Democracy in America - Volume I

by Alexis de Tocqueville

Published in 1835

Published after Tocqueville’s nine-month tour of the United States, Volume I provides a detailed examination of the American political system, including the Constitution, the role of local government (townships), and the judicial branch. He explores the 'equality of conditions' as the defining characteristic of American life and introduces the influential concept of the 'tyranny of the majority.' The volume famously concludes with his predictions regarding the future of the American Union and the rise of the United States and Russia as competing global powers.

Genres: Philosophy, Political Science, History, Sociology

Tags: democracy, equality, liberalism, american politics, federalism

Text Comparison

Version: v1.0

Comparing original text with modernized version

19278 changes detected

What you're seeing

This view shows you exactly what changed between the original text and the modernized version. Green lines show text that was added or improved. Red lines show text that was removed or replaced. The numbers on the left show which lines in the original and modernized versions are being compared.

Changes Summary

19278

Total Changes

1623

Additions

17655

Removals

Detailed Changes

 Index: original.md
 ===================================================================
 # Democracy in America - Volume I
 ## License
 **Title:** Democracy in America - Volume I (Timeless Library Edition)
 ## Introductory Chapter
+During my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more powerfully than the general equality of conditions. I quickly discovered the prodigious influence of this primary fact on society, giving direction to public opinion and character to laws, new principles to governors and distinct habits to governed. I soon realized this influence extends beyond politics into civil society, creating opinions, feelings, and everyday practices, modifying everything it touches.
+Amongst the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in
+the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general
+equality of conditions. I readily discovered the prodigious influence
+which this primary fact exercises on the whole course of society, by
+giving a certain direction to public opinion, and a certain tenor to
+the laws; by imparting new maxims to the governing powers, and peculiar
+habits to the governed. I speedily perceived that the influence of this
+fact extends far beyond the political character and the laws of the
+country, and that it has no less empire over civil society than over
+the Government; it creates opinions, engenders sentiments, suggests the
+ordinary practices of life, and modifies whatever it does not produce.
+The more I advanced in the study of American society, the more I
+perceived that the equality of conditions is the fundamental fact from
+which all others seem to be derived, and the central point at which all
+my observations constantly terminated.
+> **Quote:** "The more I advanced in the study of American society, the more I perceived that the equality of conditions is the fundamental fact from which all others seem to be derived, and the central point at which all my observations constantly terminated."
+I then turned my thoughts to our own hemisphere, where I imagined that
+I discerned something analogous to the spectacle which the New World
+presented to me. I observed that the equality of conditions is daily
+progressing towards those extreme limits which it seems to have reached
+in the United States, and that the democracy which governs the American
+communities appears to be rapidly rising into power in Europe. I hence
+conceived the idea of the book which is now before the reader.
+Turning my thoughts back to our hemisphere, I saw equality advancing toward the extreme limits it reached in America, and democracy rising in Europe. This inspired the book before you.
+It is evident to all alike that a great democratic revolution is going
+on amongst us; but there are two opinions as to its nature and
+consequences. To some it appears to be a novel accident, which as such
+may still be checked; to others it seems irresistible, because it is
+the most uniform, the most ancient, and the most permanent tendency
+which is to be found in history. Let us recollect the situation of
+France seven hundred years ago, when the territory was divided amongst
+a small number of families, who were the owners of the soil and the
+rulers of the inhabitants; the right of governing descended with the
+family inheritance from generation to generation; force was the only
+means by which man could act on man, and landed property was the sole
+source of power. Soon, however, the political power of the clergy was
+founded, and began to exert itself: the clergy opened its ranks to all
+classes, to the poor and the rich, the villein and the lord; equality
+penetrated into the Government through the Church, and the being who as
+a serf must have vegetated in perpetual bondage took his place as a
+priest in the midst of nobles, and not infrequently above the heads of
+kings.
+A great democratic revolution is underway, but opinions differ: some see it as a stoppable accident, others as an irresistible historical tendency.
+The different relations of men became more complicated and more
+numerous as society gradually became more stable and more civilized.
+Thence the want of civil laws was felt; and the order of legal
+functionaries soon rose from the obscurity of the tribunals and their
+dusty chambers, to appear at the court of the monarch, by the side of
+the feudal barons in their ermine and their mail. Whilst the kings were
+ruining themselves by their great enterprises, and the nobles
+exhausting their resources by private wars, the lower orders were
+enriching themselves by commerce. The influence of money began to be
+perceptible in State affairs. The transactions of business opened a new
+road to power, and the financier rose to a station of political
+influence in which he was at once flattered and despised. Gradually the
+spread of mental acquirements, and the increasing taste for literature
+and art, opened chances of success to talent; science became a means of
+government, intelligence led to social power, and the man of letters
+took a part in the affairs of the State. The value attached to the
+privileges of birth decreased in the exact proportion in which new
+paths were struck out to advancement. In the eleventh century nobility
+was beyond all price; in the thirteenth it might be purchased; it was
+conferred for the first time in 1270; and equality was thus introduced
+into the Government by the aristocracy itself.
+Let us recall France seven hundred years ago, divided among a few landed families who ruled by inheritance, where land was the sole source of power. Soon the clergy emerged, opening its ranks to all classes—poor and rich, commoner and lord. Equality entered government through the Church; a serf could become a priest above kings.
+In the course of these seven hundred years it sometimes happened that
+in order to resist the authority of the Crown, or to diminish the power
+of their rivals, the nobles granted a certain share of political rights
+to the people. Or, more frequently, the king permitted the lower orders
+to enjoy a degree of power, with the intention of repressing the
+aristocracy. In France the kings have always been the most active and
+the most constant of levellers. When they were strong and ambitious
+they spared no pains to raise the people to the level of the nobles;
+when they were temperate or weak they allowed the people to rise above
+themselves. Some assisted the democracy by their talents, others by
+their vices. Louis XI and Louis XIV reduced every rank beneath the
+throne to the same subjection; Louis XV descended, himself and all his
+Court, into the dust.
+As society stabilized, relationships multiplied, requiring civil laws. Legal officials emerged from dusty chambers to sit alongside barons at court.
+As soon as land was held on any other than a feudal tenure, and
+personal property began in its turn to confer influence and power,
+every improvement which was introduced in commerce or manufacture was a
+fresh element of the equality of conditions. Henceforward every new
+discovery, every new want which it engendered, and every new desire
+which craved satisfaction, was a step towards the universal level. The
+taste for luxury, the love of war, the sway of fashion, and the most
+superficial as well as the deepest passions of the human heart,
+co-operated to enrich the poor and to impoverish the rich.
+While kings ruined themselves with grand enterprises and nobles fought private wars, commerce enriched the lower classes. Money became power, and financiers gained political influence.
+From the time when the exercise of the intellect became the source of
+strength and of wealth, it is impossible not to consider every addition
+to science, every fresh truth, and every new idea as a germ of power
+placed within the reach of the people. Poetry, eloquence, and memory,
+the grace of wit, the glow of imagination, the depth of thought, and
+all the gifts which are bestowed by Providence with an equal hand,
+turned to the advantage of the democracy; and even when they were in
+the possession of its adversaries they still served its cause by
+throwing into relief the natural greatness of man; its conquests
+spread, therefore, with those of civilization and knowledge, and
+literature became an arsenal where the poorest and the weakest could
+always find weapons to their hand.
+The spread of knowledge and arts opened opportunities for talent. Intelligence became power, and men of letters entered state affairs. As new paths opened, birth privileges declined. In the eleventh century nobility was priceless; by the thirteenth it could be purchased. It was first granted in 1270—equality introduced by aristocracy itself.
+In perusing the pages of our history, we shall scarcely meet with a
+single great event, in the lapse of seven hundred years, which has not
+turned to the advantage of equality. The Crusades and the wars of the
+English decimated the nobles and divided their possessions; the
+erection of communities introduced an element of democratic liberty
+into the bosom of feudal monarchy; the invention of fire-arms equalized
+the villein and the noble on the field of battle; printing opened the
+same resources to the minds of all classes; the post was organized so
+as to bring the same information to the door of the poor man’s cottage
+and to the gate of the palace; and Protestantism proclaimed that all
+men are alike able to find the road to heaven. The discovery of America
+offered a thousand new paths to fortune, and placed riches and power
+within the reach of the adventurous and the obscure. If we examine what
+has happened in France at intervals of fifty years, beginning with the
+eleventh century, we shall invariably perceive that a twofold
+revolution has taken place in the state of society. The noble has gone
+down on the social ladder, and the roturier has gone up; the one
+descends as the other rises. Every half century brings them nearer to
+each other, and they will very shortly meet.
+Over seven centuries, nobles sometimes granted rights to people to resist kings or rivals; more often, kings empowered lower classes to curb aristocracy. French kings were equality's most consistent promoters—Louis XI and XIV reduced all ranks to submission; Louis XV and his court descended into dust.
+Nor is this phenomenon at all peculiar to France. Whithersoever we turn
+our eyes we shall witness the same continual revolution throughout the
+whole of Christendom. The various occurrences of national existence
+have everywhere turned to the advantage of democracy; all men have
+aided it by their exertions: those who have intentionally labored in
+its cause, and those who have served it unwittingly; those who have
+fought for it and those who have declared themselves its opponents,
+have all been driven along in the same track, have all labored to one
+end, some ignorantly and some unwillingly; all have been blind
+instruments in the hands of God.
+When property could be held outside feudal tenure, commerce and manufacturing advanced equality. Every discovery, need, and desire became a step toward the universal level. Luxury, war, fashion—the most superficial as well as the deepest passions of the human heart—worked to enrich the poor and impoverish the rich.
+The gradual development of the equality of conditions is therefore a
+providential fact, and it possesses all the characteristics of a divine
+decree: it is universal, it is durable, it constantly eludes all human
+interference, and all events as well as all men contribute to its
+progress. Would it, then, be wise to imagine that a social impulse
+which dates from so far back can be checked by the efforts of a
+generation? Is it credible that the democracy which has annihilated the
+feudal system and vanquished kings will respect the citizen and the
+capitalist? Will it 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 are wanting: the equality of conditions is more complete
+in the Christian countries of the present day than it has been at any
+time or in any part of the world; so that the extent of what already
+exists prevents us from foreseeing what may be yet to come.
+When intellect became a source of strength, every scientific addition, truth, and idea became a seed of power for the people. All gifts of Providence—poetry, eloquence, wit, imagination, thought—served democracy. Its conquests spread with civilization, making literature an arsenal for the poorest.
+The whole book which is here offered to the public has been written
+under the impression of a kind of religious dread produced in the
+author’s mind by the contemplation of so irresistible a revolution,
+which has advanced for centuries in spite of such amazing obstacles,
+and which is still proceeding in the midst of the ruins it has made. It
+is not necessary that God himself should speak in order to disclose to
+us the unquestionable signs of His will; we can discern them in the
+habitual course of nature, and in the invariable tendency of events: I
+know, without a special revelation, that the planets move in the orbits
+traced by the Creator’s finger. If the men of our time were led by
+attentive observation and by sincere reflection to acknowledge that the
+gradual and progressive development of social equality is at once the
+past and future of their history, this solitary truth would confer the
+sacred character of a Divine decree upon the change. To attempt to
+check democracy would be in that case to resist the will of God; and
+the nations would then be constrained to make the best of the social
+lot awarded to them by Providence.
+Over seven hundred years, nearly every great event advanced equality: Crusades and wars thinned nobles' ranks; town communes introduced democratic liberty; firearms equalized commoner and noble on battlefields; the printing press opened minds; the postal service brought equal information; Protestantism proclaimed equal capability for salvation; America offered new paths to fortune. Every fifty years in France, the noble and the commoner draw closer. > **Quote:** The noble has gone down on the social ladder, and the *roturier* has gone up; the one descends as the other rises. Every half century brings them nearer to each other, and they will very shortly meet.
+The Christian nations of our age seem to me to present a most alarming
+spectacle; the impulse which is bearing them along is so strong that it
+cannot 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 no
+longer. The first duty which is at this time imposed upon those who
+direct 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 an
+acquaintance with its true interests for its blind propensities; to
+adapt its government to time and place, and to modify it in compliance
+with the occurrences and the actors of the age. A new science of
+politics is indispensable to a new world. This, however, is what we
+think of least; launched in the middle of a rapid stream, we
+obstinately fix our eyes on the ruins which may still be described upon
+the shore we have left, whilst the current sweeps us along, and drives
+us backwards towards the gulf.
+This is not unique to France. Throughout the Christian world, every event has benefited democracy. All men—consciously or unconsciously, for or against it—have been blind instruments in the hands of God, laboring toward the same end.
+In no country in Europe has the great social revolution which I have
+been describing made such rapid progress as in France; but it has
+always been borne on by chance. The heads of the State have never had
+any forethought for its exigencies, and its victories have been
+obtained without their consent or without their knowledge. The most
+powerful, the most intelligent, and the most moral classes of the
+nation have never attempted to connect themselves with it in order to
+guide it. The people has consequently been abandoned to its wild
+propensities, and it has grown up like those outcasts who receive their
+education in the public streets, and who are unacquainted with aught
+but the vices and wretchedness of society. The existence of a democracy
+was seemingly unknown, when on a sudden it took possession of the
+supreme power. Everything was then submitted to its caprices; it was
+worshipped as the idol of strength; until, when it was enfeebled by its
+own excesses, the legislator conceived the rash project of annihilating
+its power, instead of instructing it and correcting its vices; no
+attempt was made to fit it to govern, but all were bent on excluding it
+from the government.
+This development is an act of Providence, a divine law: universal, lasting, escaping human interference. Can a movement so deep-rooted be stopped by one generation? Will democracy that destroyed feudalism and defeated kings now respect the citizen and the capitalist? It grows stronger while opponents weaken. We cannot predict where it leads, for equality is more complete today than ever before.
+The consequence of this has been that the democratic revolution has
+been effected only in the material parts of society, without that
+concomitant change in laws, ideas, customs, and manners which was
+necessary to render such a revolution beneficial. We have gotten a
+democracy, but without the conditions which lessen its vices and render
+its natural advantages more prominent; and although we already perceive
+the evils it brings, we are ignorant of the benefits it may confer.
+This book was written in religious awe contemplating this irresistible revolution, advancing for centuries amid the ruins it creates.
+While the power of the Crown, supported by the aristocracy, peaceably
+governed the nations of Europe, society possessed, in the midst of its
+wretchedness, several different advantages which can now scarcely be
+appreciated or conceived. The power of a part of his subjects was an
+insurmountable barrier to the tyranny of the prince; and the monarch,
+who felt the almost divine character which he enjoyed in the eyes of
+the multitude, derived a motive for the just use of his power from the
+respect which he inspired. High as they were placed above the people,
+the nobles could not but take that calm and benevolent interest in its
+fate which the shepherd feels towards his flock; and without
+acknowledging the poor as their equals, they watched over the destiny
+of those whose welfare Providence had entrusted to their care. The
+people never having conceived the idea of a social condition different
+from its own, and entertaining no expectation of ever ranking with its
+chiefs, received benefits from them without discussing their rights. It
+grew attached to them when they were clement and just, and it submitted
+without resistance or servility to their exactions, as to the
+inevitable visitations of the arm of God. Custom, and the manners of
+the time, had moreover created a species of law in the midst of
+violence, and established certain limits to oppression. As the noble
+never suspected that anyone would attempt to deprive him of the
+privileges which he believed to be legitimate, and as the serf looked
+upon his own inferiority as a consequence of the immutable order of
+nature, it is easy to imagine that a mutual exchange of good-will took
+place between two classes so differently gifted by fate. Inequality and
+wretchedness were then to be found in society; but the souls of neither
+rank of men were degraded. Men are not corrupted by the exercise of
+power or debased by the habit of obedience, but by the exercise of a
+power which they believe to be illegal and by obedience to a rule which
+they consider to be usurped and oppressive. On one side was wealth,
+strength, and leisure, accompanied by the refinements of luxury, the
+elegance of taste, the pleasures of wit, and the religion of art. On
+the other was labor and a rude ignorance; but in the midst of this
+coarse and ignorant multitude it was not uncommon to meet with
+energetic passions, generous sentiments, profound religious
+convictions, and independent virtues. The body of a State thus
+organized might boast of its stability, its power, and, above all, of
+its glory.
+God need not speak directly to reveal His will; we can discern it in the habitual course of nature and the invariable tendency of events. I know, without a special revelation, that the planets move in the orbits traced by the Creator’s finger. If our age recognizes equality's development as history's past and future, this truth sanctifies it as divine law. Resisting democracy would then be resisting God. The Christian nations present an alarming sight: the democratic current is too strong to stop but not too fast to guide. Their fate is in their hands—for now.
+But the scene is now changed, and gradually the two ranks mingle; the
+divisions which once severed mankind are lowered, property is divided,
+power is held in common, the light of intelligence spreads, and the
+capacities of all classes are equally cultivated; the State becomes
+democratic, and the empire of democracy is slowly and peaceably
+introduced into the institutions and the manners of the nation. I can
+conceive a society in which all men would profess an equal attachment
+and respect for the laws of which they are the common authors; in which
+the authority of the State would be respected as necessary, though not
+as divine; and the loyalty of the subject to its chief magistrate would
+not be a passion, but a quiet and rational persuasion. Every individual
+being in the possession of rights which he is sure to retain, a kind of
+manly reliance and reciprocal courtesy would arise between all classes,
+alike removed from pride and meanness. The people, well acquainted with
+its true interests, would allow that in order to profit by the
+advantages of society it is necessary to satisfy its demands. In this
+state of things the voluntary association of the citizens might supply
+the individual exertions of the nobles, and the community would be
+alike protected from anarchy and from oppression.
+> **Quote:** "A new science of politics is indispensable to a new world."
+I admit that, in a democratic State thus constituted, society will not
+be stationary; but the impulses of the social body may be regulated and
+directed forwards; if there be less splendor than in the halls of an
+aristocracy, the contrast of misery will be less frequent also; the
+pleasures of enjoyment may be less excessive, but those of comfort will
+be more general; the sciences may be less perfectly cultivated, but
+ignorance will be less common; the impetuosity of the feelings will be
+repressed, and the habits of the nation softened; there will be more
+vices and fewer crimes. In the absence of enthusiasm and of an ardent
+faith, great sacrifices may be obtained from the members of a
+commonwealth by an appeal to their understandings and their experience;
+each individual will feel the same necessity for uniting with his
+fellow-citizens to protect his own weakness; and as he knows that if
+they are to assist he must co-operate, he will readily perceive that
+his personal interest is identified with the interest of the community.
+The nation, taken as a whole, will be less brilliant, less glorious,
+and perhaps less strong; but the majority of the citizens will enjoy a
+greater degree of prosperity, and the people will remain quiet, not
+because it despairs of amelioration, but because it is conscious of the
+advantages of its condition. If all the consequences of this state of
+things were not good or useful, society would at least have
+appropriated all such as were useful and good; and having once and for
+ever renounced the social advantages of aristocracy, mankind would
+enter into possession of all the benefits which democracy can afford.
+In France, this revolution progressed fastest but by chance, without state planning or the guidance of its best classes. Democracy grew up wild, like street outcasts, ignored until it seized power. Then it was worshiped as an idol; when it weakened, lawmakers tried to destroy rather than instruct it. No one prepared it to govern; all sought to exclude it.
+But here it may be asked what we have adopted in the place of those
+institutions, those ideas, and those customs of our forefathers which
+we have abandoned. The spell of royalty is broken, but it has not been
+succeeded by the majesty of the laws; the people has learned to despise
+all authority, but fear now extorts a larger tribute of obedience than
+that which was formerly paid by reverence and by love.
+Thus democracy arrived in society's physical structure without the necessary changes in laws, ideas, customs, and manners to make it beneficial. We see its evils but not its potential benefits.
+I perceive that we have destroyed those independent beings which were
+able to cope with tyranny single-handed; but it is the Government that
+has inherited the privileges of which families, corporations, and
+individuals have been deprived; the weakness of the whole community has
+therefore succeeded that influence of a small body of citizens, which,
+if it was sometimes oppressive, was often conservative. The division of
+property has lessened the distance which separated the rich from the
+poor; but it would seem that the nearer they draw to each other, the
+greater is their mutual hatred, and the more vehement the envy and the
+dread with which they resist each other’s claims to power; the notion
+of Right is alike insensible to both classes, and Force affords to both
+the only argument for the present, and the only guarantee for the
+future. The poor man retains the prejudices of his forefathers without
+their faith, and their ignorance without their virtues; he has adopted
+the doctrine of self-interest as the rule of his actions, without
+understanding the science which controls it, and his egotism is no less
+blind than his devotedness was formerly. If society is tranquil, it is
+not because it relies upon its strength and its well-being, but because
+it knows its weakness and its infirmities; a single effort may cost it
+its life; everybody feels the evil, but no one has courage or energy
+enough to seek the cure; the desires, the regret, the sorrows, and the
+joys of the time produce nothing that is visible or permanent, like the
+passions of old men which terminate in impotence.
+Under Crown and aristocracy, Europe enjoyed advantages now hard to appreciate. Noble power checked royal tyranny, and monarchs, feeling divine in the people's eyes, had reason to govern justly. Nobles, like shepherds to their flock, watched over those Providence entrusted to them. The people, never expecting equality, accepted benefits without questioning rights, submitting to authority as natural law. Custom created limits amid violence. Inequality existed, but neither class was degraded—corruption comes only from exercising power believed illegal or obeying rules considered oppressive. One side had wealth, leisure, and art; the other had labor and ignorance, but also energy, generosity, deep faith, and independent virtues. Such a state could boast stability, power, and glory.
+We have, then, abandoned whatever advantages the old state of things
+afforded, without receiving any compensation from our present
+condition; we have destroyed an aristocracy, and we seem inclined to
+survey its ruins with complacency, and to fix our abode in the midst of
+them.
+But the scene has changed: barriers are lowered, property divided, power shared, knowledge spread, abilities equally developed. Democracy is introduced into institutions and manners.
+The phenomena which the intellectual world presents are not less
+deplorable. The democracy of France, checked in its course or abandoned
+to its lawless passions, has overthrown whatever crossed its path, and
+has shaken all that it has not destroyed. Its empire on society has not
+been gradually introduced or peaceably established, but it has
+constantly advanced in the midst of disorder and the agitation of a
+conflict. In the heat of the struggle each partisan is hurried beyond
+the limits of his opinions by the opinions and the excesses of his
+opponents, until he loses sight of the end of his exertions, and holds
+a language which disguises his real sentiments or secret instincts.
+Hence arises the strange confusion which we are witnessing. I cannot
+recall to my mind a passage in history more worthy of sorrow and of
+pity than the scenes which are happening under our eyes; it is as if
+the natural bond which unites the opinions of man to his tastes and his
+actions to his principles was now broken; the sympathy which has always
+been acknowledged between the feelings and the ideas of mankind appears
+to be dissolved, and all the laws of moral analogy to be abolished.
+Imagine a society where all feel equal attachment to laws they helped create; where state authority is respected as necessity, not divine right; where loyalty is rational conviction, not blind passion. With secure rights, self-reliance and courtesy would grow among classes, free from arrogance and servility. Understanding their interests, people would recognize that enjoying society's benefits requires fulfilling its duties. Voluntary associations could replace noble power, protecting the community from chaos and oppression.
+Zealous Christians may be found amongst us whose minds are nurtured in
+the love and knowledge of a future life, and who readily espouse the
+cause of human liberty as the source of all moral greatness.
+Christianity, which has declared that all men are equal in the sight of
+God, will not refuse to acknowledge that all citizens are equal in the
+eye of the law. But, by a singular concourse of events, religion is
+entangled in those institutions which democracy assails, and it is not
+unfrequently brought to reject the equality it loves, and to curse that
+cause of liberty as a foe which it might hallow by its alliance.
+Such a democratic society would not be static, but its movements could be regulated. There may be less grandeur than in aristocracy, but also less extreme misery; less intense luxury, but more widespread comfort; less profound science, but less ignorance. Violent emotions would be restrained, habits milder, vices perhaps more numerous but crimes fewer.
+By the side of these religious men I discern others whose looks are
+turned to the earth more than to Heaven; they are the partisans of
+liberty, not only as the source of the noblest virtues, but more
+especially as the root of all solid advantages; and they sincerely
+desire to extend its sway, and to impart its blessings to mankind. It
+is 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 of their adversaries, and they inquire no further; some of
+them attack it openly, and the remainder are afraid to defend it.
+> **Quote:** "In the absence of enthusiasm and of an ardent faith, great sacrifices may be obtained from the members of a commonwealth by an appeal to their understandings and their experience; each individual will feel the same necessity for uniting with his fellow-citizens to protect his own weakness; and as he knows that if they are to assist he must co-operate, he will readily perceive that his personal interest is identified with the interest of the community."
+In former ages slavery has been advocated by the venal and
+slavish-minded, whilst the independent and the warm-hearted were
+struggling without hope to save the liberties of mankind. But men of
+high and generous characters are now to be met with, whose opinions are
+at variance with their inclinations, and who praise that servility
+which they have themselves never known. Others, on the contrary, speak
+in the name of liberty, as if they were able to feel its sanctity and
+its majesty, and loudly claim for humanity those rights which they have
+always disowned. There are virtuous and peaceful individuals whose pure
+morality, quiet habits, affluence, and talents fit them to be the
+leaders of the surrounding population; their love of their country is
+sincere, and they are prepared to make the greatest sacrifices to its
+welfare, but they confound the abuses of civilization with its
+benefits, and the idea of evil is inseparable in their minds from that
+of novelty.
+But what have we adopted in place of discarded institutions? Royalty's spell is broken, not replaced by law's majesty. People despise all authority, yet fear now compels more obedience than reverence ever did.
+Not far from this class is another party, whose object is to
+materialize mankind, 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
+placing themselves in a station which they usurp with insolence, and
+from which they are driven by their own unworthiness. Where are we
+then? The religionists are the enemies of liberty, and the friends of
+liberty attack religion; the high-minded and the noble advocate
+subjection, and the meanest and most servile minds preach independence;
+honest and enlightened citizens are opposed to all progress, whilst men
+without patriotism and without principles are the apostles of
+civilization and of intelligence. Has such been the fate of the
+centuries which have preceded our own? and has man always inhabited a
+world like the present, where nothing is linked together, where virtue
+is without genius, and genius without honor; where the love of order is
+confounded with a taste for oppression, and the holy rites of freedom
+with a contempt of law; where the light thrown by conscience on human
+actions is dim, and where nothing seems to be any longer forbidden or
+allowed, honorable or shameful, false or true? I cannot, however,
+believe that the Creator made man to leave him in an endless struggle
+with the intellectual miseries which surround us: God destines a calmer
+and a more certain future 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.
+We destroyed independent powers that fought tyranny; government inherited the lost privileges of families and corporations. Community-wide weakness replaced the stabilizing influence of that small, sometimes oppressive group. Property division narrowed rich-poor gaps, but proximity breeds hatred. Envy and fear grow as each resists the other's power claims. Neither class knows "Right"; Force is now the only argument and guarantee. The poor retain ancestors' prejudices without their faith, ignorance without virtues. Self-interest rules without understanding, blind selfishness replacing blind devotion. Society's calm comes not from strength but from consciousness of weakness—one effort might destroy it. All feel the problem, but none seek a cure. The desires and sorrows of our time produce nothing permanent, like the passions of old men which terminate in impotence.
+There is a country in the world where the great revolution which I am
+speaking of seems nearly to have reached its natural limits; it has
+been effected with ease and simplicity, say rather that this country
+has attained the consequences of the democratic revolution which we are
+undergoing without having experienced the revolution itself. The
+emigrants who fixed themselves on the shores of America in the
+beginning of the seventeenth century severed the democratic principle
+from all the principles which repressed it in the old communities of
+Europe, and transplanted it unalloyed to the New World. It has there
+been allowed to spread in perfect freedom, and to put forth its
+consequences in the laws by influencing the manners of the country.
+We abandoned the old system's advantages without compensation. We destroyed aristocracy and seem content to live among its ruins.
+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 I
+do not conclude from this that we shall ever be necessarily led to draw
+the same political consequences which the Americans have derived from a
+similar social organization. I am far from supposing that they have
+chosen the only form of government which a democracy may adopt; but the
+identity of the efficient cause of laws and manners in the two
+countries is sufficient to account for the immense interest we have in
+becoming acquainted with its effects in each of them.
+The intellectual world is equally deplorable. French democracy, blocked or abandoned to lawless passions, overthrew and shook everything. It advanced through disorder, not peace. In conflict's heat, partisans exceed their own opinions, lose sight of goals, and hide true feelings, creating strange confusion.
+It is not, then, merely to satisfy a legitimate curiosity that I have
+examined America; my wish has been to find instruction by which we may
+ourselves profit. Whoever should imagine that I have intended to write
+a panegyric will perceive that such was not my design; nor has it been
+my object to advocate any form of government in particular, for I am of
+opinion that absolute excellence is rarely to be found in any
+legislation; I have not even affected to discuss whether the social
+revolution, which I believe to be irresistible, is advantageous or
+prejudicial to mankind; I have acknowledged this revolution as a fact
+already accomplished or on the eve of its accomplishment; and I have
+selected the nation, from amongst those which have undergone it, in
+which its development has been the most peaceful and the most complete,
+in order to discern its natural consequences, and, if it be possible,
+to distinguish the means by which it may be rendered profitable. I
+confess that in America I saw more than America; I sought the image of
+democracy itself, with its inclinations, its character, its prejudices,
+and its passions, in order to learn what we have to fear or to hope
+from its progress.
+No period deserves more sorrow than ours. The bond between opinions and tastes, actions and principles, seems broken. Moral consistency's laws appear abolished.
+In the first part of this work I have attempted to show the tendency
+given to the laws by the democracy of America, which is abandoned
+almost without restraint to its instinctive propensities, and to
+exhibit the course it prescribes to the Government and the influence it
+exercises on affairs. I have sought to discover the evils and the
+advantages which it produces. I have examined the precautions used by
+the Americans to direct it, as well as those which they have not
+adopted, and I have undertaken 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 in America, but I am certain that such has been my
+sincere desire, and that I have never, knowingly, moulded facts to
+ideas, instead of ideas to facts.
+Dedicated Christians, shaped by love of a future life, support liberty as moral greatness's source. Christianity, declaring all equal before God, should acknowledge citizens equal before law. Yet entangled with institutions democracy attacks, it often rejects equality and curses liberty, when it could sanctify it.
+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 and
+approved works. I have cited my authorities in the notes, and anyone
+may refer to them. Whenever an opinion, a political custom, or a remark
+on the manners of the country was concerned, I endeavored to consult
+the most enlightened men I met with. If the point in question was
+important or doubtful, I was not satisfied with one testimony, but I
+formed my opinion on the evidence of several witnesses. Here the reader
+must necessarily believe me upon my word. I could frequently have
+quoted names which are either known to him, or which deserve to be so,
+in proof of what I advance; but I have carefully abstained from this
+practice. A stranger 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 is restricted, and the shortness of the traveller’s stay takes away
+all fear of his indiscretion. I carefully noted every conversation of
+this nature as soon as it occurred, but these notes will never leave my
+writing-case; I had rather injure the success of my statements than add
+my name to the list of those strangers who repay the generous
+hospitality they have received by subsequent chagrin and annoyance.
+Beside them are materialists who support liberty for practical benefits. Knowing liberty requires morality and morality requires faith, they should seek religion's help. But seeing religion among their enemies, some attack it openly while others fear to defend it.
+I am aware that, notwithstanding my care, nothing will be easier than
+to criticise this book, if anyone ever chooses to criticise it. Those
+readers who may examine it closely will discover the fundamental idea
+which connects the several parts together. But the diversity of the
+subjects I have had to treat is exceedingly great, and it will not be
+difficult 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 read in the spirit which has guided my labors, and that my book may
+be judged by the general impression it leaves, as I have formed my own
+judgment not on any single reason, but upon the mass of evidence. It
+must not be forgotten that the author who wishes to be understood is
+obliged to push all his ideas to their utmost theoretical consequences,
+and often to the verge of what is false or impracticable; for if it be
+necessary sometimes to quit the rules of logic in active life, such is
+not the case in discourse, and a man finds that almost as many
+difficulties spring from inconsistency of language as usually arise
+from inconsistency of conduct.
+In past ages, the corrupt defended slavery while the independent fought for freedom. Today, generous characters praise submissiveness they've never known, while others speak of liberty's holiness while denying human rights. Virtuous, wealthy patriots confuse civilization's abuses with its benefits, linking evil with novelty.
+I conclude by pointing out myself what many readers will consider the
+principal defect of the work. This book is written to favor no
+particular views, and in composing it I have entertained no designs of
+serving or attacking any party; I have undertaken not to see
+differently, but to look further than parties, and whilst they are
+busied for the morrow I have turned my thoughts to the Future.
+Nearby, another party seeks to make humanity materialists: pursuing convenience over justice, knowledge without faith, prosperity without virtue. They call themselves champions of modern civilization, but their unworthiness will drive them from this undeserved position. Where are we?
+> **Quote:** "The religionists are the enemies of liberty, and the friends of liberty attack religion; the high-minded and the noble advocate subjection, and the meanest and most servile minds preach independence; honest and enlightened citizens are opposed to all progress, whilst men without patriotism and without principles are the apostles of civilization and of intelligence. Has such been the fate of the centuries which have preceded our own? and has man always inhabited a world like the present, where nothing is linked together, where virtue is without genius, and genius without honor; where the love of order is confounded with a taste for oppression, and the holy rites of freedom with a contempt of law; where the light thrown by conscience on human actions is dim, and where nothing seems to be any longer forbidden or allowed, honorable or shameful, false or true?"
+I cannot believe the Creator made man for endless intellectual misery. God intends a calmer future for Europe. I don't know His designs, but I will not stop believing because I cannot understand; I would rather doubt my capacity than His justice.
+One country has nearly reached this revolution's natural limits: America achieved democratic results without the revolution itself. Seventeenth-century immigrants transplanted democracy in pure form, free to grow and shape laws through customs.
+## Chapter I: Exterior Form Of North America
+I have no doubt we will reach America's equality of conditions, but we need not adopt their political results. They haven't chosen democracy's only possible form. Yet since the fundamental cause is the same, understanding its effects in each country is immensely important.
+North America divided into two vast regions, one inclining towards the
+Pole, the other towards the Equator—Valley of the Mississippi—Traces of
+the Revolutions of the Globe—Shore of the Atlantic Ocean where the
+English Colonies were founded—Difference in the appearance of North and
+of South America at the time of their Discovery—Forests of North
+America—Prairies—Wandering Tribes of Natives—Their outward appearance,
+manners, and language—Traces of an unknown people.
+I studied America not from curiosity but to find profitable lessons. This is no tribute, nor advocacy for any government form; absolute excellence is rare in any system. I haven't debated whether this irresistible revolution is good or bad but accepted it as fact. I chose the nation where it developed most peacefully to see its natural consequences and how it might be made beneficial.
+Exterior Form Of North America
+> **Quote:** "I confess that in America I saw more than America; I sought the image of democracy itself, with its inclinations, its character, its prejudices, and its passions, in order to learn what we have to fear or to hope from its progress."
+North America presents in its external form certain general features
+which it is easy to discriminate at the first glance. A sort of
+methodical order seems to have regulated the separation of land and
+water, mountains and valleys. A simple, but grand, arrangement is
+discoverable amidst the confusion of objects and the prodigious variety
+of scenes. This continent is divided, almost equally, into two vast
+regions, one of which is bounded on the north by the Arctic Pole, and
+by the two great oceans on the east and west. It stretches towards the
+south, forming a triangle whose irregular sides meet at length below
+the great lakes of Canada. The second region begins where the other
+terminates, and includes all the remainder of the continent. The one
+slopes gently towards the Pole, the other towards the Equator.
+In Part I, I show how American democracy directs laws according to natural instinct, influences government and public affairs, produces evils and advantages, and examine precautions used and neglected, pointing out what enables it to govern.
