestsof the South, and which could only have been carried into effect byconquest. --Translator's Note. ]]

Reason for which the preponderating force lies in the States rather thanin the Union--The Union will only last as long as all the States chooseto belong to it--Causes which tend to keep them united--Utility ofthe Union to resist foreign enemies, and to prevent the existenceof foreigners in America--No natural barriers between the severalStates--No conflicting interests to divide them--Reciprocal interestsof the Northern, Southern, and Western States--Intellectual ties ofunion--Uniformity of opinions--Dangers of the Union resulting from thedifferent characters and the passions of its citizens--Character of thecitizens in the South and in the North--The rapid growth of theUnion one of its greatest dangers--Progress of the population to theNorthwest--Power gravitates in the same direction--Passions originatingfrom sudden turns of fortune--Whether the existing Government of theUnion tends to gain strength, or to lose it--Various signs of itsdecrease--Internal improvements--Waste lands--Indians--The Bank--TheTariff--General Jackson. 

The maintenance of the existing institutions of the several Statesdepends in some measure upon the maintenance of the Union itself. It istherefore important in the first instance to inquire into the probablefate of the Union. One point may indeed be assumed at once: ifthe present confederation were dissolved, it appears to me to beincontestable that the States of which it is now composed would notreturn to their original isolated condition, but that several unionswould then be formed in the place of one. It is not my intention toinquire into the principles upon which these new unions would probablybe established, but merely to show what the causes are which may effectthe dismemberment of the existing confederation. 

With this object I shall be obliged to retrace some of the steps whichI have already taken, and to revert to topics which I have beforediscussed. I am aware that the reader may accuse me of repetition, butthe importance of the matter which still remains to be treated is myexcuse; I had rather say too much, than say too little to be thoroughlyunderstood, and I prefer injuring the author to slighting the subject. 

The legislators who formed the Constitution of 1789 endeavored to confera distinct and preponderating authority upon the federal power. But theywere confined by the conditions of the task which they had undertakento perform. They were not appointed to constitute the government of asingle people, but to regulate the association of several States; and, whatever their inclinations might be, they could not but divide theexercise of sovereignty in the end. 

In order to understand the consequences of this division, it isnecessary to make a short distinction between the affairs of theGovernment. There are some objects which are national by their verynature, that is to say, which affect the nation as a body, and canonly be intrusted to the man or the assembly of men who most completelyrepresent the entire nation. Amongst these may be reckoned war anddiplomacy. There are other objects which are provincial by their verynature, that is to say, which only affect certain localities, and whichcan only be properly treated in that locality. Such, for instance, isthe budget of a municipality. Lastly, there are certain objects ofa mixed nature, which are national inasmuch as they affect all thecitizens who compose the nation, and which are provincial inasmuch asit is not necessary that the nation itself should provide for them all. Such are the rights which regulate the civil and political condition ofthe citizens. No society can exist without civil and political rights. These rights therefore interest all the citizens alike; but it is notalways necessary to the existence and the prosperity of the nation thatthese rights should be uniform, nor, consequently, that they should beregulated by the central authority. 

There are, then, two distinct categories of objects which are submittedto the direction of the sovereign power; and these categories occur inall well-constituted communities, whatever the basis of the politicalconstitution may otherwise be. Between these two extremes the objectswhich I have termed mixed may be considered to lie. As these objectsare neither exclusively national nor entirely provincial, they may beobtained by a national or by a provincial government, according to theagreement of the contracting parties, without in any way impairing thecontract of association. 

The sovereign power is usually formed by the union of separateindividuals, who compose a people; and individual powers or collectiveforces, each representing a very small portion of the sovereignauthority, are the sole elements which are subjected to the generalGovernment of their choice. In this case the general Government is morenaturally called upon to regulate, not only those affairs which areof essential national importance, but those which are of a more localinterest; and the local governments are reduced to that small share ofsovereign authority which is indispensable to their prosperity. 

But sometimes the sovereign authority is composed of preorganizedpolitical bodies, by virtue of circumstances anterior to their union;and in this case the provincial governments assume the control, not onlyof those affairs which more peculiarly belong to their province, but ofall, or of a part of the mixed affairs to which allusion has been made. For the confederate nations which were independent sovereign Statesbefore their union, and which still represent a very considerable shareof the sovereign power, have only consented to cede to the generalGovernment the exercise of those rights which are indispensable to theUnion. 

When the national Government, independently of the prerogatives inherentin its nature, is invested with the right of regulating the affairswhich relate partly to the general and partly to the local interests, it possesses a preponderating influence. Not only are its own rightsextensive, but all the rights which it does not possess exist by itssufferance, and it may be apprehended that the provincial governmentsmay be deprived of their natural and necessary prerogatives by itsinfluence. 

When, on the other hand, the provincial governments are investedwith the power of regulating those same affairs of mixed interest, anopposite tendency prevails in society. The preponderating force residesin the province, not in the nation; and it may be apprehended that thenational Government may in the end be stripped of the privileges whichare necessary to its existence. 

Independent nations have therefore a natural tendency to centralization, and confederations to dismemberment. 

It now only remains for us to apply these general principles to theAmerican Union. The several States were necessarily possessed of theright of regulating all exclusively provincial affairs. Moreover thesesame States retained the rights of determining the civil and politicalcompetency of the citizens, or regulating the reciprocal relations ofthe members of the community, and of dispensing justice; rights whichare of a general nature, but which do not necessarily appertain to thenational Government. We have shown that the Government of the Union isinvested with the power of acting in the name of the whole nation inthose cases in which the nation has to appear as a single and undividedpower; as, for instance, in foreign relations, and in offering a commonresistance 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 Unionseems at first sight to be more considerable than that of the States;but a more attentive investigation shows it to be less so. Theundertakings of the Government of the Union are more vast, but theirinfluence is more rarely felt. Those of the provincial governments arecomparatively small, but they are incessant, and they serve to keepalive the authority which they represent. The Government of the Unionwatches the general interests of the country; but the general interestsof a people have a very questionable influence upon individualhappiness, whilst provincial interests produce a most immediate effectupon 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 therights, protect the fortune, and secure the life and the whole futureprosperity of every citizen. 

The Federal Government is very far removed from its subjects, whilst theprovincial governments are within the reach of them all, and are readyto attend to the smallest appeal. The central Government has upon itsside the passions of a few superior men who aspire to conduct it; butupon the side of the provincial governments are the interests of allthose second-rate individuals who can only hope to obtain power withintheir own State, and who nevertheless exercise the largest share ofauthority over the people because they are placed nearest to its level. The Americans have therefore much more to hope and to fear from theStates than from the Union; and, in conformity with the natural tendencyof the human mind, they are more likely to attach themselves to theformer than to the latter. In this respect their habits and feelingsharmonize with their interests. 

When a compact nation divides its sovereignty, and adopts a confederateform of government, the traditions, the customs, and the manners of thepeople are for a long time at variance with their legislation; and theformer tend to give a degree of influence to the central governmentwhich the latter forbids. When a number of confederate states unite toform a single nation, the same causes operate in an opposite direction. I have no doubt that if France were to become a confederate republiclike that of the United States, the government would at first displaymore energy than that of the Union; and if the Union were to alterits constitution to a monarchy like that of France, I think that theAmerican Government would be a long time in acquiring the forcewhich now rules the latter nation. When the national existence of theAnglo-Americans began, their provincial existence was already of longstanding; necessary relations were established between the townships andthe individual citizens of the same States; and they were accustomedto consider some objects as common to them all, and to conduct otheraffairs as exclusively relating to their own special interests. 

The Union is a vast body which presents no definite object topatriotic feeling. The forms and limits of the State are distinct andcircumscribed; since it represents a certain number of objects which arefamiliar to the citizens and beloved by all. It is identified with thevery soil, with the right of property and the domestic affections, withthe recollections of the past, the labors of the present, and the hopesof the future. Patriotism, then, which is frequently a mere extension ofindividual egotism, is still directed to the State, and is not excitedby the Union. Thus the tendency of the interests, the habits, and thefeelings of the people is to centre political activity in the States, inpreference 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. Whenever the government of a State has occasion to address an individualor an assembly of individuals, its language is clear and imperative; andsuch is also the tone of the Federal Government in its intercourse withindividuals, but no sooner has it anything to do with a State than itbegins to parley, to explain its motives and to justify its conduct, toargue, to advise, and, in short, anything but to command. If doubts areraised as to the limits of the constitutional powers of each government, the provincial government prefers its claim with boldness, and takesprompt and energetic steps to support it. In the mean while theGovernment of the Union reasons; it appeals to the interests, to thegood sense, to the glory of the nation; it temporizes, it negotiates, and does not consent to act until it is reduced to the last extremity. At first sight it might readily be imagined that it is the provincialgovernment which is armed with the authority of the nation, and thatCongress represents a single State. 

The Federal Government is, therefore, notwithstanding the precautions ofthose who founded it, naturally so weak that it more peculiarly requiresthe free consent of the governed to enable it to subsist. It is easyto perceive that its object is to enable the States to realize withfacility their determination of remaining united; and, as long as thispreliminary condition exists, its authority is great, temperate, andeffective. The Constitution fits the Government to control individuals, and easily to surmount such obstacles as they may be inclined tooffer; but it was by no means established with a view to the possibleseparation of one or more of the States from the Union. 

If the sovereignty of the Union were to engage in a struggle withthat of the States at the present day, its defeat may be confidentlypredicted; and it is not probable that such a struggle would beseriously undertaken. As often as a steady resistance is offered to theFederal Government it will be found to yield. Experience has hithertoshown that whenever a State has demanded anything with perseveranceand resolution, it has invariably succeeded; and that if a separategovernment has distinctly refused to act, it was left to do as itthought fit. *z

[Footnote z: See the conduct of the Northern States in the war of 1812. "During that war, " says Jefferson in a letter to General Lafayette, "four of the Eastern States were only attached to the Union, like somany inanimate bodies to living men. "]

But even if the Government of the Union had any strength inherent initself, the physical situation of the country would render the exerciseof that strength very difficult. *a The United States cover an immenseterritory; they are separated from each other by great distances; andthe population is disseminated over the surface of a country which isstill half a wilderness. If the Union were to undertake to enforce theallegiance of the confederate States by military means, it would be ina position very analogous to that of England at the time of the War ofIndependence. 

[Footnote a: The profound peace of the Union affords no pretext for astanding army; and without a standing army a government is not preparedto profit by a favorable opportunity to conquer resistance, and take thesovereign power by surprise. [This note, and the paragraph in the textwhich precedes, have been shown by the results of the Civil War to be amisconception 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 foundationof its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreementof the States; and, in uniting together, they have not forfeited theirnationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and thesame people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from thecontract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so; andthe Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claimsdirectly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the FederalGovernment easily to conquer the resistance which may be offered to itby any one of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more ofthem 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 thefederal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principaladvantages of union, or whose prosperity depends on the duration of thatunion, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to supportthe central Government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But theGovernment would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, butfrom a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations inorder to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the casejust alluded to, the Federal Government would derive its power from theunequal distribution of those benefits amongst the States. 

If one of the confederate States have acquired a preponderancesufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession ofthe central authority, it will consider the other States as subjectprovinces, and it will cause its own supremacy to be respected under theborrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may thenbe done in the name of the Federal Government, but in reality thatGovernment will have ceased to exist. *b In both these cases, the powerwhich acts in the name of the confederation becomes stronger the moreit abandons the natural state and the acknowledged principles ofconfederations. 

[Footnote b: Thus the province of Holland in the republic of the LowCountries, and the Emperor in the Germanic Confederation, have sometimesput themselves in the place of the union, and have employed the federalauthority to their own advantage. ]

In America the existing Union is advantageous to all the States, but itis not indispensable to any one of them. Several of them might breakthe federal tie without compromising the welfare of the others, althoughtheir own prosperity would be lessened. As the existence and thehappiness of none of the States are wholly dependent on the presentConstitution, they would none of them be disposed to make great personalsacrifices to maintain it. On the other hand, there is no State whichseems hitherto to have its ambition much interested in the maintenanceof the existing Union. They certainly do not all exercise the sameinfluence in the federal councils, but no one of them can hope todomineer over the rest, or to treat them as its inferiors or as itssubjects. 

It appears to me unquestionable that if any portion of the Unionseriously desired to separate itself from the other States, they wouldnot be able, nor indeed would they attempt, to prevent it; and thatthe present Union will only last as long as the States which composeit choose to continue members of the confederation. If this point beadmitted, the question becomes less difficult; and our object is, notto inquire whether the States of the existing Union are capable ofseparating, but whether they will choose to remain united. 