+The territory comprehended in the first region descends towards the
+north with so imperceptible a slope that it may almost be said to form
+a level plain. Within the bounds of this immense tract of country there
+are neither high mountains nor deep valleys. Streams meander through it
+irregularly: great rivers mix their currents, separate and meet again,
+disperse and form vast marshes, losing all trace of their channels in
+the labyrinth of waters they have themselves created; and thus, at
+length, after innumerable windings, fall into the Polar Seas. The great
+lakes which bound this first region are not walled in, like most of
+those 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 them
+thus forming a vast bowl filled to the brim. The slightest change in
+the structure of the globe would cause their waters to rush either
+towards the Pole or to the tropical sea.
+I don't know if I've succeeded, but I never intentionally twisted facts to fit ideas. I consulted original documents and authentic sources, cited in notes. For opinions, customs, or character observations, I consulted the most informed people, using multiple witnesses for important or uncertain points. I avoided naming hosts who shared truths privately, preferring to risk my book's success than betray hospitality.
+The second region is more varied on its surface, and better suited for
+the habitation of man. Two long chains of mountains divide it from one
+extreme to the other; the Alleghany ridge takes the form of the shores
+of the Atlantic Ocean; the other is parallel with the Pacific. The
+space which lies between these two chains of mountains contains
+,341,649 square miles. *a Its surface is therefore about six times as
+great as that of France. This vast territory, however, forms a single
+valley, one side of which descends gradually from the rounded summits
+of the Alleghanies, while the other rises in an uninterrupted course
+towards the tops of the Rocky Mountains. At the bottom of the valley
+flows an immense river, into which the various streams issuing from the
+mountains fall from all parts. In memory of their native land, the
+French formerly called this river the St. Louis. The Indians, in their
+pompous language, have named it the Father of Waters, or the
+Mississippi.
+Despite my care, criticism will be easy. The range is broad, and single facts could be pitted against my collections. I hope readers judge by general impression, as I have, by weight of evidence, not single reasons.
+[ Darby’s “View of the United States.”]
+An author must follow ideas to theoretical conclusions, even if impractical. Inconsistent language creates as many problems as inconsistent behavior.
+This book promotes no viewpoint and serves no party.
+The Mississippi takes its source above the limit of the two great
+regions of which I have spoken, not far from the highest point of the
+table-land where they unite. Near the same spot rises another river, *b
+which empties itself into the Polar seas. The course of the Mississippi
+is at first dubious: it winds several times towards the north, from
+whence it rose; and at length, after having been delayed in lakes and
+marshes, it flows slowly onwards to the south. Sometimes quietly
+gliding along the argillaceous bed which nature has assigned to it,
+sometimes swollen 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 an average depth of fifteen feet; and it is navigated by
+vessels of 300 tons burden for a course of nearly 500 miles.
+Fifty-seven large navigable 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 whose course is from 800 to 1,000 miles in length, viz., the
+Illinois, the St. Peter’s, the St. Francis, and the Moingona; besides a
+countless multitude of rivulets which unite from all parts their
+tributary streams.
+> **Quote:** "I have undertaken not to see differently, but to look further than parties, and whilst they are busied for the morrow I have turned my thoughts to the Future."
+[ The Red River.]
+## Chapter I: Exterior Form Of North America
+**Alexis de Tocqueville**
+[ Warden’s “Description of the United States.”]
+***Democracy in America*, Volume I**
+North America’s physical landscape shows a grand, methodical order in its division of land and water, mountains and valleys. The continent splits into two enormous regions. One, bounded north by the Arctic Pole and east and west by the oceans, stretches south in a triangle whose sides meet below Canada’s great lakes. The second region comprises the rest of the continent. One slopes gently toward the Pole, the other toward the Equator.
+The valley which is watered by the Mississippi seems formed to be the
+bed of this mighty river, which, like a god of antiquity, dispenses
+both good and evil in its course. On the shores of the stream nature
+displays an inexhaustible fertility; in proportion as you recede from
+its banks, the powers of vegetation languish, the soil becomes poor,
+and the plants that survive have a sickly growth. Nowhere have the
+great convulsions of the globe left more evident traces than in the
+valley of the Mississippi; the whole aspect of the country shows the
+powerful effects of water, both by its fertility and by its barrenness.
+The waters of the primeval ocean accumulated enormous beds of vegetable
+mould in the valley, which they levelled as they retired. Upon the
+right shore of the river are seen immense plains, as smooth as if the
+husbandman had passed over them with his roller. As you approach the
+mountains the soil becomes more and more unequal and sterile; the
+ground is, as it were, pierced in a thousand places by primitive rocks,
+which appear like the bones of a skeleton whose flesh is partly
+consumed. The surface of the earth is covered with a granite sand and
+huge irregular masses of stone, among which a few plants force their
+growth, and give the appearance of a green field covered with the ruins
+of a vast edifice. These stones and this sand discover, on examination,
+a perfect analogy with those which compose the arid and broken summits
+of the Rocky Mountains. The flood of waters which washed the soil to
+the bottom of the valley afterwards carried away portions of the rocks
+themselves; and these, dashed and bruised against the neighboring
+cliffs, were left scattered like wrecks at their feet. *d The valley of
+the Mississippi is, upon the whole, the most magnificent dwelling-place
+prepared by God for man’s abode; and yet it may be said that at present
+it is but a mighty desert.
+The first region descends northward with a slope so subtle as to be nearly level. Within this immense tract are neither high mountains nor deep valleys. Streams meander irregularly; great rivers mix their currents, separate and meet again, or disperse into marshes where they lose their channels in a self-made water labyrinth before reaching the Polar seas. The Great Lakes here differ from those of the Old World: their banks are flat, rising only a few feet above water level, forming vast bowls filled to the brim. The slightest geological change would send their waters rushing toward either Pole or tropical sea.
+[ See Appendix, A.]
+The second region has a more varied surface, better suited for human habitation. Two long mountain chains divide it: the Allegheny ridge follows the Atlantic coast; the other runs parallel to the Pacific. Between them lies a single valley of 1,341,649 square miles—roughly six times the size of France. One side descends gradually from the rounded Allegheny peaks while the other rises continuously toward the Rocky Mountain summits. At the bottom flows the Mississippi, which the French called St. Louis and the Indians, in their pompous language, named the Father of Waters.
+The Mississippi originates near the plateau where the two regions meet, close to the Red River that empties into Polar seas. Its course is initially uncertain, winding northward several times before, delayed by lakes and marshes, it flows slowly south. Sometimes gliding quietly along its clay bed, sometimes swollen by storms, it covers 2,500 miles. At 1,364 miles from its mouth, it reaches an average depth of fifteen feet, navigable by 300-ton vessels for nearly 500 miles. Fifty-seven large rivers feed it, including the Missouri (2,500 miles), Arkansas (1,300 miles), and Red River (1,000 miles). Four others range from 800 to 1,000 miles, alongside countless smaller streams.
+On the eastern side of the Alleghanies, between the base of these
+mountains and the Atlantic Ocean, there lies a long ridge of rocks and
+sand, which the sea appears to have left behind as it retired. The mean
+breadth of this territory does not exceed one hundred miles; but it is
+about nine hundred miles in length. This part of the American continent
+has a soil which offers every obstacle to the husbandman, and its
+vegetation is scanty and unvaried.
+The valley seems designed as the bed for this mighty river, which like an ancient god brings both blessings and destruction. Along its banks nature shows inexhaustible fertility, but vegetation fades as you move away. Nowhere have geological upheavals left clearer traces. Prehistoric ocean waters deposited enormous layers of fertile soil, then receded, leveling the valley. On the right bank lie plains smooth as if rolled by a farmer; toward the mountains, the soil grows increasingly barren, pierced in a thousand places by primitive rocks, like the bones of a skeleton whose flesh is partly consumed. The surface is covered with granite sand and massive, irregular stones, with a few struggling plants giving the appearance of a green field covered with the ruins of a vast edifice. These stones perfectly match those of the Rocky Mountains' arid peaks. Floodwaters later carried rock pieces away, smashing them against cliffs and scattering them like wreckage at their bases. [See Appendix, A.]
+Upon this inhospitable coast the first united efforts of human industry
+were made. The tongue of arid land was the cradle of those English
+colonies which were destined one day to become the United States of
+America. The centre of power still remains here; whilst in the
+backwoods the true elements of the great people to whom the future
+control of the continent belongs are gathering almost in secrecy
+together.
+> **Quote:** "The valley of the Mississippi is, upon the whole, the most magnificent dwelling-place prepared by God for man’s abode; and yet it may be said that at present it is but a mighty desert."
+When the Europeans first landed on the shores of the West Indies, and
+afterwards on the coast of South America, they thought themselves
+transported into those fabulous regions of which poets had sung. The
+sea sparkled with phosphoric light, and the extraordinary transparency
+of its waters discovered to the view of the navigator all that had
+hitherto been hidden in the deep abyss. *e Here and there appeared
+little islands perfumed with odoriferous plants, and resembling baskets
+of flowers floating on the tranquil surface of the ocean. Every object
+which met the sight, in this enchanting region, seemed prepared to
+satisfy the wants or contribute to the pleasures of man. Almost all the
+trees were loaded with nourishing fruits, and those which were useless
+as food delighted the eye by the brilliancy and variety of their
+colors. In groves 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 displayed their bright plumage, glittering with
+purple and azure, and mingled their warbling with the harmony of a
+world teeming with life and motion. *f Underneath this brilliant
+exterior death was concealed. But the air of these climates had so
+enervating an influence that man, absorbed by present enjoyment, was
+rendered regardless of the future.
+East of the Alleghenies, between mountains and Atlantic, lies a long ridge of rock and sand left by the receding sea—averaging one hundred miles wide, nine hundred miles long. This soil presents every obstacle to farmers, with sparse, repetitive vegetation.
+[ Malte Brun tells us (vol. v. p. 726) that the water of the Caribbean
+Sea is so transparent that corals and fish are discernible at a depth
+of sixty fathoms. The ship seemed to float in air, the navigator became
+giddy as his eye penetrated through the crystal flood, and beheld
+submarine gardens, or beds of shells, or gilded fishes gliding among
+tufts and thickets of seaweed.]
+It was on this inhospitable coast that human industry first organized itself. This arid strip was the cradle of English colonies destined to become the United States. The center of power remains here, while in the backwoods the elements of a great people gather almost in secret.
+When Europeans first landed in the West Indies and South America, they thought themselves transported to poetic myth. The Caribbean Sea sparkled with phosphoric light, its extraordinary clarity revealing everything hidden in the deep. Transparent to sixty fathoms, it made ships seem to float in air as navigators glimpsed submarine gardens, shell beds, and gilded fish in seaweed thickets. Small islands, scented and flower-covered, floated like baskets on the calm ocean. Nearly all trees bore nutritious fruit; even inedible ones delighted the eye with brilliant colors. In groves of lemon trees, wild figs, myrtles, acacias, and oleanders, birds unknown in Europe displayed plumage glittering with purple and azure, their songs blending with the harmony of a world teeming with life and motion. [See Appendix, B.] Yet beneath this beauty lay death. The enervating climate made men, absorbed in immediate enjoyment, indifferent to the future.
+[ See Appendix, B.]
+North America appeared in a very different light: grave, serious, solemn—a domain for the intellect where the South was one for sensory pleasure. A turbulent, foggy ocean washed its shores, surrounded by granite rocks and sandy stretches. Its woods were dark and somber: firs, larches, evergreen oaks, wild olives, laurels. Beyond lay the deep shadows of the central forest, where the largest trees of either hemisphere grew side by side—plane, catalpa, sugar maple, Virginian poplar mingling with oak, beech, lime. In these forests destruction was constant. Vegetation remains piled upon one another, but no hand cleared them, and they decayed too slowly for continuous regrowth. Climbing plants, grasses, and other
+plants forced through the mass of dying trees, creeping along leaning trunks, finding nourishment in dusty hollows and paths beneath dead bark. Thus decay assisted life, their products mingling. The forest depths were dark and gloomy, countless streams maintaining constant moisture untouched by human effort. Flowers, wild fruits, and birds were rare beneath those shadows. Silence was broken only by falling trees, waterfall roars, buffalo lowing, or wind howling.
+North America appeared under a very different aspect; there everything
+was grave, serious, and solemn: it seemed created to be the domain of
+intelligence, as the South was that of sensual delight. A turbulent and
+foggy ocean washed its shores. It was girt round by a belt of granite
+rocks, or by wide tracts of sand. The foliage of its woods was dark and
+gloomy, for they were composed of firs, larches, evergreen oaks, wild
+olive-trees, and laurels. Beyond this outer belt lay the thick shades
+of the central forest, where the largest trees which are produced in
+the two hemispheres grow side by side. The plane, the catalpa, the
+sugar-maple, and the Virginian poplar mingled their branches with those
+of the oak, the beech, and the lime. In these, as in the forests of the
+Old World, destruction was perpetually going on. The ruins of
+vegetation were heaped upon each other; but there was no laboring hand
+to remove them, and their decay was not rapid enough to make room for
+the continual work of reproduction. Climbing plants, grasses, and other
+herbs forced their way through the mass of dying trees; they crept
+along their bending trunks, found nourishment in their dusty cavities,
+and a passage beneath the lifeless bark. Thus decay gave its assistance
+to life, and their respective productions were mingled together. The
+depths of these forests were gloomy and obscure, and a thousand
+rivulets, undirected in their course by human industry, preserved in
+them a constant moisture. It was rare to meet with flowers, wild
+fruits, or birds beneath their shades. The fall of a tree overthrown by
+age, the rushing torrent of a cataract, the lowing of the buffalo, and
+the howling of the wind were the only sounds which broke the silence of
+nature.
+> **Quote:** "The fall of a tree overthrown by age, the rushing torrent of a cataract, the lowing of the buffalo, and the howling of the wind were the only sounds which broke the silence of nature."
+To the east of the great river, the woods almost disappeared; in their
+stead were seen prairies of immense extent. Whether Nature in her
+infinite variety had denied the germs of trees to these fertile plains,
+or whether they had once been covered with forests, subsequently
+destroyed by the hand of man, is a question which neither tradition nor
+scientific research has been able to resolve.
+East of the great river, forests gave way to vast prairies. Whether nature denied trees to these fertile plains or whether forests once covered them before human destruction is unresolved by tradition or research.
+These immense deserts were not, however, devoid of human inhabitants.
+Some wandering tribes had been for ages scattered among the forest
+shades 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 the
+Pacific Ocean, these savages possessed certain points of resemblance
+which bore witness of their common origin; but at the same time they
+differed from all other known races of men: *g they were neither white
+like the Europeans, nor yellow like most of the Asiatics, nor black
+like the negroes. Their skin was reddish brown, their hair long and
+shining, their lips thin, and their cheekbones very prominent. The
+languages spoken by the North American tribes are various as far as
+regarded their words, but they were subject to the same grammatical
+rules. These rules differed in several points from such as had been
+observed to govern the origin of language. The idiom of the Americans
+seemed to be the product of new combinations, and bespoke an effort of
+the understanding of which the Indians of our days would be incapable.
+*h
+These wildernesses were not empty. Wandering tribes had scattered for ages among forest shadows and prairie pastures. From the St. Lawrence mouth to the Mississippi delta, from Atlantic to Pacific, these indigenous peoples shared traits suggesting common origin yet differed from all other races. Neither white, yellow, nor black, they were reddish-brown with long glossy hair, thin lips, and prominent cheekbones. Physical and linguistic similarities to Asian peoples like Mongols and Tartars near the Bering Strait suggest ancient population of the continent, though science remains unclear. Tribal languages varied in vocabulary but followed identical grammatical rules—rules differing from other language origins, seeming to result from new combinations that bespoke an effort of the understanding of which the Indians of our days would be incapable.
+[ With the progress of discovery some resemblance has been found to
+exist between the physical conformation, the language, and the habits
+of the Indians of North America, and those of the Tongous, Mantchous,
+Mongols, Tartars, and other wandering tribes of Asia. The land occupied
+by these tribes is not very distant from Behring’s Strait, which allows
+of the supposition, that at a remote period they gave inhabitants to
+the desert continent of America. But this is a point which has not yet
+been clearly elucidated by science. See Malte Brun, vol. v.; the works
+of Humboldt; Fischer, “Conjecture sur l’Origine des Americains”; Adair,
+“History of the American Indians.”]
+Their social state also differed from the Old World. Multiplying freely in wilderness without contact with more civilized races, they displayed none of the confused morality or deep corruption seen in nations that relapsed into barbarism. The Indian was indebted to none but himself; his virtues, vices, and prejudices were his own work. He grew up in wild independence.
+In developed countries, lower classes are often rude not merely from poverty and ignorance, but from daily contact with the wealthy and enlightened. The contrast between their lot and others' happiness excites anger and fear; awareness of inferiority irritates while humiliating. This effect of inequality is absent in native life.
+[ See Appendix, C.]
+Though ignorant and poor, Indians were equal and free. When Europeans arrived, natives were indifferent to wealth and its comforts, yet their behavior showed no coarseness. They practiced habitual reserve and aristocratic politeness. Mild and hospitable in peace—risking starvation to shelter a stranger—yet merciless in war beyond known human ferocity, they could tear prisoners limb from limb.
+> **Quote:** "The famous republics of antiquity never gave examples of more unshaken courage, more haughty spirits, or more intractable love of independence than were hidden in former times among the wild forests of the New World."
+The social state of these tribes differed also in many respects from
+all that was seen in the Old World. They seemed to have multiplied
+freely in the midst of their deserts without coming in contact with
+other races more civilized than their own. Accordingly, they exhibited
+none of those indistinct, incoherent notions of right and wrong, none
+of that deep corruption of manners, which is usually joined with
+ignorance and rudeness among nations which, after advancing to
+civilization, have relapsed into a state of barbarism. The Indian was
+indebted to no one but himself; his virtues, his vices, and his
+prejudices were his own work; he had grown up in the wild independence
+of his nature.
+Historical accounts show Iroquois elders, when attacked by superior forces, refusing to flee or survive their country's destruction, facing death with Roman resolve. The Europeans' presence sparked neither envy nor fear. What influence could they have over such men?
+If, in polished countries, the lowest of the people are rude and
+uncivil, 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 is daily
+contrasted with the happiness and power of some of their
+fellow-creatures, excites in their hearts at the same time the
+sentiments of anger and of fear: the consciousness of their inferiority
+and of their dependence irritates while it humiliates them. This state
+of mind displays itself in their manners and language; they are at once
+insolent and servile. The truth of this is easily proved by
+observation; the people are more rude in aristocratic countries than
+elsewhere, in opulent cities than in rural districts. In those places
+where the rich and powerful are assembled together the weak and the
+indigent feel themselves oppressed by their inferior condition. Unable
+to perceive a single chance of regaining their equality, they give up
+to despair, and allow themselves to fall below the dignity of human
+nature.
+> **Quote:** "The Indian could live without wants, suffer without complaint, and pour out his death-song at the stake."
+This unfortunate effect of the disparity of conditions is not
+observable in savage life: the Indians, although they are ignorant and
+poor, are equal and free. At the period when Europeans first came among
+them the natives of North America were ignorant of the value of riches,
+and indifferent to the enjoyments which civilized man procures to
+himself by their means. Nevertheless there was nothing coarse in their
+demeanor; they practised an habitual reserve and a kind of aristocratic
+politeness. Mild and hospitable when at peace, though merciless in war
+beyond any known degree of human ferocity, the Indian would expose
+himself to die of hunger in order to succor the stranger who asked
+admittance by night at the door of his hut; yet he could tear in pieces
+with his hands the still quivering limbs of his prisoner. The famous
+republics of antiquity never gave examples of more unshaken courage,
+more haughty spirits, or more intractable love of independence than
+were hidden in former times among the wild forests of the New World. *i
+The Europeans produced no great impression when they landed upon the
+shores of North America; their presence engendered neither envy nor
+fear. What influence could they possess over such men as we have
+described? The Indian could live without wants, suffer without
+complaint, and pour out his death-song at the stake. *j Like all the
+other members of the great human 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 simple and philosophical. *k
+No captive ever begged for his life; instead they provoked conquerors to kill them. Like all humanity, they believed in a better world and worshipped God as creator, their understanding of intellectual truths being simple and philosophical.
+[ We learn from President Jefferson’s “Notes upon Virginia,” p. 148,
+that among the Iroquois, when attacked by a superior force, aged men
+refused to fly or to survive the destruction of their country; and they
+braved death like the ancient Romans when their capital was sacked by
+the Gauls. Further on, p. 150, he tells us that there is no example of
+an Indian who, having fallen into the hands of his enemies, begged for
+his life; on the contrary, the captive sought to obtain death at the
+hands of his conquerors by the use of insult and provocation.]
+Yet another people, more civilized and advanced, had preceded them. Obscure tradition suggests Atlantic tribes once lived west of the Mississippi. Along the Ohio and central valley remain man-made mounds containing human bones, strange instruments, weapons, and metal tools unknown to current tribes. Today's Indians know nothing of this people's history, nor did those discovered three hundred years ago. Tradition sheds no light. Thousands once lived here, but when they arrived, their origins, destiny, history, and destruction remain unknown. Strange that nations can disappear so completely that even memory of their names is erased, languages lost, glory vanished like sound without echo—though perhaps each left tombs in memory of its passing.
+> **Quote:** "The most durable monument of human labor is that which recalls the wretchedness and nothingness of man."
+[ 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 Jefferson is 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 he lived.]
+Though many tribes inhabited this vast country, at European discovery it formed one great wilderness. Indians occupied without possessing the land. Through agricultural labor man claims soil, but early inhabitants lived by hunting. Their prejudices, passions, vices, and perhaps more their virtues, destined them to inevitable destruction. Ruin began when Europeans landed and continues still. They seem placed by Providence amid New World riches to enjoy them briefly then surrender them. Those coasts suited for commerce, those deep rivers, that inexhaustible Mississippi valley—the entire continent seemed prepared for a great nation yet to be born.
+There civilized man would conduct a great experiment: building society on a new foundation, where previously unknown or impossible theories would display a spectacle history had not prepared the world to see.
+[ See Appendix, D.]
+## Chapter II: Origin Of The Anglo-Americans
+Although we have here traced the character of a primitive people, yet
+it cannot be doubted that another people, more civilized and more
+advanced in all respects, had preceded it in the same regions.
+An obscure tradition which prevailed among the Indians to the north of
+the Atlantic informs us that these very tribes formerly dwelt on the
+west side of the Mississippi. Along the banks of the Ohio, and
+throughout the central valley, there are frequently found, at this day,
+tumuli raised by the hands of men. On exploring these heaps of earth to
+their centre, it is usual to meet with human bones, strange
+instruments, arms and utensils of all kinds, made of metal, or destined
+for purposes unknown to the present race. The Indians of our time are
+unable to give any information relative to the history of this unknown
+people. Neither did those who lived three hundred years ago, when
+America was first discovered, leave any accounts from which even an
+hypothesis could be formed. Tradition—that perishable, yet ever renewed
+monument of the pristine world—throws no light upon the subject. It is
+an undoubted fact, however, that in this part of the globe thousands of
+our fellow-beings 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 so completely disappeared from the earth that the
+remembrance of their very names is effaced; their languages are lost;
+their glory is vanished like a sound without an echo; though perhaps
+there is not one which has not left behind it some tomb in memory of
+its passage! The most durable monument of human labor is that which
+recalls the wretchedness and nothingness of man.
+Although the vast country which we have been describing was inhabited
+by many indigenous tribes, it may justly be said at the time of its
+discovery by Europeans to have formed one great desert. The Indians
+occupied without possessing it. It is by agricultural labor that man
+appropriates the soil, and the early inhabitants of North America lived
+by the produce of the chase. Their implacable prejudices, their
+uncontrolled passions, their vices, and still more perhaps their savage
+virtues, consigned them to inevitable destruction. The ruin of these
+nations began from the day when Europeans landed on their shores; it
+has proceeded ever since, and we are now witnessing the completion of
+it. They seem to have been placed by Providence amidst the riches of
+the New World to enjoy them for a season, and then surrender them.
+Those coasts, so admirably adapted for commerce and industry; those
+wide and deep rivers; that inexhaustible valley of the Mississippi; the
+whole continent, 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, of
+the attempt to construct society upon a new basis; and it was there,
+for the first time, that theories hitherto unknown, or deemed
+impracticable, were to exhibit a spectacle for which the world had not
+been prepared by the history of the past.
+## Chapter II: Origin Of The Anglo-Americans
 ### Chapter II: Origin Of The Anglo-Americans—Part I
+America alone reveals the starting point of a great people. While all who emigrated to British America shared some traits, they differed significantly—a truth that applies to all Europeans in the New World. The colonization of Virginia and New England reveals the original character of the first inhabitants: their arrival, laws, and social contracts—even a penal code borrowed from Hebrew legislation—demonstrate the intimate union between the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty.
+A nation's infancy shapes its entire character, just as a child's earliest experiences determine the adult. People err by only examining a nation once it reaches maturity, imagining this is when its character forms. We must look back to the cradle—to the first images reflected in the dark mirror of the mind, the first events witnessed, the first words awakening thought. Only then can we understand the prejudices, habits, and passions that rule a nation's life.
+Utility of knowing the origin of nations in order to understand their
+social condition and their laws—America the only country in which the
+starting-point of a great people has been clearly observable—In what
+respects all who emigrated to British America were similar—In what they
+differed—Remark applicable to all Europeans who established themselves
+on the shores of the New World—Colonization of Virginia—Colonization of
+New England—Original character of the first inhabitants of New
+England—Their arrival—Their first laws—Their social contract—Penal code
+borrowed from the Hebrew legislation—Religious fervor—Republican
+spirit—Intimate union of the spirit of religion with the spirit of
+liberty.
+> **Quote:** "The entire man is, so to speak, to be seen in the cradle of the child."
+Origin Of The Anglo-Americans, And Its Importance In Relation To Their
+Future Condition.
+Nations carry the marks of their origin throughout their existence. If we could examine the foundational elements of any state, we would discover the primary causes of its prejudices, habits, and ruling passions—explaining customs at odds with current manners, laws that conflict with established principles, and those incoherent opinions that resemble fragments of broken chains hanging from the vault of an edifice, supporting nothing. But until now, facts have been lacking; inquiry usually comes only in a community's final days, when time has obscured origins or ignorance and pride have hidden them in fables.
+After the birth of a human being his early years are obscurely spent in
+the toils or pleasures of childhood. As he grows up the world receives
+him, when his manhood begins, and he enters into contact with his
+fellows. He is then studied for the first time, and it is imagined that
+the germ of the vices and the virtues of his maturer years is then
+formed. This, if I am not mistaken, is a great error. We must begin
+higher up; we must watch the infant in its mother’s arms; we must see
+the first images which the external world casts upon the dark mirror of
+his mind; the first occurrences which he witnesses; we must hear the
+first words which awaken the sleeping powers of thought, and stand by
+his earliest efforts, if we would understand the prejudices, the
+habits, and the passions which will rule his life. The entire man is,
+so to speak, to be seen in the cradle of the child.
+America alone reveals a society's natural growth and the influence of its origin on its future. The European colonists arrived with fully formed national characteristics and, being civilized enough to record their opinions, manners, and laws, left us faithful records. We know the sixteenth century almost as well as our own time. Being close enough to the founding to know its elements accurately, yet distant enough to judge results, we can see further than our predecessors. Providence has given us a torch to discern fundamental causes in the history of the world that were concealed by the obscurity of the past. Every American opinion, custom, law, and event becomes explicable through its origin. This chapter provides the key to the entire work.
+The growth of nations presents something analogous to this: they all
+bear some marks of their origin; and the circumstances which
+accompanied their birth and contributed to their rise affect the whole
+term of their being. If we were able to go back to the elements of
+states, and to examine the oldest monuments of their history, I doubt
+not that we should discover the primal cause of the prejudices, the
+habits, the ruling passions, and, in short, of all that constitutes
+what is called the national character; we should then find the
+explanation of certain customs which now seem at variance with the
+prevailing manners; of such laws as conflict with established
+principles; and of such incoherent opinions as are here and there to be
+met with in society, like those fragments of broken chains which we
+sometimes see hanging from the vault of an edifice, and supporting
+nothing. This might explain the destinies of certain nations, which
+seem borne on by an unknown force to ends of which they themselves are
+ignorant. But hitherto facts have been wanting to researches of this
+kind: the spirit of inquiry has only come upon communities in their
+latter days; and when they at length contemplated their origin, time
+had already obscured it, or ignorance and pride adorned it with
+truth-concealing fables.
+While these emigrants differed in goals and principles, they shared crucial bonds: language, common origin, and political education forged in England's centuries of political struggle. They understood rights and freedom better than most Europeans. The parish system—that fertile seed of free institutions—was deeply rooted in their habits, and the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people had been introduced even into the heart of the Tudor monarchy. England's religious conflicts had intensified its character, making it argumentative and austere while cultivating the mind. These traits marked all who crossed the Atlantic.
+America is the only country in which it has been possible to witness
+the natural and tranquil growth of society, and where the influences
+exercised on the future condition of states by their origin is clearly
+distinguishable. At the period when the peoples of Europe landed in the
+New World their national characteristics were already completely
+formed; each of them had a physiognomy of its own; and as they had
+already attained that stage of civilization at which men are led to
+study themselves, they have transmitted to us a faithful picture of
+their opinions, their manners, and their laws. The men of the sixteenth
+century are almost as well known to us as our contemporaries. America,
+consequently, exhibits in the broad light of day the phenomena which
+the ignorance or rudeness of earlier ages conceals from our researches.
+Near enough to the time when the states of America were founded, to be
+accurately acquainted with their elements, and sufficiently removed
+from that period to judge of some of their results, the men of our own
+day seem destined to see further than their predecessors into the
+series of human events. Providence has given us a torch which our
+forefathers did not possess, and has allowed us to discern fundamental
+causes in the history of the world which the obscurity of the past
+concealed from them. If we carefully examine the social and political
+state of America, after having studied its history, we shall remain
+perfectly convinced that not an opinion, not a custom, not a law, I may
+even say not an event, 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 in the present chapter, and the key to almost the
+whole work.
+All European colonies in the New World contained democratic elements. Two causes explain this. First, emigrants lacked any sense of superiority—"the happy and the powerful do not go into exile, and there are no surer guarantees of equality than poverty and misfortune." Second, American soil proved hostile to aristocracy. Cultivation required constant personal effort, and harvests could not support both landlord and tenant. Land naturally divided into small, owner-farmed plots. Land is the foundation of aristocracy, which clings to the soil; unless fortunes are tied to the land, there is no aristocracy—only a class of rich and a class of poor.
+The emigrants who came, at different periods to occupy the territory
+now covered by the American Union differed from each other in many
+respects; their aim was not the same, and they governed themselves on
+different principles. These men had, however, certain features in
+common, and they were all placed in an analogous situation. The tie of
+language is perhaps the strongest and the most durable that can unite
+mankind. All the emigrants spoke the same tongue; they were all offsets
+from the same people. Born in a country which had been agitated for
+centuries by the struggles of faction, and in which all parties had
+been obliged in their turn to place themselves under the protection of
+the laws, their political education had been perfected in this rude
+school, and they were more conversant with the notions of right and the
+principles of true freedom than the greater part of their European
+contemporaries. At the period of their first emigrations the parish
+system, that fruitful germ of free institutions, was deeply rooted in
+the habits of the English; and with it the doctrine of the sovereignty
+of the people had been introduced into the bosom of the monarchy of the
+House of Tudor.
+Thus the British colonies shared fundamental similarities, destined to develop not aristocratic liberty but middle- and lower-class freedom—a historical novelty. Yet within this uniformity, two distinct branches emerged: South and North.
+The religious quarrels which have agitated the Christian world were
+then rife. England had plunged into the new order of things with
+headlong vehemence. The character of its inhabitants, which had always
+been sedate and reflective, became argumentative and austere. General
+information had been increased by intellectual debate, and the mind had
+received a deeper cultivation. Whilst religion was the topic of
+discussion, the morals of the people were reformed. All these national
+features are more or less discoverable in the physiognomy of those
+adventurers who came to seek a new home on the opposite shores of the
+Atlantic.
+Virginia, founded in 1607, attracted gold-seekers and adventurers—restless young men from good families, discharged servants, fraudulent bankrupts, and debauchees—led by seditious chiefs. Later artisans and farmers arrived, but remained lower-class. No grand vision guided these settlements. In 1620, a Dutch vessel landed twenty Africans, introducing slavery—the primary circumstance shaping the South's character, laws, and future.
+Another remark, to which we shall hereafter have occasion to recur, is
+applicable not only to the English, but to the French, the Spaniards,
+and all the Europeans who successively established themselves in the
+New World. All these European colonies contained the elements, if not
+the development, of a complete democracy. Two causes led to this
+result. It may safely be advanced, that on leaving the mother-country
+the emigrants had in general no notion of superiority over one another.
+The happy and the powerful do not go into exile, and there are no surer
+guarantees of equality among men than poverty and misfortune. It
+happened, however, on several occasions, that persons of rank were
+driven to America by political and religious quarrels. Laws were made
+to establish a gradation of ranks; but it was soon found that the soil
+of America was opposed to a territorial aristocracy. To bring that
+refractory land into cultivation, the constant and interested exertions
+of the owner himself were necessary; and when the ground was prepared,
+its produce was found to be insufficient to enrich a master and a
+farmer at the same time. The land was then naturally broken up into
+small portions, which the proprietor cultivated for himself. Land is
+the basis of an aristocracy, which clings to the soil that supports it;
+for it is not by privileges alone, nor by birth, but by landed property
+handed down from generation to generation, that an aristocracy is
+constituted. A nation may present immense fortunes and extreme
+wretchedness, but unless those fortunes are territorial there is no
+aristocracy, but simply the class of the rich and that of the poor.
+> **Quote:** "Slavery, as we shall afterwards show, dishonors labor; it introduces idleness into society, and with idleness, ignorance and pride, luxury and distress. It enervates the powers of the mind, and benumbs the activity of man."
+All the British colonies had then a great degree of similarity at the
+epoch of their settlement. All of them, from their first beginning,
+seemed destined to witness the growth, not of the aristocratic liberty
+of their mother-country, but of that freedom of the middle and lower
+orders of which the history of the world had as yet furnished no
+complete example.
+The influence of slavery, combined with English character, explains the manners and social condition of the Southern States. In the North, the same English foundation took different shape. The ideas forming the basis of American social theory first combined in New England (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont). Its principles spread to neighboring states, then throughout the Confederation, and now extend to the entire American world.
+In this general uniformity several striking differences were however
+discernible, which it is necessary to point out. Two branches may be
+distinguished in the Anglo-American family, which have hitherto grown
+up without entirely commingling; the one in the South, the other in the
+North.
+> **Quote:** "The civilization of New England has been like a beacon lit upon a hill, which, after it has diffused its warmth around, tinges the distant horizon with its glow."
+Virginia received the first English colony; the emigrants took
+possession of it in 1607. The idea that mines of gold and silver are
+the sources of national wealth was at that time singularly prevalent in
+Europe; a fatal delusion, which has done more to impoverish the nations
+which adopted it, and has cost more lives in America, than the united
+influence of war and bad laws. The men sent to Virginia *a were seekers
+of gold, adventurers, without resources and without character, whose
+turbulent and restless spirit endangered the infant colony, *b and
+rendered its progress uncertain. The artisans and agriculturists
+arrived afterwards; and, although they were a more moral and orderly
+race of men, they were in nowise above the level of the inferior
+classes in England. *c No lofty conceptions, no intellectual system,
+directed the foundation of these new settlements. The colony was
+scarcely established when slavery was introduced, *d and this was the
+main circumstance which has exercised so prodigious an influence on the
+character, the laws, and all the future prospects of the South.
+Slavery, as we shall afterwards show, dishonors labor; it introduces
+idleness into society, and with idleness, ignorance and pride, luxury
+and distress. It enervates the powers of the mind, and benumbs the
+activity of man. The influence of slavery, united to the English
+character, explains the manners and the social condition of the
+Southern States.
+[ The charter granted by the Crown of England in 1609 stipulated,
+amongst other conditions, that the adventurers should pay to the Crown
+a fifth of the produce of all gold and silver mines. See Marshall’s
+“Life of Washington,” vol. i. pp. 18-66.] [Footnote b: A large portion
+of the adventurers, says Stith (“History of Virginia”), were
+unprincipled young men of family, whom their parents were glad to ship
+off, discharged servants, fraudulent bankrupts, or debauchees; and
+others of the same class, people more apt to pillage and destroy than
+to assist the settlement, were the seditious chiefs, who easily led
+this band into every kind of extravagance and excess. See for the
+history of Virginia the following works:—
+New England's founding was unique. Unlike colonies settled by uneducated men, speculators, or even pirates (as in Saint-Domingue), New England's settlers belonged to the independent classes. Their gathering created a society without lords or commoners, wealthy or poor. In proportion to their numbers, they possessed greater collective intelligence than any European nation—each well-educated, many known in Europe for their talents. They brought order and morality, arriving with wives and children.
+What distinguished them most was their purpose. Not driven by necessity, poverty, or greed, but by an intellectual call—the triumph of an idea. These Pilgrims belonged to the Puritan sect, whose strict principles aligned with absolute democratic and republican theories. Persecuted by their government and disgusted by society's opposition to their rigorous principles, they sought a rugged and remote part of the world where they could worship God freely.
+“History of Virginia, from the First Settlements in the year 1624,” by
+Smith.
+Nathaniel Morton's history reveals their spirit. He records "memorable demonstrations of God's goodness" so that "what we have seen and our fathers have told us, we may not hide from our children," describing God "bringing a vine into this wilderness" for the "blessed Saints" who began this enterprise. It is impossible to read this without an involuntary feeling of religious awe; it breathes the very savor of Gospel antiquity, presenting these adventurers as the seed of a great nation, guided by Providence to a destined shore.
+“History of Virginia,” by William Stith.
+After living in Leyden for eleven years, they departed in 1620, fearing their descendants would lose their English identity. Morton continues:
+“History of Virginia, from the Earliest Period,” by Beverley.]
+> **Quote:** “So they left that goodly and pleasant city of Leyden, which had been their resting-place for above eleven years; but they knew that they were pilgrims and strangers here below, and looked not much on these things, but lifted up their eyes to Heaven, their dearest country, where God hath prepared for them a city (Heb. xi. 16), and therein quieted their spirits. When they came to Delfs-Haven they found the ship and all things ready; and such of their friends as could not come with them followed after them, and sundry came from Amsterdam to see them shipt, and to take their leaves of them. One night was spent with little sleep with the most, but with friendly entertainment and Christian discourse, and other real expressions of true Christian love. The next day they went on board, and their friends with them, where truly doleful was the sight of that sad and mournful parting, to hear what sighs and sobs and prayers did sound amongst them; what tears did gush from every eye, and pithy speeches pierced each other’s heart, that sundry of the Dutch strangers that stood on the Key as spectators could not refrain from tears. But the tide (which stays for no man) calling them away, that were thus loth to depart, their Reverend Pastor falling down on his knees, and they all with him, with watery cheeks commended them with most fervent prayers unto the Lord and his blessing; and then, with mutual embraces and many tears they took their leaves one of another, which proved to be the last leave to many of them.”
+[ It was not till some time later that a certain number of rich English
+capitalists came to fix themselves in the colony.]
+The 150 emigrants, aiming for the Hudson, were forced to land at Plymouth. Their disembarkation rock is now venerated across the Union—I have seen its fragments preserved. Does this not show human greatness resides in the soul? A stone touched by outcasts is treasured, while palace thresholds are forgotten.
+Morton asks us to consider their condition: having crossed the ocean to face a "sea of troubles," with no friends, inns, or towns, in a sharp winter amid storms, confronting a "hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wilde beasts, and wilde men," with the ocean severing them from civilization.
+[ Slavery was introduced about the year 1620 by a Dutch vessel which
+landed twenty negroes on the banks of the river James. See Chalmer.]
+Puritanism was as much political doctrine as religious. Landing on the barren coast, their first act was to organize society:
+> **Quote:** “In the name of God. Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, etc., etc., Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian Faith, and the honour of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; Do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid: and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony: unto which we promise all due submission and obedience,”
+In the North, the same English foundation was modified by the most
+opposite shades of character; and here I may be allowed to enter into
+some details. The two or three main ideas which constitute the basis of
+the social theory of the United States were first combined in the
+Northern English colonies, more generally denominated the States of New
+England. *e The principles of New England spread at first to the
+neighboring states; they then passed successively to the more distant
+ones; and at length they imbued the whole Confederation. They now
+extend their influence beyond its limits over the whole American world.
+The civilization of New England has been like a beacon lit upon a hill,
+which, after it has diffused its warmth around, tinges the distant
+horizon with its glow.
+This 1620 example was followed by similar social contracts in Rhode Island (1638), New Haven (1637), Connecticut (1639), and Providence (1640). Throughout Charles I's reign, religious and political passions drove dissenters to America. Puritanism's stronghold was the middle class, which supplied most emigrants. The population grew rapidly, and while the hierarchy of social rank rigidly classified the inhabitants of the mother country, New England offered the novel spectacle of a completely homogeneous community.
+[ The States of New England are those situated to the east of the
+Hudson; they are now six in number: 1, Connecticut; 2, Rhode Island; 3,
+Massachusetts; 4, Vermont; 5, New Hampshire; 6, Maine.]
+> **Quote:** "A democracy, more perfect than any which antiquity had dreamt of, started in full size and panoply from the midst of an ancient feudal society."
+The foundation of New England was a novel spectacle, and all the
+circumstances attending it were singular and original. The large
+majority of colonies have been first inhabited either by men without
+education and without resources, driven by their poverty and their
+misconduct from the land which gave them birth, or by speculators and
+adventurers greedy of gain. Some settlements cannot even boast so
+honorable an origin; St. Domingo was founded by buccaneers; and the
+criminal courts of England originally supplied the population of
+Australia.
+The settlers who established themselves on the shores of New England
+all belonged to the more independent classes of their native country.
+Their union on the soil of America at once presented the singular
+phenomenon of a society containing neither lords nor common people,
+neither rich nor poor. These men possessed, in proportion to their
+number, a greater mass of intelligence than is to be found in any
+European nation of our own time. All, without a single exception, had
+received a good education, and many of them were known in Europe for
+their talents and their acquirements. The other colonies had been
+founded by adventurers without family; the emigrants of New England
+brought with them the best elements of order and morality—they landed
+in the desert accompanied by their wives and children. But what most
+especially distinguished them was the aim of their undertaking. They
+had not been obliged by necessity to leave their country; the social
+position they abandoned was one to be regretted, and their means of
+subsistence were certain. Nor did they cross the Atlantic to improve
+their situation or to increase their wealth; the call which summoned
+them from the comforts of their homes was purely intellectual; and in
+facing the inevitable sufferings of exile 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 had
+acquired for them the name of Puritans. Puritanism was not merely a
+religious doctrine, but it corresponded in many points with the most
+absolute democratic and republican theories. It was this tendency which
+had aroused its most dangerous adversaries. Persecuted by the
+Government of the mother-country, and disgusted by the habits of a
+society opposed to the rigor of their own principles, the Puritans went
+forth to seek some rude and unfrequented part of the world, where they
+could live according to their own opinions, and worship God in freedom.
+A few quotations will throw more light upon the spirit of these pious
+adventures than all we can say of them. Nathaniel Morton, *f the
+historian of the first years of the settlement, thus opens his subject:
+[ “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 duty
+incumbent, especially on the immediate successors of those that have
+had so large experience of those many memorable and signal
+demonstrations of God’s goodness, viz., the first beginners of this
+Plantation in New England, to commit to writing his gracious
+dispensations on that behalf; having so many inducements thereunto, not
+onely otherwise but so plentifully in the Sacred Scriptures: that so,
+what we have seen, and what our fathers have told us (Psalm lxxviii. 3,
+), we may not hide from our children, showing to the generations to
+come the praises of the Lord; that especially the seed of Abraham his
+servant, and the children of Jacob his chosen (Psalm cv. 5, 6), may
+remember his marvellous works in the beginning and progress of the
+planting of New England, his wonders and the judgments of his mouth;
+how that God brought a vine into this wilderness; that he cast out the
+heathen, and planted it; that he made room for it and caused it to take
+deep root; and it filled the land (Psalm lxxx. 8, 9). And not onely so,
+but also that he hath guided his people by his strength to his holy
+habitation and planted them in the mountain of his inheritance in
+respect of precious Gospel enjoyments: and that as especially God may
+have the glory of all unto whom it is most due; so also some rays of
+glory may reach the names of those blessed Saints that were the main
+instruments and the beginning of this happy enterprise.”
+It is impossible to read this opening paragraph without an involuntary
+feeling of religious awe; it breathes the very savor of Gospel
+antiquity. The sincerity of the author heightens his power of language.
+The band which to his eyes was a mere party of adventurers gone forth
+to seek their fortune beyond seas appears to the reader as the germ of
+a great nation wafted by Providence to a predestined shore.
+The author thus continues his narrative of the departure of the first
+pilgrims:—
+“So they left that goodly and pleasant city of Leyden, *g which had
+been their resting-place for above eleven years; but they knew that
+they were pilgrims and strangers here below, and looked not much on
+these things, but lifted up their eyes to Heaven, their dearest
+country, where God hath prepared for them a city (Heb. xi. 16), and
+therein quieted their spirits. When they came to Delfs-Haven they found
+the ship and all things ready; and such of their friends as could not
+come with them followed after them, and sundry came from Amsterdam to
+see them shipt, and to take their leaves of them. One night was spent
+with little sleep with the most, but with friendly entertainment and
+Christian discourse, and other real expressions of true Christian love.
+The next day they went on board, and their friends with them, where
+truly doleful was the sight of that sad and mournful parting, to hear
+what sighs and sobs and prayers did sound amongst them; what tears did
+gush from every eye, and pithy speeches pierced each other’s heart,
+that sundry of the Dutch strangers that stood on the Key as spectators
+could not refrain from tears. But the tide (which stays for no man)
+calling them away, that were thus loth to depart, their Reverend Pastor
+falling down on his knees, and they all with him, with watery cheeks
+commended them with most fervent prayers unto the Lord and his
+blessing; and then, with mutual embraces and many tears they took their
+leaves one of another, which proved to be the last leave to many of
+them.”
+[ The emigrants were, for the most part, godly Christians from the
+North of England, who had quitted their native country because they
+were “studious of reformation, and entered into covenant to walk with
+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,
+that their posterity would in a few generations become Dutch, and so
+lose their interest in the English nation; they being desirous rather
+to enlarge His Majesty’s dominions, and to live under their natural
+prince.—Translator’s Note.]
+The emigrants were about 150 in number, including the women and the
+children. Their object was to plant a colony on the shores of the
+Hudson; but after having been driven about for some time in the
+Atlantic Ocean, they were forced to land on that arid coast of New
+England which is now the site of the town of Plymouth. The rock is
+still shown on which the pilgrims disembarked. *h
+[ This rock is become an object of veneration in the United States. I
+have seen bits of it carefully preserved in several towns of the Union.
+Does not this sufficiently show how entirely all human power and
+greatness is in the soul of man? Here is a stone which the feet of a
+few outcasts pressed for an instant, and this stone becomes famous; it
+is treasured by a great nation, its very dust is shared as a relic: and
+what is become of the gateways of a thousand palaces?]
+“But before we pass on,” continues our historian, “let the reader with
+me make a pause and seriously consider this poor people’s present
+condition, the more to be raised up to admiration of God’s goodness
+towards them in their preservation: for being now passed the vast
+ocean, and a sea of troubles before them in expectation, they had now
+no friends to welcome them, no inns to entertain or refresh them, no
+houses, or much less towns to repair unto to seek for succour: and for
+the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of the country
+know 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, full of wilde beasts, and wilde men? and what multitudes of
+them there were, they then knew not: for which way soever they turned
+their eyes (save upward to Heaven) they could have but little solace or
+content in respect of any outward object; for summer being ended, all
+things stand in appearance with a weather-beaten face, and the whole
+country full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hew;
+if they looked behind them, there was the mighty ocean which they had
+passed, and was now as a main bar or gulph to separate them from all
+the civil parts of the world.”
+It must not be imagined that the piety of the Puritans was of a merely
+speculative kind, or that it took no cognizance of the course of
+worldly affairs. Puritanism, as I have already remarked, was scarcely
+less a political than a religious doctrine. No sooner had the emigrants
+landed on the barren coast described by Nathaniel Morton than it was
+their first care to constitute a society, by passing the following Act:
+“In the name of God. Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal
+subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, etc., etc., Having
+undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian
+Faith, and the honour of our King and country, a voyage to plant the
+first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; Do by these presents
+solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant
+and combine ourselves together into a civil body politick, for our
+better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends
+aforesaid: and by virtue hereof do enact, constitute and frame such
+just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and officers,
+from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the
+general good of the Colony: unto which we promise all due submission
+and obedience,” etc. *i
+[ The emigrants who founded the State of Rhode Island in 1638, those
+who landed at New Haven in 1637, the first settlers in Connecticut in
+, and the founders of Providence in 1640, began in like manner by
+drawing up a social contract, which was acceded to by all the
+interested parties. See “Pitkin’s History,” pp. 42 and 47.]
+This happened in 1620, and from that time forwards the emigration went
+on. The religious and political passions which ravaged the British
+Empire during the whole reign of Charles I drove fresh crowds of
+sectarians every year to the shores of America. In England the
+stronghold of Puritanism was in the middle classes, and it was from the
+middle classes that the majority of the emigrants came. The population
+of New England increased rapidly; and whilst the hierarchy of rank
+despotically classed the inhabitants of the mother-country, the colony
+continued to present the novel spectacle of a community homogeneous in
+all its parts. A democracy, more perfect than any which antiquity had
+dreamt of, started in full size and panoply from the midst of an
+ancient feudal society.
 ### Chapter II: Origin Of The Anglo-Americans—Part II
+The English government encouraged emigration that removed seeds of discord, easing hardships for those seeking refuge from its laws. New England became a region given over to the dreams of fancy and the unrestrained experiments of innovators.
+The English Government was not dissatisfied with an emigration which
+removed the elements of fresh discord and of further revolutions. On
+the contrary, everything was done to encourage it, and great exertions
+were made to mitigate the hardships of those who sought a shelter from
+the rigor of their country’s laws on the soil of America. It seemed as
+if New England was a region given up to the dreams of fancy and the
+unrestrained experiments of innovators.
+English colonies always enjoyed more internal freedom than other nations' colonies—a major cause of their prosperity—but this liberty was nowhere more extensive than in New England.
+The English colonies (and this is one of the main causes of their
+prosperity) have always enjoyed more internal freedom and more
+political independence than the colonies of other nations; but this
+principle of liberty was nowhere more extensively applied than in the
+States of New England.
+By the late sixteenth century, nearly all of North America's coast belonged to Britain. The Crown used three colonization methods. Sometimes the King appointed a governor who ruled in his name, as in New York—standard practice for other European powers. Elsewhere, such as Maryland, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the Crown granted land to individuals or companies, who then sold and governed it under royal supervision. Finally, a third method allowed emigrants to form political societies that governed themselves under the mother country's protection. This mode, so remarkably favorable to liberty, was adopted only in New England. Charters show that representative government and political liberty were introduced into all colonies at their inception, but were more fully realized in the North, though they existed everywhere.
+It was generally allowed at that period that the territories of the New
+World belonged to that European nation which had been the first to
+discover them. Nearly the whole coast of North America thus became a
+British possession towards the end of the sixteenth century. The means
+used by the English Government to people these new domains were of
+several kinds; the King sometimes appointed a governor of his own
+choice, who ruled a portion of the New World in the name and under the
+immediate orders of the Crown; *j this is the colonial system adopted
+by other countries of Europe. Sometimes grants of certain tracts were
+made by the Crown to an individual or to a company, *k in which case
+all the civil and political power fell into the hands of one or more
+persons, who, under the inspection and control of the Crown, sold the
+lands and governed the inhabitants. Lastly, a third system consisted in
+allowing a certain number of emigrants to constitute a political
+society under the protection of the mother-country, and to govern
+themselves in whatever was not contrary to her laws. This mode of
+colonization, so remarkably favorable to liberty, was only adopted in
+New England. *l
+In 1628, Charles I granted such a charter to Massachusetts. Yet most New England colonies—Plymouth, Providence, New Haven, Connecticut, Rhode Island—established themselves without cooperation or even knowledge from England. These settlers formed societies on their own initiative, only receiving legal recognition from Charles II thirty or forty years later. This often obscures their connection to the mother country.
+[ This was the case in the State of New York.]
+> **Quote:** "They exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws as if their allegiance was due only to God."
+In Massachusetts, even procedural forms diverged from English law; by 1650, judicial decrees were not issued in the King's name. Nothing is more instructive than this period's legislation—it holds solutions to social problems America still presents.
+[ Maryland, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey were in this
+situation. See “Pitkin’s History,” vol. i. pp. 11-31.]
+The 1650 Connecticut code is particularly characteristic. Its legislators began with penal laws, borrowing provisions directly from Holy Scripture:
+> **Quote:** "Whosoever shall worship any other God than the Lord," says the preamble of the Code, "shall surely be put to death."
+[ See the work entitled “Historical Collection of State Papers and
+other authentic Documents intended as materials for a History of the
+United States of America, by Ebenezer Hasard. Philadelphia, 1792,” for
+a great number of documents relating to the commencement of the
+colonies, which are valuable from their contents and their
+authenticity: amongst them are the various charters granted by the King
+of England, and the first acts of the local governments.
+Ten or twelve similar enactments followed, copied from Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Blasphemy, sorcery, adultery and rape carried death sentences; even a son's disrespect toward parents warranted execution. The legislation of a rude and half-civilized people was thus applied to an enlightened and moral community. The result: death was frequently mandated but rarely enforced. In adultery—a capital crime in both colonies—several were executed, though in one 1663 case, a couple narrowly escaped when their past liaison was discovered years after they married following the woman's widowhood.
+The legislators' primary concern was maintaining order and morals, constantly invading conscience so that scarcely a sin escaped judicial punishment. Beyond severe penalties for rape and adultery, sex between unmarried persons faced harsh repression. Judges could impose fines, whippings or forced marriage. New Haven court records show frequent prosecutions: on May 1, 1660, a young woman was fined and reprimanded for improper language and allowing herself to be kissed.
+See also the analysis of all these charters given by Mr. Story, Judge
+of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Introduction to his
+“Commentary on the Constitution of the United States.” It results from
+these documents that the principles of representative government and
+the external forms of political liberty were introduced into all the
+colonies at their origin. These principles were more fully acted upon
+in the North than in the South, but they existed everywhere.]
+The Code abounded in preventive measures. Idleness and drunkenness were severely punished. Innkeepers could not exceed liquor quotas. Simple lying, when harmful, incurred fines or flogging. The legislator—forgetting religious tolerance he had upheld in Europe—compelled church attendance and imposed severe punishments, even death, on Christians worshipping differently. In 1644 Massachusetts banished Anabaptists; in 1656 it passed laws against Quakers, who were whipped, imprisoned and driven out. Any Catholic priest returning after banishment faced death. Zeal sometimes descended to trivia: the Code prohibited tobacco. These intrusive laws were freely voted by those affected, yet community customs were even more austere. In 1649, Boston formed a solemn association to curb "worldly luxury" of long hair.
+In 1628 *m a charter of this kind was granted by Charles I to the
+emigrants who went to form the colony of Massachusetts. But, in
+general, charters were not given to the colonies of New England till
+they had acquired a certain existence. Plymouth, Providence, New Haven,
+the State of Connecticut, and that of Rhode Island *n were founded
+without the co-operation and almost without the knowledge of the
+mother-country. The new settlers did not derive their incorporation
+from the seat of the empire, although they did not deny its supremacy;
+they constituted a society of their own accord, and it was not till
+thirty or forty years afterwards, under Charles II. that their
+existence was legally recognized by a royal charter.
+These errors discredit human reason, yet alongside this penal legislation—marked by narrow sectarianism—one finds political laws still ahead of our own age's liberties. Principles forming modern constitutions' foundation, only vaguely known in seventeenth-century Europe, were recognized and established in New England: popular participation in public affairs, free voting of taxes, official accountability, personal liberty, trial by jury. From these principles, applications were made that no European nation yet attempted.
+[ See “Pitkin’s History,” p, 35. See the “History of the Colony of
+Massachusetts Bay,” by Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 9.] [Footnote n: See
+“Pitkin’s History,” pp. 42, 47.]
+In Connecticut the electorate comprised all citizens from the start, understandable given their near-perfect equality of fortune and greater uniformity of opinion. In 1641 Rhode Island's General Assembly unanimously declared the government a democracy with power vested in free citizens. All Connecticut officials, including the Governor, were elected. Citizens over sixteen formed a militia that appointed its own officers.
+Connecticut's laws reveal the origin of township independence—the lifeblood of American liberty. While most European nations' political existence began in the upper ranks and was only partially shared downward, this progression was unique to the New World:
+This frequently renders its it difficult to detect the link which
+connected the emigrants with the land of their forefathers in studying
+the earliest historical and legislative records of New England. They
+exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates,
+concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted
+laws as if their allegiance was due only to God. *o Nothing can be more
+curious and, at the same time more instructive, than the legislation of
+that period; it is there that the solution of the great social problem
+which the United States now present to the world is to be found.
+> **Quote:** "In America, on the other hand, it may be said that the township was organized before the county, the county before the State, the State before the Union."
+[ The inhabitants of Massachusetts had deviated from the forms which
+are preserved in the criminal and civil procedure of England; in 1650
+the decrees of justice were not yet headed by the royal style. See
+Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 452.]
+By 1650 New England townships were fully established. Their independence provided space for vibrant democratic and republican political life. Though colonies acknowledged the Crown and monarchy remained state law, a republic already existed in every township. Towns appointed officials, assessed property, collected taxes. Instead of representation, community affairs were discussed, as at Athens, in the market-place by a general assembly of the citizens.
+These early republics' laws reveal remarkable understanding of government science. Their ideas regarding society's duties to members were loftier than European legislators' of that era. New England provided for the poor from the start, maintained roads through surveyors, established parish registers for births, deaths and marriages, managed unclaimed inheritances, arbitrated boundary disputes—creating roles for public order that France still addresses poorly.
+Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic,
+the code of laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut in
+.    *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
+preamble of the Code, “shall surely be put to death.” This is followed
+by ten or twelve enactments of the same kind, copied verbatim from the
+books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Blasphemy, sorcery,
+adultery, *r and rape were punished with death; an outrage offered by a
+son to his parents was to be expiated by the same penalty. The
+legislation of a rude and half-civilized people was thus applied to an
+enlightened and moral community. The consequence was that the
+punishment of death was never more frequently prescribed by the
+statute, and never more rarely enforced towards the guilty.
+But public education most clearly reveals American civilization's character:
+[ Code of 1650, p. 28; Hartford, 1830.]
+> **Quote:** "It being," says the law, "one chief project of Satan to keep men from the knowledge of the Scripture by persuading from the use of tongues, to the end that learning may not be buried in the graves of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors. . . ."
+What followed established schools in every township, requiring inhabitants to support them under threat of heavy fines. Higher schools were founded in populous districts. Municipal authorities ensured attendance, fining noncompliant parents; continued resistance led society to take custody of the child, depriving the father of misused natural rights. The reader will notice the preamble: in America, religion is the path to knowledge, and divine law leads to civil freedom.
+[ See also in “Hutchinson’s History,” vol. i. pp. 435, 456, the
+analysis of the penal code adopted in 1648 by the Colony of
+Massachusetts: this code is drawn up on the same principles as that of
+Connecticut.]
+Comparing this 1650 American society to contemporary Europe astonishes. On the Continent, absolute monarchy had triumphed over feudal liberties. Rights concepts were never more confused, political activity never scarcer, true freedom's principles never less circulated—yet those same principles, scorned or unknown in Europe, were proclaimed in the New World wilderness as a great people's future creed.
+Human reason's boldest theories were practiced by a community too humble for statesmen to notice, producing unprecedented legislation spontaneously. In this obscure democracy—before producing generals, philosophers or authors—a man could stand before free people and offer a profound definition of liberty found in Mather’s *Magnalia Christi Americana*. John Winthrop, accused of arbitrary power, was acquitted by acclamation after this speech and consistently re-elected governor.
+[ Adultery was also punished with death by the law of Massachusetts:
+and Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 441, says that several persons actually
+suffered for this crime. He quotes a curious anecdote on this subject,
+which occurred in the year 1663. A married woman had had criminal
+intercourse with a young man; her husband died, and she married the
+lover. Several years had elapsed, when the public began to suspect the
+previous intercourse of this couple: they were thrown into prison, put
+upon trial, and very narrowly escaped capital punishment.]
+> **Quote:** "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 men and beasts to do what they list, and this liberty is inconsistent with authority, impatient of all restraint; by this liberty ‘sumus omnes deteriores’: ’tis the grand enemy of truth and peace, and all the ordinances of God are bent against it. But there is a civil, a moral, a federal liberty which is the proper end and object of authority; it is a liberty for that only which is just and good: for this liberty you are to stand with the hazard of your very lives and whatsoever crosses it is not authority, but a distemper thereof. This liberty is maintained in a way of subjection to authority; and the authority set over you will, in all administrations for your good, be quietly submitted unto by all but such as have a disposition to shake off the yoke and lose their true liberty, by their murmuring at the honor and power of authority."
+These remarks show Anglo-American civilization's true character: the result of two distinct elements that elsewhere conflicted but in America combined admirably—the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty.
+The chief care of the legislators, in this body of penal laws, was the
+maintenance of orderly conduct and good morals in the community: they
+constantly invaded the domain of conscience, and there was scarcely a
+sin which was not subject to magisterial censure. The reader is aware
+of the rigor with which these laws punished rape and adultery;
+intercourse between unmarried persons was likewise severely repressed.
+The judge was empowered to inflict a pecuniary penalty, a whipping, or
+marriage *s on the misdemeanants; and if the records of the old courts
+of New Haven may be believed, prosecutions of this kind were not
+unfrequent. We find a sentence bearing date the first of May, 1660,
+inflicting a fine and reprimand on a young woman who was accused of
+using improper language, and of allowing herself to be kissed. *t The
+Code of 1650 abounds in preventive measures. It punishes idleness and
+drunkenness with severity. *u Innkeepers are forbidden to furnish more
+than a certain quantity of liquor 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 which he had himself upheld in Europe, renders
+attendance on divine service compulsory, *w and goes so far as to visit
+with severe punishment, ** and even with death, the Christians who
+chose to worship God according to a ritual differing from his own. *x
+Sometimes indeed the zeal of his enactments induces him to descend to
+the most frivolous particulars: thus a law is to be found in the same
+Code which prohibits the use of tobacco. *y It must not be forgotten
+that these fantastical and vexatious laws were not imposed by
+authority, but that they were freely voted by all the persons
+interested, and that the manners of the community were even more
+austere and more puritanical than the laws. In 1649 a solemn
+association was formed in Boston to check the worldly luxury of long
+hair. *z
+New England settlers were ardent sectarians and daring innovators. Narrow as some religious opinions were, they were entirely free from political prejudices. This created two distinct but non-opposing tendencies constantly visible in customs and laws.
+[ Code of 1650, p. 48. It seems sometimes to have happened that the
+judges superadded these punishments to each other, as is seen in a
+sentence pronounced in 1643 (p. 114, “New Haven Antiquities”), by which
+Margaret Bedford, convicted of loose conduct, was condemned to be
+whipped, and afterwards to marry Nicholas Jemmings, her accomplice.]
+One might imagine men who sacrificed everything for religious conviction would be wholly absorbed in spiritual rewards. Yet their energy in seeking wealth, moral satisfaction and worldly comforts scarcely differed from their devotion to Heaven.
+Political principles and human institutions were molded at their pleasure. Old society's barriers and long-standing principles vanished, opening straight paths to man's passionate curiosity. Yet at the political world's limits, he stops, discreetly setting aside his most formidable faculties. He no longer consents to doubt or innovate, yielding submissive respect to truths he will not question. Thus in the moral world everything is categorized and foreseen; in the political world everything is agitated and disputed. One sphere shows passive, voluntary obedience; the other shows independence skeptical of experience and jealous of authority.
+[ “New Haven Antiquities,” p. 104. See also “Hutchinson’s History,” for
+several causes equally extraordinary.]
+These tendencies, seemingly so different, advance together and support each other. Religion recognizes civil liberty as noble exercise for human faculties, the political world a field prepared by the Creator for intelligence's efforts. Content with freedom in its own sphere, religion reigns most securely when established in hearts through inherent strength alone. Religion is liberty's companion in all battles and triumphs, the cradle of its infancy and divine source of its claims.
+> **Quote:** "The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom."
+[ Code of 1650, pp. 50, 57.]
+Reasons For Certain Anomalies Presented By The Laws And Customs Of The Anglo-Americans
+Remnants of aristocratic institutions in the midst of a complete democracy—Why?—A careful distinction must be drawn between what is of Puritan origin and what is of English origin.
+[ Ibid., p. 64.]
+The reader is cautioned not to draw too general a conclusion from what has been said. The first emigrants' social condition, religion and customs profoundly influenced their new country's destiny, yet they could not establish a state depending solely on themselves. No one entirely escapes the past's influence; settlers mixed education-derived habits and national traditions with their own innovations. To judge Anglo-Americans today requires distinguishing Puritan from English origins.
+Laws and customs are frequently found in the United States that contrast sharply with their surroundings, seemingly written in a spirit contrary to American legislation's prevailing trend. If the colonies' origins were lost, this would be unsolvable.
+[ Ibid., p. 44.]
+One example illustrates: American civil and criminal procedure uses only incarceration and bail. A magistrate first demands security or imprisons the defendant; only then are charges discussed. This legislation obviously favors the rich. Poor defendants cannot provide security and await justice in prison, quickly reduced to misery. Wealthy individuals avoid imprisonment in civil cases and can escape criminal punishment by forfeiting bail. For the rich, all penalties become fines. Some crimes deny bail, but they are few.
+Nothing could be more aristocratic than this system. Yet in America, the poor make the laws and reserve advantages for themselves. The explanation lies in England; these are English laws Americans have kept despite clashing with their legislation's general spirit and core beliefs. Next to its habits, a nation least changes its civil legislation. Civil laws are known only to legal professionals, who maintain them—good or bad—because they are experts in them. The majority hardly notices them, seeing only specific effects, grasping their tendency with difficulty, and obeying without thought. One instance is cited where many could be provided. The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democracy, from beneath which the old aristocratic colors sometimes peep.
+[ This was not peculiar to Connecticut. See, for instance, the law
+which, on September 13, 1644, banished the Anabaptists from the State
+of Massachusetts. (“Historical Collection of State Papers,” vol. i. p.
+.) See also the law against the Quakers, passed on October 14, 1656:
+“Whereas,” says the preamble, “an accursed race of heretics called
+Quakers has sprung up,” etc. The clauses of the statute inflict a heavy
+fine on all captains of ships who should import Quakers into the
+country. The Quakers who may be found there shall be whipped and
+imprisoned with hard labor. Those members of the sect who should defend
+their opinions shall be first fined, then imprisoned, and finally
+driven out of the province.—“Historical Collection of State Papers,”
+vol. i. p. 630.]
+[ By the penal law of Massachusetts, any Catholic priest who should set
+foot in the colony after having been once driven out of it was liable
+to capital punishment.]
+[ Code of 1650, p. 96.]
+[ “New England’s Memorial,” p. 316. See Appendix, E.]
+These errors are no doubt discreditable to human reason; they attest
+the inferiority of our nature, which is incapable of laying firm hold
+upon what is true and just, and is often reduced to the alternative of
+two excesses. In strict connection with this penal legislation, which
+bears such striking marks of a narrow sectarian spirit, and of those
+religious passions which had been warmed by persecution and were still
+fermenting among the people, a body of political laws is to be found,
+which, though written two hundred years ago, is still ahead of the
+liberties of our age. The general principles which are the groundwork
+of modern constitutions—principles which were imperfectly known in
+Europe, and not completely triumphant even in Great Britain, in the
+seventeenth century—were all recognized and determined by the laws of
+New England: the intervention of the people in public affairs, the free
+voting of taxes, the responsibility of authorities, personal liberty,
+and trial by jury, were all positively established without discussion.
+From these fruitful principles consequences have been derived and
+applications have been made such as no nation in Europe has yet
+ventured to attempt.
+In Connecticut the electoral body consisted, from its origin, of the
+whole number of citizens; and this is readily to be understood, *a when
+we recollect that this people enjoyed an almost perfect equality of
+fortune, and a still greater uniformity of opinions. *b In Connecticut,
+at this period, all the executive functionaries were elected, including
+the Governor of the State. *c The citizens above the age of sixteen
+were obliged to bear arms; they formed a national militia, which
+appointed its own officers, and was to hold itself at all times in
+readiness to march for the defence of the country. *d
+[ Constitution of 1638, p. 17.]
+[ In 1641 the General Assembly of Rhode Island unanimously declared
+that the government of the State was a democracy, and that the power
+was vested in the body of free citizens, who alone had the right to
+make the laws and to watch their execution.—Code of 1650, p. 70.]
+[ “Pitkin’s History,” p. 47.]
+[ 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 independence
+which is the life and mainspring of American liberty at the present
+day. The political existence of the majority of the nations of Europe
+commenced in the superior ranks of society, and was gradually and
+imperfectly communicated to the different members of the social body.
+In America, on the other hand, it may be said that the township was
+organized before the county, the county before the State, the State
+before the Union. In New England townships were completely and
+definitively constituted as early as 1650. The independence of the
+township was the nucleus round which the local interests, passions,
+rights, and duties collected and clung. It gave scope to the activity
+of a real political life most thoroughly democratic and republican. The
+colonies still recognized the supremacy of the mother-country; monarchy
+was still the law of the State; but the republic was already
+established in every township. The towns named their own magistrates of
+every kind, rated themselves, and levied their own taxes. *e In the
+parish of New England the law of representation was not adopted, but
+the affairs of the community were discussed, as at Athens, in the
+market-place, by a general assembly of the citizens.
+[ Code of 1650, p. 80.]
+In studying the laws which were promulgated at this first era of the
+American republics, it is impossible not to be struck by the remarkable
+acquaintance with the science of government and the advanced theory of
+legislation which they display. The ideas there formed of the duties of
+society towards its members are evidently much loftier and more
+comprehensive than those of the European legislators at that time:
+obligations were there imposed which were elsewhere slighted. In the
+States of New England, from the first, the condition of the poor was
+provided for; *f strict measures were taken for the maintenance of
+roads, and surveyors were appointed to attend to them; *g registers
+were established in every parish, in which the results of public
+deliberations, and the births, deaths, and marriages of the citizens
+were entered; *h clerks were directed to keep these registers; *i
+officers were charged with the administration of vacant inheritances,
+and with the arbitration of litigated landmarks; and many others were
+created whose chief functions were the maintenance of public order in
+the community. *j The law enters into a thousand useful provisions for
+a number of social wants which are at present very inadequately felt in
+France. [Footnote f: Ibid., p. 78.]
+[ Ibid., p. 49.]
+[ See “Hutchinson’s History,” vol. i. p. 455.]
+[ Code of 1650, p. 86.]
+[ Ibid., p. 40.]
+But it is by the attention it pays to Public Education that the
+original character of American civilization is at once placed in the
+clearest light. “It being,” says the law, “one chief project of Satan
+to keep men from the knowledge of the Scripture by persuading from the
+use of tongues, to the end that learning may not be buried in the
+graves of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord
+assisting our endeavors. . . .” *k Here follow clauses establishing
+schools in every township, and obliging the inhabitants, under pain of
+heavy fines, to support them. Schools of a superior kind were founded
+in the same manner in the more populous districts. The municipal
+authorities were bound to enforce the sending of children to school by
+their parents; they were empowered to inflict fines upon all who
+refused compliance; and in case of continued resistance society assumed
+the place of the parent, took possession of the child, and deprived the
+father of those natural rights which he used to so bad a purpose. The
+reader will undoubtedly have remarked the preamble of these enactments:
+in America religion is the road to knowledge, and the observance of the
+divine laws leads man to civil freedom.
+[ Ibid., p. 90.]
+If, after having cast a rapid glance over the state of American society
+in 1650, we turn to the condition of Europe, and more especially to
+that of the Continent, at the same period, we cannot fail to be struck
+with astonishment. On the Continent of Europe, at the beginning of the
+seventeenth century, absolute monarchy had everywhere triumphed over
+the ruins of the oligarchical and feudal liberties of the Middle Ages.
+Never were the notions of right more completely confounded than in the
+midst of the splendor and literature of Europe; never was there less
+political activity among the people; never were the principles of true
+freedom less widely circulated; and at that very time those principles,
+which were scorned or unknown by the nations of Europe, were proclaimed
+in the deserts of the New World, and were accepted as the future creed
+of a great people. The boldest theories of the human reason were put
+into practice by a community so humble that not a statesman