Amongst the various reasons which tend to render the existing Unionuseful to the Americans, two principal causes are peculiarly evident tothe observer. Although the Americans are, as it were, alone upon theircontinent, their commerce makes them the neighbors of all the nationswith which they trade. Notwithstanding their apparent isolation, theAmericans require a certain degree of strength, which they cannot retainotherwise than by remaining united to each other. If the States were tosplit, they would not only diminish the strength which they are now ableto display towards foreign nations, but they would soon create foreignpowers upon their own territory. A system of inland custom-houses wouldthen be established; the valleys would be divided by imaginary boundarylines; the courses of the rivers would be confined by territorialdistinctions; and a multitude of hindrances would prevent the Americansfrom exploring the whole of that vast continent which Providence hasallotted to them for a dominion. At present they have no invasion tofear, and consequently no standing armies to maintain, no taxes to levy. If the Union were dissolved, all these burdensome measures might erelong be required. The Americans are then very powerfully interestedin the maintenance of their Union. On the other hand, it is almostimpossible to discover any sort of material interest which might atpresent tempt a portion of the Union to separate from the other States. 

When we cast our eyes upon the map of the United States, we perceivethe chain of the Alleghany Mountains, running from the northeast to thesouthwest, and crossing nearly one thousand miles of country; and we areled to imagine that the design of Providence was to raise between thevalley of the Mississippi and the coast of the Atlantic Ocean one ofthose natural barriers which break the mutual intercourse of men, andform the necessary limits of different States. But the average height ofthe Alleghanies does not exceed 2, 500 feet; their greatest elevation isnot above 4, 000 feet; their rounded summits, and the spacious valleyswhich they conceal within their passes, are of easy access from severalsides. Besides which, the principal rivers which fall into the AtlanticOcean--the Hudson, the Susquehanna, and the Potomac--take their risebeyond the Alleghanies, in an open district, which borders upon thevalley of the Mississippi. These streams quit this tract of country, make their way through the barrier which would seem to turn themwestward, and as they wind through the mountains they open an easy andnatural passage to man. No natural barrier exists in the regions whichare now inhabited by the Anglo-Americans; the Alleghanies are so farfrom serving as a boundary to separate nations, that they do not evenserve as a frontier to the States. New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginiacomprise them within their borders, and they extend as much to thewest as to the east of the line. The territory now occupied by thetwenty-four States of the Union, and the three great districts whichhave not yet acquired the rank of States, although they already containinhabitants, covers a surface of 1, 002, 600 square miles, *c which isabout equal to five times the extent of France. Within these limits thequalities of the soil, the temperature, and the produce of the country, are extremely various. The vast extent of territory occupied by theAnglo-American republics has given rise to doubts as to the maintenanceof their Union. Here a distinction must be made; contrary interestssometimes arise in the different provinces of a vast empire, which oftenterminate in open dissensions; and the extent of the country is thenmost prejudicial to the power of the State. But if the inhabitants ofthese vast regions are not divided by contrary interests, the extent ofthe territory may be favorable to their prosperity; for the unity of thegovernment promotes the interchange of the different productions of thesoil, and increases their value by facilitating their consumption. 

[Footnote c: See "Darby's View of the United States, " p. 435. [In 1890the number of States and Territories had increased to 51, the populationto 62, 831, 900, and the area of the States, 3, 602, 990 square miles. This does not include the Philippine Islands, Hawaii, or Porto Rico. A conservative estimate of the population of the Philippine Islands is8, 000, 000; that of Hawaii, by the census of 1897, was given at 109, 020;and the present estimated population of Porto Rico is 900, 000. The areaof the Philippine Islands is about 120, 000 square miles, that of Hawaiiis 6, 740 square miles, and the area of Porto Rico is about 3, 600 squaremiles. ]]

It is indeed easy to discover different interests in the different partsof the Union, but I am unacquainted with any which are hostile to eachother. The Southern States are almost exclusively agricultural. TheNorthern States are more peculiarly commercial and manufacturing. TheStates of the West are at the same time agricultural and manufacturing. In the South the crops consist of tobacco, of rice, of cotton, andof sugar; in the North and the West, of wheat and maize. These aredifferent sources of wealth; but union is the means by which thesesources are opened to all, and rendered equally advantageous to theseveral districts. 

The North, which ships the produce of the Anglo-Americans to all partsof the world, and brings back the produce of the globe to the Union, is evidently interested in maintaining the confederation in its presentcondition, in order that the number of American producers and consumersmay remain as large as possible. The North is the most natural agentof communication between the South and the West of the Union on the onehand, and the rest of the world upon the other; the North is thereforeinterested in the union and prosperity of the South and the West, in order that they may continue to furnish raw materials for itsmanufactures, and cargoes for its shipping. 

The South and the West, on their side, are still more directlyinterested in the preservation of the Union, and the prosperity of theNorth. The produce of the South is, for the most part, exportedbeyond seas; the South and the West consequently stand in need of thecommercial resources of the North. They are likewise interested inthe maintenance of a powerful fleet by the Union, to protect themefficaciously. The South and the West have no vessels, but they cannotrefuse 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 deltaof the Mississippi, what would become of the rice of the Carolinas, thetobacco of Virginia, and the sugar and cotton which grow in the valleyof the Mississippi? Every portion of the federal budget does thereforecontribute to the maintenance of material interests which are common toall the confederate States. 

Independently of this commercial utility, the South and the West of theUnion derive great political advantages from their connection with theNorth. The South contains an enormous slave population; a populationwhich is already alarming, and still more formidable for the future. TheStates of the West lie in the remotest parts of a single valley; and allthe rivers which intersect their territory rise in the Rocky Mountainsor in the Alleghanies, and fall into the Mississippi, which bears themonwards to the Gulf of Mexico. The Western States are consequentlyentirely cut off, by their position, from the traditions of Europe andthe civilization of the Old World. The inhabitants of the South, then, are induced to support the Union in order to avail themselves of itsprotection against the blacks; and the inhabitants of the West in ordernot to be excluded from a free communication with the rest of the globe, and shut up in the wilds of central America. The North cannot but desirethe maintenance of the Union, in order to remain, as it now is, theconnecting link between 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 ofmen. 

Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races--Part VII

The inhabitants of the United States talk a great deal of theirattachment to their country; but I confess that I do not rely uponthat calculating patriotism which is founded upon interest, and whicha change in the interests at stake may obliterate. Nor do I attach muchimportance to the language of the Americans, when they manifest, intheir daily conversations, the intention of maintaining the federalsystem adopted by their forefathers. A government retains its swayover a great number of citizens, far less by the voluntary and rationalconsent of the multitude, than by that instinctive, and to a certainextent involuntary agreement, which results from similarity of feelingsand resemblances of opinion. I will never admit that men constitute asocial body, simply because they obey the same head and the same laws. Society can only exist when a great number of men consider a greatnumber of things in the same point of view; when they hold the sameopinions upon many subjects, and when the same occurrences suggest thesame thoughts and impressions to their minds. 

The observer who examines the present condition of the United Statesupon this principle, will readily discover, that although the citizensare divided into twenty-four distinct sovereignties, they neverthelessconstitute a single people; and he may perhaps be led to think that thestate of the Anglo-American Union is more truly a state of society thanthat of certain nations of Europe which live under the same legislationand the same prince. 

Although the Anglo-Americans have several religious sects, they allregard religion in the same manner. They are not always agreed upon themeasures which are most conducive to good government, and they vary uponsome of the forms of government which it is expedient to adopt; butthey are unanimous upon the general principles which ought to rulehuman society. From Maine to the Floridas, and from the Missouri to theAtlantic Ocean, the people is held to be the legitimate source of allpower. The same notions are entertained respecting liberty and equality, the liberty of the press, the right of association, the jury, and theresponsibility 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 andgovern their conduct, we shall still find the same uniformity. TheAnglo-Americans *d acknowledge the absolute moral authority of thereason of the community, as they acknowledge the political authority ofthe mass of citizens; and they hold that public opinion is the surestarbiter of what is lawful or forbidden, true or false. The majorityof them believe that a man will be led to do what is just and good byfollowing his own interest rightly understood. They hold that every manis born in possession of the right of self-government, and that no onehas the right of constraining his fellow-creatures to be happy. Theyhave all a lively faith in the perfectibility of man; they are ofopinion that the effects of the diffusion of knowledge must necessarilybe advantageous, and the consequences of ignorance fatal; they allconsider society as a body in a state of improvement, humanity as achanging scene, in which nothing is, or ought to be, permanent; and theyadmit that what appears to them to be good to-day may be superseded bysomething better-to-morrow. I do not give all these opinions as true, but I quote them as characteristic of the Americans. 

[Footnote d: It is scarcely necessary for me to observe that by theexpression Anglo-Americans, I only mean to designate the great majorityof the nation; for a certain number of isolated individuals are ofcourse to be met with holding very different opinions. ]

The Anglo-Americans are not only united together by these commonopinions, but they are separated from all other nations by a commonfeeling of pride. For the last fifty years no pains have been spared toconvince the inhabitants of the United States that they constitute theonly religious, enlightened, and free people. They perceive that, forthe present, their own democratic institutions succeed, whilst thoseof other countries fail; hence they conceive an overweening opinionof their superiority, and they are not very remote from believingthemselves to belong to a distinct race of mankind. 

The dangers which threaten the American Union do not originate in thediversity of interests or of opinions, but in the various characters andpassions of the Americans. The men who inhabit the vast territory ofthe United States are almost all the issue of a common stock; but theeffects of the climate, and more especially of slavery, have graduallyintroduced very striking differences between the British settler of theSouthern States and the British settler of the North. In Europe it isgenerally believed that slavery has rendered the interests of onepart of the Union contrary to those of another part; but I by no meansremarked this to be the case: slavery has not created interests in theSouth contrary to those of the North, but it has modified the characterand changed the habits of the natives of the South. 

I have already explained the influence which slavery has exercised uponthe commercial ability of the Americans in the South; and this sameinfluence equally extends to their manners. The slave is a servant whonever remonstrates, and who submits to everything without complaint. Hemay sometimes assassinate, but he never withstands, his master. In theSouth there are no families so poor as not to have slaves. The citizenof the Southern States of the Union is invested with a sort of domesticdictatorship, from his earliest years; the first notion he acquiresin life is that he is born to command, and the first habit which hecontracts is that of being obeyed without resistance. His educationtends, then, to give him the character of a supercilious and a hastyman; irascible, violent, and ardent in his desires, impatient ofobstacles, but easily discouraged if he cannot succeed upon his firstattempt. 

The American of the Northern States is surrounded by no slaves inhis childhood; he is even unattended by free servants, and is usuallyobliged to provide for his own wants. No sooner does he enter the worldthan the idea of necessity assails him on every side: he soon learnsto know exactly the natural limit of his authority; he never expects tosubdue those who withstand him, by force; and he knows that the surestmeans of obtaining the support of his fellow-creatures, is to win theirfavor. 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 alwayssupplied; the inhabitants of those parts are not busied in the materialcares of life, which are always provided for by others; and theirimagination is diverted to more captivating and less definite objects. The American of the South is fond of grandeur, luxury, and renown, ofgayety, of pleasure, and above all of idleness; nothing obliges himto exert himself in order to subsist; and as he has no necessaryoccupations, he gives way to indolence, and does not even attempt whatwould be useful. 

But the equality of fortunes, and the absence of slavery in the North, plunge the inhabitants in those same cares of daily life which aredisdained by the white population of the South. They are taught frominfancy to combat want, and to place comfort above all the pleasuresof the intellect or the heart. The imagination is extinguished by thetrivial details of life, and the ideas become less numerous and lessgeneral, but far more practical and more precise. As prosperity isthe sole aim of exertion, it is excellently well attained; nature andmankind are turned to the best pecuniary advantage, and society isdexterously made to contribute to the welfare of each of its members, whilst individual egotism is the source of general happiness. 

The citizen of the North has not only experience, but knowledge:nevertheless he sets but little value upon the pleasures of knowledge;he esteems it as the means of attaining a certain end, and he is onlyanxious to seize its more lucrative applications. The citizen of theSouth is more given to act upon impulse; he is more clever, more frank, more generous, more intellectual, and more brilliant. The former, witha greater degree of activity, of common-sense, of information, and ofgeneral aptitude, has the characteristic good and evil qualities ofthe middle classes. The latter has the tastes, the prejudices, theweaknesses, and the magnanimity of all aristocracies. If two men areunited in society, who have the same interests, and to a certain extentthe same opinions, but different characters, different acquirements, anda different style of civilization, it is probable that these men willnot agree. The same remark is applicable to a society of nations. Slavery, then, does not attack the American Union directly in itsinterests, but indirectly in its manners. 

[Footnote 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 thantripled in the space of forty years; and in 1830 it amounted to nearly13, 000, 000. *e Changes of such magnitude cannot take place without somedanger. 