+condescended to attend to it; and a legislation without a precedent was
+produced offhand by the imagination of the citizens. In the bosom of
+this obscure democracy, which had as yet brought forth neither
+generals, nor philosophers, nor authors, a man might stand up in the
+face of a free people and pronounce the following fine definition of
+liberty. *l
+[ Mather’s “Magnalia Christi Americana,” vol. ii. p. 13. This speech
+was made by Winthrop; he was accused of having committed arbitrary
+actions during his magistracy, but after having made the speech of
+which the above is a fragment, he was acquitted by acclamation, and
+from that time forwards he was always re-elected governor of the State.
+See Marshal, vol. i. p. 166.]
+“Nor would I have you to mistake in the point of your own liberty.
+There is a liberty of a corrupt nature which is effected both by men
+and beasts to do what they list, and this liberty is inconsistent with
+authority, impatient of all restraint; by this liberty ‘sumus omnes
+deteriores’: ’tis the grand enemy of truth and peace, and all the
+ordinances of God are bent against it. But there is a civil, a moral, a
+federal liberty which is the proper end and object of authority; it is
+a liberty for that only which is just and good: for this liberty you
+are to stand with the hazard of your very lives and whatsoever crosses
+it is not authority, but a distemper thereof. This liberty is
+maintained in a way of subjection to authority; and the authority set
+over you will, in all administrations for your good, be quietly
+submitted unto by all but such as have a disposition to shake off the
+yoke and lose their true liberty, by their murmuring at the honor and
+power of authority.”
+The remarks I have made will suffice to display the character of
+Anglo-American civilization in its true light. It is the result (and
+this should be constantly present to the mind of two distinct
+elements), which in other places have been in frequent hostility, but
+which in America 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 sectarians and
+daring innovators. Narrow as the limits of some of their religious
+opinions were, they were entirely free from political prejudices. Hence
+arose two tendencies, distinct but not opposite, which are constantly
+discernible in the manners as well as in the laws of the country.
+It might be imagined that men who sacrificed their friends, their
+family, and their native land to a religious conviction were absorbed
+in the pursuit of the intellectual advantages which they purchased at
+so dear a rate. The energy, however, with which they strove for the
+acquirement of wealth, moral enjoyment, and the comforts as well as
+liberties of the world, is scarcely inferior to that with which they
+devoted themselves to Heaven.
+Political principles and all human laws and institutions were moulded
+and altered at their pleasure; the barriers of the society in which
+they were born were broken down before them; the old principles which
+had governed the world for ages were no more; a path without a turn and
+a field without an horizon were opened to the exploring and ardent
+curiosity of man: but at the limits of the political world he checks
+his researches, he discreetly lays aside the use of his most formidable
+faculties, he no longer consents to doubt or to innovate, but carefully
+abstaining from raising the curtain of the sanctuary, he yields with
+submissive respect to truths which he will not discuss. Thus, in the
+moral world everything is classed, adapted, decided, and foreseen; in
+the political world everything is agitated, uncertain, and disputed: in
+the one is a passive, though a voluntary, obedience; in the other an
+independence scornful of experience and jealous of authority.
+These two tendencies, apparently so discrepant, are far from
+conflicting; they advance together, and mutually support each other.
+Religion perceives that civil liberty affords a noble exercise to the
+faculties of man, and that the political world is a field prepared by
+the Creator for the efforts of the intelligence. Contented with the
+freedom and the power which it enjoys in its own sphere, and with the
+place which it occupies, the empire of religion is never more surely
+established than when it reigns in the hearts of men unsupported by
+aught beside its native strength. Religion is no less the companion of
+liberty in all its battles and its triumphs; the cradle of its infancy,
+and the divine source of its claims. The safeguard of morality is
+religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest
+pledge of freedom. *m
+[ See Appendix, F.]
+Reasons Of Certain Anomalies Which The Laws And Customs Of The
+Anglo-Americans Present
+Remains of aristocratic institutions in the midst of a complete
+democracy—Why?—Distinction carefully to be drawn between what is of
+Puritanical and what is of English origin.
+The reader is cautioned not to draw too general or too absolute an
+inference from what has been said. The social condition, the religion,
+and the manners of the first emigrants undoubtedly exercised an immense
+influence on the destiny of their new country. Nevertheless they were
+not in a situation to found a state of things solely dependent on
+themselves: no man can entirely shake off the influence of the past,
+and the settlers, intentionally or involuntarily, mingled habits and
+notions derived from their education and from the traditions of their
+country with those habits and notions which were exclusively their own.
+To form a judgment on the Anglo-Americans of the present day it is
+therefore necessary to distinguish what is of Puritanical and what is
+of English origin.
+Laws and customs are frequently to be met with in the United States
+which contrast strongly with all that surrounds them. These laws seem
+to be drawn up in a spirit contrary to the prevailing tenor of the
+American legislation; and these customs are no less opposed to the tone
+of society. 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 problem would be insoluble.
+I shall quote a single example to illustrate what I advance. The civil
+and criminal procedure of the Americans has only two means of
+action—committal and bail. The first measure taken by the magistrate is
+to exact security from the defendant, or, in case of refusal, to
+incarcerate him: the ground of the accusation and the importance of the
+charges against him are then discussed. It is evident that a
+legislation of this kind is hostile to the poor man, and favorable only
+to the rich. The poor man has not always a security to produce, even in
+a civil cause; and if he is obliged to wait for justice in prison, he
+is speedily reduced to distress. The wealthy individual, on the
+contrary, always escapes imprisonment in civil causes; nay, more, he
+may readily elude the punishment which awaits him for a delinquency by
+breaking his bail. So that all the penalties of the law are, for him,
+reducible to fines. *n Nothing can be more aristocratic than this
+system of legislation. Yet in America it is the poor who make the law,
+and they usually reserve the greatest social advantages to themselves.
+The explanation of the phenomenon is to be found in England; the laws
+of which I speak are English, *o and the Americans have retained them,
+however repugnant they may be to the tenor of their legislation and the
+mass of their ideas. Next to its habits, the thing which a nation is
+least apt to change is its civil legislation. Civil laws are only
+familiarly known to legal men, whose direct interest it is to maintain
+them as they are, whether good or bad, simply because they themselves
+are conversant with them. The body of the nation is scarcely acquainted
+with them; it merely perceives their action in particular cases; but it
+has some difficulty in seizing their tendency, and obeys them without
+premeditation. I have quoted one instance where it would have been easy
+to adduce a great number of others. The surface of American society is,
+if I may use the expression, covered with a layer of democracy, from
+beneath which the old aristocratic colors sometimes peep.
+[ Crimes no doubt exist for which bail is inadmissible, but they are
+few in number.]
+[ See Blackstone; and Delolme, book I chap. x.]
 ## Chapter III: Social Conditions Of The Anglo-Americans
+Social conditions arise from circumstances and laws, and in turn shape nearly all a nation's laws, customs, and ideas; what they do not produce directly, they modify. To understand a nation's legislation and culture, we must first study its social condition.
+The Striking Characteristic Of The Social Condition Of The Anglo-Americans Is Its Essential Democracy.
+A Social condition is commonly the result of circumstances, sometimes
+of laws, oftener still of these two causes united; but wherever it
+exists, it may justly be considered as the source of almost all the
+laws, the usages, and the ideas which regulate the conduct of nations;
+whatever it does not produce it modifies. It is therefore necessary, if
+we would become acquainted with the legislation and the manners of a
+nation, to begin by the study of its social condition.
+The Striking Characteristic Of The Social Condition Of The
+Anglo-Americans In Its Essential Democracy.
+> **Quote:** "The social condition of the Americans is eminently democratic; this was its character at the foundation of the Colonies, and is still more strongly marked at the present day."
+The first emigrants of New England—Their equality—Aristocratic laws
+introduced in the South—Period of the Revolution—Change in the law of
+descent—Effects produced by this change—Democracy carried to its utmost
+limits in the new States of the West—Equality of education.
+New England's settlers brought equality from the start; aristocracy never took root there. Influence rested on intellect alone—certain names commanded respect for knowledge and virtue, but this could not be inherited. South of the Hudson, English landowners established estates based on slave labor, creating a wealthy class. Yet they held no legal privileges; and because their estates were cultivated by slaves rather than tenants, they lacked the patronage systems of Europe. Though they formed a superior class with political influence, they were too weak and too short-lived to excite either love or hatred for themselves. It was this class that led the Southern uprising and supplied the Revolution's ablest leaders.
+Many important observations suggest themselves upon the social
+condition of the Anglo-Americans, but there is one which takes
+precedence of all the rest. The social condition of the Americans is
+eminently democratic; this was its character at the foundation of the
+Colonies, and is still more strongly marked at the present day. I have
+stated in the preceding chapter that great equality existed among the
+emigrants who settled on the shores of New England. The germ of
+aristocracy was never planted in that part of the Union. The only
+influence which obtained there was that of intellect; the people were
+used to reverence certain names as the emblems of knowledge and virtue.
+Some of their fellow-citizens acquired a power over the rest which
+might truly have been called aristocratic, if it had been capable of
+transmission from father to son.
+The Revolutionary period awakened democratic tendencies. As colonial rule fell, so did the influence of powerful individuals. But the law of inheritance delivered the final blow to aristocracy. I am surprised scholars have not recognized its supreme importance—all laws regulating property distribution after death, including entail, which prevents owners from disposing of possessions before death.
+This was the state of things to the east of the Hudson: to the
+south-west of that river, and in the direction of the Floridas, the
+case was different. In most of the States situated to the south-west of
+the Hudson some great English proprietors had settled, who had imported
+with them aristocratic principles and the English law of descent. I
+have explained the reasons why it was impossible ever to establish a
+powerful aristocracy in America; these reasons existed with less force
+to the south-west of the Hudson. In the South, one man, aided by
+slaves, could cultivate a great extent of country: it was therefore
+common to see rich landed proprietors. But their influence was not
+altogether aristocratic as that term is understood in Europe, since
+they possessed no privileges; and the cultivation of their estates
+being carried on by slaves, they had no tenants depending on them, and
+consequently no patronage. Still, the great proprietors south of the
+Hudson constituted a superior class, having ideas and tastes of its
+own, and forming the centre of political action. This kind of
+aristocracy sympathized with the 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 hatred for itself. This was the class which
+headed the insurrection in the South, and furnished the best leaders of
+the American revolution.
+> **Quote:** "It is true that these laws belong to civil affairs; but they ought nevertheless to be placed at the head of all political institutions; for, whilst political laws are only the symbol of a nation’s condition, they exercise an incredible influence upon its social state."
+At the period of which we are now speaking society was shaken to its
+centre: the people, in whose name the struggle had taken place,
+conceived the desire of exercising the authority which it had acquired;
+its democratic tendencies were awakened; and having thrown off the yoke
+of the mother-country, it aspired to independence of every kind. The
+influence of individuals gradually ceased to be felt, and custom and
+law united together to produce the same result.
+These laws give legislators supernatural power over the future. Once set in motion, the machine runs for ages toward a fixed goal. Framed one way, it concentrates property and power—aristocratic. Framed otherwise, it divides and disperses them with startling speed. Opponents vainly try to obstruct it.
+But the law of descent was the last step to equality. I am surprised
+that ancient and modern jurists have not attributed to this law a
+greater influence on human affairs. *a It is true that these laws
+belong to civil affairs; but they ought nevertheless to be placed at
+the head of all political institutions; for, whilst political laws are
+only the symbol of a nation’s condition, they exercise an incredible
+influence upon its social state. They have, moreover, a sure and
+uniform manner of operating upon society, affecting, as it were,
+generations yet unborn.
+> **Quote:** "But it gradually reduces or destroys every obstacle, until by its incessant activity the bulwarks of the influence of wealth are ground down to the fine and shifting sand which is the basis of democracy."
+[ I understand by the law of descent all those laws whose principal
+object is to regulate the distribution of property after the death of
+its owner. The law of entail is of this number; it certainly prevents
+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 the
+descent of property after the death of its owner: its other provisions
+are merely means to this end.]
+Equal division produces two distinct effects. Each death becomes a revolution in property, dividing it into ever-smaller shares. This physical effect alone would take generations—if a French family of three children shares their parents' fortune, they are no poorer. But the law also transforms minds and passions. Where primogeniture preserves estates intact, binding family identity to land through generations, equal division destroys that bond. The sons of a great landowner may become as wealthy, but never through the same property. Stripped of family pride's motive for preservation, they will inevitably sell—liquid capital yields higher returns and greater flexibility.
+Divided estates never reunite. Small owners often profit more from land than large ones—not through greater skill, but through passionate, careful work. Family pride, rooted in the desire for immortality through descendants, collapses when the family concept grows vague. Individual selfishness replaces it; men provide for immediate needs and abandon land as a legacy. The law thus destroys both the ability and the will to preserve estates.
+Through their means man acquires a kind of preternatural power over the
+future lot of his fellow-creatures. When the legislator has regulated
+the law of inheritance, he may rest from his labor. The machine once
+put in motion will go on for ages, and advance, as if self-guided,
+towards a given point. When framed in a particular manner, this law
+unites, draws together, and vests property and power in a few hands:
+its tendency is clearly aristocratic. On opposite principles its action
+is still more rapid; it divides, distributes, and disperses both
+property and power. Alarmed by the rapidity of its progress, those who
+despair of arresting its motion endeavor to obstruct it by difficulties
+and impediments; they vainly seek to counteract its effect by contrary
+efforts; but it gradually reduces or destroys every obstacle, until by
+its incessant activity the bulwarks of the influence of wealth are
+ground down to the fine and shifting sand which is the basis of
+democracy. When the law of inheritance permits, still more when it
+decrees, the equal division of a father’s property amongst all his
+children, its effects are of two kinds: it is important to distinguish
+them from each other, although they tend to the same end.
+While land's stability occasionally attracts wealthy buyers, this is rare. Today only the poor typically prefer land. Small owners, focused on expansion through inheritance or marriage, counter the division tendency—but not enough to recreate large estates within families.
+In virtue of the law of partible inheritance, the death of every
+proprietor brings about a kind of revolution in property; not only do
+his possessions change hands, but their very nature is altered, since
+they are parcelled into shares, which become smaller and smaller at
+each division. This is the direct and, as it were, the physical effect
+of the law. It follows, then, that in countries where equality of
+inheritance is established by law, property, and especially landed
+property, must have a tendency to perpetual diminution. The effects,
+however, of such legislation would only be perceptible after a lapse of
+time, if the law was abandoned to its own working; for supposing the
+family to consist of two children (and in a country people as France is
+the average number is not above three), these children, sharing amongst
+them the fortune of both parents, would not be poorer than their father
+or mother.
+We Frenchmen witness daily this law's power, breaking down our homes' walls and shifting field boundaries. Yet in France, memories and habits still resist it.
+But the law of equal division exercises its influence not merely upon
+the property itself, but it affects the minds of the heirs, and brings
+their passions into play. These indirect consequences tend powerfully
+to the destruction of large fortunes, and especially of large domains.
+Among nations whose law of descent is founded upon the right of
+primogeniture landed estates often pass from generation to generation
+without undergoing division, the consequence of which is that family
+feeling is to a certain degree incorporated with the estate. The family
+represents the estate, the estate the family; whose name, together with
+its origin, its glory, its power, and its virtues, is thus perpetuated
+in an imperishable memorial of the past and a sure pledge of the
+future.
+In America, the law has nearly completed its destruction—English property laws were abolished during the Revolution, entail was modified, and estates broke apart. After sixty years, society is transformed. In New York, which formerly contained many of these families, only two still keep their heads above the stream, and they too must shortly disappear. Their sons have become merchants, lawyers, or doctors; most have vanished into obscurity. Hereditary rank is destroyed—the law of partition has reduced all to one level. [Note: Tocqueville refers here to the abolition of primogeniture and entail during the Revolutionary period.]
+When the equal partition of property is established by law, the
+intimate connection is destroyed between family feeling and the
+preservation of the paternal estate; the property ceases to represent
+the family; for as it must inevitably be divided after one or two
+generations, it has evidently a constant tendency to diminish, and must
+in the end be completely dispersed. The sons of the great landed
+proprietor, if they are few in number, or if fortune befriends them,
+may indeed entertain the hope of being as wealthy as their father, but
+not that of possessing the same property as he did; the riches must
+necessarily be composed of elements different from his.
+America has no shortage of wealth—indeed, no country surpasses its love of money or contempt for permanent equality. But wealth circulates with incredible speed; rarely do two generations fully enjoy it.
+Now, from the moment that you divest the landowner of that interest in
+the preservation of his estate which he derives from association, from
+tradition, and from family pride, you may be certain that sooner or
+later he will dispose of it; for there is a strong pecuniary interest
+in favor of selling, as floating capital produces higher interest than
+real property, and is more readily available to gratify the passions of
+the moment.
+In the early 1830s (noting that cities like Chicago and San Francisco had not yet emerged to exert influence), the Western states pushed democracy to its extreme. In these new settlements of the Mississippi valleys—states that barely existed a few years earlier—communities form from strangers who know nothing of each other's history. No family names, no vast wealth, no natural aristocracy of virtue holds sway.
+Great landed estates which have once been divided never come together
+again; for the small proprietor draws from his land a better revenue,
+in proportion, than the large owner does from his, and of course he
+sells it at a higher rate. *b The calculations of gain, therefore,
+which decide the rich man to sell his domain will still more powerfully
+influence him against buying small estates to unite them into a large
+one.
+Intellectual requirements show similar uniformity. No country has so few uneducated people and so few truly learned ones. Basic education is universal; higher education is nearly unattainable. Few Americans are wealthy enough to avoid professions, which begin at fifteen, ending studies just as ours begin. Learning becomes a business pursuit of immediate application. Most rich men were once poor; those with leisure lacked time for study in youth and desire in age. No class passes down intellectual taste with hereditary wealth. A middle standard of knowledge prevails—everyone converging on the same ideas about religion, science, government. Human capacities vary by God's design, but conditions subject them to identical treatment.
+[ I do not mean to say that the small proprietor cultivates his land
+better, but he cultivates it with more ardor and care; so that he makes
+up by his labor for his want of skill.]
+> **Quote:** "The gifts of intellect proceed directly from God, and man cannot prevent their unequal distribution. But... although the capacities of men are widely different, as the Creator has doubtless intended they should be, they are submitted to the same method of treatment."
+America's aristocratic element, weak from birth, is now disabled and powerless. The democratic principle has become all-powerful. No family or corporate authority remains; even individual character rarely endures. This is an unprecedented social phenomenon—Americans are more equal in fortune, intellect, and strength than any people in history.
+What is called family pride is often founded upon an illusion of
+self-love. A man wishes to perpetuate and immortalize himself, as it
+were, in his great-grandchildren. Where the esprit de famille ceases to
+act individual selfishness comes into play. When the idea of family
+becomes vague, indeterminate, and uncertain, a man thinks of his
+present convenience; he provides for the establishment of his
+succeeding generation, and no more. Either a man gives up the idea of
+perpetuating his family, or at any rate he seeks to accomplish it by
+other means than that of a landed estate. Thus not only does the law of
+partible inheritance render it difficult for families to preserve their
+ancestral domains 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 own extinction.
+**Political Consequences Of The Social Condition Of The Anglo-Americans**
+The law of equal distribution proceeds by two methods: by acting upon
+things, it acts upon persons; by influencing persons, it affects
+things. By these means the law succeeds in striking at the root of
+landed property, and dispersing rapidly both families and fortunes. *c
+Equality cannot remain confined; it must enter the political sphere. People equal in all other respects cannot remain unequal politically. From this social starting point, nations reach one of two outcomes: rights for all or rights for none. For societies at America's stage, no middle ground exists between popular sovereignty and absolute power.
+[ Land being the most stable kind of property, we find, from time to
+time, rich individuals who are disposed to make great sacrifices in
+order to obtain it, and who willingly forfeit a considerable part of
+their income to make sure of the rest. But these are accidental cases.
+The preference for landed property is no longer found habitually in any
+class but among the poor. The small landowner, who has less
+information, less imagination, and fewer passions than the great one,
+is generally occupied with the desire of increasing his estate: and it
+often happens that by inheritance, by marriage, or by the chances of
+trade, he is gradually furnished with the means. Thus, to balance the
+tendency which leads men to divide their estates, there exists another,
+which incites them to add to them. This tendency, which is sufficient
+to prevent estates from being divided ad infinitum, is not strong
+enough to create great territorial possessions, certainly not to keep
+them up in the same family.]
+Two passions drive this: a manly and lawful passion for equality that rouses men to be powerful and honored, and a depraved taste for equality that impels the weak to lower the powerful to their own level.
+> **Quote:** "This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom."
+Most certainly it is not for us Frenchmen of the nineteenth century,
+who daily witness the political and social changes which the law of
+partition is bringing to pass, to question its influence. It is
+perpetually conspicuous in our country, overthrowing the walls of our
+dwellings and removing the landmarks of our fields. But although it has
+produced great effects in France, much still remains for it to do. Our
+recollections, opinions, and habits present powerful obstacles to its
+progress.
+Democratic nations love liberty instinctively, but equality is their idol. They will sacrifice everything for it, perishing rather than losing it. Yet when citizens are nearly equal, none can alone resist power's encroachments; only general union can protect freedom, and such union is difficult.
+In the United States it has nearly completed its work of destruction,
+and there we can best study its results. The English laws concerning
+the transmission of property were abolished in almost all the States at
+the time of the Revolution. The law of entail was so modified as not to
+interrupt the free circulation of property. *d The first generation
+having passed away, estates began to be parcelled out, and the change
+became 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 society
+is totally altered; the families of the great landed proprietors are
+almost all commingled with the general mass. In the State of New York,
+which formerly contained many of these, there are but two who still
+keep their heads above the stream, and they must shortly disappear. The
+sons of these opulent citizens are become merchants, lawyers, or
+physicians. Most of them have lapsed into obscurity. The last trace of
+hereditary ranks and distinctions is destroyed—the law of partition has
+reduced all to one level. [Footnote d: See Appendix, G.]
+The Anglo-Americans alone have avoided absolute power. Their circumstances, origins, intelligence, and especially their moral character have established and maintained the sovereignty of the people.
+I do not mean that there is any deficiency of wealthy individuals in
+the United States; I know of no country, indeed, where the love of
+money has taken stronger hold on the affections of men, and where the
+profounder contempt is expressed for the theory of the permanent
+equality of property. But wealth circulates with inconceivable
+rapidity, and experience shows that it is rare to find two succeeding
+generations in the full enjoyment of it.
+This picture, which may perhaps be thought to be overcharged, still
+gives a very imperfect idea of what is taking place in the new States
+of the West and South-west. At the end of the last century a few bold
+adventurers began to penetrate into the valleys of the Mississippi, and
+the 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 claimed
+their place in the American Union; and in the Western settlements we
+may behold democracy arrived at its utmost extreme. In these States,
+founded off-hand, and, as it were, by chance, the inhabitants are but
+of yesterday. Scarcely known to one another, the nearest neighbors are
+ignorant of each other’s history. In this part of the American
+continent, therefore, the population has not experienced the influence
+of great names and great wealth, nor even that of the natural
+aristocracy of knowledge and virtue. None are there to wield that
+respectable power which men willingly grant to the remembrance of a
+life spent in doing good before their eyes. The new States of the West
+are already inhabited, but society has no existence among them. *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 in the Western
+States. But as yet the Western States exert no powerful influence on
+American society.—-Translator’s Note.]
+It is not only the fortunes of men which are equal in America; even
+their requirements partake in some degree of the same uniformity. I do
+not believe that there is a country in the world where, in proportion
+to the population, there are so few uninstructed and at the same time
+so few learned individuals. Primary instruction is within the reach of
+everybody; superior instruction is scarcely to be obtained by any. This
+is not surprising; it is in fact the necessary consequence of what we
+have 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 live
+without a profession. Every profession requires an apprenticeship,
+which limits the time of instruction to the early years of life. At
+fifteen they enter upon their calling, and thus their education ends at
+the age when ours begins. Whatever is done afterwards is with a view to
+some special and lucrative object; a science is taken up as a matter of
+business, and the only branch of it which is attended to is such as
+admits of an immediate practical application. In America most of the
+rich men were formerly poor; most of those who now enjoy leisure were
+absorbed 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
+intellectual pleasures is transmitted with hereditary fortune and
+leisure, and by which the labors of the intellect are held in honor.
+Accordingly there is an equal want of the desire and the power of
+application to these objects.
+A middle standard is fixed in America for human knowledge. All approach
+as 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
+entertain the same number of ideas on religion, history, science,
+political economy, legislation, and government. The gifts of intellect
+proceed directly from God, and man cannot prevent their unequal
+distribution. But in consequence of the state of things which we have
+here represented it happens that, although the capacities of men are
+widely different, as the Creator has doubtless intended they should be,
+they are submitted to the same method of treatment.
+In America the aristocratic element has always been feeble from its
+birth; and if at the present day it is not actually destroyed, it is at
+any rate so completely disabled that we can scarcely assign to it any
+degree of influence in the course of affairs. The democratic principle,
+on the contrary, has gained so much strength by time, by events, and by
+legislation, as to have become not only predominant but all-powerful.
+There is no family or corporate authority, and it is rare to find even
+the influence of individual character enjoy any durability.
+America, then, exhibits in her social state a most extraordinary
+phenomenon. Men are there seen on a greater equality in point of
+fortune and intellect, or, in other words, more equal in their
+strength, than in any other country of the world, or in any age of
+which history has preserved the remembrance.
+Political Consequences Of The Social Condition Of The Anglo-Americans
+The political consequences of such a social condition as this are
+easily deducible. It is impossible to believe that equality will not
+eventually find its way into the political world as it does everywhere
+else. To conceive of men remaining forever unequal upon one single
+point, yet equal on all others, is impossible; they must come in the
+end to be equal upon all. Now I know of only two methods of
+establishing equality in the political world; every citizen must be put
+in possession of his rights, or rights must be granted to no one. For
+nations which are arrived at the same stage of social existence as the
+Anglo-Americans, it is therefore very difficult to discover a medium
+between the sovereignty of all and the absolute power of one man: and
+it would be vain to deny that the social condition which I have been
+describing is equally liable to each of these consequences.
+There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which
+excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends
+to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also
+in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak
+to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to
+prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom. Not that those
+nations whose social condition is democratic naturally despise liberty;
+on the contrary, they have an instinctive love of it. But liberty is
+not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their
+idol: they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty, and if they
+miss their aim resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing
+can satisfy them except equality, and rather than lose it they resolve
+to perish.
+On the other hand, in a State where the citizens are nearly on an
+equality, it becomes difficult for them to preserve their independence
+against the aggressions of power. No one among them being strong enough
+to engage in the struggle with advantage, nothing but a general
+combination can protect their liberty. And such a union is not always
+to be found.
+From the same social position, then, nations may derive one or the
+other of two great political results; these results are extremely
+different from each other, but they may both proceed from the same
+cause.
+The Anglo-Americans are the first nations who, having been exposed to
+this formidable alternative, have been happy enough to escape the
+dominion of absolute power. They have been allowed by their
+circumstances, their origin, their intelligence, and especially by
+their moral feeling, to establish and maintain the sovereignty of the
+people.
 ## Chapter IV: The Principle Of The Sovereignty Of The People In America
+The principle of popular sovereignty predominates over American society—in its colonial application, its revolutionary development, and its inevitable expansion toward universal suffrage.
+Whenever the political laws of the United States are to be discussed, we must begin with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people. This principle, found at the bottom of nearly all human institutions, generally remains hidden—obeyed without being recognized, or if momentarily revealed, it is hastily cast back into the gloom of the sanctuary.
+> **Quote:** "The will of the nation” is one of those expressions which have been most profusely abused by the wily and the despotic of every age."
+It predominates over the whole of society in America—Application made
+of this principle by the Americans even before their
+Revolution—Development given to it by that Revolution—Gradual and
+irresistible extension of the elective qualification.
+In the eyes of some, this will is represented by the corrupt votes of a few government lackeys; to others, by a timid or self-interested minority. Some even claim to find it in the silence of a people, assuming submission establishes right to rule.
+The Principle Of The Sovereignty Of The People In America
+In America, the principle of sovereignty of the people is neither hollow nor hidden. Recognized by custom and proclaimed by law, it spreads freely and reaches its furthest conclusions unobstructed. If any country offers a fair test of this doctrine—where its application to social affairs and its risks and benefits can be studied—that country is 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 must
+begin. The principle of the sovereignty of the people, which is to be
+found, more or less, at the bottom of almost all human institutions,
+generally remains concealed from view. It is obeyed without being
+recognized, or if for a moment it be brought to light, it is hastily
+cast back into the gloom of the sanctuary. “The will of the nation” is
+one of those expressions which have been most profusely abused by the
+wily and the despotic of every age. To the eyes of some it has been
+represented 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 some
+have even discovered it in the silence of a people, on the supposition
+that the fact of submission established the right of command.
+I have already noted that from the beginning, popular sovereignty was the foundational principle of most British colonies, though its influence was limited. Two obstacles—one external, one internal—stalled its progress. It could not openly manifest in laws of colonies forced to obey the mother country, so it spread secretly, gaining ground in provincial assemblies and especially townships.
+In America the principle of the sovereignty of the people is not either
+barren or concealed, as it is with some other nations; it is recognized
+by the customs and proclaimed by the laws; it spreads freely, and
+arrives without impediment at its most remote consequences. If there be
+a country in the world where the doctrine of the sovereignty of the
+people can be fairly appreciated, where it can be studied in its
+application to the affairs of society, and where its dangers and its
+advantages may be foreseen, that country is assuredly America.
+American society was not yet ready to adopt the principle fully. The intellect of New England and the wealth south of the Hudson (as I showed in the preceding chapter) long maintained aristocratic influence, keeping authority in few hands. Public officials were not always elected, and voting rights were everywhere restricted by qualifications—very low in the North, more significant in the South.
+I have already observed that, from their origin, the sovereignty of the
+people was the fundamental principle of the greater number of British
+colonies in America. It was far, however, from then exercising as much
+influence on the government of society as it now does. Two obstacles,
+the one external, the other internal, checked its invasive progress. It
+could not ostensibly disclose itself in the laws of colonies which were
+still constrained to obey the mother-country: it was therefore obliged
+to spread secretly, and to gain ground in the provincial assemblies,
+and especially in the townships.
+> **Quote:** "The American revolution broke out, and the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, which had been nurtured in the townships and municipalities, took possession of the State: every class was enlisted in its cause; battles were fought, and victories obtained for it, until it became the law of laws."
+American society was not yet prepared to adopt it with all its
+consequences. The intelligence of New England, and the wealth of the
+country to the south of the Hudson (as I have shown in the preceding
+chapter), long exercised a sort of aristocratic influence, which tended
+to retain the exercise of social authority in the hands of a few. The
+public functionaries were not universally elected, and the citizens
+were not all of them electors. The electoral franchise was everywhere
+placed within certain limits, and made dependent on a certain
+qualification, which was exceedingly low in the North and more
+considerable in the South.
+A similarly rapid change took place within society itself, where inheritance laws completed the elimination of local influences.
+The American revolution broke out, and the doctrine of the sovereignty
+of the people, which had been nurtured in the townships and
+municipalities, took possession of the State: every class was enlisted
+in its cause; battles were fought, and victories obtained for it, until
+it became the law of laws.
+As this result became obvious, the democratic cause won decisive victory. All power was in its hands; resistance was futile. The upper classes yielded without a murmur or struggle to an evil which was then inevitable. The typical fate of falling powers awaited them: members pursued their own interests; unable to wring power from the hands of a people they did not hate enough to brave, they sought favor at any price. Consequently, the most democratic laws were voted for by the very men whose interests they undermined. Thus, though the upper classes did not incite popular passions against their own status, they accelerated the new order's triumph. By a strange turn of events, democracy proved most irresistible where aristocracy had its strongest foothold. Maryland, founded by men of high rank, was first to proclaim universal suffrage and introduce the most democratic forms into its government.
+A no less rapid change was effected in the interior of society, where
+the law of descent completed the abolition of local influences.
+When a nation begins to modify voting requirements, it is easy to foresee that those requirements will eventually be abolished entirely.
+At the very time when this consequence of the laws and of the
+revolution was apparent to every eye, victory was irrevocably
+pronounced in favor of the democratic cause. All power was, in fact, in
+its hands, and resistance was no longer possible. The higher orders
+submitted without a murmur and without a struggle to an evil which was
+thenceforth inevitable. The ordinary fate of falling powers awaited
+them; each of their several members followed his own interests; and as
+it was impossible to wring the power from the hands of a people which
+they did not detest sufficiently to brave, their only aim was to secure
+its good-will at any price. The most democratic laws were consequently
+voted by the very men whose interests they impaired; and thus, although
+the higher classes did not excite the passions of the people against
+their order, they accelerated the triumph of the new state of things;
+so that by a singular change the democratic impulse was found to be
+most irresistible in the very States where the aristocracy had the
+firmest hold. The State of Maryland, which had been founded by men of
+rank, was the first to proclaim universal suffrage, and to introduce
+the most democratic forms into the conduct of its government.
+> **Quote:** "There is no more invariable rule in the history of society: the further electoral rights are extended, the greater is the need of extending them; for after each concession the strength of the democracy increases, and its demands increase with its strength."
+When a nation modifies the elective qualification, it may easily be
+foreseen that sooner or later that qualification will be entirely
+abolished. There is no more invariable rule in the history of society:
+the further electoral rights are extended, the greater is the need of
+extending them; for after each concession the strength of the democracy
+increases, and its demands increase with its strength. The ambition of
+those who are below the appointed rate is irritated in exact proportion
+to the great number of those who are above it. The exception at last
+becomes the rule, concession follows concession, and no stop can be
+made short of universal suffrage.
+The ambition of those below the threshold is provoked by the number above it. Eventually, the exception becomes the rule; concession follows concession, and only universal suffrage can stop the process.
+At the present day the principle of the sovereignty of the people has
+acquired, in the United States, all the practical development which the
+imagination can conceive. It is unencumbered by those fictions which
+have been thrown over it in other countries, and it appears in every
+possible form according to the exigency of the occasion. Sometimes the
+laws are made by the people in a body, as at Athens; and sometimes its
+representatives, chosen by universal suffrage, transact business in its
+name, and almost under its immediate control.
+Today, popular sovereignty has reached its fullest practical development in the United States. Free from legal fictions used to mask it elsewhere, it appears in every form circumstances require. Sometimes the people make laws collectively, as in ancient Athens; at other times, their representatives, chosen by universal suffrage, act in their name under direct supervision.
+In some countries a power exists which, though it is in a degree
+foreign to the social body, directs it, and forces it to pursue a
+certain track. In others the ruling force is divided, being partly
+within and partly without the ranks of the people. But nothing of the
+kind is to be seen in the United States; there society governs itself
+for itself. All power centres in its bosom; and scarcely an individual
+is to be meet with who would venture to conceive, or, still less, to
+express, the idea of seeking it elsewhere. The nation participates in
+the making of its laws by the choice of its legislators, and in the
+execution of them by the choice of the agents of the executive
+government; it may almost be said to govern itself, so feeble and so
+restricted is the share left to the administration, so little do the
+authorities forget their popular origin and the power from which they
+emanate. *a [Footnote a: See Appendix, H.]
+In some countries, power external to the social body directs and forces it along a path. In others, the ruling force is divided, residing partly within and partly outside the people. Nothing of the kind is seen in the United States;
+> **Quote:** "there society governs itself for itself. All power centres in its bosom; and scarcely an individual is to be meet with who would venture to conceive, or, still less, to express, the idea of seeking it elsewhere."
+The nation participates in making laws by choosing legislators and enforcing them by choosing executive agents. It can almost be said that the nation governs itself, so weak and restricted is the administration's role, and so rarely do those in authority forget their popular origins and the power from which they emanate. [See Appendix, H.]
 ## Chapter V: Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States
+### Chapter V: Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States—Part I
+Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States Before That Of The
+Union At Large.
+### Chapter V: Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States—Part I
+It is proposed to examine in the following chapter what is the form of
+government established in America on the principle of the sovereignty
+of the people; what are its resources, its hindrances, its advantages,
+and its dangers. The first difficulty which presents itself arises from
+the complex nature of the constitution of the United States, which
+consists of two distinct social structures, connected and, as it were,
+encased one within the other; two governments, completely separate and
+almost independent, the one fulfilling the ordinary duties and
+responding to the daily and indefinite calls of a community, the other
+circumscribed within certain limits, and only exercising an exceptional
+authority over the general interests of the country. In short, there
+are twenty-four small sovereign nations, whose agglomeration
+constitutes the body of the Union. To examine the Union before we have
+studied the States would be to adopt a method filled with obstacles.
+The form of the Federal Government of the United States was the last
+which was adopted; and it is in fact nothing more than a modification
+or a summary of those republican principles which were current in the
+whole community before it existed, and independently of its existence.
+Moreover, the Federal Government is, as I have just observed, the
+exception; the Government of the States is the rule. The author who
+should attempt to exhibit the picture as a whole before he had
+explained its details would necessarily fall into obscurity and
+repetition.
+Necessity of examining the States before the Union. The United States Constitution consists of two distinct social structures connected and, in a sense, encased within one another: two completely separate and almost independent governments. One fulfills ordinary duties and responds to the daily, indefinite needs of a community; the other is restricted within certain limits and exercises only exceptional authority over the country's general interests. In short, there are twenty-four small sovereign nations whose collection forms the body of the Union. To examine the Union before studying the States would be a method fraught with obstacles. The federal government was the last adopted; it is nothing more than a modification of republican principles already current before the Union existed. The federal government is the exception, while the state governments are the rule. An author who attempts to present the picture as a whole before explaining its details would inevitably fall into obscurity and repetition.
+The great political principles which govern American society at this
+day undoubtedly took their origin and their growth in the State. It is
+therefore necessary to become acquainted with the State in order to
+possess a clue to the remainder. The States which at present compose
+the American Union all present the same features, as far as regards the
+external aspect of their institutions. Their political or
+administrative existence is centred in three focuses of action, which
+may not inaptly be compared to the different nervous centres which
+convey motion to the human body. The township is the lowest in order,
+then the county, and lastly the State; and I propose to devote the
+following chapter to the examination of these three divisions.
+The great political principles that govern American society today originated and grew within the State. The States that currently make up the American Union all share the same features regarding the external appearance of their institutions. Their political or administrative existence is centered in three hubs of action, which might be compared to different nervous centers that provide motion to the human body. The township is the lowest in order, followed by the county, and finally the State.
 The American System Of Townships And Municipal Bodies
+Why the Author begins the examination of the political institutions
+with the township—Its existence in all nations—Difficulty of
+establishing and preserving municipal independence—Its importance—Why
+the Author has selected the township system of New England as the main
+topic of his discussion.
+Why the author begins with the township.
+It is not undesignedly that I begin this subject with the Township. The
+village or township is the only association which is so perfectly
+natural that wherever a number of men are collected it seems to
+constitute itself.
+> **Quote:** "The village or township is the only association which is so perfectly natural that wherever a number of men are collected it seems to constitute itself."
+The town, or tithing, as the smallest division of a community, must
+necessarily exist in all nations, whatever their laws and customs may
+be: if man makes monarchies and establishes republics, the first
+association of mankind seems constituted by the hand of God. But
+although the existence of the township is coeval with that of man, its
+liberties are not the less rarely respected and easily destroyed. A
+nation is always able to establish great political assemblies, because
+it habitually contains a certain number of individuals fitted by their
+talents, if not by their habits, for the direction of affairs. The
+township is, on the contrary, composed of coarser materials, which are
+less easily fashioned by the legislator. The difficulties which attend
+the consolidation of its independence rather augment than diminish with
+the increasing enlightenment of the people. A highly civilized
+community spurns the attempts of a local independence, is disgusted at
+its numerous blunders, and is apt to despair of success before the
+experiment is completed. Again, no immunities are so ill protected from
+the encroachments of the supreme power as those of municipal bodies in
+general: they are unable to struggle, single-handed, against a strong
+or an enterprising government, and they cannot defend their cause with
+success unless it be identified with the customs of the nation and
+supported by public opinion. Thus until the independence of townships
+is amalgamated with the manners of a people it is easily destroyed, and
+it is only after a long existence in the laws that it can be thus
+amalgamated. Municipal freedom is not the fruit of human device; it is
+rarely created; but it is, as it were, secretly and spontaneously
+engendered in the midst of a semi-barbarous state of society. The
+constant action of the laws and the national habits, peculiar
+circumstances, and above all time, may consolidate it; but there is
+certainly no nation on the continent of Europe which has experienced
+its advantages. Nevertheless local assemblies of citizens constitute
+the strength of free nations. Town-meetings are to liberty what primary
+schools are to science; they bring it within the people’s reach, they
+teach men how to use and how to enjoy it. A nation may establish a
+system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal
+institutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty. The transient
+passions and the interests of an hour, or the chance of circumstances,
+may have created the external forms of independence; but the despotic
+tendency which has been repelled will, sooner or later, inevitably
+reappear on the surface.
+The township must necessarily exist in all nations. While man creates monarchies and establishes republics, the first association of mankind seems formed by the hand of God. But although the township is as old as man, its liberties are rarely respected and easily destroyed. A nation can always establish great political assemblies, but the township is composed of coarser materials that are less easily fashioned by the legislator. The difficulties of solidifying its independence increase as the people become more enlightened. A highly civilized community often rejects local independence, disgusted by its frequent blunders.
+In order to explain to the reader the general principles on which the
+political organization of the counties and townships of the United
+States rests, I have thought it expedient to choose one of the States
+of New England as an example, to examine the mechanism of its
+constitution, and then to cast a general glance over the country. The
+township and the county are not organized in the same manner in every
+part of the Union; it is, however, easy to perceive that the same
+principles have guided the formation of both of them throughout the
+Union. I am inclined to believe that these principles have been carried
+further in New England than elsewhere, and consequently that they offer
+greater facilities to the observations of a stranger. The institutions
+of New England form a complete and regular whole; they have received
+the sanction of time, they have the support of the laws, and the still
+stronger support of the manners of the community, over which they
+exercise the most prodigious influence; they consequently deserve our
+attention on every account.
+Moreover, no rights are as poorly protected from central power as those of municipal bodies; they cannot struggle alone against a strong government and cannot successfully defend their cause unless it is woven into the nation's customs and supported by public opinion. Until township independence is blended with the habits of a people, it is easily destroyed; and it can only be so blended after existing in the law for a long time.
+Limits Of The Township
+> **Quote:** "Municipal freedom is not the fruit of human device; it is rarely created; but it is, as it were, secretly and spontaneously engendered in the midst of a semi-barbarous state of society."
+The township of New England is a division which stands between the
+commune and the canton of France, and which corresponds in general to
+the English tithing, or town. Its average population is from two to
+three thousand; *a so that, on the one hand, the interests of its
+inhabitants are not likely to conflict, and, on the other, men capable
+of conducting its affairs are always to be found among its citizens.
+It may be consolidated by laws, national habits, specific circumstances, and, above all, time; but no nation on the continent of Europe has yet experienced its full advantages. Nevertheless, local assemblies constitute the strength of free nations.
+[ In 1830 there were 305 townships in the State of Massachusetts, and
+,014 inhabitants, which gives an average of about 2,000 inhabitants
+to each township.]
+> **Quote:** "Town-meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the people's reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it."
+A nation may establish a system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal institutions, it cannot have the spirit of liberty.
+Authorities Of The Township In New England
+> **Quote:** "The transient passions and the interests of an hour, or the chance of circumstances, may have created the external forms of independence; but the despotic tendency which has been repelled will, sooner or later, inevitably reappear on the surface."
+The people the source of all power here as elsewhere—Manages its own
+affairs—No corporation—The greater part of the authority vested in the
+hands of the Selectmen—How the Selectmen act—Town-meeting—Enumeration
+of the public officers of the township—Obligatory and remunerated
+functions.
+To explain the general principles of political organization in the counties and townships of the United States, I have chosen to use one of the New England States as an example, examining the mechanics of its constitution before taking a broader look. Townships are not organized identically in every part of the Union, but the same principles guided their formation throughout the country. These principles have been taken further in New England than elsewhere and therefore offer a better opportunity for an outsider to observe them. The institutions of New England form a complete and logical whole; they have the sanction of time, the support of the law, and the even stronger support of community customs.
+In the township, as well as everywhere else, the people is the only
+source of power; but in no stage of government does the body of
+citizens exercise a more immediate influence. In America the people is
+a master whose exigencies demand obedience to the utmost limits of
+possibility.
+Limits Of The Township
+In New England the majority acts by representatives in the conduct of
+the public business of the State; but if such an arrangement be
+necessary in general affairs, in the townships, where the legislative
+and administrative action of the government is in more immediate
+contact with the subject, the system of representation is not adopted.
+There is no corporation; but the body of electors, after having
+designated its magistrates, directs them in everything that exceeds the
+simple and ordinary executive business of the State. *b
+The New England township generally corresponds to the English town or district. Its average population is between two and three thousand (in 1830, for example, there were 305 townships in Massachusetts with a total of 610,014 inhabitants, averaging about 2,000 residents per township). This size ensures that the interests of its inhabitants are unlikely to conflict while also ensuring that capable men can always be found among its citizens to manage its affairs.
+[ The same rules are not applicable to the great towns, which generally
+have a mayor, and a corporation divided into two bodies; this, however,
+is an exception which requires the sanction of a law.—See the Act of
+February 22, 1822, for appointing the authorities of the city of
+Boston. It frequently happens that small towns as well as cities are
+subject to a peculiar administration. In 1832, 104 townships in the
+State of New York were governed in this manner.—Williams’ Register.]
+Authorities Of The Township In New England
+This state of things is so contrary to our ideas, and so different from
+our customs, that it is necessary for me to adduce some examples to
+explain it thoroughly.
+In the township, as everywhere else, the people are the only source of power; but in no other stage of government do citizens exercise a more direct influence. In America, the people are a master whose demands require obedience to the furthest extent possible.
+The public duties in the township are extremely numerous and minutely
+divided, as we shall see further on; but the larger proportion of
+administrative power is vested in the hands of a small number of
+individuals, called “the Selectmen.” *c The general laws of the State
+impose a certain number of obligations on the selectmen, which they may
+fulfil without the authorization of the body they represent, but which
+they can only neglect on their own responsibility. The law of the State
+obliges them, for instance, to draw up the list of electors in their
+townships; and if they omit this part of their functions, they are
+guilty of a misdemeanor. In all the affairs, however, which are
+determined by the town-meeting, the selectmen are the organs of the
+popular mandate, as in France the Maire executes the decree of the
+municipal council. They usually act upon their own responsibility, and
+merely put in practice principles which have been previously recognized
+by the majority. But if any change is to be introduced in the existing
+state of things, or if they wish to undertake any new enterprise, they
+are obliged to refer to the source of their power. If, for instance, a
+school is to be established, the selectmen convoke the whole body of
+the electors on a certain day at an appointed place; they explain the
+urgency of the case; they give their opinion on the means of satisfying
+it, on the probable expense, and the site which seems to be most
+favorable. The meeting is consulted on these several points; it adopts
+the principle, marks out the site, votes the rate, and confides the
+execution of its resolution to the selectmen.
+In New England, the majority acts through representatives in state public business, but the system of representation is not used in the townships, where legislative and administrative actions are in more immediate contact with the people. There is no corporate council; instead, the body of electors, after choosing its magistrates, directs them in everything beyond simple, everyday executive business. This state of affairs is so contrary to our ideas that I must provide examples.
+[ Three selectmen are appointed in the small townships, and nine in the
+large ones. See “The Town-Officer,” p. 186. See also the principal laws
+of the State of Massachusetts relative to the selectmen:
+Public duties in the township are extremely numerous and minutely divided, but the bulk of administrative power is held by a small number of individuals called "the Selectmen." The general laws of the State impose certain obligations on the selectmen, which they may fulfill without specific authorization, but which they can only neglect at their own risk. For example, state law requires them to draw up the list of voters; if they fail, they are guilty of a misdemeanor. However, in all matters decided by the town meeting, the selectmen are agents of the popular will, much like a mayor in France executes the decrees of a municipal council. They usually act on their own responsibility, simply putting into practice principles already recognized by the majority. But if a change is to be introduced, they must return to the source of their power. If a school needs to be established, the selectmen call a meeting of all the electors. They explain the urgency, offer their opinion, estimate the cost, and suggest the best location. The meeting adopts the principle, selects the site, votes on the tax rate, and entrusts execution to the selectmen.
+The selectmen alone have the right to call a town meeting, but they can be required to do so. If ten citizens wish to submit a new proposal, they can demand a general assembly. The selectmen are obliged to comply, though they only have the right to preside.
+Act of February 20, 1786, vol. i. p. 219; February 24, 1796, vol. i. p.
+; March 7, 1801, vol. ii. p. 45; June 16, 1795, vol. i. p. 475;
+March 12, 1808, vol. ii. p. 186; February 28, 1787, vol. i. p. 302;
+June 22, 1797, vol. i. p. 539.]
+The selectmen are elected annually in April or May. At the same time, the town meeting chooses several other municipal magistrates. Assessors determine tax rates; collectors receive payments. A constable maintains order and ensures laws are executed. The town clerk records all votes, orders, grants, births, deaths, and marriages. The treasurer holds the funds, and the overseer of the poor supervises laws for the poor. Committee members oversee schools, and road surveyors maintain roads, completing the list of primary officials. These roles are further subdivided; among the municipal officers are parish commissioners who audit religious expenses, various inspectors (some of whom direct citizens during fires), tithing-men, listers, haywards, chimney viewers, fence viewers to maintain property boundaries, timber measurers, and sealers of weights and measures.
+The selectmen have alone the right of calling a town-meeting, but they
+may be requested to do so: if ten citizens are desirous of submitting a
+new project to the assent of the township, they may demand a general
+convocation of the inhabitants; the selectmen are obliged to comply,
+but they have only the right of presiding at the meeting. *d
+There are nineteen principal officers in a township. Every inhabitant is required, under threat of a fine, to take on these roles; however, almost all are paid, so poorer citizens can give up their time without financial loss. Generally, the American system does not grant fixed salaries to its officials. Every service has a price, and they are paid in proportion to the work they have done.
+[ 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 municipal
+magistrates, who are entrusted with important administrative functions.
+The assessors rate the township; the collectors receive the rate. A
+constable is appointed to keep the peace, to watch the streets, and to
+forward the execution of the laws; the town-clerk records all the town
+votes, orders, grants, births, deaths, and marriages; the treasurer
+keeps the funds; the overseer of the poor performs the difficult task
+of superintending the action of the poor-laws; committee-men are
+appointed to attend to the schools and to public instruction; and the
+road-surveyors, who take care of the greater and lesser thoroughfares
+of the township, complete the list of the principal functionaries. They
+are, however, still further subdivided; and amongst the municipal
+officers are to be found parish commissioners, who audit the expenses
+of public worship; different classes of inspectors, some of whom are to
+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
+[ All these magistrates actually exist; their different functions are
+all detailed in a book called “The Town-Officer,” by Isaac Goodwin,
+Worcester, 1827; and in the “Collection of the General Laws of
+Massachusetts,” 3 vols., Boston, 1823.]
+There are nineteen principal officers in a township. Every inhabitant
+is constrained, on the pain of being fined, to undertake these
+different functions; which, however, are almost all paid, in order that
+the poorer citizens may be able to give up their time without loss. In
+general the American system is not to grant a fixed salary to its
+functionaries. Every service has its price, and they are remunerated in
+proportion to what they have done.
 Existence Of The Township
+Every one the best judge of his own interest—Corollary of the principle
+of the sovereignty of the people—Application of those doctrines in the
+townships of America—The township of New England is sovereign in all
+that concerns itself alone: subject to the State in all other
+matters—Bond of the township and the State—In France the Government
+lends its agent to the Commune—In America the reverse occurs.
+I have already noted that the principle of the sovereignty of the people governs the entire Anglo-American political system. In nations where popular sovereignty is recognized, every individual possesses an equal share of power. Therefore, every individual is assumed to be as well-informed, as virtuous, and as capable as any of their fellow citizens. If he be a subject in all that concerns the mutual relations of citizens, he is free and responsible to God alone for all that concerns himself. This leads to the maxim that everyone is the best and only judge of their own private interest, and that society has no right to control a man's actions unless they harm the common good. This doctrine is universally accepted in the United States.
+I have already observed that the principle of the sovereignty of the
+people governs the whole political system of the Anglo-Americans. Every
+page of this book will afford new instances of the same doctrine. In
+the nations by which the sovereignty of the people is recognized every
+individual possesses an equal share of power, and participates alike in
+the government of the State. Every individual is, therefore, supposed
+to be as well informed, as virtuous, and as strong as any of his
+fellow-citizens. He obeys the government, not because he is inferior to
+the authorities which conduct it, or that he is less capable than his
+neighbor of governing himself, but because he acknowledges the utility
+of an association with his fellow-men, and because he knows that no
+such association can exist without a regulating force. If he be a
+subject in all that concerns the mutual relations of citizens, he is
+free and responsible to God alone for all that concerns himself. Hence
+arises the maxim that every one is the best and the sole judge of his
+own private interest, and that society has no right to control a man’s
+actions, unless they are prejudicial to the common weal, or unless the
+common weal demands his co-operation. This doctrine is universally
+admitted in the United States. I shall hereafter examine the general
+influence which it exercises on the ordinary actions of life; I am now
+speaking of the nature of municipal bodies.
+The township, as a whole and in relation to the national government, can be viewed as an individual to whom this theory applies. Municipal independence is therefore a natural consequence of the principle of sovereignty of the people. All American republics recognize this, but circumstances have especially favored its growth in New England. In this part of the Union, the impulse for political activity began in the townships; it could almost be said that each originally formed an independent nation. When the Kings of England asserted their supremacy, they were content to take the central power of the State. The New England townships remained as they were; although they are now subject to the State, they were initially hardly dependent on it. It is important to remember that they have not been invested with privileges, but that they have, on the contrary, forfeited a portion of their independence to the State.
+The township, taken as a whole, and in relation to the government of
+the country, may be looked upon as an individual to whom the theory I
+have just alluded to is applied. Municipal independence is therefore a
+natural consequence of the principle of the sovereignty of the people
+in the United States: all the American republics recognize it more or
+less; but circumstances have peculiarly favored its growth in New
+England.
+The townships are subordinate to the State only in those interests I call "social," as they are shared by all citizens. They are independent in everything that concerns only themselves; among New Englanders, I believe not a man can be found who would admit that the State has any right to interfere in their local interests. New England towns buy and sell, sue and are sued, and increase or decrease their tax rates without the slightest opposition from the State's administrative authorities.
+In this part of the Union the impulsion of political activity was given
+in the townships; and it may almost be said that each of them
+originally formed an independent nation. When the Kings of England
+asserted their supremacy, they were contented to assume the central
+power of the State. The townships of New England remained as they were
+before; and although they are now subject to the State, they were at
+first scarcely dependent upon it. It is important to remember that they
+have not been invested with privileges, but that they have, on the
+contrary, forfeited a portion of their independence to the State. The
+townships are only subordinate to the State in those interests which I
+shall term social, as they are common to all the citizens. They are
+independent in all that concerns themselves; and amongst the
+inhabitants of New England I believe that not a man is to be found who
+would acknowledge that the State has any right to interfere in their
+local interests. The towns of New England buy and sell, sue or are
+sued, augment or diminish their rates, without the slightest opposition
+on the part of the administrative authority of the State.
+However, they are required to comply with the needs of the community. If the State needs money, a town can neither give nor withhold the funds. If the State plans a road, the township cannot refuse to let it cross its territory. If the State makes a police regulation, the town must enforce it. A uniform system of education is organized across the country, and every town is required to establish the schools mandated by law. Strict as this obligation is, the State government imposes it only in principle; in execution, the township regains all its independent rights. Taxes are voted on by the State, but they are levied and collected by the township. A school is mandatory, but the township builds, funds, and supervises it. In France, the State collector receives local taxes; in America, the town collector receives the State's taxes. Thus, the French government lends its agents to the commune; in America, the township acts as the agent of the government. This fact alone illustrates the extent of the differences between the two nations.
+They are bound, however, to comply with the demands of the community.
+If the State is in need of money, a town can neither give nor withhold
+the supplies. If the State projects a road, the township cannot refuse
+to let it cross its territory; if a police regulation is made by the
+State, it must be enforced by the town. A uniform system of instruction
+is organized all over the country, and every town is bound to establish
+the schools which the law ordains. In speaking of the administration of
+the United States I shall have occasion to point out the means by which
+the townships are compelled to obey in these different cases: I here
+merely show the existence of the obligation. Strict as this obligation
+is, the government of the State imposes it in principle only, and in
+its performance the township resumes all its independent rights. Thus,
+taxes are voted by the State, but they are levied and collected by the
+township; the existence of a school is obligatory, but the township
+builds, pays, and superintends it. In France the State-collector
+receives the local imposts; in America the town-collector receives the
+taxes of the State. Thus the French Government lends its agents to the
+commune; in America the township is the agent of the Government. This
+fact alone shows the extent of the differences which exist between the
+two nations.
 Public Spirit Of The Townships Of New England
+How the township of New England wins the affections of its
+inhabitants—Difficulty of creating local public spirit in Europe—The
+rights and duties of the American township favorable to
+it—Characteristics of home in the United States—Manifestations of
+public spirit in New England—Its happy effects.
+In America, municipal bodies not only exist but are sustained by public spirit. The New England township possesses two advantages that inevitably capture human interest: independence and authority. Its sphere is indeed small, but within that sphere, its action is unrestricted. This independence gives it a real importance that its size might not otherwise guarantee.
+In America, not only do municipal bodies exist, but they are kept alive
+and supported by public spirit. The township of New England possesses
+two advantages which infallibly secure the attentive interest of
+mankind, namely, independence and authority. Its sphere is indeed small
+and limited, but within that sphere its action is unrestrained; and its
+independence gives to it a real importance which its extent and
+population may not always ensure.
+It should be remembered that human attachments generally align with authority. Patriotism does not last in a conquered nation. A New Englander is attached to his township not only because he was born there, but because it is a social body of which he is a member—a government that requires and deserves the exercise of his judgment. In Europe, the lack of local public spirit is a frequent regret for those in power; everyone agrees that there is no sure guarantee of order and stability, yet nothing is harder to create. If municipal bodies were made powerful and independent, national authorities might become fragmented and the country's peace endangered.
+It is to be remembered that the affections of men generally lie on the
+side of authority. Patriotism is not durable in a conquered nation. The
+New Englander is attached to his township, not only because he was born
+in 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 of regret to those who are in power; everyone agrees that there
+is no surer guarantee of order and tranquility, and yet nothing is more
+difficult to create. If the municipal bodies were made powerful and
+independent, the authorities of the nation might be disunited and the
+peace of the country endangered. Yet, without power and independence, a
+town may contain good subjects, but it can have no active citizens.
+Another important fact is that the township of New England is so
+constituted as to excite the warmest of human affections, without
+arousing the ambitious passions of the heart of man. The officers of
+the country are not elected, and their authority is very limited. Even
+the State is only a second-rate community, whose tranquil and obscure
+administration offers no inducement sufficient to draw men away from
+the circle of their interests into the turmoil of public affairs. The
+federal government confers power and honor on the men who conduct it;
+but these individuals can never be very numerous. The high station of
+the Presidency can only be reached at an advanced period of life, and
+the other federal functionaries are generally men who have been favored
+by fortune, or distinguished in some other career. Such cannot be the
+permanent aim of the ambitious. But the township serves as a centre for
+the desire of public esteem, the want of exciting interests, and the
+taste for authority and popularity, in the midst of the ordinary
+relations of life; and the passions which commonly embroil society
+change their character when they find a vent so near the domestic
+hearth and the family circle.
+> **Quote:** "Yet, without power and independence, a town may contain good subjects, but it can have no active citizens."
+In the American States power has been disseminated with admirable skill
+for the purpose of interesting the greatest possible number of persons
+in the common weal. Independently of the electors who are from time to
+time called into action, the body politic is divided into innumerable
+functionaries and officers, who all, in their several spheres,
+represent the same powerful whole in whose name they act. The local
+administration thus affords an unfailing source of profit and interest
+to a vast number of individuals.
+Another important fact is that the New England township is structured to excite the warmest human affections without stirring up the ambitious passions of the heart. Local officers are not elected to high office, and their authority is very limited. The state is only a second-rate community, whose administration offers little incentive to draw men away from their personal interests. The federal government provides power and honor, but these individuals can never be very numerous. Instead, the township serves as a center for the desire for public esteem, the need for exciting interests, and the taste for authority within the ordinary relations of life.
+The American system, which divides the local authority among so many
+citizens, does not scruple to multiply the functions of the town
+officers. For in the United States it is believed, and with truth, that
+patriotism is a kind of devotion which is strengthened by ritual
+observance. In this manner the activity of the township is continually
+perceptible; it is daily manifested in the fulfilment of a duty or the
+exercise of a right, and a constant though gentle motion is thus kept
+up in society which animates without disturbing it.
+> **Quote:** "the passions which commonly embroil society change their character when they find a vent so near the domestic hearth and the family circle."
+The American attaches himself to his home as the mountaineer clings to
+his hills, because the characteristic features of his country are there
+more distinctly marked than elsewhere. The existence of the townships
+of New England is in general a happy one. Their government is suited to
+their tastes, and chosen by themselves. In the midst of the profound
+peace and general comfort which reign in America the commotions of
+municipal discord are unfrequent. The conduct of local business is
+easy. The political education of the people has long been complete; say
+rather that it was complete when the people first set foot upon the
+soil. In New England no tradition exists of a distinction of ranks; no
+portion of the community is tempted to oppress the remainder; and the
+abuses which may injure isolated individuals are forgotten in the
+general contentment which prevails. If the government is defective (and
+it would no doubt be easy to point out its deficiencies), the fact that
+it really emanates from those it governs, and that it acts, either ill
+or well, casts the protecting spell of a parental pride over its
+faults. No term of comparison disturbs the satisfaction of the citizen:
+England formerly governed the mass of the colonies, but the people was
+always sovereign in the township where its rule is not only an ancient
+but a primitive state.
+In the American States, power has been distributed with admirable skill to interest the greatest possible number of people in the public welfare. Independent of voters called upon from time to time, the body politic is divided among countless officials who all represent the same powerful whole. Local administration thus provides a constant source of purpose and interest to a vast number of individuals.
+The native of New England is attached to his township because it is
+independent and free: his co-operation in its affairs ensures his
+attachment to its interest; the well-being it affords him secures his
+affection; and its welfare is the aim of his ambition and of his future
+exertions: he takes a part in every occurrence in the place; he
+practises the art of government in the small sphere within his reach;
+he accustoms himself to those forms which can alone ensure the steady
+progress of liberty; he imbibes their spirit; he acquires a taste for
+order, comprehends the union or the balance of powers, and collects
+clear practical notions on the nature of his duties and the extent of
+his rights.
+The American system does not hesitate to increase the number of town officers. In the United States, it is believed—and rightly so—that patriotism is a form of devotion strengthened by regular participation.
+The Counties Of New England
+> **Quote:** "patriotism is a kind of devotion which is strengthened by ritual observance."
+The division of the countries in America has considerable analogy with
+that of the arrondissements of France. The limits of the counties are
+arbitrarily laid down, and the various districts which they contain
+have no necessary connection, no common tradition or natural sympathy;
+their object is simply to facilitate the administration of justice.
+In this way, the activity of the township is always noticeable; it is manifested daily in the fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right. A constant but gentle motion is thus maintained in society, animating it without causing disturbance.
+The extent of the township was too small to contain a system of
+judicial institutions; each county has, however, a court of justice, *f
+a sheriff to execute its decrees, and a prison for criminals. There are
+certain wants which are felt alike by all the townships of a county; it
+is therefore natural that they should be satisfied by a central
+authority. In the State of Massachusetts this authority is vested in
+the hands of several magistrates, who are appointed by the Governor of
+the State, with the advice *g of his council. *h The officers of the
+county have only a limited and occasional authority, which is
+applicable to certain predetermined cases. The State and the townships
+possess all the power requisite to conduct public business. The budget
+of the county is drawn up by its officers, and is voted by the
+legislature, but there is no assembly which directly or indirectly
+represents the county. It has, therefore, properly speaking, no
+political existence.
+The American attaches himself to his home as a mountaineer clings to his hills, because the defining features of his country are more clearly marked there than anywhere else. Life in the New England townships is generally happy. Their government suits their tastes and is chosen by them. Amidst profound peace and general comfort, local conflict is rare. Managing local business is easy. The political education of the people was complete the moment they first set foot on this soil. In New England, there is no tradition of social ranks, and any abuses are forgotten in general contentment. Even if the government is flawed, the fact that it truly originates from those it governs casts the protective spell of parental pride over its faults. No outside comparison disturbs the citizen's satisfaction: England once governed the colonies, but the people were always sovereign in the township, where their rule is not just an ancient state, but a fundamental one.
+[ See the Act of February 14, 1821, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p.
+.]
+The New England native is attached to his township because it is independent and free. His participation ensures his attachment; the well-being it provides secures his affection; and its welfare is the goal of his ambition. He takes part in every local occurrence, practicing the art of government in the small sphere available to him.
+> **Quote:** "he takes a part in every occurrence in the place; he practises the art of government in the small sphere within his reach; he accustoms himself to those forms which can alone ensure the steady progress of liberty; he imbibes their spirit; he acquires a taste for order, comprehends the union or the balance of powers, and collects clear practical notions on the nature of his duties and the extent of his rights."
+[ See the Act of February 20, 1819, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. ii. p.
+.]
+The Counties Of New England
+The division of counties in America is quite similar to the *arrondissements* in France. County boundaries are set arbitrarily, and the various districts they contain have no necessary connection, common tradition, or natural sympathy; their purpose is simply to facilitate the administration of justice.
+[ The council of the Governor is an elective body.] A twofold tendency
+may be discerned in the American constitutions, which impels the
+legislator to centralize the legislative and to disperse the executive
+power. The township of New England has in itself an indestructible
+element of independence; and this distinct existence could only be
+fictitiously introduced into the county, where its utility has not been
+felt. But all the townships united have but one representation, which
+is the State, the centre of the national authority: beyond the action
+of the township and that of the nation, nothing can be said to exist
+but the influence of individual exertion.
+The township was too small to host a full judicial system; however, each county has a court of justice, a sheriff to carry out its decrees, and a prison for criminals. Certain needs are shared by all the townships in a county, so it is natural for a central authority to address them. In Massachusetts, this authority is held by several magistrates appointed by the Governor with the advice of his council. These county officers have only limited and occasional authority, applicable to specific, predetermined cases. The State and the townships possess all power necessary to conduct public business. The county budget is prepared by its officers and voted on by the legislature, but there is no assembly that represents the county. Strictly speaking, it has no political existence.
+A dual tendency can be seen in American constitutions: a drive for the legislator to centralize legislative power while dispersing executive power. The New England township has an inherent, indestructible independence. This distinct existence could only be artificially introduced into the county, where its usefulness has not been felt. All the townships united have only one representative body, which is the State—the center of national authority. Beyond the actions of the township and the nation, nothing exists but the influence of individual effort.
 Administration In New England
+Administration not perceived in America—Why?—The Europeans believe that
+liberty is promoted by depriving the social authority of some of its
+rights; the Americans, by dividing its exercise—Almost all the
+administration confined to the township, and divided amongst the
+town-officers—No trace of an administrative body to be perceived,
+either in the township or above it—The reason of this—How it happens
+that the administration of the State is uniform—Who is empowered to
+enforce the obedience of the township and the county to the law—The
+introduction of judicial power into the administration—Consequence of
+the extension of the elective principle to all functionaries—The
+Justice of the Peace in New England—By whom appointed—County officer:
+ensures the administration of the townships—Court of Sessions—Its
+action—Right of inspection and indictment disseminated like the other
+administrative functions—Informers encouraged by the division of fines.
+Nothing is more striking to a European traveler in the United States than the absence of what we call "the Government" or "the Administration." Written laws exist in America, and one sees them executed daily; yet although everything is in motion, the hand that moves the social machinery is nowhere to be found. Nevertheless, all communities must secure their existence by submitting to a certain measure of authority. Without it, they fall into anarchy.
+Nothing is more striking to an European traveller in the United States
+than the absence of what we term the Government, or the Administration.
+Written laws exist in America, and one sees that they are daily
+executed; but although everything is in motion, the hand which gives
+the impulse to the social machine can nowhere be discovered.
+Nevertheless, as all peoples are obliged to have recourse to certain
+grammatical forms, which are the foundation of human language, in order
+to express their thoughts; so all communities are obliged to secure
+their existence by submitting to a certain dose of authority, without
+which they fall a prey to anarchy. This authority may be distributed in
+several ways, but it must always exist somewhere.