A society of nations, as well as a society of individuals, derives itsprincipal chances of duration from the wisdom of its members, theirindividual weakness, and their limited number. The Americans who quitthe coasts of the Atlantic Ocean to plunge into the western wilderness, are adventurers impatient of restraint, greedy of wealth, and frequentlymen expelled from the States in which they were born. When they arrivein the deserts they are unknown to each other, and they have neithertraditions, family feeling, nor the force of example to check theirexcesses. The empire of the laws is feeble amongst them; that ofmorality 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 they arrive at the government of the commonwealth before they havelearnt to govern themselves. *f

[Footnote f: This indeed is only a temporary danger. I have no doubtthat in time society will assume as much stability and regularity in theWest as it has already done upon the coast of the Atlantic Ocean. ]

The greater the individual weakness of each of the contracting parties, the greater are the chances of the duration of the contract; for theirsafety is then dependent upon their union. When, in 1790, the mostpopulous of the American republics did not contain 500, 000 inhabitants, *g each of them felt its own insignificance as an independent people, and this feeling rendered compliance with the federal authority moreeasy. But when one of the confederate States reckons, like the State ofNew York, 2, 000, 000 of inhabitants, and covers an extent of territoryequal in surface to a quarter of France, *h it feels its own strength;and although it may continue to support the Union as advantageous toits prosperity, it no longer regards that body as necessary to itsexistence, and as it continues to belong to the federal compact, it soonaims at preponderance in the federal assemblies. The probable unanimityof the States is diminished as their number increases. At present theinterests of the different parts of the Union are not at variance; butwho is able to foresee the multifarious changes of the future, in acountry in which towns are founded from day to day, and States almostfrom year to year?

[Footnote g: Pennsylvania contained 431, 373 inhabitants in 1790 [and5, 258, 014 in 1890. ]]

[Footnote h: The area of the State of New York is 49, 170 square miles. [See U. S. Census report of 1890. ]]

Since the first settlement of the British colonies, the number ofinhabitants has about doubled every twenty-two years. I perceive nocauses which are likely to check this progressive increase of theAnglo-American population for the next hundred years; and beforethat space of time has elapsed, I believe that the territoriesand dependencies of the United States will be covered by more than100, 000, 000 of inhabitants, and divided into forty States. *i I admitthat these 100, 000, 000 of men have no hostile interests. I suppose, on the contrary, that they are all equally interested in the maintenanceof the Union; but I am still of opinion that where there are 100, 000, 000of men, and forty distinct nations, unequally strong, the continuance ofthe Federal Government can only be a fortunate accident. 

[Footnote i: If the population continues to double every twenty-twoyears, as it has done for the last two hundred years, the number ofinhabitants in the United States in 1852 will be twenty millions; in1874, forty-eight millions; and in 1896, ninety-six millions. This maystill be the case even if the lands on the western slope of the RockyMountains should be found to be unfit for cultivation. The territorywhich is already occupied can easily contain this number of inhabitants. One hundred millions of men disseminated over the surface of thetwenty-four States, and the three dependencies, which constitute theUnion, would only give 762 inhabitants to the square league; this wouldbe far below the mean population of France, which is 1, 063 to the squareleague; or of England, which is 1, 457; and it would even be below thepopulation of Switzerland, for that country, notwithstanding its lakesand mountains, contains 783 inhabitants to the square league. See "MalteBrun, " vol. Vi. P. 92. 

[The actual result has fallen somewhat short of these calculations, inspite of the vast territorial acquisitions of the United States: but in1899 the population is probably about eighty-seven millions, includingthe population of the Philippines, Hawaii, and Porto Rico. ]]

Whatever faith I may have in the perfectibility of man, until humannature is altered, and men wholly transformed, I shall refuse to believein the duration of a government which is called upon to hold togetherforty different peoples, disseminated over a territory equal to one-halfof Europe in extent; to avoid all rivalry, ambition, and strugglesbetween them, and to direct their independent activity to theaccomplishment of the same designs. 

But the greatest peril to which the Union is exposed by its increasearises from the continual changes which take place in the position ofits internal strength. The distance from Lake Superior to the Gulf ofMexico extends from the 47th to the 30th degree of latitude, a distanceof more than 1, 200 miles as the bird flies. The frontier of the UnitedStates winds along the whole of this immense line, sometimes fallingwithin its limits, but more frequently extending far beyond it, into thewaste. It has been calculated that the whites advance every year a meandistance of seventeen miles along the whole of his vast boundary. *jObstacles, such as an unproductive district, a lake or an Indian nationunexpectedly encountered, are sometimes met with. The advancing columnthen 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 hasthe solemnity of a providential event; it is like a deluge of men risingunabatedly, and daily driven onwards by the hand of God. 

[Footnote j: See Legislative Documents, 20th Congress, No. 117, p. 105. ]

Within this first line of conquering settlers towns are built, andvast States founded. In 1790 there were only a few thousand pioneerssprinkled along the valleys of the Mississippi; and at the present daythese valleys contain as many inhabitants as were to be found in thewhole Union in 1790. Their population amounts to nearly 4, 000, 000. *kThe city of Washington was founded in 1800, in the very centre of theUnion; but such are the changes which have taken place, that it nowstands at one of the extremities; and the delegates of the most remoteWestern States are already obliged to perform a journey as long as thatfrom Vienna to Paris. *l

[Footnote k: 3, 672, 317--Census of 1830. ]

[Footnote l: The distance from Jefferson, the capital of the State ofMissouri, to Washington is 1, 019 miles. ("American Almanac, " 1831, p. 48. )]

All the States are borne onwards at the same time in the path offortune, but of course they do not all increase and prosper in thesame proportion. To the North of the Union the detached branches ofthe Alleghany chain, which extend as far as the Atlantic Ocean, formspacious roads and ports, which are constantly accessible to vesselsof the greatest burden. But from the Potomac to the mouth of theMississippi the coast is sandy and flat. In this part of the Union themouths of almost all the rivers are obstructed; and the few harborswhich 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 causeproceeding from the laws. We have already seen that slavery, which isabolished in the North, still exists in the South; and I have pointedout its fatal consequences upon 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 increaseof population and of wealth within its borders. The States situate uponthe shores of the Atlantic Ocean are already half-peopled. Most of theland is held by an owner; and these districts cannot therefore receiveso many emigrants as the Western States, where a boundless field isstill open to their exertions. The valley of the Mississippi is far morefertile than the coast of the Atlantic Ocean. This reason, added to allthe others, contributes to drive the Europeans westward--a fact whichmay be rigorously demonstrated by figures. It is found that the sumtotal of the population of all the United States has about tripled inthe course of forty years. But in the recent States adjacent to theMississippi, the population has increased thirty-one-fold, within thesame space of time. *n

[Footnote m: The following statements will suffice to show thedifference which exists between the commerce of the South and that ofthe North:--

In 1829 the tonnage of all the merchant vessels belonging to Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia (the four great Southern States), amounted to only 5, 243 tons. In the same year the tonnage of the vesselsof the State of Massachusetts alone amounted to 17, 322 tons. (SeeLegislative Documents, 21st Congress, 2d session, No. 140, p. 244. ) Thusthe State of Massachusetts had three times as much shipping as thefour above-mentioned States. Nevertheless the area of the State ofMassachusetts is only 7, 335 square miles, and its population amountsto 610, 014 inhabitants [2, 238, 943 in 1890]; whilst the area of the fourother States I have quoted is 210, 000 square miles, and their population3, 047, 767. Thus the area of the State of Massachusetts forms onlyone-thirtieth part of the area of the four States; and its populationis five times smaller than theirs. (See "Darby's View of the UnitedStates. ") Slavery is prejudicial to the commercial prosperity of theSouth in several different ways; by diminishing the spirit of enterpriseamongst the whites, and by preventing them from meeting with as numerousa class of sailors as they require. Sailors are usually taken from thelowest ranks of the population. But in the Southern States these lowestranks are composed of slaves, and it is very difficult to employ them atsea. They are unable to serve as well as a white crew, and apprehensionswould always be entertained of their mutinying in the middle of theocean, or of their escaping in the foreign countries at which they mighttouch. ]

[Footnote n: "Darby's View of the United States, " p. 444. ]

The relative position of the central federal power is continuallydisplaced. Forty years ago the majority of the citizens of the Union wasestablished upon the coast of the Atlantic, in the environs of the spotupon which Washington now stands; but the great body of the peopleis now advancing inland and to the north, so that in twenty years themajority will unquestionably be on the western side of the Alleghanies. If the Union goes on to subsist, the basin of the Mississippi isevidently marked out, by its fertility and its extent, as the futurecentre of the Federal Government. In thirty or forty years, that tractof country will have assumed the rank which naturally belongs to it. Itis easy to calculate that its population, compared to that of the coastof the Atlantic, will be, in round numbers, as 40 to 11. In a fewyears the States which founded the Union will lose the direction ofits policy, and the population of the valley of the Mississippi willpreponderate in the federal assemblies. 

This constant gravitation of the federal power and influence towardsthe northwest is shown every ten years, when a general census of thepopulation is made, and the number of delegates which each Statesends to Congress is settled afresh. *o In 1790 Virginia had nineteenrepresentatives in Congress. This number continued to increase until theyear 1813, when it reached to twenty-three; from that time it began todecrease, and in 1833 Virginia elected only twenty-one representatives. *p During the same period the State of New York progressed in thecontrary direction: in 1790 it had ten representatives in Congress; in1813, twenty-seven; in 1823, thirty-four; and in 1833, forty. The Stateof Ohio had only one representative in 1803, and in 1833 it had alreadynineteen. 

[Footnote o: It may be seen that in the course of the last ten years(1820-1830) the population of one district, as, for instance, the Stateof Delaware, has increased in the proportion of five per cent. ; whilstthat of another, as the territory of Michigan, has increased 250 percent. Thus the population of Virginia had augmented thirteen per cent. , and that of the border State of Ohio sixty-one per cent. , in the samespace of time. The general table of these changes, which is given in the"National Calendar, " displays a striking picture of the unequal fortunesof the different States. ]

[Footnote p: It has just been said that in the course of the last termthe population of Virginia has increased thirteen per cent. ; and it isnecessary to explain how the number of representatives for a State maydecrease, when the population of that State, far from diminishing, isactually upon the increase. I take the State of Virginia, to whichI have already alluded, as my term of comparison. The number ofrepresentatives of Virginia in 1823 was proportionate to the totalnumber of the representatives of the Union, and to the relation whichthe population bore to that of the whole Union: in 1833 the number ofrepresentatives of Virginia was likewise proportionate to the totalnumber of the representatives of the Union, and to the relation whichits population, augmented in the course of ten years, bore to theaugmented population of the Union in the same space of time. The newnumber of Virginian representatives will then be to the old numver, onthe one hand, as the new numver of all the representatives is to the oldnumber; and, on the other hand, as the augmentation of the population ofVirginia is to that of the whole population of the country. Thus, ifthe increase of the population of the lesser country be to that of thegreater in an exact inverse ratio of the proportion between the newand the old numbers of all the representatives, the number of therepresentatives of Virginia will remain stationary; and if theincrease of the Virginian population be to that of the whole Union in afeeblerratio than the new number of the representatives of the Unionto the old number, the number of the representatives of Virginiamust decrease. [Thus, to the 56th Congress in 1899, Virginia and WestVirginia send only fourteen representatives. ]]

Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races--Part VIII

It is difficult to imagine a durable union of a people which is rich andstrong with one which is poor and weak, even if it were proved that thestrength and wealth of the one are not the causes of the weakness andpoverty of the other. But union is still more difficult to maintain at atime at which one party is losing strength, and the other is gaining it. This rapid and disproportionate increase of certain States threatensthe independence of the others. New York might perhaps succeed, with its2, 000, 000 of inhabitants and its forty representatives, in dictating tothe other States in Congress. But even if the more powerful States makeno attempt to bear down the lesser ones, the danger still exists; forthere is almost as much in the possibility of the act as in the actitself. The weak generally mistrust the justice and the reason of thestrong. The States which increase less rapidly than the others look uponthose which are more favored by fortune with envy and suspicion. Hencearise the deep-seated uneasiness and ill-defined agitation which areobservable in the South, and which form so striking a contrast to theconfidence and prosperity which are common to other parts of the Union. I am inclined to think that the hostile measures taken by the Southernprovinces upon a recent occasion are attributable to no other cause. Theinhabitants of the Southern States are, of all the Americans, thosewho are most interested in the maintenance of the Union; they wouldassuredly suffer most from being left to themselves; and yet they arethe 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, whichperceives that it is losing its federal influence, and that the numberof its representatives in Congress is diminishing from year to year, whilst those of the Northern and Western States are increasing; theSouth, which is peopled with ardent and irascible beings, is becomingmore and more irritated and alarmed. The citizens reflect upon theirpresent position and remember their past influence, with the melancholyuneasiness of men who suspect oppression: if they discover a law ofthe Union which is not unequivocally favorable to their interests, they protest against it as an abuse of force; and if their ardentremonstrances are not listened to, they threaten to quit an associationwhich loads them with burdens whilst it deprives them of their dueprofits. "The tariff, " said the inhabitants of Carolina in 1832, "enriches the North, and ruins the South; for if this were not the case, to what can we attribute the continually increasing power and wealthof the North, with its inclement skies and arid soil; whilst the South, which may be styled the garden of America, is rapidly declining?" *q

[Footnote q: See the report of its committee to the Convention whichproclaimed the nullification of the tariff in South Carolina. ]

If the changes which I have described were gradual, so that eachgeneration at least might have time to disappear with the order ofthings under which it had lived, the danger would be less; but theprogress of society in America is precipitate, and almost revolutionary. The same citizen may have lived to see his State take the lead in theUnion, and afterwards become powerless in the federal assemblies; andan Anglo-American republic has been known to grow as rapidly as a manpassing from birth and infancy to maturity in the course of thirtyyears. It must not be imagined, however, that the States which losetheir preponderance, also lose their population or their riches: no stopis put to their prosperity, and they even go on to increase morerapidly than any kingdom in Europe. *r But they believe themselves to beimpoverished because their wealth does not augment as rapidly as that oftheir neighbors; any they think that their power is lost, because theysuddenly come into collision with a power greater than their own: *sthus they are more hurt in their feelings and their passions thanin their interests. But this is amply sufficient to endanger themaintenance of the Union. If kings and peoples had only had their trueinterests in view ever since the beginning of the world, the name of warwould scarcely be known among mankind. 