+There are two ways to reduce the force of authority in a nation. The first is to weaken the supreme power in its very principle by preventing society from defending itself. In Europe, weakening authority in this way is generally called laying the foundations of freedom. The second method does not involve stripping society of its rights, but rather distributing the exercise of its powers among many hands and increasing the number of officials, giving each the specific power necessary to do his duty. Some nations might be led to anarchy by this distribution, but the method itself is not anarchic.
+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,
+by forbidding or preventing society from acting in its own defence
+under certain circumstances. To weaken authority in this manner is what
+is generally termed in Europe to lay the foundations of freedom. The
+second manner of diminishing the influence of authority does not
+consist in stripping 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 power necessary for him to perform his duty is entrusted.
+There may be nations whom this distribution of social powers might lead
+to anarchy; but in itself it is not anarchical. The action of authority
+is indeed thus rendered less irresistible and less perilous, but it is
+not totally suppressed.
+The American Revolution resulted from a mature desire for freedom, not a craving for anarchy; its course was marked by an attachment to law and order. In the United States, it was never assumed that a citizen of a free country has the right to do whatever he wants. Instead, more social obligations were imposed on him there than anywhere else. No one ever thought of contesting the rights of society. Rather, the exercise of authority was divided so that the office might be powerful but the officer insignificant, and that the community should be at once regulated and free.
+The revolution of the United States was the result of a mature and
+dignified taste for freedom, and not of a vague or ill-defined craving
+for independence. It contracted no alliance with the turbulent passions
+of anarchy; but its course was marked, on the contrary, by an
+attachment to whatever was lawful and orderly.
+> **Quote:** "In no country in the world does the law hold so absolute a language as in America, and in no country is the right of applying it vested in so many hands."
+It was never assumed in the United States that the citizen of a free
+country has a right to do whatever he pleases; on the contrary, social
+obligations were there imposed upon him more various than anywhere
+else. No idea was ever entertained of attacking the principles or of
+contesting the rights of society; but the exercise of its authority was
+divided, to the end that the office might be powerful and the officer
+insignificant, and that the community should be at once regulated and
+free. In no country in the world does the law hold so absolute a
+language as in America, and in no country is the right of applying it
+vested in so many hands. The administrative power in the United States
+presents nothing either central or hierarchical in its constitution,
+which accounts for its passing, unperceived. The power exists, but its
+representative is not to be perceived.
+In no country does the law speak as absolutely as in America, and in no country is the right to apply it held by so many people. The administrative power in the United States is neither centralized nor hierarchical, which explains why it often goes unnoticed.
+We have already seen that the independent townships of New England
+protect their own private interests; and the municipal magistrates are
+the persons to whom the execution of the laws of the State is most
+frequently entrusted. *i Besides the general laws, the State sometimes
+passes general police regulations; but more commonly the townships and
+town officers, conjointly with justices of the peace, regulate the
+minor details of social life, according to the necessities of the
+different localities, and promulgate such enactments as concern the
+health of the community, and the peace as well as morality of the
+citizens. *j Lastly, these municipal magistrates provide, of their own
+accord and without any delegated powers, for those unforeseen
+emergencies which frequently occur in society. *k
+> **Quote:** "The power exists, but its representative is not to be perceived."
+[ See “The Town-Officer,” especially at the words Selectmen, Assessors,
+Collectors, Schools, Surveyors of Highways. I take one example in a
+thousand: the State prohibits travelling on the Sunday; the
+tything-men, who are town-officers, are specially charged to keep watch
+and to execute the law. See the Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 410.
+As we have seen, the independent townships of New England protect their own interests, and municipal magistrates are the ones most often charged with executing State laws. Beyond general laws, the State sometimes passes police regulations, but more commonly, the townships and town officers, along with justices of the peace, regulate the minor details of social life according to local needs. They enact rules concerning public health, peace, and morality. Finally, these municipal magistrates provide for unforeseen emergencies on their own initiative, without needing delegated powers.
+Consequently, in Massachusetts, administrative authority is almost entirely restricted to the township, though it is distributed among many individuals. While a French commune has essentially only one official—the Mayor—a New England township has nineteen. These nineteen officials generally do not depend on one another. The law carefully defines the scope of action for each, and within that scope, they have the right to perform their duties independently of any other authority. Above the township, there is almost no sign of a hierarchy of officials. Occasionally, county officers may alter a township decision (as when a person denied a liquor license appeals to the county's Court of Sessions), but generally, county authorities have no right to interfere except in matters that concern the entire county.
+The selectmen draw up the lists of electors for the election of the
+Governor, and transmit the result of the ballot to the Secretary of the
+State. See Act of February 24, 1796: Id., vol. i. p. 488.]
+Township and county magistrates are required to report their actions to the central government only in a few specific cases (such as school committees providing annual reports). However, the central government is not represented by an individual whose job is to issue ordinances, maintain regular communication with local officers, inspect their conduct, or reprimand their mistakes. There is no single point that serves as the center for the various branches of administration.
+[ Thus, for instance, the selectmen authorize the construction of
+drains, point out the proper sites for slaughter-houses and other
+trades which are a nuisance to the neighborhood. See the Act of June 7,
+: Id., vol. i. p. 193.]
+[ The selectmen take measures for the security of the public in case of
+contagious diseases, conjointly with the justices of the peace. See Act
+of June 22, 1797, vol. i. p. 539.]
+It results from what we have said that in the State of Massachusetts
+the administrative 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 are nineteen. These nineteen functionaries do not in general
+depend upon one another. The law carefully prescribes a circle of
+action to each of these magistrates; and within that circle they have
+an entire right to perform their functions independently of any other
+authority. Above the township scarcely any trace of a series of
+official dignitaries is to be found. It sometimes happens that the
+county officers alter a decision of the townships or town magistrates,
+*m but in general the authorities of the county have no right to
+interfere with the authorities of the township, *n except in such
+matters as concern the county.
+[ I say almost, for there are various circumstances in the annals of a
+township which are regulated by the justice of the peace in his
+individual capacity, or by the justices of the peace assembled in the
+chief town of the county; thus licenses are granted by the justices.
+See the Act of February 28, 1787, vol. i. p. 297.]
+[ Thus licenses are only granted to such persons as can produce a
+certificate of good conduct from the selectmen. If the selectmen refuse
+to give the certificate, the party may appeal to the justices assembled
+in the Court of Sessions, and they may grant the license. See Act of
+March 12, 1808, vol. ii. p. 186.
+The townships have the right to make by-laws, and to enforce them by
+fines which are fixed by law; but these by-laws must be approved by the
+Court of Sessions. See Act of March 23, 1786, vol. i. p. 254.]
+[ In Massachusetts the county magistrates are frequently called upon to
+investigate the acts of the town magistrates; but it will be shown
+further on that this investigation is a consequence, not of their
+administrative, but of their judicial power.]
+The magistrates of the township, as well as those of the county, are
+bound to communicate their acts to the central government in a very
+small number of predetermined cases. *o But the central government is
+not represented by an individual whose business it is to publish police
+regulations and ordinances enforcing the execution of the laws; to keep
+up a regular communication with the officers of the township and the
+county; to inspect their conduct, to direct their actions, or to
+reprimand their faults. There is no point which serves as a centre to
+the radii of the administration.
+[ The town committees of schools are obliged to make an annual report
+to the Secretary of the State on the condition of the school. See Act
+of March 10, 1827, vol. iii. p. 183.]
 ### Chapter V: Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States—Part II
+What framework governs administration, and how is compliance enforced upon counties and magistrates, townships and officers? In New England, legislative authority covers more ground than in France. The legislator penetrates to the very core of the administration, and the law descends to the most minute details. A single enactment establishes both principle and method, imposing strict, precisely defined obligations on subordinate officials. If all obey, society functions with uniformity. The difficulty remains: how to compel these officials to follow the law?
+What, then, is the uniform plan on which the government is conducted,
+and how is the compliance of the counties and their magistrates or the
+townships and their officers enforced? In the States of New England the
+legislative authority embraces more subjects than it does in France;
+the legislator penetrates to the very core of the administration; the
+law descends to the most minute details; the same enactment prescribes
+the principle and the method of its application, and thus imposes a
+multitude of strict and rigorously defined obligations on the secondary
+functionaries of the State. The consequence of this is that if all the
+secondary functionaries of the administration conform to the law,
+society in all its branches proceeds with the greatest uniformity: the
+difficulty remains of compelling the secondary functionaries of the
+administration to conform to the law. It may be affirmed that, in
+general, society has only two methods of enforcing the execution of the
+laws at its disposal: a discretionary power may be entrusted to a
+superior functionary of directing all the others, and of cashiering
+them in case of disobedience; or the courts of justice may be
+authorized to inflict judicial penalties on the offender: but these two
+methods are not always available.
+Society has two methods to enforce the execution of laws: it can either grant a superior official discretionary power to direct others and dismiss them for disobedience, or it can authorize courts to impose legal penalties on offenders. But these methods are not always available.
+The right of directing a civil officer presupposes that of cashiering
+him if he does not obey orders, and of rewarding him by promotion if he
+fulfils his duties with propriety. But an elected magistrate can
+neither be cashiered nor promoted. All elective functions are
+inalienable until their term is expired. In fact, the elected
+magistrate has nothing either to expect or to fear from his
+constituents; and when all public offices are filled by ballot there
+can be no series of official dignities, because the double right of
+commanding and of enforcing obedience can never be vested in the same
+individual, and because the power of issuing an order can never be
+joined to that of inflicting a punishment or bestowing a reward.
+The right to direct a civil servant implies the power to dismiss them for disobedience or promote them for good performance. However, an elected official can be neither dismissed nor promoted. All elective positions are inalienable until term's end. An elected official has nothing to fear or expect from superiors; when all offices are filled by ballot, there can be no rank hierarchy, as the rights of command and enforcement cannot unite in one person.
+The communities therefore in which the secondary functionaries of the
+government are elected are perforce obliged to make great use of
+judicial penalties as a means of administration. This is not evident at
+first sight; for those in power are apt to look upon the institution of
+elective functionaries as one concession, and the subjection of the
+elected magistrate to the judges of the land as another. They are
+equally averse to both these innovations; and as they are more
+pressingly solicited to grant the former than the latter, they accede
+to the election of the magistrate, and leave him independent of the
+judicial power. Nevertheless, the second of these measures is the only
+thing that can possibly counterbalance the first; and it will be found
+that an elective authority which is not subject to judicial power will,
+sooner or later, either elude all control or be destroyed. The courts
+of justice are the only possible medium between the central power and
+the administrative bodies; they alone can compel the elected
+functionary to obey, without violating the rights of the elector. The
+extension of judicial power in the political world ought therefore to
+be in the exact ratio of the extension of elective offices: if these
+two institutions do not go hand in hand, the State must fall into
+anarchy or into subjection.
+Therefore, communities where subordinate officials are elected must rely heavily on judicial penalties as an administrative tool. This is not obvious at first glance. Those in power view elective offices as one concession and judicial oversight as another, opposing both. Pressured to grant the former, they leave elected officials independent of judicial power. Yet only the second can balance the first. An elective authority not subject to judicial power will escape control or be destroyed.
+It has always been remarked that habits of legal business do not render
+men apt to the exercise of administrative authority. The Americans have
+borrowed from the English, their fathers, the idea of an institution
+which is unknown upon the continent of Europe: I allude to that of the
+Justices of the Peace. The Justice of the Peace is a sort of mezzo
+termine between the magistrate and the man of the world, between the
+civil officer and the judge. A justice of the peace is a well-informed
+citizen, though he is not necessarily versed in the knowledge of the
+laws. His office simply obliges him to execute the police regulations
+of society; a task in which good sense and integrity are of more avail
+than legal science. The justice introduces into the administration a
+certain taste for established forms and publicity, which renders him a
+most unserviceable instrument of despotism; and, on the other hand, he
+is not blinded by those superstitions which render legal officers unfit
+members of a government. The Americans have adopted the system of the
+English justices of the peace, but they have deprived it of that
+aristocratic character which is discernible in the mother-country. The
+Governor of Massachusetts *p appoints a certain number of justices of
+the peace in every county, whose functions last seven years. *q He
+further designates three individuals from amongst the whole body of
+justices who form in each county what is called the Court of Sessions.
+The justices take a personal share in public business; they are
+sometimes entrusted with administrative functions in conjunction with
+elected officers, *r they sometimes constitute a tribunal, before which
+the magistrates summarily prosecute a refractory citizen, or the
+citizens inform against the abuses of the magistrate. But it is in the
+Court of Sessions that they exercise their most important functions.
+This court meets twice a year in the county town; in Massachusetts it
+is empowered to enforce the obedience of the greater number *s of
+public officers. *t It must be observed, that in the State of
+Massachusetts the Court of Sessions is at the same time an
+administrative body, properly so called, and a political tribunal. It
+has been asserted that the county is a purely administrative division.
+The Court of Sessions presides over that small number of affairs which,
+as they concern several townships, or all the townships of the county
+in common, cannot be entrusted to any one of them in particular. *u In
+all that concerns county business the duties of the Court of Sessions
+are purely administrative; and if in its investigations it occasionally
+borrows the forms of judicial procedure, it is only with a view to its
+own information, *v or as a guarantee to the community over which it
+presides. But when the administration of the township is brought before
+it, it always acts as a judicial body, and in some few cases as an
+official assembly.
+> **Quote:** "The courts of justice are the only possible medium between the central power and the administrative bodies; they alone can compel the elected functionary to obey, without violating the rights of the elector."
+[ We shall hereafter learn what a Governor is: I shall content myself
+with remarking in this place that he represents the executive power of
+the whole State.]
+> **Quote:** "The extension of judicial power in the political world ought therefore to be in the exact ratio of the extension of elective offices: if these two institutions do not go hand in hand, the State must fall into anarchy or into subjection."
+It has often been noted that legal practice does not prepare men for administrative authority. Americans inherited from England the Justice of the Peace, an institution unknown on the continent. The Justice of the Peace is a middle ground between the magistrate and the man of the world, between the civil official and the judge—a well-informed citizen, though not necessarily a legal expert. He enforces police regulations, a task where common sense and integrity matter more than legal science. He brings respect for forms and transparency, making him poor for despotism, yet unhindered by rigid technicalities that sometimes unfit professional jurists for government.
+[ See the Constitution of Massachusetts, chap. II. sect. 1. Section 9;
+chap. III. Section 3.]
+Americans adopted the English justice system but stripped its aristocratic character. Under Massachusetts law, the Governor appoints justices of the peace in each county for seven-year terms and designates three to form the Court of Sessions. These justices personally handle public business, sometimes working alongside elected officers—for example, two justices, with town selectmen's consent, may order a sheriff to care for a contagious stranger. Generally, they involve themselves in important administrative acts, giving them semi-judicial character, and sometimes serve as a tribunal to prosecute disobedient citizens or report magistrates' abuses.
+However, it is in the Court of Sessions that they perform their most important functions. This court meets twice a year in the county seat. In Massachusetts, it is empowered to enforce the obedience of most public officers. It should be noted that in Massachusetts, the Court of Sessions is both administrative body and political tribunal. While the county is primarily an administrative division, the court handles matters concerning several townships or the entire county—building prisons and courthouses, managing the county budget (voted on by the state legislature), distributing taxes, granting patents, and repairing roads. In county business, its duties are purely administrative; if it uses judicial procedures, it is only to gather information (such as using a jury to resolve road disputes) or as a community safeguard. But when township administration comes before it, the court acts as a judicial body, and occasionally as an official assembly.
+[ Thus, for example, a stranger arrives in a township from a country
+where a contagious disease prevails, and he falls ill. Two justices of
+the peace can, with the assent of the selectmen, order the sheriff of
+the county to remove and take care of him.—Act of June 22, 1797, vol.
+i. p. 540.
+The first challenge is ensuring obedience from an authority as independent as the township. Assessors are elected annually by town meetings to levy taxes. If a township refuses to appoint assessors to avoid paying taxes, the Court of Sessions imposes a heavy fine. If refusal persists, the court may appoint assessors itself, and these magistrates hold the same authority as elected ones. The fine is levied on each inhabitant, executed by the county sheriff as an officer of justice.
+> **Quote:** "Thus it is that in the United States the authority of the Government is mysteriously concealed under the forms of a judicial sentence; and its influence is at the same time fortified by that irresistible power with which men have invested the formalities of law."
+In general the justices interfere in all the important acts of the
+administration, and give them a semi-judicial character.] [Footnote s:
+I say the greater number, because certain administrative misdemeanors
+are brought before ordinary tribunals. If, for instance, a township
+refuses to make the necessary expenditure for its schools or to name a
+school-committee, it is liable to a heavy fine. But this penalty is
+pronounced by the Supreme Judicial Court or the Court of Common Pleas.
+See Act of March 10, 1827, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. iii. p. 190. Or
+when a township neglects to provide the necessary war-stores.—Act of
+February 21, 1822: Id., vol. ii. p. 570.]
+These proceedings are straightforward. Township demands are clear and defined, usually involving a simple fact or principle. There is also an indirect enforcement method: if a town fails to vote road maintenance funds, the town surveyor may levy supplies himself. Since he is personally liable and can be indicted before the Court of Sessions, he will use this right against the township. Thus, by threatening the officer, the court ensures compliance.
+[ In their individual capacity the justices of the peace take a part in
+the business of the counties and townships.] [Footnote u: These affairs
+may be brought under the following heads:—1. The erection of prisons
+and courts of justice. 2. The county budget, which is afterwards voted
+by the State. 3. The distribution of the taxes so voted. 4. Grants of
+certain patents. 5. The laying down and repairs of the country roads.]
+The difficulty increases, however, when enforcing obedience from town officers rather than the township itself. Official misconduct falls into three categories:
+Executing the law without zeal;
+[ Thus, when a road is under consideration, almost all difficulties are
+disposed of by the aid of the jury.]
+Neglecting execution entirely;
+Violating the law.
+The first difficulty is to procure the obedience of an authority as
+entirely independent of the general laws of the State as the township
+is. We have stated that assessors are annually named by the
+town-meetings to levy the taxes. If a township attempts to evade the
+payment of the taxes by neglecting to name its assessors, the Court of
+Sessions condemns it to a heavy penalty. *w The fine is levied on each
+of the inhabitants; and the sheriff of the county, who is the officer
+of justice, executes the mandate. Thus it is that in the United States
+the authority of the Government is mysteriously concealed under the
+forms of a judicial sentence; and its influence is at the same time
+fortified by that irresistible power with which men have invested the
+formalities of law.
+Only the last two are judicially enforceable, as legal action requires clear, demonstrable facts. If selectmen fail election formalities, they can be fined. But an officer who performs poorly or obeys the law without zeal is beyond the courts' reach. Even so, the Court of Sessions cannot compel more than basic obedience. Only the fear of removal checks these offenses, but since the court does not appoint town authorities, it cannot remove them. Proving negligence would require constant investigation, yet the court meets only twice a year, judging only offenses brought to its attention. The only guarantee of active obedience that courts cannot demand is the possibility of removal. In France, this security lies with administrative heads; in America, with election.
+[ See Act of February 20, 1786, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 217.]
+To summarize: If a public officer in New England commits a crime while performing his duties, the regular courts sentence him. If he commits an administrative fault, an administrative tribunal punishes him; if the matter is urgent, a judge may complete the neglected task. Finally, if the official is guilty of intangible offenses that human justice cannot easily define—such as lack of zeal or ability—he must appear annually before a tribunal from which there is no appeal: the voters, who can strip him of power.
+This system has great advantages, but its execution faces a practical difficulty worth noting. As I mentioned, the Court of Sessions cannot inspect town officers on its own initiative. It can only intervene when conduct is brought to its attention—this is the system's most sensitive part. New Englanders are unfamiliar with a public prosecutor, and such an office would be difficult to establish. A prosecutor at the county seat without township agents would be no better informed than the court. But appointing agents in every township would centralize formidable judicial power. Moreover, laws follow habit, and nothing of this sort exists in English law.
+These proceedings are easy to follow and to understand. The demands
+made upon a township are in general plain and accurately defined; they
+consist in a simple fact without any complication, or in a principle
+without its application in detail. *x But the difficulty increases when
+it is not the obedience of the township, but that of the town officers
+which is to be enforced. All the reprehensible actions of which a
+public functionary may be guilty are reducible to the following heads:
+Americans have therefore divided inspection and prosecution, as they have divided other functions. Grand jurors must inform the court of county misdemeanors. While the state prosecutes major crimes, the official receiving fines often prosecutes administrative violations; the town treasurer, for example, prosecutes violations that come to his attention. But American legislation makes an even more specific appeal to the private interest of the citizen—a principle that constantly appears in American laws.
+[ There is an indirect method of enforcing the obedience of a township.
+Suppose that the funds which the law demands for the maintenance of the
+roads have not been voted, the town surveyor is then authorized, ex
+officio, to levy the supplies. As he is personally responsible to
+private individuals for the state of the roads, and indictable before
+the Court of Sessions, he is sure to employ the extraordinary right
+which the law gives him against the township. Thus by threatening the
+officer the Court of Sessions exacts compliance from the town. See Act
+of March 5, 1787, Id., vol. i. p. 305.]
+When an individual is genuinely and tangibly harmed by an administrative abuse, personal interest drives prosecution. But when a legal formality benefits the community but not individuals, plaintiffs are scarce; laws may fall into disuse by silent agreement. Pushed to this extreme, Americans encourage informants by offering them a portion of the penalty. American legislators tend to credit men with intelligence rather than honesty, relying on personal cupidity to ensure the laws are executed. They are thus forced to ensure the law's execution by the dangerous expedient of degrading the people's morals. For instance, if town officers neglect militia supplies during invasion or insurrection, the township may be fined $200 to $500. Since no individual may prosecute, any citizen may indict and receive half the fine. The same incentive applies when officers prosecute individuals; if a citizen refuses road work, the road surveyor may prosecute and keep half the penalty.
+Strictly speaking, only the state government stands above county magistrates. In common courts, magistrates sometimes serve as public prosecutors. Grand jurors report poor road conditions, and action can be taken if a treasurer withholds accounts. If an individual suffers damage from a poorly maintained road, they may sue the township or county for damages.
+He may execute the law without energy or zeal;
+General Remarks On The Administration Of The United States: Differences among the states in their administrative systems—The activity and effectiveness of local authorities decrease toward the South—The power of the magistrate increases while that of the voter diminishes—Administration shifts from the township to the county—The states of New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—Administrative principles applicable to the entire Union—The election of public officers and the stability of their roles—The absence of a hierarchy of ranks—The introduction of judicial remedies into administration.
+He may neglect to execute the law;
+After examining New England's details, I now take a broader view. Townships and local activity exist everywhere, but nowhere else are townships exactly like New England's. Moving southward, township business becomes less active; magistrates, functions, and rights decrease. Popular influence on affairs decreases; town meetings are less frequent with fewer subjects. Magistrate power grows while voter power diminishes, and public spirit becomes less engaged.
+He may do what the law enjoins him not to do.
+These differences appear in New York and are pronounced in Pennsylvania, but lessen toward the Northwest. Most Northwestern settlers are from New England, bringing their homeland's habits. An Ohio township, for instance, resembles a Massachusetts township.
+The last two violations of duty can alone come under the cognizance of
+a tribunal; a positive and appreciable fact is the indispensable
+foundation of an action at law. Thus, if the selectmen omit to fulfil
+the legal formalities usual at town elections, they may be condemned to
+pay a fine; *y but when the public officer performs his duty without
+ability, 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 of Sessions, even when it is invested with its official powers,
+is in this case unable to compel him to a more satisfactory obedience.
+The fear of removal is the only check to these quasi-offences; and as
+the Court of Sessions does not originate the town authorities, it
+cannot remove functionaries whom it does not appoint. Moreover, a
+perpetual investigation would be necessary to convict the officer of
+negligence or lukewarmness; and the Court of Sessions sits but twice a
+year and then only judges such offences as are brought before its
+notice. The only security of that active and enlightened obedience
+which a court of justice cannot impose upon public officers lies in the
+possibility of their arbitrary removal. In France this security is
+sought for in powers exercised by the heads of the administration; in
+America it is sought for in the principle of election.
+In Massachusetts, the township drives public administration—the center of citizens' interests. But this changes where education is less widespread and the township offers fewer guarantees of wise administration. Leaving New England, importance shifts to the county, which becomes the administrative hub between government and citizen. In Massachusetts, the Court of Sessions manages county business, appointed by the Governor; the county has no assembly, and its budget is voted by the state legislature. In New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, county inhabitants elect a county assembly. This assembly can tax residents to a certain extent, enjoying legislative privileges, while also exercising executive power, directing township administration and limiting their authority more strictly than in Massachusetts.
+[ Laws of Massachusetts, vol. ii. p. 45.]
+Such are the main differences. If I examined details minutely, I would point out more variations. But this suffices to show the general principles on which American administration rests. These principles vary by location but remain substantially the same. Laws differ in appearance but not essential character. Though organization varies, in the United States they always rest on the same principle:
+> **Quote:** "Everyone is the best judge of what concerns himself alone, and the most proper person to supply his private wants."
+Thus, to recapitulate in a few words what I have been showing: If a
+public officer in New England commits a crime in the exercise of his
+functions, the ordinary courts of justice are always called upon to
+pass sentence upon him. If he commits a fault in his official capacity,
+a purely administrative tribunal is empowered to punish him; and, if
+the affair is important or urgent, the judge supplies the omission of
+the functionary. *z Lastly, if the same individual is guilty of one of
+those intangible offences of which human justice has no cognizance, he
+annually appears before a tribunal from which there is no appeal, which
+can at once reduce him to insignificance and deprive him of his charge.
+This system undoubtedly possesses great advantages, but its execution
+is attended with a practical difficulty which it is important to point
+out.
+Townships and counties therefore manage their own interests; the state governs but does not interfere in local administration. Exceptions may exist, but no principle contradicts this.
+[ If, for instance, a township persists in refusing to name its
+assessors, the Court of Sessions nominates them; and the magistrates
+thus appointed are invested with the same authority as elected
+officers. See the Act quoted above, February 20, 1787.]
+First, all magistrates are chosen by or from among citizens. Because officers serve fixed terms, no hierarchical chain can be established. There are almost as many independent officials as roles, scattering executive power among many hands. This created a need for judicial control over administration, using financial penalties to compel obedience. This system exists throughout the Union. However, not all states give the same judges power to punish misconduct or act in emergencies. While all adopted justices of the peace, they use them differently. Everywhere, justices participate in township and county administration—as public officers or judges of misconduct—but most states reserve serious offenses for regular courts.
+Elected officers, stable terms, lack of hierarchy, and judicial control are universal traits from Maine to Florida. Some states show traces of centralization; New York has moved furthest. There, central officers inspect secondary bodies in certain cases.
+I have already observed that the administrative tribunal, which is
+called the Court of Sessions, has no right of inspection over the town
+officers. It can only interfere when the conduct of a magistrate is
+specially brought under its notice; and this is the delicate part of
+the system. The Americans of New England are unacquainted with the
+office of public prosecutor in the Court of Sessions, *a and it may
+readily be perceived that it could not have been established without
+difficulty. If an accusing magistrate had merely been appointed in the
+chief town of each 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 the county than the members of the Court of Sessions. But
+to appoint agents in each township would have been to centre in his
+person the most formidable of powers, that of a judicial
+administration. Moreover, laws are the children of habit, and nothing
+of the kind exists in the legislation of England. The Americans have
+therefore divided the offices of inspection and of prosecution, as well
+as all the other functions of the administration. Grand jurors are
+bound by the law to apprise the court to which they belong of all the
+misdemeanors which may have been committed in their county. *b There
+are certain great offences which are officially prosecuted by the
+States; *c but more frequently the task of punishing delinquents
+devolves upon the fiscal officer, whose province it is to receive the
+fine: thus the treasurer of the township is charged with the
+prosecution of such administrative offences as fall under his notice.
+But a more special appeal is made by American legislation to the
+private interest of the citizen; *d and this great principle is
+constantly to be met with in studying the laws of the United States.
+American legislators are more apt to give men credit for intelligence
+than for honesty, and they rely not a little on personal cupidity for
+the execution of the laws. When an individual is really and sensibly
+injured by an administrative abuse, it is natural that his personal
+interest should induce him to prosecute. But if a legal formality be
+required, which, however advantageous to the community, is of small
+importance to individuals, plaintiffs may be less easily found; and
+thus, by a tacit agreement, the laws may fall into disuse. Reduced by
+their system to this extremity, the Americans are obliged to encourage
+informers by bestowing on them a portion of the penalty in certain
+cases, *e and to insure the execution of the laws by the dangerous
+expedient of degrading the morals of the people. The only
+administrative authority above the county magistrates is, properly
+speaking, that of the Government.
+Public education, for example, is centralized. The legislature appoints University Regents (including the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor), who annually visit and report to the legislature. This works because colleges need charters, granted only on Regents' recommendation, and Regents distribute education funds. School and poor-law commissioners must send annual reports.
+[ I say the Court of Sessions, because in common courts there is a
+magistrate who exercises some of the functions of a public prosecutor.]
+Central authorities sometimes serve as a court of appeal. Anyone wronged by school commissioners may appeal to the state superintendent, whose decision is final. New York uses judicial penalties less frequently, restricting prosecution to fewer people, like district attorneys. This tendency appears faintly elsewhere—Massachusetts, for instance, requires town school committees to report to the Secretary of State—but local independence remains the prominent feature.
+[ The grand-jurors are, for instance, bound to inform the court of the
+bad state of the roads.—Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 308.]
+[ If, for instance, the treasurer of the county holds back his
+accounts.—Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 406.] [Footnote d: Thus, if
+a private individual breaks down or is wounded in consequence of the
+badness of a road, he can sue the township or the county for damages at
+the sessions.—Laws of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 309.]
+[ In cases of invasion or insurrection, if the town-officers neglect to
+furnish the necessary stores and ammunition for the militia, the
+township may be condemned to a fine of from $200 to $500. It may
+readily be imagined that in such a case it might happen that no one
+cared to prosecute; hence the law adds that all the citizens may indict
+offences of this kind, and that half of the fine shall belong to the
+plaintiff. See Act of March 6, 1810, vol. ii. p. 236. The same clause
+is frequently to be met with in the law of Massachusetts. Not only are
+private individuals thus incited to prosecute the public officers, but
+the public officers are encouraged in the same manner to bring the
+disobedience of private individuals to justice. If a citizen refuses to
+perform the work which has been assigned to him upon a road, the road
+surveyor may prosecute him, and he receives half the penalty for
+himself. See the Laws above quoted, vol. i. p. 308.]
+General Remarks On The Administration Of The United States Differences
+of the States of the Union in their system of administration—Activity
+and perfection of the local authorities decrease towards the
+South—Power of the magistrate increases; that of the elector
+diminishes—Administration passes from the township to the county—States
+of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania—Principles of administration applicable
+to the whole Union—Election of public officers, and inalienability of
+their functions—Absence of gradation of ranks—Introduction of judicial
+resources into the administration.
+I have already premised that, after having examined the constitution of
+the township and the county of New England in detail, I should take a
+general view of the remainder of the Union. Townships and a local
+activity exist in every State; but in no part of the confederation is a
+township to be met with precisely similar to those of New England. The
+more we descend towards the South, the less active does the business of
+the township or parish become; the number of magistrates, of functions,
+and of rights decreases; the population exercises a less immediate
+influence on affairs; town meetings are less frequent, and the subjects
+of debate less numerous. The power of the elected magistrate is
+augmented and that of the elector diminished, whilst the public spirit
+of the local communities is less awakened and less influential. *f
+These differences may be perceived to a certain extent in the State of
+New York; they are very sensible in Pennsylvania; but they become less
+striking as we advance to the northwest. The majority of the emigrants
+who settle in the northwestern States are natives of New England, and
+they carry the habits of their mother country with them into that which
+they adopt. A township in Ohio is by no means dissimilar from a
+township in Massachusetts.
+[ For details see the Revised Statutes of the State of New York, part
+i. chap. xi. vol. i. pp. 336-364, entitled, “Of the Powers, Duties, and
+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 of
+February 25, 1834, relating to townships, p. 412; besides the peculiar
+dispositions 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 public
+administration lies in the township. It forms the common centre of the
+interests and affections of the citizens. But this ceases to be the
+case as we descend to States in which knowledge is less generally
+diffused, and where the township consequently offers fewer guarantees
+of a wise and active administration. As we leave New England,
+therefore, we find that the importance of the town is gradually
+transferred to the county, which becomes the centre of administration,
+and the intermediate power between the Government and the citizen. In
+Massachusetts the business of the county is conducted by the Court of
+Sessions, which is composed of a quorum named by the Governor and his
+council; but the county has no representative assembly, and its
+expenditure is voted by the national legislature. In the great State of
+New York, on the contrary, and in those of Ohio and Pennsylvania, the
+inhabitants of each county choose a certain number of representatives,
+who constitute the assembly of the county. *g The county assembly has
+the right of taxing the inhabitants to a certain extent; and in this
+respect it enjoys the privileges of a real legislative body: at the
+same time it exercises an executive power in the county, frequently
+directs the administration of the townships, and restricts their
+authority within much narrower bounds than in Massachusetts.
+[ See the Revised Statutes of the State of New York, part i. chap. xi.
+vol. i. p. 340. Id. chap. xii. p. 366; also in the Acts of the State of
+Ohio, an act relating to county commissioners, February 25, 1824, p.
+.   See the Digest of the Laws of Pennsylvania, at the words
+County-rates and Levies, p. 170. In the State of New York each township
+elects a representative, who has a share in the administration of the
+county as well as in that of the township.]
+Such are the principal differences which the systems of county and town
+administration present in the Federal States. Were it my intention to
+examine the provisions of American law minutely, I should have to point
+out still further differences in the executive details of the several
+communities. But what I have already said may suffice to show the
+general principles on which the administration of the United States
+rests. These principles are differently applied; their consequences are
+more or less numerous in various localities; but they are always
+substantially the same. The laws differ, and their outward features
+change, but their character does not vary. If the township and the
+county are not everywhere constituted in the same manner, it is at
+least true that in the United States the county and the township are
+always based upon the same principle, namely, that everyone is the best
+judge of what concerns himself alone, and the most proper person to
+supply his private wants. The township and the county are therefore
+bound to take care of their special interests: the State governs, but
+it does not interfere with their administration. Exceptions to this
+rule may be met with, but not a contrary principle.
+The first consequence of this doctrine has been to cause all the
+magistrates to be chosen either by or at least from amongst the
+citizens. As the officers are everywhere elected or appointed for a
+certain period, it has been impossible to establish the rules of a
+dependent series of authorities; there are almost as many independent
+functionaries as there are functions, and the executive power is
+disseminated in a multitude of hands. Hence arose the indispensable
+necessity of introducing the control of the courts of justice over the
+administration, and the system of pecuniary penalties, by which the
+secondary bodies and their representatives are constrained to obey the
+laws. This system obtains from one end of the Union to the other. The
+power of punishing the misconduct of public officers, or of performing
+the part of the executive in urgent cases, has not, however, been
+bestowed on the same judges in all the States. The Anglo-Americans
+derived the institution of justices of the peace from a common source;
+but although it exists in all the States, it is not always turned to
+the same use. The justices of the peace everywhere participate in the
+administration of the townships and the counties, *h either as public
+officers or as the judges of public misdemeanors, but in most of the
+States the more important classes of public offences come under the
+cognizance of the ordinary tribunals.
+[ In some of the Southern States the county courts are charged with all
+the details of the administration. See the Statutes of the State of
+Tennessee, arts. Judiciary, Taxes, etc.]
+The election of public officers, or the inalienability of their
+functions, the absence of a gradation of powers, and the introduction
+of a judicial control over the secondary branches of the
+administration, are the universal characteristics of the American
+system from Maine to the Floridas. In some States (and that of New York
+has advanced most in this direction) traces of a centralized
+administration begin to be discernible. In the State of New York the
+officers of the central government exercise, in certain cases, a sort
+of inspection or control over the secondary bodies. *i
+[ For instance, the direction of public instruction centres in the
+hands of the Government. The legislature names the members of the
+University, who are denominated Regents; the Governor and
+Lieutentant-Governor of the State are necessarily of the
+number.—Revised Statutes, vol. i. p. 455. The Regents of the University
+annually visit the colleges and academies, and make their report to the
+legislature. Their superintendence is not inefficient, for several
+reasons: the colleges in order to become corporations stand in need of
+a charter, which is only granted on the recommendation of the Regents;
+every year funds are distributed by the State for the encouragement of
+learning, 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 the
+Superintendent of the Republic.—Id. p. 488.
+A similar report is annually made to the same person on the number and
+condition of the poor.—Id. p. 631.]
+At other times they constitute a court of appeal for the decision of
+affairs. *j In the State of New York judicial penalties are less used
+than in other parts as a means of administration, and the right of
+prosecuting the offences of public officers is vested in fewer hands.
+*k The same tendency is faintly observable in some other States; *l but
+in general the prominent feature of the administration in the United
+States is its excessive local independence.
+[ If any one conceives himself to be wronged by the
+school-commissioners (who are town-officers), he can appeal to the
+superintendent of the primary schools, whose decision is final.—Revised
+Statutes, vol. i. p. 487.
+Provisions similar to those above cited are to be met with from time to
+time in the laws of the State of New York; but in general these
+attempts at centralization are weak and unproductive. The great
+authorities of the State have the right of watching and controlling the
+subordinate agents, without that of rewarding or punishing them. The
+same individual is never empowered to give an order and to punish
+disobedience; he has therefore the right of commanding, without the
+means of exacting compliance. In 1830 the Superintendent of Schools
+complained in his Annual Report addressed to the legislature that
+several school-commissioners had neglected, notwithstanding his
+application, to furnish him with the accounts which were due. He added
+that if this omission continued he should be obliged to prosecute them,
+as the law directs, before the proper tribunals.]
+[ Thus the district-attorney is directed to recover all fines below the
+sum of fifty dollars, unless such a right has been specially awarded to
+another magistrate.—Revised Statutes, vol. i. p. 383.]
+[ Several traces of centralization may be discovered in Massachusetts;
+for instance, the committees of the town-schools are directed to make
+an annual report to the Secretary of State. See Laws of Massachusetts,
+vol. i. p. 367.]
 Of The State
+I have described the townships and the administration; it now remains
+for me to speak of the State and the Government. This is ground I may
+pass over rapidly, without fear of being misunderstood; for all I have
+to say is to be found in written forms of the various constitutions,
+which are easily to be procured. These constitutions rest upon a simple
+and rational theory; their forms have been adopted by all
+constitutional nations, and are become familiar to us. In this place,
+therefore, it is only necessary for me to give a short analysis; I
+shall endeavor afterwards to pass judgment upon what I now describe.
+Having described townships and local administration, I now discuss the state and government. This I can cover quickly without misunderstanding, since written constitutions are easily available. These constitutions rest on a simple, rational theory familiar to constitutional nations. I need only provide a short analysis here; I shall endeavor afterwards 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
+**Legislative Power Of The State**
+Division of the Legislative Body into two Houses—Senate—House of
+Representatives—Different functions of these two Bodies.
+The legislative power is held by two assemblies: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate is primarily a legislative body, but it occasionally performs executive and judicial functions. While its specific powers vary by state, it most commonly exercises executive authority through the nomination of public officials. In some states, like New York, it also presides over political trials and decides certain civil cases; in Massachusetts, it has no administrative functions. Its membership is always small.
+The legislative power of the State is vested in two assemblies, the
+first of which generally bears the name of the Senate. The Senate is
+commonly a legislative body; but it sometimes becomes an executive and
+judicial one. It takes a part in the government in several ways,
+according to the constitution of the different States; *m but it is in
+the nomination of public functionaries that it most commonly assumes an
+executive power. It partakes of judicial power in the trial of certain
+political offences, and sometimes also in the decision of certain civil
+cases. *n The number of its members is always small. The other branch
+of the legislature, which is usually called the House of
+Representatives, has no share whatever in the administration, and only
+takes a part in the judicial power inasmuch as it impeaches public
+functionaries before the Senate. The members of the two Houses are
+nearly everywhere subject to the same conditions of election. They are
+chosen in the same manner, and by the same citizens. The only
+difference which exists between them is, that the term for which the
+Senate is chosen is in general longer than that of the House of
+Representatives. The latter seldom remain in office longer than a year;
+the former usually sit two or three years. By granting to the senators
+the privilege of being chosen for several years, and being renewed
+seriatim, the law takes care to preserve in the legislative body a
+nucleus of men already accustomed to public business, and capable of
+exercising a salutary influence upon the junior members.
+The House of Representatives participates in neither administration nor judicial power, except when impeaching officials before the Senate. Members of both houses are elected under nearly identical conditions, by the same citizens; the only significant difference is term length. Senators generally serve for two or three years, while Representatives rarely stay more than one. By staggering Senate elections, the law ensures a nucleus of men already accustomed to public business, capable of exercising a salutary influence on newer members.
+[ In Massachusetts the Senate is not invested with any administrative
+functions.]
+> **Quote:** "The system of the division of the legislative power was finally established, and its necessity may henceforward be regarded as a demonstrated truth."
+The Americans did not design this separation to create a hereditary versus elective house, or an aristocratic versus democratic one. Its advantage lies in providing a check on legislative assemblies and creating a court of appeal for law revision. Time has convinced them this division remains essential. Pennsylvania alone initially tried a single assembly; even Franklin supported it, but the people soon reversed course and created two houses. A theory nearly unknown to antiquity, introduced almost by accident, has become an axiom of modern political science.
+[ As in the State of New York.]
+**Executive Power Of The State**
+The executive power is embodied by the Governor, who holds only a portion of its rights. As supreme magistrate, he moderates and advises the legislature. His veto allows him to stop or delay legislative movements. He informs the legislature of statewide needs and suggests remedies. Though the natural executor of its decrees, in practice the legislature often appoints specific agents. When the legislature is absent, he protects the state against sudden dangers.
+The Americans, plainly, did not desire, by this separation of the
+legislative body into two branches, to make one house hereditary and
+the other elective; one aristocratic and the other democratic. It was
+not their object to create in the one a bulwark to power, whilst the
+other represented the interests and passions of the people. The only
+advantages which result from the present constitution of the United
+States are the division of the legislative power and the consequent
+check upon political assemblies; with the creation of a tribunal of
+appeal for the revision of the laws.
+The entire state militia is at his disposal. When legal authority is ignored, he leads armed forces to restore order. He plays no direct role in township or county administration, except through nominating Justices of the Peace—a power he generally cannot revoke, and in some states does not possess. He is an elected magistrate, usually serving one or two years, ensuring strict dependence on the majority that chose him.
+Time and experience, however, have convinced the Americans that if
+these are its only advantages, the division of the legislative power is
+still a principle of the greatest necessity. Pennsylvania was the only
+one of the United States which at first attempted to establish a single
+House of Assembly, and Franklin himself was so far carried away by the
+necessary consequences of the principle of the sovereignty of the
+people as to have concurred in the measure; but the Pennsylvanians were
+soon obliged to change the law, and to create two Houses. Thus the
+principle of the division of the legislative power was finally
+established, and its necessity may henceforward be regarded as a
+demonstrated truth. This theory, which was nearly unknown to the
+republics of antiquity—which was introduced into the world almost by
+accident, like so many other great truths—and misunderstood by several
+modern nations, is at length become an axiom in the political science
+of the present age.
+**Centralization**
+[See Benjamin Franklin]
+Centralization has become a common term used without precise meaning. Two distinct types must be distinguished. Certain interests—general laws, foreign relations—are common to all parts of a nation. Others—township business—are specific to certain parts. Power directing general interests concentrated in one place constitutes a central government. Power directing local interests concentrated in one place constitutes a central administration.
+The Executive Power Of The State
+These types can overlap, but are easily distinguished by their subjects. A central government gains immense power when combined with administrative centralization; together they accustom people to submit completely, affecting daily habits and influencing individuals collectively. They support each other, but are not inseparable. France under Louis XIV—where the sovereign was the author and interpreter of the laws and the sole representative of the nation—was a system where the King could truly say the State was identified with his person. Yet, the administration was far less centralized then than it is today. In England, government centralization is highly perfected; the state has the compact vigor of a single person.
+Office of Governor in an American State—The place he occupies in
+relation to the Legislature—His rights and his duties—His dependence on
+the people.
+> **Quote:** "I cannot conceive that a nation can enjoy a secure or prosperous existence without a powerful centralization of government."
+The executive power of the State may with truth be said to be
+represented by the Governor, although he enjoys but a portion of its
+rights. The supreme magistrate, under the title of Governor, is the
+official moderator and counsellor of the legislature. He is armed with
+a veto or suspensive power, which allows him to stop, or at least to
+retard, its movements at pleasure. He lays the wants of the country
+before the legislative body, and points out the means which he thinks
+may be usefully employed in providing for them; he is the natural
+executor of its decrees in all the undertakings which interest the
+nation at large. *o In the absence of the legislature, the Governor is
+bound to take all necessary steps to guard the State against violent
+shocks and unforeseen dangers. The whole military power of the State is
+at the disposal of the Governor. He is the commander of the militia,
+and head of the armed force. When the authority, which is by general
+consent awarded to the laws, is disregarded, the Governor puts himself
+at the head of the armed force of the State, to quell resistance, and
+to restore order. Lastly, the Governor takes no share in the
+administration of townships and counties, except it be indirectly in
+the nomination of Justices of the Peace, which nomination he has not
+the power to cancel. *p The Governor is an elected magistrate, and is
+generally chosen for one or two years only; so that he always continues
+to be strictly dependent upon the majority who returned him.
+Yet central administration weakens nations by diminishing public spirit. While it might concentrate resources for a moment, it hinders their renewal. It may secure victory in conflict but gradually saps national strength. It contributes to a leader's temporary greatness but cannot ensure lasting prosperity. When people say a state cannot act because it lacks a central point, they mean it lacks governmental centralization. The German Empire was never able to enforce its general laws because its members claimed the right, or found the means, to refuse their cooperation, even in affairs concerning the mass of the people. In the Middle Ages, feudal confusion arose because control of both local and general interests was divided among a thousand hands—the absence of central government prevented European nations from moving forward with energy.
+[ Practically speaking, it is not always the Governor who executes the
+plans of the Legislature; it often happens that the latter, in voting a
+measure, names special agents to superintend the execution of it.]
+In the United States, there is no central administration and no hierarchy of public officials dependent on it. Local authority has been pushed to levels no European nation could tolerate without great inconvenience. Yet governmental centralization is complete. National power is more compact than in old European nations: each state has one legislative body and one source of political authority. District assemblies and county courts have not been allowed to exceed their administrative duties and interfere with government. Each state legislature is supreme—nothing stands in its way, not privileges, local immunities, personal influence, or even reason itself, since it represents the majority claiming to be reason's sole voice. Its own will is its only limit.
+Under legislature's direct control stands the executive representative, whose duty is to force defiance to submit. Any weakness lies only in governmental details. American republics have no standing armies to intimidate minorities; but no minority has yet declared open war. (Note: The Civil War of 1860-65 later challenged this statement; however, the translator observes that the rapid disbanding of that massive army afterward reflects the system's unique resilience.)
+[ In some of the States the justices of the peace are not elected by
+the Governor.]
+The state employs township or county officers to deal with citizens. In New England, the assessor sets taxes, the collector receives them, and the treasurer remits them; disputes go to ordinary courts. This method is slow and inconvenient, a constant obstacle to governments with large financial needs. It is preferable for government to have its own officers—appointed by itself, removable at will, trained in efficient procedures—for matters essential to its existence. Yet the American central government can easily introduce more effective methods as its needs grow.
+The absence of central administration will not destroy the New World republics. Far from being insufficiently centralized, American governments are actually too centralized. Legislative bodies daily infringe upon governmental authority, tending to take it over entirely. Social power constantly shifts because it is subordinate to the people's power, which, aware of its strength, often forgets foresight's wisdom. This is the real danger.
+Political Effects Of The System Of Local Administration In The United
+States
+> **Quote:** "Its vigor, and not its impotence, will probably be the cause of its ultimate destruction."
+Necessary distinction between the general centralization of Government
+and the centralization of the local administration—Local administration
+not centralized in the United States: great general centralization of
+the Government—Some bad consequences resulting to the United States
+from the local administration—Administrative advantages attending this
+order of things—The power which conducts the Government is less
+regular, less enlightened, less learned, but much greater than in
+Europe—Political advantages of this order of things—In the United
+States the interests of the country are everywhere kept in view—Support
+given to the Government by the community—Provincial institutions more
+necessary in proportion as the social condition becomes more
+democratic—Reason of this.
+The local administration system produces several effects in America. The Americans seem to have gone too far in isolating government administration, because order even in minor affairs is a matter of national importance. Without administrative officials stationed across its territory to provide common direction, the state rarely attempts general police regulations. Europeans initially mistake this perceived disorder for anarchy, until deeper observation corrects them. Certain projects important to the whole state cannot be completed because no national administration directs them.
+Centralization is become a word of general and daily use, without any
+precise meaning being attached to it. Nevertheless, there exist two
+distinct kinds of centralization, which it is necessary to discriminate
+with accuracy. Certain interests are common to all parts of a nation,
+such as the enactment of its general laws and the maintenance of its
+foreign relations. Other interests are peculiar to certain parts of the
+nation; such, for instance, as the business of different townships.
+When the 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 a central administration.
+In my view, state authority should not relinquish the right to inspect local administration, even without direct interference. If a state agent prosecuted misconduct by local officers, more uniform order might be achieved without compromising independence. Currently, nothing exists above county courts, which only occasionally address offenses they should suppress.
+Upon some points these two kinds of centralization coalesce; but by
+classifying the objects which fall more particularly within the
+province of each of them, they may easily be distinguished. It is
+evident that a central government acquires immense power when united to
+administrative centralization. Thus combined, it accustoms men to set
+their own will habitually and completely aside; to submit, not only for
+once, or upon one point, but in every respect, and at all times. Not
+only, therefore, does this union of power subdue them compulsorily, but
+it affects them in the ordinary habits of life, and influences each
+individual, first separately and then collectively.
+European centralization proponents argue that government manages local affairs better than citizens could. This may be true when central power is enlightened and locals are ignorant; when the center is alert and locals are slow; or when the center acts and locals obey. This gap increases with centralization, as the center becomes more capable and locals more incompetent. But I deny this applies to people as enlightened, aware of their interests, and accustomed to reflection as the Americans. On the contrary, the collective strength of citizens will always contribute more effectively to public welfare than government authority.
+These two kinds of centralization mutually assist and attract each
+other; but they must not be supposed to be inseparable. It is
+impossible to imagine a more completely central government than that
+which existed in France under Louis XIV.; when the same individual was
+the author and the interpreter of the laws, and the representative of
+France at home and abroad, he was justified in asserting that the State
+was identified with his person. Nevertheless, the administration was
+much less centralized under Louis XIV. than it is at the present day.
+It is difficult to awaken a sleeping population or give them knowledge they lack. Persuading people to care about their own affairs is hard; it is often easier to interest them in court trivialities than community maintenance. But whenever a central administration claims to replace those most interested in a matter, I suspect it is mistaken or deceptive. No central power, however enlightened, can manage all details of a great nation's life—such vigilance exceeds human capacity. When it tries, it must accept imperfect results or exhaust itself in useless effort.
+In England the centralization of the government is carried to great
+perfection; the State has the compact vigor of a man, and by the sole
+act of its will it puts immense engines in motion, and wields or
+collects the efforts of its authority. Indeed, I cannot conceive that a
+nation can enjoy a secure or prosperous existence without a powerful
+centralization of government. But I am of opinion that a central
+administration enervates the nations in which it exists by incessantly
+diminishing their public spirit. If such an administration succeeds in
+condensing at a given moment, on a given point, all the disposable
+resources of a people, it impairs at least the renewal of those
+resources. It may ensure a victory in the hour of strife, but it
+gradually relaxes the sinews of strength. It may contribute admirably
+to the transient greatness of a man, but it cannot ensure the durable
+prosperity of a nation.
+Centralization easily imposes outward uniformity, commanding respect regardless of purpose. It brings admirable regularity to routine business, suppresses minor disorders, maintains society in stable but unimproving condition, and perpetuates sleepy precision that administrators applaud. This excels more in prevention than action. Its power fails when society needs to be stirred; if private citizens' cooperation becomes necessary, its weakness is revealed. Even when it asks for help, it demands they act exactly as prescribed, in a limited role, judging only by results. These are not conditions that secure human cooperation, which requires free movement and responsible action.
+If we pay proper attention, we shall find that whenever it is said that
+a State cannot act because it has no central point, it is the
+centralization of the government in which it is deficient. It is
+frequently asserted, and we are prepared to assent to the proposition,
+that the German empire was never able to bring all its powers into
+action. But the reason was, that the State was never able to enforce
+obedience to its general laws, because the several members of that
+great body always claimed the right, or found the means, of refusing
+their co-operation to the representatives of the common authority, even
+in the affairs which concerned the mass of the people; in other words,
+because there was no centralization of government. The same remark is
+applicable to the Middle Ages; the cause of all the confusion of feudal
+society was that the control, not only of local but of general
+interests, was divided amongst a thousand hands, and broken up in a
+thousand different ways; the absence of a central government prevented
+the nations of Europe from advancing with energy in any straightforward
+course.
+> **Quote:** "Such is the constitution of man, the citizen had rather remain a passive spectator than a dependent actor in schemes with which he is unacquainted."
+We have shown that in the United States no central administration and
+no dependent series of public functionaries exist. Local authority has
+been carried to lengths which no European nation could endure without
+great inconvenience, and which has even produced some disadvantageous
+consequences in America. But in the United States the centralization of
+the Government is complete; and it would be easy to prove that the
+national power is more compact than it has ever been in the old nations
+of 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 been
+multiplied, lest they should be tempted to exceed their administrative
+duties, and interfere with the Government. In America the legislature
+of each State is supreme; nothing can impede its authority; neither
+privileges, nor local immunities, nor personal influence, nor even the
+empire of reason, since it represents that majority which claims to be
+the sole organ of reason. Its own determination is, therefore, the only
+limit to this action. In juxtaposition to it, and under its immediate
+control, is the representative of the executive power, whose duty it is
+to constrain the refractory to submit by superior force. The only
+symptom of weakness lies in certain details of the action of the
+Government. The American republics have no standing armies to
+intimidate a discontented minority; but as no minority has as yet been
+reduced to declare open war, the necessity of an army has not been
+felt. *q The State usually employs the officers of the township or the
+county to deal with the citizens. Thus, for instance, in New England,
+the assessor fixes the rate of taxes; the collector receives them; the
+town-treasurer transmits the amount to the public treasury; and the
+disputes which may arise are brought before the ordinary courts of
+justice. This method of collecting taxes is slow as well as
+inconvenient, and it would prove a perpetual hindrance to a Government
+whose pecuniary demands were large. It is desirable that, in whatever
+materially affects its existence, the Government 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 it is in America, to introduce
+new and more efficacious modes of action, proportioned to its wants.
+[Footnote q: [The Civil War of 1860-65 cruelly belied this statement,
+and in the course of the struggle the North alone called two millions
+and a half of men to arms; but to the honor of the United States it
+must be added that, with the cessation of the contest, this army
+disappeared as rapidly as it had been raised.—Translator’s Note.]]
+[China presents the most perfect example of well-being that complete centralization can provide. Travelers assure us the Chinese have peace without happiness, industry without progress, stability without strength, and public order without public morality. Society is tolerable but never excellent. I am convinced that when China opens to European observation, it will be found to contain the world's most perfect centralized administration model.]
+The absence of a central government will not, then, as has often been
+asserted, prove the destruction of the republics of the New World; far
+from supposing that the American governments are not sufficiently
+centralized, I shall prove hereafter that they are too much so. The
+legislative bodies daily encroach upon the authority of the Government,
+and their tendency, like that of the French Convention, is to
+appropriate it entirely to themselves. Under these circumstances the
+social power is constantly changing hands, because it is subordinate to
+the power of the people, which is too apt to forget the maxims of
+wisdom and of foresight in the consciousness of its strength: hence
+arises its danger; and thus its vigor, and not its impotence, will
+probably be the cause of its ultimate destruction.
+The lack of uniform regulations controlling every French inhabitant is often felt in the United States. Instances of social indifference occur, and disgraceful flaws contrast with surrounding civilization. Useful projects requiring constant attention are frequently abandoned, for Americans, like others, are subject to sudden impulses. Europeans, accustomed to official interference in every project, struggle to adjust to local administration's complex machinery. Minor policing details that make life comfortable are neglected, but essential protections of man in society are as strong as anywhere. The power directing American government is less systematic, less enlightened, and less expert—yet a hundred times more authoritative than in Europe. In no country do citizens make such efforts for the common good; I know of none with so many effective schools, well-suited places of worship, or better-maintained roads. Uniformity, permanence, minute arrangement, and elaborate administration perfection should not be sought in the United States; instead, one finds a power that, if somewhat barbarous, is at least robust; and an existence checkered with accidents but cheered by animation and effort.
+The system of local administration produces several different effects
+in America. The Americans seem to me to have outstepped the limits of
+sound policy in isolating the administration of the Government; for
+order, even in second-rate affairs, is a matter of national importance.
+*r As the State has no administrative functionaries of its own,
+stationed on different points of its territory, to whom it can give a
+common impulse, the consequence is that it rarely attempts to issue any
+general police regulations. The want of these regulations is severely
+felt, and is frequently observed by Europeans. The appearance of
+disorder which prevails on the surface leads him at first to imagine
+that society is in a state of anarchy; nor does he perceive his mistake
+till he has gone deeper into the subject. Certain undertakings are of
+importance to the whole State; but they cannot be put in execution,
+because there is no national administration to direct them. Abandoned
+to the exertions of the towns or counties, under the care of elected or
+temporary agents, they lead to no result, or at least to no durable
+benefit.
+[A talented writer comparing French and American finances proved cleverness cannot replace knowledge of facts. He reproached Americans for confusion in township accounts, provided a French departmental budget model, and added: "We owe to centralization—that admirable invention of a great man—the uniform order and method that prevail in all municipal budgets, from the largest town to the smallest village." Whatever my admiration, when I see French communities with excellent accounting plunged into deep ignorance of their true interests and incurable apathy—existing rather than living—and when I observe the activity, information, and enterprise keeping American society in constant labor, whose budgets have little method and less uniformity, I am struck.
+[ The authority which represents the State ought not, I think, to waive
+the right of inspecting the local administration, even when it does not
+interfere more actively. Suppose, for instance, that an agent of the
+Government was stationed at some appointed spot in the country, to
+prosecute the misdemeanors of the town and county officers, would not a
+more uniform order be the result, without in any way compromising the
+independence of the township? Nothing 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 offences they are meant to
+repress.]
+> **Quote:** "To my mind the end of a good government is to ensure the welfare of a people, and not to establish order and regularity in the midst of its misery and its distress."
+I am led to believe that American township prosperity with confused accounts, and French distress with perfect budgets, stem from the same cause. I am suspicious of a benefit tied to so many evils, and not opposed to an evil compensated by so many benefits.]
+The partisans of centralization in Europe are wont to maintain that the
+Government directs the affairs of each locality better than the
+citizens could do it for themselves; this may be true when the central
+power is enlightened, and when the local districts are ignorant; when
+it is as alert as they are slow; when it is accustomed to act, and they
+to obey. Indeed, it is evident that this double tendency must augment
+with the increase of centralization, and that the readiness of the one
+and the incapacity of the others must become more and more prominent.
+But I deny that such is the case when the people is as enlightened, as
+awake to its interests, and as accustomed to reflect on them, as the
+Americans are. I am persuaded, on the contrary, that in this case the
+collective strength of the citizens will always conduce more
+efficaciously to the public welfare than the authority of the
+Government. It is difficult to point out with certainty the means of
+arousing a sleeping population, and of giving it passions and knowledge
+which it does not possess; it is, I am well aware, an arduous task to
+persuade men to busy themselves about their own affairs; and it would
+frequently be easier to interest them in the punctilios of court
+etiquette than in the repairs of their common dwelling. But whenever a
+central administration affects to supersede the persons most
+interested, I am inclined to suppose that it is either misled or
+desirous to mislead. However enlightened and however skilful a central
+power may be, it cannot of itself embrace all the details of the
+existence of a great nation. Such vigilance exceeds the powers of man.
+And when it attempts to create and set in motion so many complicated
+springs, it must submit to a very imperfect result, or consume itself
+in bootless efforts.
+Granting that American villages and counties would be governed more effectively by a remote authority, that the country would be more secure if administration centered in one hand, I would still prefer the American system for its political advantages. After all, it benefits me little if a watchful authority protects my peace and removes all dangers, if that same authority is absolute master of my liberty and life. Such a system monopolizes existence's energy: when authority weakens, everything weakens; when it sleeps, everything sleeps; when it dies, the State perishes.
+Centralization succeeds more easily, indeed, in subjecting the external
+actions of men to a certain uniformity, which at least commands our
+regard, independently of the objects to which it is applied, like those
+devotees who worship the statue and forget the deity it represents.
+Centralization imparts without difficulty an admirable regularity to
+the routine of business; provides for the details of the social police
+with sagacity; represses the smallest disorder and the most petty
+misdemeanors; maintains society in a status quo alike secure from
+improvement and decline; and perpetuates a drowsy precision in the
+conduct of affairs, which is hailed by the heads of the administration
+as a sign of perfect order and public tranquillity: *s in short, it
+excels more in prevention than in action. Its force deserts it when
+society is to be disturbed or accelerated in its course; and if once
+the co-operation of private citizens is necessary to the furtherance of
+its measures, the secret of its impotence is disclosed. Even whilst it
+invokes their assistance, it is on the condition that they shall act
+exactly as much as the Government chooses, and exactly in the manner it
+appoints. They are to take charge of the details, without aspiring to
+guide the system; they are to work in a dark and subordinate sphere,
+and only to judge the acts in which they have themselves cooperated by
+their results. These, however, are not conditions on which the alliance
+of the human will is to be obtained; its carriage must be free and its
+actions responsible, or (such is the constitution of man) the citizen
+had rather remain a passive spectator than a dependent actor in schemes
+with which he is unacquainted.
+In certain European countries, inhabitants consider themselves settlers, indifferent to their residence's fate. Great changes occur without their participation, often without their knowledge. The citizen is unconcerned about his village's condition, street policing, or church repairs; he sees these as belonging to a powerful stranger called "the Government." He feels only a temporary interest, without ownership or improvement. This apathy extends so far that if his safety or his children's is threatened, he folds his arms and waits for national aid. This same individual, having surrendered his free will, has no natural inclination to obey; he cowers before the lowest official, but as for the law, he braves it with > **Quote:** "the spirit of a conquered foe as soon as its superior force is removed: his oscillations between servitude and license are perpetual."  When a nation reaches this state, it must change its customs and laws or perish; public virtue's source has dried up. Such communities are natural prey for foreign conquest. If they do not disappear, it is only because surrounded by similar or inferior nations, a lingering patriotism or memory of past glory gives impulse for preservation.
+[ China appears to me to present the most perfect instance of that
+species of well-being which a completely central administration may
+furnish to the nations among which it exists. Travellers assure us that
+the 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 am
+convinced that, when China is opened to European observation, it will
+be found to contain the most perfect model of a central administration
+which exists in the universe.]
+Nor can tribes' massive efforts defending an alien country be cited for such systems; their main motivation was religion. The nation's survival had become part of their faith, and in defending their country they defended their Holy City. Turkish tribes never participated in societal affairs, yet accomplished immense feats while the Sultan's victories were Islamic triumphs. Today they decline because only despotism remains as religion fades. Montesquieu gave absolute power more credit than it deserves; despotism alone produces no lasting results. Upon inspection, religion—not fear—has always caused absolute governments' long-term prosperity. No true power can be established among men without relying on the free union of their desires; patriotism and religion are the only motives that can permanently direct a political body toward a single goal.
+Laws cannot restart a dying faith's fire, but can make men interested in their country's fate. By this influence, patriotism's vague impulse may be directed and revived; connected to thoughts, passions, and daily habits, it can solidify into lasting, rational sentiment.
+It is undeniable that the want of those uniform regulations which
+control the conduct of every inhabitant of France is not unfrequently
+felt in the United States. Gross instances of social indifference and
+neglect are to be met with, and from time to time disgraceful blemishes
+are seen in complete contrast with the surrounding civilization. Useful
+undertakings which cannot succeed without perpetual attention and
+rigorous exactitude are very frequently abandoned in the end; for in
+America, as well as in other countries, the people is subject to sudden
+impulses and momentary exertions. The European who is accustomed to
+find a functionary always at hand to interfere with all he undertakes
+has some difficulty in accustoming himself to the complex mechanism of
+the administration of the townships. In general it may be affirmed that
+the lesser details of the police, which render life easy and
+comfortable, are neglected in America; but that the essential
+guarantees of man in society are as strong there as elsewhere. In
+America the power which conducts the Government is far less regular,
+less enlightened, and less learned, but an hundredfold more
+authoritative than in Europe. In no country in the world do the
+citizens make such exertions for the common weal; and I am acquainted
+with no people which has established schools as numerous and as
+efficacious, places of public worship better suited to 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 sought for in the United
+States; but it will be easy to find, on the other hand, the symptoms of
+a power which, if it is somewhat barbarous, is at least robust; and of
+an existence which is checkered with accidents indeed, but cheered at
+the same time by animation and effort.
+Let it not be said that such experiments' time has passed; nations' old age differs from men's, and every generation is a new people ready for the lawmaker's care. It is the political, not administrative, effects of local system that I most admire in America. There, the country's interests are kept everywhere in view; every citizen is as warmly attached as if they were his own. He takes pride in national glory, boasts of success he helped achieve, and rejoies in general prosperity. His feeling toward the State resembles family bonds, and he involves himself in welfare through self-interest.
+[ A writer of talent, who, in the comparison which he has drawn between
+the finances of France and those of the United States, has proved that
+ingenuity cannot always supply the place of a knowledge of facts, very
+justly reproaches the Americans for the sort of confusion which exists
+in the accounts of the expenditure in the townships; and after giving
+the model of a departmental budget in France, he adds:—“We are indebted
+to centralization, that admirable invention of a great man, for the
+uniform order and method which prevail alike in all the municipal
+budgets, from the largest town to the humblest commune.” Whatever may
+be my admiration of this result, when I see the communes of France,
+with their excellent system of accounts, plunged into the grossest
+ignorance of their true interests, and abandoned to so incorrigible an
+apathy that they seem to vegetate rather than to live; when, on the
+other hand, I observe the activity, the information, and the spirit of
+enterprise which keep society in perpetual labor, in those American
+townships whose budgets are drawn up with small method and with still
+less uniformity, I am struck by the spectacle; for to my mind the end
+of a good government is to ensure the welfare of a people, and not to
+establish order and regularity in the midst of its misery and its
+distress. I am therefore led to suppose that the prosperity of the
+American townships and the apparent confusion of their accounts, the
+distress of the French communes and the perfection of their budget, may
+be attributable to the same cause. At any rate I am suspicious of a
+benefit which is united to so many evils, and I am not averse to an
+evil which is compensated by so many benefits.]
+The European obeys officials because they represent superior force; the American obeys because they represent right. In America, no one obeys a man, but justice and law. If the citizen's self-opinion is exaggerated, it is at least healthy; he trusts his own powers unhesitatingly. When a private individual plans a project relating to society's welfare, he never asks government cooperation; instead, he publishes his plan, offers execution, seeks individual help, and struggles against obstacles. While often less successful than the State might have been, the sum of private undertakings far exceeds what government could accomplish.
+Since administrative authority is within citizens' reach, representing them to some degree, it excites neither jealousy nor hatred; since its resources are limited, everyone knows they must not rely solely on it. Thus when administration intervenes, it does not work alone as in Europe; private duties do not end because the State assists. On the contrary, everyone guides and supports it. This combination of individual effort and public authority often achieves what the most energetic central administration cannot. I could provide many facts, but will give only one with which I am thoroughly familiar. In America, authorities have few means to discover crimes and arrest criminals. No state police exists, passports are unknown. The criminal police cannot compare to France's; magistrates and prosecutors are few, and prisoner questioning is rapid and oral. Yet nowhere does crime more rarely escape punishment, because everyone believes they have an interest in providing evidence and stopping offenders. During my stay, I witnessed spontaneous committee formation to pursue and prosecute a major criminal.
+Granting for an instant that the villages and counties of the United
+States would be more usefully governed by a remote authority which they
+had never seen than by functionaries taken from the midst of
+them—admitting, for the sake of argument, that the country would be
+more secure, and the resources of society better employed, if the whole
+administration centred in a single arm—still the political advantages
+which the Americans derive from their system would induce me to prefer
+it to the contrary plan. It profits me but little, after all, that a
+vigilant authority should protect the tranquillity of my pleasures and
+constantly avert all dangers from my path, without my care or my
+concern, if this same authority is the absolute mistress of my liberty
+and of my life, and if it so monopolizes all the energy of existence
+that when it languishes everything languishes around it, that when it
+sleeps everything must sleep, that when it dies the State itself must
+perish.
+> **Quote:** "In Europe a criminal is an unhappy being who is struggling for his life against the ministers of justice, whilst the population is merely a spectator of the conflict; in America he is looked upon as an enemy of the human race, and the whole of mankind is against him."
+In certain countries of Europe the natives consider themselves as a