[Footnote r: The population of a country assuredly constitutes thefirst element of its wealth. In the ten years (1820-1830) during whichVirginia lost two of its representatives in Congress, its populationincreased in the proportion of 13. 7 per cent. ; that of Carolina in theproportion of fifteen per cent. ; and that of Georgia, 15. 5 per cent. (See the "American Almanac, " 1832, p. 162) But the population of Russia, which increases more rapidly than that of any other European country, only augments in ten years at the rate of 9. 5 per cent. ; in France, atthe rate of seven per cent. ; and in Europe in general, at the rate of4. 7 per cent. (See "Malte Brun, " vol. Vi. P. 95)]

[Footnote s: It must be admitted, however, that the depreciation whichhas taken place in the value of tobacco, during the last fifty years, has notably diminished the opulence of the Southern planters: but thiscircumstance is as independent of the will of their Northern brethren asit is of their own. ]

Thus the prosperity of the United States is the source of the mostserious dangers that threaten them, since it tends to create in some ofthe confederate States that over-excitement which accompanies a rapidincrease of fortune; and to awaken in others those feelings of envy, mistrust, and regret which usually attend upon the loss of it. TheAmericans contemplate this extraordinary and hasty progress withexultation; but they would be wiser to consider it with sorrow andalarm. The Americans of the United States must inevitably become one ofthe greatest nations in the world; their offset will cover almostthe whole of North America; the continent which they inhabit is theirdominion, and it cannot escape them. What urges them to take possessionof it so soon? Riches, power, and renown cannot fail to be theirs atsome future time, but they rush upon their fortune as if but a momentremained 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 theconfederates; and, starting from this principle, I have inquired intothe causes which may induce the several States to separate from theothers. The Union may, however, perish in two different ways: one ofthe confederate States may choose to retire from the compact, and soforcibly to sever the federal tie; and it is to this supposition thatmost of the remarks that I have made apply: or the authority ofthe Federal Government may be progressively entrenched on by thesimultaneous tendency of the united republics to resume theirindependence. The central power, successively stripped of all itsprerogatives, and reduced to impotence by tacit consent, would becomeincompetent to fulfil its purpose; and the second Union would perish, like the first, by a sort of senile inaptitude. The gradual weakening ofthe federal tie, which may finally lead to the dissolution of theUnion, is a distinct circumstance, that may produce a variety of minorconsequences before it operates so violent a change. The confederationmight still subsist, although its Government were reduced to sucha degree of inanition as to paralyze the nation, to cause internalanarchy, and to check the general prosperity of the country. 

After having investigated the causes which may induce theAnglo-Americans to disunite, it is important to inquire whether, if theUnion continues to subsist, their Government will extend or contractits sphere of action, and whether it will become more energetic or moreweak. 

The Americans are evidently disposed to look upon their future conditionwith alarm. They perceive that in most of the nations of the world theexercise of the rights of sovereignty tends to fall under the control ofa few individuals, and they are dismayed by the idea that such will alsobe the case in their own country. Even the statesmen feel, or affectto feel, these fears; for, in America, centralization is by no meanspopular, and there is no surer means of courting the majority than byinveighing against the encroachments of the central power. The Americansdo not perceive that the countries in which this alarming tendency tocentralization exists are inhabited by a single people; whilst the factof the Union being composed of different confederate communities issufficient to baffle all the inferences which might be drawn fromanalogous circumstances. 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 handsof the Union, I think that the Federal Government is visibly losingstrength. 

To prove this assertion I shall not have recourse to any remoteoccurrences, but to circumstances which I have myself witnessed, andwhich belong to our own time. 

An attentive examination of what is going on in the United States willeasily convince us that two opposite tendencies exist in that country, like two distinct currents flowing in contrary directions in the samechannel. The Union has now existed for forty-five years, and in thecourse of that time a vast number of provincial prejudices, which wereat first hostile to its power, have died away. The patriotic feelingwhich attached each of the Americans to his own native State is becomeless exclusive; and the different parts of the Union have become moreintimately connected the better they have become acquainted with eachother. The post, *t that great instrument of intellectual intercourse, now reaches into the backwoods; and steamboats have established dailymeans of communication between the different points of the coast. Aninland navigation of unexampled rapidity conveys commodities up and downthe rivers of the country. *u And to these facilities of nature and artmay be added those restless cravings, that busy-mindedness, and loveof pelf, which are constantly urging the American into active life, and bringing him into contact with his fellow-citizens. He crosses thecountry in every direction; he visits all the various populations of theland; and there is not a province in France in which the natives areso well known to each other as the 13, 000, 000 of men who cover theterritory of the United States. 

[Footnote t: In 1832, the district of Michigan, which only contains31, 639 inhabitants, and is still an almost unexplored wilderness, possessed 940 miles of mail-roads. The territory of Arkansas, whichis still more uncultivated, was already intersected by 1, 938 miles ofmail-roads. (See the report of the General Post Office, November 30, 1833. ) The postage of newspapers alone in the whole Union amounted to$254, 796. ]

[Footnote u: In the course of ten years, from 1821 to 1831, 271steamboats have been launched upon the rivers which water the valleyof the Mississippi alone. In 1829 259 steamboats existed in the UnitedStates. (See Legislative Documents, No. 140, p. 274. )]

But whilst the Americans intermingle, they grow in resemblance of eachother; the differences resulting from their climate, their origin, andtheir institutions, diminish; and they all draw nearer and nearer to thecommon type. Every year, thousands of men leave the North to settle indifferent parts of the Union: they bring with them their faith, theiropinions, and their manners; and as they are more enlighthned than themen amongst whom they are about to dwell, they soon rise to the head ofaffairs, and they adapt society to their own advantage. This continualemigration of the North to the South is peculiarly favorable to thefusion of all the different provincial characters into one nationalcharacter. The civilization of the North appears to be the commonstandard, to which the whole nation will one day be assimilated. 

The commercial ties which unite the confederate States are strengthenedby the increasing manufactures of the Americans; and the union whichbegan to exist in their opinions, gradually forms a part of theirhabits: the course of time has swept away the bugbear thoughts whichhaunted the imaginations of the citizens in 1789. The federal poweris not become oppressive; it has not destroyed the independence ofthe States; it has not subjected the confederates to monarchialinstitutions; and the Union has not rendered the lesser States dependentupon the larger ones; but the confederation has continued to increase inpopulation, in wealth, and in power. I am therefore convinced that thenatural obstacles to the continuance of the American Union are not sopowerful at the present time as they were in 1789; and that the enemiesof the Union are not so numerous. 

Nevertheless, a careful examination of the history of the United Statesfor the last forty-five years will readily convince us that the federalpower is declining; nor is it difficult to explain the causes of thisphenomenon. *v When the Constitution of 1789 was promulgated, thenation was a prey to anarchy; the Union, which succeeded this confusion, excited much dread and much animosity; but it was warmly supportedbecause it satisfied an imperious want. Thus, although it was moreattacked than it is now, the federal power soon reached the maximum ofits authority, as is usually the case with a government which triumphsafter having braced its strength by the struggle. At that time theinterpretation of the Constitution seemed to extend, rather than torepress, the federal sovereignty; and the Union offered, in severalrespects, the appearance of a single and undivided people, directed inits foreign and internal policy by a single Government. But to attainthis point the people had risen, to a certain extent, above itself. 

[Footnote v: [Since 1861 the movement is certainly in the oppositedirection, and the federal power has largely increased, and tends tofurther increase. ]]

The Constitution had not destroyed the distinct sovereignty of theStates; and all communities, of whatever nature they may be, areimpelled by a secret propensity to assert their independence. Thispropensity is still more decided in a country like America, in whichevery village forms a sort of republic accustomed to conduct its ownaffairs. It therefore cost the States an effort to submit to the federalsupremacy; and all efforts, however successful they may be, necessarilysubside with the causes in which they originated. 

As the Federal Government consolidated its authority, America resumedits rank amongst the nations, peace returned to its frontiers, andpublic credit was restored; confusion was succeeded by a fixed state ofthings, which was favorable to the full and free exercise of industriousenterprise. It was this very prosperity which made the Americans forgetthe cause to which it was attributable; and when once the danger waspassed, the energy and the patriotism which had enabled them to braveit disappeared from amongst them. No sooner were they delivered from thecares which oppressed them, than they easily returned to their ordinaryhabits, and gave themselves up without resistance to their naturalinclinations. When a powerful Government no longer appeared tobe necessary, they once more began to think it irksome. The Unionencouraged a general prosperity, and the States were not inclined toabandon the Union; but they desired to render the action of the powerwhich represented that body as light as possible. The general principleof Union was adopted, but in every minor detail there was an actualtendency to independence. The principle of confederation was everyday more easily admitted, and more rarely applied; so that the FederalGovernment brought about its own decline, whilst it was creating orderand peace. 

As soon as this tendency of public opinion began to be manifestedexternally, the leaders of parties, who live by the passions of thepeople, began to work it to their own advantage. The position of theFederal Government then became exceedingly critical. Its enemies werein possession of the popular favor; and they obtained the right ofconducting its policy by pledging themselves to lessen its influence. From that time forwards the Government of the Union has invariably beenobliged to recede, as often as it has attempted to enter the lists withthe governments of the States. And whenever an interpretation ofthe terms of the Federal Constitution has been called for, thatinterpretation has most frequently been opposed to the Union, andfavorable to the States. 

The Constitution invested the Federal Government with the right ofproviding for the interests of the nation; and it had been held that noother authority was so fit to superintend the "internal improvements"which affected the prosperity of the whole Union; such, for instance, asthe cutting of canals. But the States were alarmed at a power, distinct from their own, which could thus dispose of a portion of theirterritory; and they were afraid that the central Government would, bythis means, acquire a formidable extent of patronage within their ownconfines, and exercise a degree of influence which they intended toreserve exclusively to their own agents. The Democratic party, which hasconstantly been opposed to the increase of the federal authority, then accused the Congress of usurpation, and the Chief Magistrate ofambition. The central Government was intimidated by the opposition;and it soon acknowledged its error, promising exactly to confine itsinfluence for the future within the circle which was prescribed to it. 

The Constitution confers upon the Union the right of treating withforeign nations. The Indian tribes, which border upon the frontiers ofthe United States, had usually been regarded in this light. As long asthese savages consented to retire before the civilized settlers, the federal right was not contested: but as soon as an Indian tribeattempted to fix its dwelling upon a given spot, the adjacent Statesclaimed possession of the lands and the rights of sovereignty over thenatives. The central Government soon recognized both these claims; andafter it had concluded treaties with the Indians as independent nations, it gave them up as subjects to the legislative tyranny of the States. *w

[Footnote w: See in the Legislative Documents, already quoted inspeaking of the Indians, the letter of the President of the UnitedStates to the Cherokees, his correspondence on this subject with hisagents, and his messages to Congress. ]

Some of the States which had been founded upon the coast of theAtlantic, extended indefinitely to the West, into wild regions where noEuropean had ever penetrated. The States whose confines were irrevocablyfixed, looked with a jealous eye upon the unbounded regions which thefuture would enable their neighbors to explore. The latter then agreed, with a view to conciliate the others, and to facilitate the actof union, to lay down their own boundaries, and to abandon all theterritory which lay beyond those limits to the confederation at large. *x Thenceforward the Federal Government became the owner of all theuncultivated lands which lie beyond the borders of the thirteen Statesfirst confederated. It was invested with the right of parcelling andselling them, and the sums derived from this source were exclusivelyreserved to the public treasure of the Union, in order to furnishsupplies for purchasing tracts of country from the Indians, for openingroads to the remote settlements, and for accelerating the increase ofcivilization as much as possible. New States have, however, been formedin the course of time, in the midst of those wilds which were formerlyceded by the inhabitants of the shores of the Atlantic. Congress hasgone on to sell, for the profit of the nation at large, the uncultivatedlands which those new States contained. But the latter at lengthasserted that, as they were now fully constituted, they ought to enjoythe exclusive right of converting the produce of these sales to theirown use. As their remonstrances became more and more threatening, Congress thought fit to deprive the Union of a portion of the privilegeswhich it had hitherto enjoyed; and at the end of 1832 it passed a lawby which the greatest part of the revenue derived from the sale oflands was made over to the new western republics, although the landsthemselves were not ceded to them. *y

[Footnote x: The first act of session was made by the State of New Yorkin 1780; Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, South and North Carolina, followed this example at different times, and lastly, the act of cessionof Georgia was made as recently as 1802. ]

[Footnote y: It is true that the President refused his assent to thislaw; but he completely adopted it in principle. (See Message of December8, 1833. )]

The slightest observation in the United States enables one to appreciatethe advantages which the country derives from the bank. These advantagesare of several kinds, but one of them is peculiarly striking to thestranger. The banknotes of the United States are taken upon the bordersof the desert for the same value as at Philadelphia, where the bankconducts its operations. *z

[Footnote z: The present Bank of the United States was established in1816, with a capital of $35, 000, 000; its charter expires in 1836. Lastyear Congress passed a law to renew it, but the President put his vetoupon the bill. The struggle is still going on with great violence oneither side, and the speedy fall of the bank may easily be foreseen. [Itwas soon afterwards extinguished by General Jackson. ]]

The Bank of the United States is nevertheless the object of greatanimosity. Its directors have proclaimed their hostility to thePresident: and they are accused, not without some show of probability, of having abused their influence to thwart his election. The Presidenttherefore attacks the establishment which they represent with all thewarmth of personal enmity; and he is encouraged in the pursuit ofhis revenge by the conviction that he is supported by the secretpropensities of the majority. The bank may be regarded as the greatmonetary tie of the Union, just as Congress is the great legislativetie; and the same passions which tend to render the States independentof the central power, contribute to the overthrow of the bank. 

The Bank of the United States always holds a great number of the notesissued by the provincial banks, which it can at any time oblige them toconvert into cash. It has itself nothing to fear from a similar demand, as the extent of its resources enables it to meet all claims. Butthe existence of the provincial banks is thus threatened, and theiroperations are restricted, since they are only able to issue a quantityof notes duly proportioned to their capital. They submit with impatienceto this salutary control. The newspapers which they have bought over, and the President, whose interest renders him their instrument, attackthe bank with the greatest vehemence. They rouse the local passions andthe blind democratic instinct of the country to aid their cause; andthey assert that the bank directors form a permanent aristocratic body, whose influence must ultimately be felt in the Government, and mustaffect those principles of equality upon which society rests in America. 

The contest between the bank and its opponents is only an incident inthe great struggle which is going on in America between the provincesand the central power; between the spirit of democratic independenceand the spirit of gradation and subordination. I do not mean that theenemies of the bank are identically the same individuals who, on otherpoints, attack the Federal Government; but I assert that the attacksdirected against the bank of the United States originate in the samepropensities which militate against the Federal Government; and that thevery numerous opponents of the former afford a deplorable symptom of thedecreasing support of the latter. 

The Union has never displayed so much weakness as in the celebratedquestion of the tariff. *a The wars of the French Revolution and of 1812had created manufacturing establishments in the North of the Union, by cutting off all free communication between America and Europe. Whenpeace was concluded, and the channel of intercourse reopened by whichthe produce of Europe was transmitted to the New World, the Americansthought fit to establish a system of import duties, for the twofoldpurpose of protecting their incipient manufactures and of paying off theamount of the debt contracted during the war. The Southern States, which have no manufactures to encourage, and which are exclusivelyagricultural, soon complained of this measure. Such were the simplefacts, and I do not pretend to examine in this place whether theircomplaints were well founded or unjust. 

[Footnote a: See principally for the details of this affair, theLegislative Documents, 22d Congress, 2d Session, No. 30. ]

As early as the year 1820, South Carolina declared, in a petitionto Congress, that the tariff was "unconstitutional, oppressive, andunjust. " And the States of Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi subsequently remonstrated against it with more or lessvigor. But Congress, far from lending an ear to these complaints, raisedthe scale of tariff duties in the years 1824 and 1828, and recognizedanew the principle on which it was founded. A doctrine was thenproclaimed, or rather revived, in the South, which took the name ofNullification. 

I have shown in the proper place that the object of the FederalConstitution was not to form a league, but to create a nationalgovernment. The Americans of the United States form a sole and undividedpeople, in all the cases which are specified by that Constitution; andupon these points the will of the nation is expressed, as it is in allconstitutional nations, by the voice of the majority. When the majorityhas pronounced its decision, it is the duty of the minority to submit. Such is the sound legal doctrine, and the only one which agrees with thetext of the Constitution, and the known intention of those who framedit. 

The partisans of Nullification in the South maintain, on the contrary, that the intention of the Americans in uniting was not to reducethemselves to the condition of one and the same people; that they meantto constitute a league of independent States; and that each State, consequently retains its entire sovereignty, if not de facto, at leastde jure; and has the right of putting its own construction upon the lawsof Congress, and of suspending their execution within the limits of itsown territory, if they are held to be unconstitutional and unjust. 

The entire doctrine of Nullification is comprised in a sentence utteredby Vice-President Calhoun, the head of that party in the South, before the Senate of the United States, in the year 1833: could: "TheConstitution is a compact to which the States were parties in theirsovereign capacity; now, whenever a compact is entered into by partieswhich acknowledge no tribunal above their authority to decide in thelast resort, each of them has a right to judge for itself in relationto the nature, extent, and obligations of the instrument. " It isevident that a similar doctrine destroys the very basis of the FederalConstitution, and brings back all the evils of the old confederation, from which the Americans were supposed to have had a safe deliverance. 

When South Carolina perceived that Congress turned a deaf ear to itsremonstrances, it threatened to apply the doctrine of nullification tothe federal tariff bill. Congress persisted in its former system; and atlength the storm broke out. In the course of 1832 the citizens ofSouth Carolina, *b named a national Convention, to consult upon theextraordinary measures which they were called upon to take; and onNovember 24th of the same year this Convention promulgated a law, underthe form of a decree, which annulled the federal law of the tariff, forbade the levy of the imposts which that law commands, and refused torecognize the appeal which might be made to the federal courts of law. *c This decree was only to be put in execution in the ensuing month ofFebruary, and it was intimated, that if Congress modified the tariffbefore that period, South Carolina might be induced to proceed nofurther with her menaces; and a vague desire was afterwards expressedof submitting the question to an extraordinary assembly of all theconfederate States. 

[Footnote b: That is to say, the majority of the people; for theopposite party, called the Union party, always formed a very strong andactive minority. Carolina may contain about 47, 000 electors; 30, 000 werein favor of nullification, and 17, 000 opposed to it. ]

[Footnote c: This decree was preceded by a report of the committeeby which it was framed, containing the explanation of the motives andobject of the law. The following passage occurs in it, p. 34:--"Whenthe rights reserved by the Constitution to the different States aredeliberately violated, it is the duty and the right of those Statesto interfere, in order to check the progress of the evil; to resistusurpation, and to maintain, within their respective limits, thosepowers and privileges which belong to them as independent sovereignStates. If they were destitute of this right, they would not besovereign. South Carolina declares that she acknowledges no tribunalupon earth above her authority. She has indeed entered into a solemncompact of union with the other States; but she demands, and willexercise, the right of putting her own construction upon it; and whenthis compact is violated by her sister States, and by the Governmentwhich they have created, she is determined to avail herself of theunquestionable right of judging what is the extent of the infraction, and what are the measures best fitted to obtain justice. "]

Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races--Part IX

In the meantime South Carolina armed her militia, and prepared for war. But Congress, which had slighted its suppliant subjects, listened totheir complaints as soon as they were found to have taken up arms. *dA law was passed, by which the tariff duties were to be progressivelyreduced for ten years, until they were brought so low as not to exceedthe amount of supplies necessary to the Government. *e Thus Congresscompletely abandoned the principle of the tariff; and substituted a merefiscal impost to a system of protective duties. *f The Government ofthe Union, in order to conceal its defeat, had recourse to an expedientwhich is very much in vogue with feeble governments. It yielded thepoint de facto, but it remained inflexible upon the principles inquestion; and whilst Congress was altering the tariff law, it passedanother bill, by which the President was invested with extraordinarypowers, enabling him to overcome by force a resistance which was then nolonger to be apprehended. 

[Footnote d: Congress was finally decided to take this step by theconduct of the powerful State of Virginia, whose legislature offeredto serve as mediator between the Union and South Carolina. Hitherto thelatter State had appeared to be entirely abandoned, even by the Stateswhich had joined in her remonstrances. ]

[Footnote e: This law was passed on March 2, 1833. ]

[Footnote f: This bill was brought in by Mr. Clay, and it passed in fourdays through both Houses of Congress by an immense majority. ]

But South Carolina did not consent to leave the Union in the enjoymentof these scanty trophies of success: the same national Convention whichhad annulled the tariff bill, met again, and accepted the profferedconcession; but at the same time it declared it unabated perseverancein the doctrine of Nullification: and to prove what it said, it annulledthe law investing the President with extraordinary powers, although itwas very certain that the clauses of that law would never be carriedinto effect. 

Almost all the controversies of which I have been speaking have takenplace under the Presidency of General Jackson; and it cannot be deniedthat in the question of the tariff he has supported the claims of theUnion with vigor and with skill. I am, however, of opinion that theconduct of the individual who now represents the Federal Government maybe reckoned as one of the dangers which threaten its continuance. 

Some persons in Europe have formed an opinion of the possible influenceof General Jackson upon the affairs of his country, which appears highlyextravagant to those who have seen more of the subject. We havebeen told that General Jackson has won sundry battles, that he isan energetic man, prone by nature and by habit to the use of force, covetous of power, and a despot by taste. All this may perhaps betrue; but the inferences which have been drawn from these truths areexceedingly erroneous. It has been imagined that General Jackson is benton establishing a dictatorship in America, on introducing a militaryspirit, and on giving a degree of influence to the central authoritywhich cannot but be dangerous to provincial liberties. But in Americathe time for similar undertakings, and the age for men of this kind, isnot yet come: if General Jackson had entertained a hope of exercisinghis authority in this manner, he would infallibly have forfeited hispolitical station, and compromised his life; accordingly he has not beenso imprudent as to make any such attempt. 

Far from wishing to extend the federal power, the President belongsto the party which is desirous of limiting that power to the bare andprecise letter of the Constitution, and which never puts a constructionupon that act favorable to the Government of the Union; far fromstanding forth as the champion of centralization, General Jackson isthe agent of all the jealousies of the States; and he was placed in thelofty station he occupies by the passions of the people which are mostopposed to the central Government. It is by perpetually flatteringthese passions that he maintains his station and his popularity. GeneralJackson is the slave of the majority: he yields to its wishes, itspropensities, and its demands; say rather, that he anticipates andforestalls them. 

Whenever the governments of the States come into collision with thatof the Union, the President is generally the first to question his ownrights: he almost always outstrips the legislature; and when the extentof the federal power is controverted, he takes part, as it were, againsthimself; he conceals his official interests, and extinguishes his ownnatural inclinations. Not indeed that he is naturally weak or hostileto the Union; for when the majority decided against the claims of thepartisans of nullification, he put himself at its head, asserted thedoctrines which the nation held distinctly and energetically, and wasthe first to recommend forcible measures; but General Jackson appears tome, if I may use the American expressions, to be a Federalist by taste, and a Republican by calculation. 

General Jackson stoops to gain the favor of the majority, but when hefeels that his popularity is secure, he overthrows all obstacles in thepursuit of the objects which the community approves, or of those whichit does not look upon with a jealous eye. He is supported by a powerwith which his predecessors were unacquainted; and he tramples on hispersonal enemies whenever they cross his path with a facility which noformer President ever enjoyed; he takes upon himself the responsibilityof measures which no one before him would have ventured to attempt: heeven treats the national representatives with disdain approaching toinsult; he puts his veto upon the laws of Congress, and frequentlyneglects to reply to that powerful body. He is a favorite who sometimestreats 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 Statesbe not constantly losing strength, retiring gradually from publicaffairs, and narrowing its circle of action more and more. It isnaturally feeble, but it now abandons even its pretensions to strength. On the other hand, I thought that I remarked a more lively sense ofindependence, and a more decided attachment to provincial government inthe States. The Union is to subsist, but to subsist as a shadow; itis to be strong in certain cases, and weak in all others; in time ofwarfare, it is to be able to concentrate all the forces of the nationand 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 tocheck this general impulse of public opinion; the causes in which itoriginated do not cease to operate with the same effect. The change willtherefore go on, and it may be predicted that, unless some extraordinaryevent occurs, the Government of the Union will grow weaker and weakerevery day. 

I think, however, that the period is still remote at which the federalpower will be entirely extinguished by its inability to protect itselfand to maintain peace in the country. The Union is sanctioned bythe manners and desires of the people; its results are palpable, itsbenefits visible. When it is perceived that the weakness of the FederalGovernment compromises the existence of the Union, I do not doubt that areaction will take place with a view to increase its strength. 

The Government of the United States is, of all the federal governmentswhich have hitherto been established, the one which is most naturallydestined to act. As long as it is only indirectly assailed by theinterpretation of its laws, and as long as its substance is notseriously altered, a change of opinion, an internal crisis, or a war, may restore all the vigor which it requires. The point which I havebeen most anxious to put in a clear light is simply this: Many people, especially in France, imagine that a change in opinion is going on inthe United States, which is favorable to a centralization of power inthe hands of the President and the Congress. I hold that a contrarytendency may distinctly be observed. So far is the Federal Governmentfrom acquiring strength, and from threatening the sovereignty of theStates, as it grows older, that I maintain it to be growing weaker andweaker, and that the sovereignty of the Union alone is in danger. Suchare the facts which the present time discloses. The future conceals thefinal result of this tendency, and the events which may check, retard, or accelerate the changes I have described; but I do not affect to beable to remove the veil which hides them from our sight. 

Of The Republican Institutions Of The United States, And What TheirChances Of Duration Are

The Union is accidental--The Republican institutions have more prospectof permanence--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 placein manners--Difficulties experienced by the Americans in creating anaristocracy. 

The dismemberment of the Union, by the introduction of war into theheart of those States which are now confederate, with standing armies, a dictatorship, and a heavy taxation, might, eventually, compromise thefate of the republican institutions. But we ought not to confound thefuture prospects of the republic with those of the Union. The Union isan accident, which will only last as long as circumstances are favorableto its existence; but a republican form of government seems to me tobe the natural state of the Americans; which nothing but the continuedaction of hostile causes, always acting in the same direction, couldchange into a monarchy. The Union exists principally in the law whichformed it; one revolution, one change in public opinion, might destroyit forever; but the republic has a much deeper foundation to rest upon. 

What is understood by a republican government in the United States isthe slow and quiet action of society upon itself. It is a regular stateof things really founded upon the enlightened will of the people. It isa conciliatory government under which resolutions are allowed time toripen; and in which they are deliberately discussed, and executed withmature judgment. The republicans in the United States set a high valueupon morality, respect religious belief, and acknowledge theexistence of rights. They profess to think that a people ought to bemoral, religious, and temperate, in proportion as it is free. What iscalled the republic in the United States, is the tranquil rule of themajority, which, after having had time to examine itself, and to giveproof of its existence, is the common source of all the powers of theState. But the power of the majority is not of itself unlimited. In themoral world humanity, justice, and reason enjoy an undisputed supremacy;in the political world vested rights are treated with no less deference. The majority recognizes these two barriers; and if it now and thenoverstep them, it is because, like individuals, it has passions, and, like them, it is prone to do what is wrong, whilst it discerns what isright. 

But the demagogues of Europe have made strange discoveries. A republicis not, according to them, the rule of the majority, as has hithertobeen thought, but the rule of those who are strenuous partisans ofthe majority. It is not the people who preponderates in this kind ofgovernment, but those who are best versed in the good qualities of thepeople. A happy distinction, which allows men to act in the name ofnations without consulting them, and to claim their gratitude whilsttheir rights are spurned. A republican government, moreover, is the onlyone which claims the right of doing whatever it chooses, and despisingwhat men have hitherto respected, from the highest moral obligations tothe vulgar rules of common-sense. It had been supposed, until our time, that despotism was odious, under whatever form it appeared. But it isa discovery of modern days that there are such things as legitimatetyranny and holy injustice, provided they are exercised in the name ofthe people. 

The ideas which the Americans have adopted respecting the republicanform of government, render it easy for them to live under it, and insureits duration. If, in their country, this form be often practically bad, at least it is theoretically good; and, in the end, the people alwaysacts in conformity to it. 

It was impossible at the foundation of the States, and it would stillbe difficult, to establish a central administration in America. Theinhabitants are dispersed over too great a space, and separated by toomany natural obstacles, for one man to undertake to direct the detailsof their existence. America is therefore pre-eminently the country ofprovincial and municipal government. To this cause, which was plainlyfelt by all the Europeans of the New World, the Anglo-Americans addedseveral others peculiar to themselves. 

At the time of the settlement of the North American colonies, municipalliberty had already penetrated into the laws as well as the mannersof the English; and the emigrants adopted it, not only as a necessarything, but as a benefit which they knew how to appreciate. We havealready seen the manner in which the colonies were founded: everyprovince, and almost every district, was peopled separately by men whowere strangers to each other, or who associated with very differentpurposes. The English settlers in the United States, therefore, earlyperceived that they were divided into a great number of small anddistinct communities which belonged to no common centre; and that itwas needful for each of these little communities to take care of its ownaffairs, since there did not appear to be any central authority whichwas naturally bound and easily enabled to provide for them. Thus, thenature of the country, the manner in which the British colonies werefounded, the habits of the first emigrants, in short everything, united to promote, in an extraordinary degree, municipal and provincialliberties. 

In the United States, therefore, the mass of the institutions of thecountry is essentially republican; and in order permanently to destroythe laws which form the basis of the republic, it would be necessary toabolish all the laws at once. At the present day it would be even moredifficult for a party to succeed in founding a monarchy in the UnitedStates than for a set of men to proclaim that France should henceforwardbe a republic. Royalty would not find a system of legislation preparedfor it beforehand; and a monarchy would then exist, really surrounded byrepublican institutions. The monarchical principle would likewise havegreat difficulty in penetrating into the manners of the Americans. 

In the United States, the sovereignty of the people is not an isolateddoctrine bearing no relation to the prevailing manners and ideas of thepeople: it may, on the contrary, be regarded as the last link of a chainof opinions which binds the whole Anglo-American world. That Providencehas given to every human being the degree of reason necessary to directhimself in the affairs which interest him exclusively--such is the grandmaxim upon which civil and political society rests in the United States. The father of a family applies it to his children; the master to hisservants; the township to its officers; the province to its townships;the State to its provinces; the Union to the States; and when extendedto the nation, it becomes the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people. 

Thus, in the United States, the fundamental principle of the republicis the same which governs the greater part of human actions; republicannotions insinuate themselves into all the ideas, opinions, and habits ofthe Americans, whilst they are formerly recognized by the legislation:and before this legislation can be altered the whole community mustundergo very serious changes. In the United States, even the religion ofmost of the citizens is republican, since it submits the truths of theother world to private judgment: as in politics the care of its temporalinterests is abandoned to the good sense of the people. Thus every manis allowed freely to take that road which he thinks will lead him toheaven; just as the law permits every citizen to have the right ofchoosing his government. 

It is evident that nothing but a long series of events, all having thesame tendency, can substitute for this combination of laws, opinions, and manners, a mass of opposite opinions, manners, and laws. 

If republican principles are to perish in America, they can only yieldafter a laborious social process, often interrupted, and as oftenresumed; they will have many apparent revivals, and will not becometotally extinct until an entirely new people shall have succeeded tothat which now exists. Now, it must be admitted that there is no symptomor presage of the approach of such a revolution. There is nothing morestriking to a person newly arrived in the United States, than the kindof tumultuous agitation in which he finds political society. The lawsare incessantly changing, and at first sight it seems impossible that apeople so variable in its desires should avoid adopting, within a shortspace of time, a completely new form of government. Such apprehensionsare, however, premature; the instability which affects politicalinstitutions is of two kinds, which ought not to be confounded: thefirst, which modifies secondary laws, is not incompatible with a verysettled state of society; the other shakes the very foundations of theConstitution, and attacks the fundamental principles of legislation;this species of instability is always followed by troubles andrevolutions, and the nation which suffers under it is in a state ofviolent transition. 

Experience shows that these two kinds of legislative instability haveno necessary connection; for they have been found united or separate, according to times and circumstances. The first is common in the UnitedStates, but not the second: the Americans often change their laws, butthe foundation of the Constitution is respected. 

In our days the republican principle rules in America, as themonarchical principle did in France under Louis XIV. The French ofthat period were not only friends of the monarchy, but they thought itimpossible to put anything in its place; they received it as we receivethe rays of the sun and the return of the seasons. Amongst them theroyal power had neither advocates nor opponents. In like manner doesthe republican government exist in America, without contention oropposition; without proofs and arguments, by a tacit agreement, a sortof consensus universalis. It is, however, my opinion that by changingtheir administrative forms as often as they do, the inhabitants of theUnited States compromise the future stability of their government. 

It may be apprehended that men, perpetually thwarted in their designsby the mutability of the legislation, will learn to look upon republicaninstitutions as an inconvenient form of society; the evil resulting fromthe instability of the secondary enactments might then raise a doubtas to the nature of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and indirectly bring about a revolution; but this epoch is still veryremote. 

It may, however, be foreseen even now, that when the Americans losetheir republican institutions they will speedily arrive at a despoticgovernment, without a long interval of limited monarchy. Montesquieuremarked, that nothing is more absolute than the authority of aprince who immediately succeeds a republic, since the powers which hadfearlessly been intrusted to an elected magistrate are then transferredto a hereditary sovereign. This is true in general, but it is morepeculiarly applicable to a democratic republic. In the United States, the magistrates are not elected by a particular class of citizens, butby the majority of the nation; they are the immediate representatives ofthe passions of the multitude; and as they are wholly dependent upon itspleasure, they excite neither hatred nor fear: hence, as I have alreadyshown, very little care has been taken to limit their influence, andthey are left in possession of a vast deal of arbitrary power. Thisstate of things has engendered habits which would outlive itself; theAmerican magistrate would retain his power, but he would cease to beresponsible for the exercise of it; and it is impossible to say whatbounds could then be set to tyranny. 

Some of our European politicians expect to see an aristocracy arise inAmerica, and they already predict the exact period at which it will beable to assume the reins of government. I have previously observed, andI repeat my assertion, that the present tendency of American societyappears to me to become more and more democratic. Nevertheless, I do notassert that the Americans will not, at some future time, restrict thecircle of political rights in their country, or confiscate those rightsto the advantage of a single individual; but I cannot imagine that theywill ever bestow the exclusive exercise of them upon a privilegedclass of citizens, or, in other words, that they will ever found anaristocracy. 

An aristocratic body is composed of a certain number of citizenswho, without being very far removed from the mass of the people, are, nevertheless, permanently stationed above it: a body which it is easyto touch and difficult to strike; with which the people are in dailycontact, but with which they can never combine. Nothing can be imaginedmore contrary to nature and to the secret propensities of the humanheart than a subjection of this kind; and men who are left to followtheir own bent will always prefer the arbitrary power of a king to theregular administration of an aristocracy. Aristocratic institutionscannot subsist without laying down the inequality of men as afundamental principle, as a part and parcel of the legislation, affecting the condition of the human family as much as it affects thatof society; but these are things so repugnant to natural equity thatthey can only be extorted from men by constraint. 

I do not think a single people can be quoted, since human society beganto exist, which has, by its own free will and by its own exertions, created an aristocracy within its own bosom. All the aristocracies ofthe Middle Ages were founded by military conquest; the conqueror was thenoble, the vanquished became the serf. Inequality was then imposed byforce; and after it had been introduced into the manners of the countryit maintained its own authority, and was sanctioned by the legislation. Communities have existed which were aristocratic from their earliestorigin, owing to circumstances anterior to that event, and which becamemore democratic in each succeeding age. Such was the destiny of theRomans, and of the barbarians after them. But a people, having taken itsrise in civilization and democracy, which should gradually establish aninequality of conditions, until it arrived at inviolable privileges andexclusive castes, would be a novelty in the world; and nothing intimatesthat America is likely to furnish so singular an example. 

Reflection On The Causes Of The Commercial Prosperity Of The Of TheUnited States

The Americans destined by Nature to be a great maritime people--Extentof their coasts--Depth of their ports--Size of their rivers--Thecommercial superiority of the Anglo-Americans less attributable, however, to physical circumstances than to moral and intellectualcauses--Reason of this opinion--Future destiny of the Anglo-Americansas a commercial nation--The dissolution of the Union would not checkthe maritime vigor of the States--Reason of this--Anglo-Americans willnaturally supply the wants of the inhabitants of South America--Theywill become, like the English, the factors of a great portion of theworld. 

The coast of the United States, from the Bay of Fundy to the SabineRiver in the Gulf of Mexico, is more than two thousand miles in extent. These shores form an unbroken line, and they are all subject to the samegovernment. No nation in the world possesses vaster, deeper, or moresecure ports for shipping than the Americans. 

The inhabitants of the United States constitute a great civilizedpeople, which fortune has placed in the midst of an uncultivatedcountry at a distance of three thousand miles from the central pointof civilization. America consequently stands in daily need of Europeantrade. The Americans will, no doubt, ultimately succeed in producing ormanufacturing at home most of the articles which they require; but thetwo continents can never be independent of each other, so numerous arethe natural ties which exist between their wants, their ideas, theirhabits, and their manners. 

The Union produces peculiar commodities which are now become necessaryto us, but which cannot be cultivated, or can only be raised at anenormous expense, upon the soil of Europe. The Americans only consume asmall portion of this produce, and they are willing to sell us the rest. Europe is therefore the market of America, as America is the marketof Europe; and maritime commerce is no less necessary to enable theinhabitants of the United States to transport their raw materials tothe ports of Europe, than it is to enable us to supply them with ourmanufactured produce. The United States were therefore necessarilyreduced to the alternative of increasing the business of other maritimenations to a great extent, if they had themselves declined to enterinto commerce, as the Spaniards of Mexico have hitherto done; or, in thesecond place, of becoming one of the first trading powers of the globe. 

The Anglo-Americans have always displayed a very decided taste for thesea. The Declaration of Independence broke the commercial restrictionswhich united them to England, and gave a fresh and powerful stimulus totheir maritime genius. Ever since that time, the shipping of the Unionhas increased in almost the same rapid proportion as the number of itsinhabitants. The Americans themselves now transport to their own shoresnine-tenths of the European produce which they consume. *g And they alsobring three-quarters of the exports of the New World to the Europeanconsumer. *h The ships of the United States fill the docks of Havre andof Liverpool; whilst the number of English and French vessels which areto be seen at New York is comparatively small. *i

[Footnote g: The total value of goods imported during the year whichended on September 30, 1832, was $101, 129, 266. The value of the cargoesof foreign vessels did not amount to $10, 731, 039, or about one-tenth ofthe entire sum. ]

[Footnote h: The value of goods exported during the same year amountedto $87, 176, 943; the value of goods exported by foreign vessels amountedto $21, 036, 183, or about one quarter of the whole sum. (Williams's"Register, " 1833, p. 398. )]

[Footnote i: The tonnage of the vessels which entered all the ports ofthe Union in the years 1829, 1830, and 1831, amounted to 3, 307, 719 tons, of which 544, 571 tons were foreign vessels; they stood, therefore, to the American vessels in a ratio of about 16 to 100. ("NationalCalendar, " 1833, p. 304. ) The tonnage of the English vessels whichentered the ports of London, Liverpool, and Hull, in the years 1820, 1826, and 1831, amounted to 443, 800 tons. The foreign vessels whichentered the same ports during the same years amounted to 159, 431 tons. The ratio between them was, therefore, about 36 to 100. ("Companionto the Almanac, " 1834, p. 169. ) In the year 1832 the ratio between theforeign and British ships which entered the ports of Great Britain was29 to 100. [These statements relate to a condition of affairs whichhas ceased to exist; the Civil War and the heavy taxation of the UnitedStates entirely altered the trade and navigation of the country. ]]

Thus, not only does the American merchant face the competition of hisown countrymen, but he even supports that of foreign nations in theirown ports with success. This is readily explained by the fact that thevessels of the United States can cross the seas at a cheaper rate thanany other vessels in the world. As long as the mercantile shipping ofthe United States preserves this superiority, it will not only retainwhat it has acquired, but it will constantly increase in prosperity. 

Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races--Part X

It is difficult to say for what reason the Americans can trade at alower rate than other nations; and one is at first led to attributethis circumstance to the physical or natural advantages which are withintheir reach; but this supposition is erroneous. The American vesselscost almost as much to build as our own; *j they are not better built, and they generally last for a shorter time. The pay of the Americansailor is more considerable than the pay on board European ships; whichis proved by the great number of Europeans who are to be met with in themerchant vessels of the United States. But I am of opinion that thetrue cause of their superiority must not be sought for in physicaladvantages, but that it is wholly attributable to their moral andintellectual qualities. 

[Footnote j: Materials are, generally speaking, less expensive inAmerica than in Europe, but the price of labor is much higher. ]

The following comparison will illustrate my meaning. During thecampaigns of the Revolution the French introduced a new system oftactics into the art of war, which perplexed the oldest generals, and very nearly destroyed the most ancient monarchies in Europe. Theyundertook (what had never before been attempted) to make shift withouta number of things which had always been held to be indispensable inwarfare; they required novel exertions on the part of their troops whichno civilized nations had ever thought of; they achieved great actionsin an incredibly short space of time; and they risked human life withouthesitation 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 adversarieschose to imitate their example. 

The Americans have introduced a similar system into their commercialspeculations; and they do for cheapness what the French did forconquest. The European sailor navigates with prudence; he only sets sailwhen the weather is favorable; if an unforseen accident befalls him, heputs into port; at night he furls a portion of his canvas; and when thewhitening billows intimate the vicinity of land, he checks his way, and takes an observation of the sun. But the American neglects theseprecautions and braves these dangers. He weighs anchor in the midstof tempestuous gales; by night and by day he spreads his sheets to thewind; he repairs as he goes along such damage as his vessel may havesustained 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. The Americans are often shipwrecked, but no trader crosses the seas sorapidly. And as they perform the same distance in a shorter time, theycan perform it at a cheaper rate. 

The European touches several times at different ports in the course of along voyage; he loses a good deal of precious time in making the harbor, or in waiting for a favorable wind to leave it; and he pays daily duesto be allowed to remain there. The American starts from Boston to go topurchase tea in China; he arrives at Canton, stays there a few days, andthen returns. In less than two years he has sailed as far as the entirecircumference of the globe, and he has seen land but once. It is truethat during a voyage of eight or ten months he has drunk brackish waterand lived upon salt meat; that he has been in a continual contest withthe sea, with disease, and with a tedious existence; but upon his returnhe can sell a pound of his tea for a half-penny less than the Englishmerchant, and his purpose is accomplished. 

I cannot better explain my meaning than by saying that the Americansaffect a sort of heroism in their manner of trading. But the Europeanmerchant will always find it very difficult to imitate his Americancompetitor, who, in adopting the system which I have just described, follows not only a calculation of his gain, but an impulse of hisnature. 

The inhabitants of the United States are subject to all the wants andall the desires which result from an advanced stage of civilization; butas they are not surrounded by a community admirably adapted, like thatof Europe, to satisfy their wants, they are often obliged to procure forthemselves the various articles which education and habit have renderednecessaries. In America it sometimes happens that the same individualtills his field, builds his dwelling, contrives his tools, makes hisshoes, and weaves the coarse stuff of which his dress is composed. This circumstance is prejudicial to the excellence of the work; butit powerfully contributes to awaken the intelligence of the workman. Nothing tends to materialize man, and to deprive his work of thefaintest trace of mind, more than extreme division of labor. In acountry like America, where men devoted to special occupations are rare, a long apprenticeship cannot be required from anyone who embraces aprofession. The Americans, therefore, change their means of gaininga livelihood very readily; and they suit their occupations to theexigencies of the moment, in the manner most profitable to themselves. Men are to be met with who have successively been barristers, farmers, merchants, ministers of the gospel, and physicians. If the American beless perfect in each craft than the European, at least there is scarcelyany trade with which he is utterly unacquainted. His capacity is moregeneral, and the circle of his intelligence is enlarged. 

The inhabitants of the United States are never fettered by the axioms oftheir profession; they escape from all the prejudices of their presentstation; they are not more attached to one line of operation than toanother; they are not more prone to employ an old method than a newone; they have no rooted habits, and they easily shake off the influencewhich the habits of other nations might exercise upon their minds froma conviction that their country is unlike any other, and that itssituation is without a precedent in the world. America is a land ofwonders, in which everything is in constant motion, and every movementseems an improvement. The idea of novelty is there indissolublyconnected with the idea of amelioration. No natural boundary seems to beset to the efforts of man; and what is not yet done is only what he hasnot yet attempted to do. 

This perpetual change which goes on in the United States, these frequentvicissitudes of fortune, accompanied by such unforeseen fluctuations inprivate and in public wealth, serve to keep the minds of the citizensin a perpetual state of feverish agitation, which admirably invigoratestheir exertions, and keeps them in a state of excitement above theordinary level of mankind. The whole life of an American is passedlike a game of chance, a revolutionary crisis, or a battle. As thesame causes are continually in operation throughout the country, theyultimately impart an irresistible impulse to the national character. TheAmerican, taken as a chance specimen of his countrymen, must then be aman of singular warmth in his desires, enterprising, fond of adventure, and, above all, of innovation. The same bent is manifest in all that hedoes; he introduces it into his political laws, his religious doctrines, his theories of social economy, and his domestic occupations; he bearsit with him in the depths of the backwoods, as well as in the businessof the city. It is this same passion, applied to maritime commerce, which makes him the cheapest and 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, they will not only continue to supply the wants of the producers andconsumers of their own country, but they will tend more and more tobecome, like the English, the factors of all other peoples. *k Thisprediction has already begun to be realized; we perceive that theAmerican traders are introducing themselves as intermediate agents inthe commerce of several European nations; *l and America will offer astill wider field to their enterprise. 

[Footnote k: It must not be supposed that English vessels areexclusively employed in transporting foreign produce into England, orBritish produce to foreign countries; at the present day the merchantshipping of England may be regarded in the light of a vast system ofpublic conveyances, ready to serve all the producers of the world, andto open communications between all peoples. The maritime genius of theAmericans prompts them to enter into competition with the English. ]

[Footnote l: Part of the commerce of the Mediterranean is alreadycarried on by American vessels. ]

The great colonies which were founded in South America by the Spaniardsand the Portuguese have since become empires. Civil war and oppressionnow lay waste those extensive regions. Population does not increase, andthe thinly scattered inhabitants are too much absorbed in the cares ofself-defense even to attempt any amelioration of their condition. Such, however, will not always be the case. Europe has succeeded by her ownefforts in piercing the gloom of the Middle Ages; South America has thesame Christian laws and Christian manners as we have; she contains allthe germs of civilization which have grown amidst the nations ofEurope or their offsets, added to the advantages to be derived from ourexample: why then should she always remain uncivilized? It is clear thatthe question is simply one of time; at some future period, which may bemore or less remote, the inhabitants of South America will constituteflourishing and enlightened nations. 

But when the Spaniards and Portuguese of South America begin to feelthe wants common to all civilized nations, they will still be unableto satisfy those wants for themselves; as the youngest children ofcivilization, they must perforce admit the superiority of their elderbrethren. They will be agriculturists long before they succeed inmanufactures or commerce, and they will require the mediation ofstrangers to exchange their produce beyond seas for those articles forwhich a demand will begin to be felt. 

It is unquestionable that the Americans of the North will one day supplythe wants of the Americans of the South. Nature has placed them incontiguity, and has furnished the former with every means of knowing andappreciating those demands, of establishing a permanent connection withthose States, and of gradually filling their markets. The merchants ofthe United States could only forfeit these natural advantages if he werevery inferior to the merchant of Europe; to whom he is, on the contrary, superior in several respects. The Americans of the United States alreadyexercise a very considerable moral influence upon all the peoples ofthe New World. They are the source of intelligence, and all the nationswhich inhabit the same continent are already accustomed to consider themas the most enlightened, the most powerful, and the most wealthy membersof the great American family. All eyes are therefore turned towardsthe Union; and the States of which that body is composed are the modelswhich the other communities try to imitate to the best of their power;it is from the United States that they borrow their political principlesand their laws. 

The Americans of the United States stand in precisely the same positionwith regard to the peoples of South America as their fathers, theEnglish, occupy with regard to the Italians, the Spaniards, thePortuguese, and all those nations of Europe which receive their articlesof daily consumption from England, because they are less advanced incivilization and trade. England is at this time the natural emporium ofalmost all the nations which are within its reach; the American Unionwill perform the same part in the other hemisphere; and every communitywhich is founded, or which prospers in the New World, is founded andprospers to the advantage of the Anglo-Americans. 

If the Union were to be dissolved, the commerce of the States which nowcompose it would undoubtedly be checked for a time; but this consequencewould be less perceptible than is generally supposed. It is evidentthat, whatever may happen, the commercial States will remain united. They are all contiguous to each other; they have identically the sameopinions, interests, and manners; and they are alone competent to form avery great maritime power. Even if the South of the Union were to becomeindependent of the North, it would still require the services of thoseStates. I have already observed that the South is not a commercialcountry, and nothing intimates that it is likely to become so. TheAmericans of the South of the United States will therefore be obliged, for a long time to come, to have recourse to strangers to export theirproduce, and to supply them with the commodities which are requisite tosatisfy their wants. But the Northern States are undoubtedly able to actas their intermediate agents cheaper than any other merchants. They willtherefore retain that employment, for cheapness is the sovereign lawof commerce. National claims and national prejudices cannot resist theinfluence of cheapness. Nothing can be more virulent than the hatredwhich exists between the Americans of the United States and the English. But notwithstanding these inimical feelings, the Americans derive thegreater part of their manufactured commodities from England, becauseEngland supplies them at a cheaper rate than any other nation. Thus theincreasing 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 bedurable if it cannot be united, in case of need, to naval force. Thistruth is as well understood in the United States as it can be anywhereelse: the Americans are already able to make their flag respected; in afew years they will be able to make it feared. I am convinced that thedismemberment of the Union would not have the effect of diminishing thenaval power of the Americans, but that it would powerfully contributeto increase it. At the present time the commercial States are connectedwith others which have not the same interests, and which frequentlyyield an unwilling consent to the increase of a maritime power by whichthey are only indirectly benefited. If, on the contrary, the commercialStates of the Union formed one independent nation, commerce would becomethe foremost of their national interests; they would consequently bewilling to make very great sacrifices to protect their shipping, andnothing would prevent them from pursuing their designs upon this point. 

Nations, as well as men, almost always betray the most prominentfeatures of their future destiny in their earliest years. WhenI contemplate the ardor with which the Anglo-Americans prosecutecommercial enterprise, the advantages which befriend them, and thesuccess of their undertakings, I cannot refrain from believing that theywill one day become the first maritime power of the globe. They are bornto rule the seas, as the Romans were to conquer the world. 

Conclusion

I have now nearly reached the close of my inquiry; hitherto, in speakingof the future destiny of the United States, I have endeavored to dividemy subject into distinct portions, in order to study each of them withmore attention. My present object is to embrace the whole from onesingle point; the remarks I shall make will be less detailed, but theywill be more sure. I shall perceive each object less distinctly, but Ishall descry the principal facts with more certainty. A traveller whohas just left the walls of an immense city, climbs the neighboring hill;as he goes father off he loses sight of the men whom he has so recentlyquitted; their dwellings are confused in a dense mass; he can no longerdistinguish 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 ofthe vast whole. Such is the future destiny of the British race in NorthAmerica to my eye; the details of the stupendous picture are overhungwith shade, but I conceive a clear idea of the entire subject. 

The territory now occupied or possessed by the United States of Americaforms about one-twentieth part of the habitable earth. But extensive asthese confines are, it must not be supposed that the Anglo-American racewill always remain within them; indeed, it has already far oversteppedthem. 

There was once a time at which we also might have created a great Frenchnation in the American wilds, to counterbalance the influence of theEnglish upon the destinies of the New World. France formerly possesseda territory in North America, scarcely less extensive than the whole ofEurope. The three greatest rivers of that continent then flowed withinher dominions. The Indian tribes which dwelt between the mouth of theSt. Lawrence and the delta of the Mississippi were unaccustomed to anyother tongue but ours; and all the European settlements scattered overthat immense region recalled the traditions of our country. Louisbourg, Montmorency, Duquesne, St. Louis, Vincennes, New Orleans (for such werethe names they bore) are words dear to France and familiar to our ears. 

But a concourse of circumstances, which it would be tedious toenumerate, *m have deprived us of this magnificent inheritance. Whereverthe French settlers were numerically weak and partially established, they have disappeared: those who remain are collected on a small extentof country, and are now subject to other laws. The 400, 000 Frenchinhabitants of Lower Canada constitute, at the present time, the remnantof an old nation lost in the midst of a new people. A foreign populationis increasing around them unceasingly and on all sides, which alreadypenetrates amongst the ancient masters of the country, predominates intheir cities and corrupts their language. This population is identicalwith that of the United States; it is therefore with truth that Iasserted that the British race is not confined within the frontiers ofthe Union, since it already extends to the northeast. 

[Footnote m: The foremost of these circumstances is, that nations whichare accustomed to free institutions and municipal government are betterable than any others to found prosperous colonies. The habit of thinkingand governing for oneself is indispensable in a new country, wheresuccess necessarily depends, in a great measure, upon the individualexertions of the settlers. ]

To the northwest nothing is to be met with but a few insignificantRussian settlements; but to the southwest, Mexico presents a barrier tothe Anglo-Americans. Thus, the Spaniards and the Anglo-Americans are, properly speaking, the only two races which divide the possession of theNew World. The limits of separation between them have been settled bya treaty; but although the conditions of that treaty are exceedinglyfavorable to the Anglo-Americans, I do not doubt that they willshortly infringe this arrangement. Vast provinces, extending beyondthe frontiers of the Union towards Mexico, are still destitute ofinhabitants. The natives of the United States will forestall therightful occupants of these solitary regions. They will take possessionof the soil, and establish social institutions, so that when the legalowner arrives at length, he will find the wilderness under cultivation, and strangers quietly settled in the midst of his inheritance. *n

[Footnote n: [This was speedily accomplished, and ere long both Texasand California formed part of the United States. The Russian settlementswere acquired by purchase. ]]

The lands of the New World belong to the first occupant, and they arethe natural reward of the swiftest pioneer. Even the countries which arealready peopled will have some difficulty in securing themselves fromthis invasion. I have already alluded to what is taking place in theprovince of Texas. The inhabitants of the United States are perpetuallymigrating to Texas, where they purchase land; and although they conformto the laws of the country, they are gradually founding the empire oftheir own language and their own manners. The province of Texas is stillpart of the Mexican dominions, but it will soon contain no Mexicans;the same thing has occurred whenever the Anglo-Americans have come intocontact with populations of a different origin. 

It cannot be denied that the British race has acquired an amazingpreponderance over all the other European races in the New World; andthat it is very superior to them in civilization, in industry, and inpower. As long as it is only surrounded by desert or thinly peopledcountries, as long as it encounters no dense populations upon its route, through which it cannot work its way, it will assuredly continue tospread. The lines marked out by treaties will not stop it; but it willeverywhere transgress these imaginary barriers. 

The geographical position of the British race in the New World ispeculiarly favorable to its rapid increase. Above its northern frontiersthe icy regions of the Pole extend; and a few degrees below its southernconfines lies the burning climate of the Equator. The Anglo-Americansare, therefore, placed in the most temperate and habitable zone of thecontinent. 

It is generally supposed that the prodigious increase of population inthe United States is posterior to their Declaration of Independence. Butthis is an error: the population increased as rapidly under the colonialsystem as it does at the present day; that is to say, it doubled inabout twenty-two years. But this proportion which is now applied tomillions, was then applied to thousands of inhabitants; and the samefact which was scarcely noticeable a century ago, is now evident toevery observer. 

The British subjects in Canada, who are dependent on a king, augment andspread almost as rapidly as the British settlers of the United States, who live under a republican government. During the war of independence, which lasted eight years, the population continued to increase withoutintermission in the same ratio. Although powerful Indian nations alliedwith the English existed at that time upon the western frontiers, theemigration westward was never checked. Whilst the enemy laid waste theshores of the Atlantic, Kentucky, the western parts of Pennsylvania, andthe States of Vermont and of Maine were filling with inhabitants. Nordid the unsettled state of the Constitution, which succeeded the war, prevent the increase of the population, or stop its progress across thewilds. Thus, the difference of laws, the various conditions of peace andwar, of order and of anarchy, have exercised no perceptible influenceupon the gradual development of the Anglo-Americans. This may be readilyunderstood; for the fact is, that no causes are sufficiently generalto exercise a simultaneous influence over the whole of so extensive aterritory. One portion of the country always offers a sure retreat fromthe calamities which afflict another part; and however great may be theevil, the remedy which is at hand is greater still. 

It must not, then, be imagined that the impulse of the British race inthe New World can be arrested. The dismemberment of the Union, andthe hostilities which might ensure, the abolition of republicaninstitutions, and the tyrannical government which might succeed it, may retard this impulse, but they cannot prevent it from ultimatelyfulfilling the destinies to which that race is reserved. No power uponearth can close upon the emigrants that fertile wilderness which offersresources to all industry, and a refuge from all want. Future events, of whatever nature they may be, will not deprive the Americans of theirclimate 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 enterprisewhich seem to be the distinctive characteristics of their race, or toextinguish that knowledge which guides them on their way. 

Thus, in the midst of the uncertain future, one event at least is sure. At a period which may be said to be near (for we are speaking of thelife of a nation), the Anglo-Americans will alone cover the immensespace contained between the polar regions and the tropics, extendingfrom the coasts of the Atlantic to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. Theterritory which will probably be occupied by the Anglo-Americans atsome future time, may be computed to equal three-quarters of Europe inextent. *o The climate of the Union is upon the whole preferable tothat of Europe, and its natural advantages are not less great; itis therefore evident that its population will at some future time beproportionate to our own. Europe, divided as it is between so manydifferent nations, and torn as it has been by incessant wars and thebarbarous manners of the Middle Ages, has notwithstanding attained apopulation of 410 inhabitants to the square league. *p What cause canprevent the United States from having as numerous a population in time?

[Footnote o: The United States already extend over a territory equal toone-half of Europe. The area of Europe is 500, 000 square leagues, andits population 205, 000, 000 of inhabitants. ("Malte Brun, " liv. 114. Vol. Vi. P. 4. )

[This computation is given in French leagues, which were in use when theauthor wrote. Twenty years later, in 1850, the superficial area of theUnited States had been extended to 3, 306, 865 square miles of territory, which is about the area of Europe. ]]

[Footnote p: See "Malte Brun, " liv. 116, vol. Vi. P. 92. ]

Many ages must elapse before the divers offsets of the British race inAmerica cease to present the same homogeneous characteristics: and thetime cannot be foreseen at which a permanent inequality of conditionswill be established in the New World. Whatever differences may arise, from peace or from war, from freedom or oppression, from prosperity orwant, between the destinies of the different descendants of the greatAnglo-American family, they will at least preserve an analogous socialcondition, and they will hold in common the customs and the opinions towhich that social condition has given birth. 

In the Middle Ages, the tie of religion was sufficiently powerfulto imbue all the different populations of Europe with the samecivilization. The British of the New World have a thousand otherreciprocal ties; and they live at a time when the tendency to equalityis general amongst mankind. The Middle Ages were a period wheneverything 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 toprevail, and the nations seem to be advancing to unity. Our means ofintellectual intercourse unite the most remote parts of the earth; andit is impossible for men to remain strangers to each other, or to beignorant of the events which are taking place in any corner of theglobe. The consequence is that there is less difference, at the presentday, between the Europeans and their descendants in the New World, thanthere was between certain towns in the thirteenth century which wereonly separated by a river. If this tendency to assimilation bringsforeign nations closer to each other, it must a fortiori prevent thedescendants of the same people from becoming aliens to each other. 

The time will therefore come when one hundred and fifty millions of menwill be living in North America, *q equal in condition, the progeny ofone race, owing their origin to the same cause, and preserving the samecivilization, the same language, the same religion, the same habits, thesame manners, and imbued with the same opinions, propagated under thesame forms. The rest is uncertain, but this is certain; and it is a factnew to the world--a fact fraught with such portentous consequences as tobaffle the efforts even of the imagination. 

[Footnote q: This would be a population proportionate to that of Europe, taken at a mean rate of 410 inhabitants to the square league. ]

There are, at the present time, two great nations in the world whichseem to tend towards the same end, although they started from differentpoints: I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them havegrown up unnoticed; and whilst the attention of mankind was directedelsewhere, they have suddenly assumed a most prominent place amongst thenations; and the world learned their existence and their greatness atalmost the same time. 

All other nations seem to have nearly reached their natural limits, andonly to be charged with the maintenance of their power; but these arestill in the act of growth; *r all the others are stopped, or continueto advance with extreme difficulty; these are proceeding with ease andwith celerity along a path to which the human eye can assign no term. The American struggles against the natural obstacles which opposehim; the adversaries of the Russian are men; the former combats thewilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization with all itsweapons and its arts: the conquests of the one are therefore gained bythe ploughshare; those of the other by the sword. The Anglo-Americanrelies upon personal interest to accomplish his ends, and gives freescope to the unguided exertions and common-sense of the citizens;the Russian centres all the authority of society in a single arm: theprincipal instrument of the former 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 by the will of Heaven to swaythe destinies of half the globe. 

[Footnote r: Russia is the country in the Old World in which populationincreases most rapidly in proportion. ]