+kind of settlers, indifferent to the fate of the spot upon which they
+live. The greatest changes are effected without their concurrence and
+(unless chance may have apprised them of the event) without their
+knowledge; nay more, the citizen is unconcerned as to the condition of
+his village, the police of his street, the repairs of the church or of
+the parsonage; for he looks upon all these things as unconnected with
+himself, and as the property of a powerful stranger whom he calls the
+Government. He has only a life-interest in these possessions, and he
+entertains no notions of ownership or of improvement. This want of
+interest in his own affairs goes so far that, if his own safety or that
+of his children is endangered, 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 natural propensity to obedience; he cowers, it is true,
+before the pettiest officer; but he braves the law with the spirit of a
+conquered foe as soon as its superior force is removed: his
+oscillations between servitude and license are perpetual. When a nation
+has arrived at this state it must either change its customs and its
+laws or perish: the source of public virtue is dry, and, though it may
+contain subjects, the race of citizens is extinct. Such communities are
+a natural prey to foreign conquests, and if they do not disappear from
+the scene of life, it is because they are surrounded by other nations
+similar or inferior to themselves: it is because the instinctive
+feeling of their country’s claims still exists in their hearts; and
+because an involuntary pride in the name it bears, or a vague
+reminiscence of its bygone fame, suffices to give them the impulse of
+self-preservation.
+All nations benefit from regional institutions, but none more than democratic peoples. In aristocracies, order can be maintained amid liberty; rulers have much to lose and protect people from despotism's excesses. But democracy without local institutions has no security against evils. How can a population unaccustomed to freedom in small matters use it wisely in great ones? What resistance can be offered to tyranny where every private individual is powerless and citizens share no common bond? Those who fear mob chaos and those who fear absolute power should equally desire local liberties' gradual growth.
+Nor can the prodigious exertions made by tribes in the defence of a
+country to which they did not belong be adduced in favor of such a
+system; for it will be found that in these cases their main incitement
+was religion. The permanence, the glory, or the prosperity of the
+nation were become parts of their faith, and in defending the country
+they inhabited they defended that Holy City of which they were all
+citizens. The Turkish tribes have never taken an active share in the
+conduct of the affairs of society, but they accomplished stupendous
+enterprises as long as the victories of the Sultan were the triumphs of
+the Mohammedan faith. In the present age they are in rapid decay,
+because their religion is departing, and despotism only remains.
+Montesquieu, who attributed 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 find that religion, and not fear, has ever been the cause of the
+long-lived prosperity of an absolute government. Whatever exertions may
+be made, no true power can be founded among men which does not depend
+upon the free union of their inclinations; and patriotism and religion
+are the only two motives in the world which can permanently direct the
+whole of a body politic to one end.
+Democratic nations are most at risk of falling under centralized administration for several reasons. Their constant tendency is to concentrate all governmental strength in the only power directly representing the people, because beyond the people nothing is visible but equal individuals blended together. When that power already possesses all government attributes, it can hardly resist involving itself in administrative details; an opportunity eventually arises, as happened in France. The French Revolution had two opposing impulses—one favoring liberty, the other despotism—that must never be confused. Under the old monarchy, the King was sole lawmaker, yet beneath his power certain remnants of local institutions, though half-destroyed, remained visible. These were inconsistent, poorly organized, and sometimes absurd; in aristocratic hands they had become oppression tools. The Revolution declared itself enemy both to royalty and local institutions, lumping everything before—despotic power and checks to its abuses—into one hatred, tending simultaneously to overthrow and centralize. This double character has been skillfully used by absolute power's supporters. Can they be accused of working for despotism when defending centralized administration, a great Revolution innovation? Thus popularity can combine with hostility toward people's rights, and tyranny's secret slave can be freedom's outspoken admirer.
+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. By
+this influence the vague impulse of patriotism, which never abandons
+the human heart, may be directed and revived; and if it be connected
+with the thoughts, the passions, and the daily habits of life, it may
+be consolidated into a durable and rational sentiment.
+I have visited the two nations where local liberty is most perfectly established, and listened to different parties' opinions. In America I met men secretly hoping to destroy the Union's democratic institutions; in England I found others openly attacking aristocracy. But I know of no one who does not regard local independence as a great benefit. In both countries, I heard a thousand causes assigned for State problems, but never the local system. Citizens attributed their country's power and prosperity to many reasons, but all placed local institutions' advantages highest. Am I to suppose that men naturally divided on religion and politics, agreeing on one point of daily experience, are all wrong? The only nations denying local liberties' usefulness are those with the fewest—in other words, only the unfamiliar criticize the institution.
+Let it not be said that the time for the experiment is already past;
+for the old age of nations is not like the old age of men, and every
+fresh generation is a new people ready for the care of the legislator.
+It is not the administrative but the political effects of the local
+system that I most admire in America. In the United States the
+interests of the country are everywhere kept in view; they are an
+object of solicitude to the people of the whole Union, and every
+citizen is as warmly attached to them as if they were his own. He takes
+pride in the glory of his nation; he boasts of its success, to which he
+conceives himself to have contributed, and he rejoices in the general
+prosperity by which he profits. The feeling he entertains towards the
+State is analogous to that which unites him to his family, and it is by
+a kind of egotism that he interests himself in the welfare of his
+country.
+The European generally submits to a public officer because he
+represents a superior force; but to an American he represents a right.
+In America it may be said that no one renders obedience to man, but to
+justice and to law. If the opinion which the citizen entertains of
+himself is exaggerated, it is at least salutary; he unhesitatingly
+confides in his own powers, which appear to him to be all-sufficient.
+When a private individual meditates an undertaking, however directly
+connected it may be with the welfare of society, he never thinks of
+soliciting the co-operation of the Government, but he publishes his
+plan, offers to execute it himself, courts the assistance of other
+individuals, and struggles manfully against all obstacles. Undoubtedly
+he is often less successful than the State might have been in his
+position; but in the end the sum of these private undertakings far
+exceeds all that the Government 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
+nor their hatred; as its resources are limited, every one feels that he
+must not rely solely on its assistance. Thus, when the administration
+thinks fit to interfere, it is not abandoned to itself as in Europe;
+the duties of the private citizens are not supposed to have lapsed
+because the State assists in their fulfilment, but every one is ready,
+on the contrary, to guide and to support it. This action of individual
+exertions, joined to that of the public authorities, frequently
+performs what the most energetic central administration would be unable
+to execute. It would be easy to adduce several facts in proof of what I
+advance, but I had rather give only one, with which I am more
+thoroughly acquainted. *u In America the means which the authorities
+have at their disposal for the discovery of crimes and the arrest of
+criminals are few. The State police does not exist, and passports are
+unknown. The criminal police of the United States cannot be compared to
+that of France; the magistrates and public prosecutors are not
+numerous, and the examinations of prisoners are rapid and oral.
+Nevertheless in no country does crime more rarely elude punishment. The
+reason is, that every one conceives himself to be interested in
+furnishing evidence of the act committed, and in stopping the
+delinquent. During my stay in the United States I witnessed the
+spontaneous formation of committees for the pursuit and prosecution of
+a man who had committed a great crime in a certain county. In Europe a
+criminal is an unhappy being who is struggling for his life against the
+ministers of justice, whilst the population is merely a spectator of
+the conflict; in America he is looked upon as an enemy of the human
+race, and the whole of mankind is against him.
+[ See Appendix, I.]
+I believe that provincial institutions are useful to all nations, but
+nowhere do they appear to me to be more indispensable than amongst a
+democratic people. In an aristocracy order can always be maintained in
+the midst of liberty, and as the rulers have a great deal to lose order
+is to them a first-rate consideration. In like manner an aristocracy
+protects the people from the excesses of despotism, because it always
+possesses an organized power ready to resist a despot. But a democracy
+without provincial institutions has no security against these evils.
+How can a populace, unaccustomed to freedom in small concerns, learn to
+use it temperately in great affairs? What resistance can be offered to
+tyranny in a country where every private individual is impotent, and
+where the citizens are united by no common tie? Those who dread the
+license of the mob, and those who fear the rule of absolute power,
+ought alike to desire the progressive growth of provincial liberties.
+On the other hand, I am convinced that democratic nations are most
+exposed to fall beneath the yoke of a central administration, for
+several reasons, amongst which is the following. The constant tendency
+of these nations is to concentrate all the strength of the Government
+in the hands of the only power which directly represents the people,
+because beyond the people nothing is to be perceived but a mass of
+equal individuals confounded together. But when the same power is
+already in possession of all the attributes of the Government, it can
+scarcely refrain from penetrating into the details of the
+administration, and an opportunity of doing so is sure to present
+itself in the end, as was the case in France. In the French Revolution
+there were two impulses in opposite directions, which must never be
+confounded—the one was favorable to liberty, the other to despotism.
+Under the ancient monarchy the King was the sole author of the laws,
+and below the power of the sovereign certain vestiges of provincial
+institutions, half destroyed, were still distinguishable. These
+provincial institutions were incoherent, ill compacted, and frequently
+absurd; in the hands of the aristocracy they had sometimes been
+converted into instruments of oppression. The Revolution declared
+itself the enemy of royalty and of provincial institutions at the same
+time; it confounded all that had preceded it—despotic power and the
+checks to its abuses—in indiscriminate hatred, and its tendency was at
+once to overthrow and to centralize. This double character of the
+French Revolution is a fact which has been adroitly handled by the
+friends of absolute power. Can they be accused of laboring in the cause
+of despotism when they are defending that central administration which
+was one of the great innovations of the Revolution? *v In this manner
+popularity may be conciliated with hostility to the rights of the
+people, and the secret slave of tyranny may be the professed admirer of
+freedom.
+[ See Appendix K.]
+I have visited the two nations in which the system of provincial
+liberty has been most perfectly established, and I have listened to the
+opinions of different parties in those countries. In America I met with
+men who secretly aspired to destroy the democratic institutions of the
+Union; in England I found others who attacked the aristocracy openly,
+but I know of no one who does not regard provincial independence as a
+great benefit. In both countries I have heard a thousand different
+causes assigned for the evils of the State, but the local system was
+never mentioned amongst them. I have heard citizens attribute the power
+and prosperity of their country to a multitude of reasons, but they all
+placed the advantages of local institutions in the foremost rank. Am I
+to suppose that when men who are naturally so divided on religious
+opinions and on political theories agree on one point (and that one of
+which they have daily experience), they are all in error? The only
+nations which deny the utility of provincial liberties are those which
+have fewest of them; in other words, those who are unacquainted with
+the institution are the only persons who pass a censure upon it.
 ## Chapter VI: Judicial Power In The United States
+Americans have retained the standard characteristics of judicial power common to all nations, yet transformed it into a powerful political tool. Their judges can declare laws unconstitutional—a right exercised through specific cases with safeguards against abuse.
+I devote a separate chapter to this because no other nation has organized judicial power on these principles. Confederations and republics exist elsewhere, as does representative government, but the American judicial organization is unique. A stranger sees judges constantly invoked in political events and assumes they are important political figures, yet their courts appear no different from standard judicial bodies. The magistrates seem to interfere in public affairs only by chance—though this chance recurs daily.
+The first characteristic of judicial power is the duty to arbitrate: courts only interfere when rights are contested and a lawsuit is brought. As long as a law faces no challenge, judicial authority has no occasion to examine it. When a judge attacks a law in a specific case, he merely extends his customary duties, but ruling on a law without a case before him would invade legislative authority.
+The Anglo-Americans have retained the characteristics of judicial power
+which are common to all nations—They have, however, made it a powerful
+political organ—How—In what the judicial system of the Anglo-Americans
+differs from that of all other nations—Why the American judges have the
+right of declaring the laws to be unconstitutional—How they use this
+right—Precautions taken by the legislator to prevent its abuse.
+The second characteristic is that judicial power rules on specific cases, not general principles. A judge may destroy a general principle through a particular judgment, but directly attacking a principle without a specific case leaves the proper sphere of judicial authority.
+Judicial Power In The United States And Its Influence On Political
+Society.
+The third characteristic is passivity: judicial power cannot act until appealed to. It does not hunt down criminals or examine evidence on its own initiative. It punishes when called upon, corrects wrongs when asked, interprets acts when necessary. A judge who initiated proceedings himself would violate the passive nature of his authority.
+I have thought it essential to devote a separate chapter to the
+judicial authorities of the United States, lest their great political
+importance should be lessened in the reader’s eyes by a merely
+incidental mention of them. Confederations have existed in other
+countries beside America, and republics have not been established upon
+the shores of the New World alone; the representative system of
+government has been adopted in several States of Europe, but I am not
+aware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial
+power on the principle now adopted by the Americans. The judicial
+organization of the United States is the institution which a stranger
+has the greatest difficulty in understanding. He hears the authority of
+a judge invoked in the political occurrences of every day, and he
+naturally concludes that in the United States the judges are important
+political functionaries; nevertheless, when he examines the nature of
+the tribunals, they offer nothing which is contrary to the usual habits
+and privileges of those bodies, and the magistrates seem to him to
+interfere in public affairs of chance, but by a chance which recurs
+every day.
+> **Quote:** "The judicial power is by its nature devoid of action; it must be put in motion in order to produce a result."
+When the Parliament of Paris remonstrated, or refused to enregister an
+edict, or when it summoned a functionary accused of malversation to its
+bar, its political influence as a judicial body was clearly visible;
+but nothing of the kind is to be seen in the United States. The
+Americans have retained all the ordinary characteristics of judicial
+authority, and have carefully restricted its action to the ordinary
+circle of its functions.
+Americans have retained these three traits: judges only rule when litigation arises, only concern themselves with specific cases, and cannot act until a cause is properly brought before them. Yet they possess immense political power. The source lies in the simple fact that American judges may base decisions on the Constitution rather than ordinary laws—they can ignore laws they deem unconstitutional.
+The first characteristic of judicial power in all nations is the duty
+of arbitration. But rights must be contested in order to warrant the
+interference of a tribunal; and an action must be brought to obtain the
+decision of a judge. As long, therefore, as the law is uncontested, the
+judicial authority is not called upon to discuss it, and it may exist
+without being perceived. When a judge in a given case attacks a law
+relating to that case, he extends the circle of his customary duties,
+without however stepping beyond it; since he is in some measure obliged
+to decide upon the law in order to decide the case. But if he
+pronounces upon a law without resting upon a case, he clearly steps
+beyond his sphere, and invades that of the legislative authority.
+Similar claims have failed in other countries, but in America this right is universally recognized. The explanation lies in American constitutional principles. In France, the constitution is theoretically unchangeable; no authority can modify it. If French judges could declare laws unconstitutional, supreme power would rest with them, since they alone would interpret what no other body could alter. In England, Parliament can modify the constitution, so the constitution does not truly exist as a separate entity. Parliament is both legislative and constituent assembly.
+The second characteristic of judicial power is that it pronounces on
+special cases, and not upon general principles. If a judge in deciding
+a particular point destroys a general principle, by passing a judgment
+which tends to reject all the inferences from that principle, and
+consequently to annul it, he remains within the ordinary limits of his
+functions. But if he directly attacks a general principle without
+having a particular case in view, he leaves the circle in which all
+nations have agreed to confine his authority, he assumes a more
+important, and perhaps a more useful, influence than that of the
+magistrate, but he ceases to be a representative of the judicial power.
+American theory is more logical. The Constitution represents the people's will as a distinct whole, binding on legislator and citizen alike. It can be altered only by the people through specific procedures (such as Article V, requiring a two-thirds Congressional vote and ratification by three-quarters of the states—a process that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments). As long as it exists, it is the origin of all authority and the sole source of law.
+The third characteristic of the judicial power is its inability to act
+unless it is appealed to, or until it has taken cognizance of an
+affair. 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 in motion in order to produce a result. When it is called
+upon to repress a crime, it punishes the criminal; when a wrong is to
+be redressed, it is ready to redress it; when an act requires
+interpretation, it is prepared to interpret it; but it does not pursue
+criminals, hunt out wrongs, or examine into evidence of its own accord.
+A judicial functionary who should open proceedings, and usurp the
+censorship of the laws, would in some measure do violence to the
+passive nature of his authority.
+> **Quote:** "In the United States the constitution governs the legislator as much as the private citizen; as it is the first of laws it cannot be modified by a law, and it is therefore just that the tribunals should obey the constitution in preference to any law."
+The Americans have retained these three distinguishing characteristics
+of the judicial power; an American judge can only pronounce a decision
+when litigation has arisen, he is only conversant with special cases,
+and he cannot act until the cause has been duly brought before the
+court. His position is therefore perfectly similar to that of the
+magistrate of other nations; and he is nevertheless invested with
+immense political power. If the sphere of his authority and his means
+of action are the same as those of other judges, it may be asked whence
+he derives a power which they do not possess. The cause of this
+difference lies in the simple fact that the Americans have acknowledged
+the right of the judges to found their decisions on the constitution
+rather than on the laws. In other words, they have left them at liberty
+not to apply such laws as may appear to them to be unconstitutional.
+This condition is essential, for every magistrate has the natural right to choose the legal obligation by which he is most strictly bound. In France, the constitution is also primary law, but judges cannot use it without infringing on rights more sacred than their own—those of the society they represent. In America, where the nation can always force magistrates to obey by changing the constitution, no such danger exists.
+I am aware that a similar right has been claimed—but claimed in vain—by
+courts of justice in other countries; but in America it is recognized
+by all authorities; and not a party, nor so much as an individual, is
+found to contest it. This fact can only be explained by the principles
+of the American constitution. In France the constitution is (or at
+least is supposed to be) immutable; and the received theory is that no
+power has the right of changing any part of it. In England the
+Parliament has an acknowledged right to modify the constitution; as,
+therefore, the constitution may undergo perpetual changes, it does not
+in reality exist; the Parliament is at once a legislative and a
+constituent assembly. The political theories of America are more simple
+and more rational. An American constitution is not supposed to be
+immutable as in France, nor is it susceptible of modification by the
+ordinary powers of society as in England. It constitutes a detached
+whole, which, as it represents the determination of the whole people,
+is no less binding on the legislator than on the private citizen, but
+which may be altered by the will of the people in predetermined cases,
+according to established rules. In America the constitution may
+therefore vary, but as long as it exists it is the origin of all
+authority, and the sole vehicle of the predominating force. *a
+When an American judge considers a law unconstitutional, he may refuse to apply it. This power is unique and gives rise to immense political influence. Few laws escape judicial analysis for long, as most eventually affect private interests and reach court. Once a judge refuses to apply a law, it loses moral force. Those harmed learn to evade it, lawsuits multiply, and the law becomes powerless. The people must then change the constitution or the legislature must repeal the law.
+[ [The fifth article of the original Constitution of the United States
+provides the mode in which amendments of the Constitution may be made.
+Amendments must be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress,
+and ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several
+States. Fifteen amendments of the Constitution have been made at
+different times since 1789, the most important of which are the
+Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth, framed and ratified after the
+Civil War. The original Constitution of the United States, followed by
+these fifteen amendments, is printed at the end of this edition.
+—Translator’s Note, 1874.]]
+The danger of this power is reduced by requiring that laws be attacked only through courts. If judges could challenge laws based on general theories or publicly criticize the legislature, they would become major political figures, stirring up national passions. But when a judge challenges a law in an obscure proceeding tied to private interests, the attack is hidden from public view. The decision affects only an individual, and the law is only indirectly slighted. Though criticized, it is not abolished; its moral force is weakened but not suspended. Its final destruction requires repeated judicial attacks. By linking law censorship to private prosecutions, the system is protected from frivolous attacks and party spirit. Legislative errors are exposed only when their bad consequences are actually felt.
+This practice is highly favorable to both liberty and public order. If judges could attack the legislature directly, they might be too timid to resist or party spirit might encourage constant combat. Laws would be attacked when government is weak and obeyed when strong—contested when they should be respected, respected when they could become tools of oppression. The American judge enters politics against his will, judging the law only because he must judge a case. He acts as a citizen by fulfilling his professional duty. This system does not reach all laws—some may never spark a lawsuit, and potential plaintiffs might decline to act. Americans accept this disadvantage to avoid granting dangerous power.
+It is easy to perceive in what manner these differences must act upon
+the position and the rights of the judicial bodies in the three
+countries I have cited. If in France the tribunals were authorized to
+disobey the laws on the ground of their being opposed to the
+constitution, 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 would
+therefore take the place of the nation, and exercise as absolute a sway
+over society as the inherent weakness of judicial power would allow
+them to do. Undoubtedly, as the French judges are incompetent to
+declare a law to be unconstitutional, the power of changing the
+constitution is indirectly given to the legislative body, since no
+legal barrier would oppose the alterations which it might prescribe.
+But it is better to grant the power of changing the constitution of the
+people to men who represent (however imperfectly) the will of the
+people, than to men who represent no one but themselves.
+> **Quote:** "Within these limits the power vested in the American courts of justice of pronouncing a statute to be unconstitutional forms one of the most powerful barriers which has ever been devised against the tyranny of political assemblies."
+It would be still more unreasonable to invest the English judges with
+the right of resisting the decisions of the legislative body, since the
+Parliament which makes the laws also makes the constitution; and
+consequently a law emanating from the three powers of the State can in
+no case be unconstitutional. But neither of these remarks is applicable
+to America.
+**Other Powers Granted To American Judges**
+In the United States the constitution governs the legislator as much as
+the private citizen; as it is the first of laws it cannot be modified
+by a law, and it is therefore just that the tribunals should obey the
+constitution in preference to any law. This condition is essential to
+the power of the judicature, for to select that legal obligation by
+which he is most strictly bound is the natural right of every
+magistrate.
+In the United States, all citizens can sue public officials in ordinary courts, and all judges can punish public offenses. The right to judge executive agents who violate law is so natural it should not be considered extraordinary. Far from weakening government, it increases respect for authority while making officials more careful not to offend public opinion. Political trials are rare because lawsuits are difficult and expensive. It is easy to attack a public figure in a newspaper, but a lawsuit requires serious motives and solid grounds. Individuals only prosecute officials with genuine complaints, and officials are careful not to provide grounds when they fear being sued.
+In France the constitution is also the first of laws, and the judges
+have the same right to take it as the ground of their decisions, but
+were they to exercise this right they must perforce encroach on rights
+more sacred than their own, namely, on those of society, in whose name
+they are acting. In this case the State-motive clearly prevails over
+the motives of an individual. In America, where the nation can always
+reduce its magistrates to obedience by changing its constitution, no
+danger of this kind is to be feared. Upon this point, therefore, the
+political and the logical reasons agree, and the people as well as the
+judges preserve their privileges.
+This is not unique to republics; the same holds true in England. Neither nation views impeachment of top officials as sufficient guarantee of independence. They believe the right of every citizen to bring minor prosecutions better safeguards freedom than massive judicial actions employed too late.
+Whenever a law which the judge holds to be unconstitutional is argued
+in 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 escape the searching analysis of the judicial power for any length
+of time, for there are few which are not prejudicial to some private
+interest or other, and none which may not be brought before a court of
+justice by the choice of parties, or by the necessity of the case. But
+from the time that a judge has refused to apply any given law in a
+case, that law loses a portion of its moral cogency. The persons to
+whose interests it is prejudicial learn that means exist of evading its
+authority, and similar suits are multiplied, until it becomes
+powerless. One of two alternatives must then be resorted to: the people
+must alter the constitution, or the legislature must repeal the law.
+The political power which the Americans have intrusted to their courts
+of justice is therefore immense, but the evils of this power are
+considerably diminished by the obligation which has been imposed of
+attacking the laws through the courts of justice alone. If the judge
+had been empowered 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 the legislator, he would have played a prominent part in the
+political sphere; and as the champion or the antagonist of a party, he
+would have arrayed the hostile passions of the nation in the conflict.
+But when a judge contests a law applied to some particular case in an
+obscure proceeding, the importance of his attack is concealed from the
+public gaze, his decision bears upon the interest of an individual, and
+if the law is slighted it is only collaterally. Moreover, although it
+is censured, it is not abolished; its moral force may be diminished,
+but its cogency is by no means suspended, and its final destruction can
+only be accomplished by the reiterated attacks of judicial
+functionaries. It will readily be understood that by connecting the
+censorship of the laws with the private interests of members of the
+community, and by intimately uniting the prosecution of the law with
+the prosecution of an individual, legislation is protected from wanton
+assailants, and from the daily aggressions of party spirit. The errors
+of the legislator are exposed whenever their evil consequences are most
+felt, and it is always a positive and appreciable fact which serves as
+the basis of a prosecution.
+In the Middle Ages, judges used terrible tortures on the few offenders they caught, which did nothing to lower crime. We have since discovered that certain, mild justice is more effective. The English and Americans treat tyranny like any other crime—by making penalties reasonable and convictions easier to obtain.
+I am inclined to believe this practice of the American courts to be at
+once the most favorable to liberty as well as to public order. If the
+judge could only attack the legislator openly and directly, he would
+sometimes be afraid to oppose any resistance to his will; and at other
+moments party spirit might encourage him to brave it at every turn. The
+laws would consequently be attacked when the power from which they
+emanate is weak, and obeyed when it is strong. That is to say, when it
+would be useful to respect them they would be contested, and when it
+would be easy to convert them into an instrument of oppression they
+would be respected. But the American judge is brought into the
+political arena independently of his own will. He only judges the law
+because he is obliged to judge a case. The political question which he
+is called upon to resolve is connected with the interest of the
+suitors, and he cannot refuse to decide it without abdicating the
+duties of his post. He performs his functions as a citizen by
+fulfilling the precise duties which belong to his profession as a
+magistrate. It is true that upon this system the judicial censorship
+which is exercised by the courts of justice over the legislation cannot
+extend to all laws indiscriminately, inasmuch as some of them can never
+give rise to that exact species of contestation which is termed a
+lawsuit; and even when such a contestation is possible, it may happen
+that no one cares to bring it before a court of justice. The Americans
+have often felt this disadvantage, but they have left the remedy
+incomplete, lest they should give it an efficacy which might in some
+cases prove dangerous. Within these limits the power vested in the
+American courts of justice of pronouncing a statute to be
+unconstitutional forms one of the most powerful barriers which has ever
+been devised against the tyranny of political assemblies.
+In the eighth year of the French Republic, a constitution drafted this clause: "Art. 75. All government agents below the rank of ministers can only be prosecuted for offenses related to their functions by a decree of the Council of State; in which case the prosecution takes place before ordinary courts." This clause survived that constitution and remains despite national complaints. I have found it difficult to explain this to Englishmen or Americans. They assumed the Council of State was a great court with preliminary jurisdiction in political cases.
+Other Powers Granted To American Judges
+When I explained that the Council of State is not a judicial body but an administrative council dependent on the Crown—meaning the sovereign, after ordering one servant (a Prefect) to commit an injustice, can then command another servant (a Councilor of State) to ensure the first goes unpunished—they refused to credit so flagrant an abuse. When I showed that a citizen injured by a sovereign's order must ask the sovereign for permission to seek justice, they thought I was lying or ignorant. Before the Revolution, a Parliament might issue a warrant against an official, and the Crown would stop proceedings through absolute power. It is painful to see how much further we have fallen than our ancestors, as we now allow under law and justice what previously required raw violence.
+The United States all the citizens have the right of indicting public
+functionaries before the ordinary tribunals—How they use this
+right—Art. 75 of the French Constitution of the An VIII—The Americans
+and the English cannot understand the purport of this clause.
+## Chapter VII: Political Jurisdiction In The United States
+It is perfectly natural that in a free country like America all the
+citizens should have the right of indicting public functionaries before
+the ordinary tribunals, and that all the judges should have the power
+of punishing public offences. The right granted to the courts of
+justice of judging the agents of the executive government, when they
+have violated the laws, is so natural a one that it cannot be looked
+upon as an extraordinary privilege. Nor do the springs of government
+appear to me to be weakened in the United States by the custom which
+renders all public officers responsible to the judges of the land. The
+Americans seem, on the contrary, to have increased by this means that
+respect which is due to the authorities, and at the same time to have
+rendered those who are in power more scrupulous of offending public
+opinion. I was struck by the small number of political trials which
+occur in the United States, but I had no difficulty in accounting for
+this circumstance. A lawsuit, of whatever nature it may be, is always a
+difficult and expensive undertaking. It is easy to attack a public man
+in a journal, but the motives which can warrant an action at law must
+be serious. A solid ground of complaint must therefore exist to induce
+an individual to prosecute a public officer, and public officers are
+careful not to furnish these grounds of complaint when they are afraid
+of being prosecuted.
+By political jurisdiction, I mean the temporary right to issue legal decisions granted to a political body. In absolute governments, the prince is as much the sovereign of the courts as of the state, and the perceived weight of his power provides its own security; in free countries, where majorities cannot influence courts so absolutely, judicial power is occasionally granted to representatives—a temporary overlap deemed better than violating unified governance.
+This does not depend upon the republican form of American institutions,
+for the same facts present themselves in England. These two nations do
+not regard the impeachment of the principal officers of State as a
+sufficient guarantee of their independence. But they hold that the
+right of minor prosecutions, which are within the reach of the whole
+community, is a better pledge of freedom than those great judicial
+actions which are rarely employed until it is too late.
+England, France, and the United States have each legally established this practice, yet adapted it differently. In England and France, the House of Lords and Chamber of Peers serve as the highest criminal courts; another body may impeach before them. In England, the Commons may impeach anyone; in France, Deputies could only prosecute ministers. In both, the Upper House can apply any criminal law to punish offenders.
+In the Middle Ages, when it was very difficult to overtake offenders,
+the judges inflicted the most dreadful tortures on the few who were
+arrested, which by no means diminished the number of crimes. It has
+since been discovered that when justice is more certain and more mild,
+it is at the same time more efficacious. The English and the Americans
+hold that tyranny and oppression are to be treated like any other
+crime, by lessening the penalty and facilitating conviction.
+In America, the House impeaches and the Senate sentences, but only public officials may be tried. Once stripped of rank and declared ineligible, regular courts begin. If the President commits high treason, the House impeaches, the Senate removes him, then a jury alone can deprive him of liberty or life. This reveals the distinction: European political courts try great offenders regardless of birth or power, transforming the legislator into a magistrate and requiring him to observe all the formal duties of justice. When an official is impeached and found guilty, removal is a consequence, not the sentence itself. European decisions are seen as verdicts rather than administrative actions.
+In the year VIII of the French Republic a constitution was drawn up in
+which the following clause was introduced: “Art. 75. All the agents of
+the government below the rank of ministers can only be prosecuted for
+offences relating to their several functions by virtue of a decree of
+the Conseil d’Etat; in which the case the prosecution takes place
+before the ordinary tribunals.” This clause survived the “Constitution
+de l’An VIII,” and it is still maintained in spite of the just
+complaints of the nation. I have always found the utmost difficulty in
+explaining its meaning to Englishmen or Americans. They were at once
+led to conclude that the Conseil d’Etat in France was a great tribunal,
+established in the centre of the kingdom, which exercised a preliminary
+and somewhat tyrannical jurisdiction in all political causes. But when
+I told them that the Conseil d’Etat was not a judicial body, in the
+common sense of the term, but an administrative council composed of men
+dependent on the Crown, so that the king, after having ordered one of
+his servants, called a Prefect, to commit an injustice, has the power
+of commanding another of his servants, called a Councillor of State, to
+prevent the former from being punished; when I demonstrated to them
+that the citizen who has been injured by the order of the sovereign is
+obliged to solicit from the sovereign permission to obtain redress,
+they refused to credit so flagrant an abuse, and were tempted to accuse
+me of falsehood or of ignorance. It frequently happened before the
+Revolution that a Parliament issued a warrant against a public officer
+who had committed an offence, and sometimes the proceedings were
+stopped by the authority of the Crown, which enforced compliance with
+its absolute and despotic will. It is painful to perceive how much
+lower we are sunk than our forefathers, since we allow things to pass
+under the color of justice and the sanction of the law which violence
+alone could impose upon them.
+In America, the opposite holds. Though the Senate’s decision follows judicial format and reasoning, its objective is purely administrative. Had lawmakers intended to grant true judicial authority, jurisdiction would not be limited to officials, since republics’ most dangerous enemies often hold no office—where party influence is the primary authority, and a leader’s strength often increases by exercising no legal power at all. Had they intended exemplary punishment, they would have placed the entire criminal code at political courts’ disposal. Instead, the weapon is deliberately limited; it cannot reach those who would completely subvert the law.
+American political jurisdiction aims to strip a malicious citizen of abused authority and prevent its future acquisition—an administrative measure enacted through judicial formalities. Every part of the system follows from this point. We can see why American constitutions subject all civil officials to the Senate’s jurisdiction while exempting the military, whose crimes are more dangerous. In the civil service, officials are generally not removable at will; some hold permanent positions, others are elected for fixed terms. Therefore, they must be tried to be removed. Military officers depend on the chief executive, himself a civil official; the decision that condemns the leader impacts them all.
+Comparing systems reveals striking differences. In France and England, political jurisdiction is extraordinary, used only against unusual dangers. These courts tend to violate the balance of power and threaten citizens’ lives and liberties. In the United States, this jurisdiction is only indirectly hostile to that balance; it cannot threaten life and does not hang over the general public, since only officeholders are subject. It is simultaneously less terrifying and less effective. American lawmakers did not view it as crisis intervention but as routine governance. In this respect it probably has more real influence on American society.
+We should not be fooled by this apparent mildness. First, the sentencing court shares the House’s influences, giving irresistible momentum to partisan resentment. While American political judges cannot impose European-style penalties, they are also less likely to acquit. Conviction is less severe but more certain. The main goal is removal, not punishment—a preventive measure requiring no strict criminal definitions. The latitude in defining political offenses is striking. Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:
+## Chapter VII: Political Jurisdiction In The United States
+> **Quote:** "The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
+Many state constitutions are less specific. Massachusetts: "Public officers shall be impeached for misconduct or maladministration;" Virginia allows impeachment for "maladministration, corruption, or other high crimes." Illinois, Maine, Connecticut, and Georgia list no specific offenses, leaving officials subject to unlimited responsibility.
+I would argue that it is precisely this mildness that makes American laws so formidable. In Europe, removal and disqualification are consequences of a penalty; in America, they constitute the penalty itself. Consequently, European courts fear over-punishing and hesitate; Americans impose penalties without hesitation because they cause no suffering:
+> **Quote:** "To condemn a political opponent to death...is...horrible assassination; but to declare that opponent unworthy to exercise that authority...may be judged the fair issue of the struggle."
+Yet this easily delivered sentence is devastatingly severe for most people. While great criminals might ignore its intangible weight, ordinary offenders dread a judgment that destroys social standing, stains honor, and > **Quote:** ...condemns them to a shameful inactivity worse than death.
+Definition of political jurisdiction—What is understood by political
+jurisdiction in France, in England, and in the United States—In America
+the political judge can only pass sentence on public officers—He more
+frequently passes a sentence of removal from office than a
+penalty—Political jurisdiction as it exists in the United States is,
+notwithstanding its mildness, and perhaps in consequence of that
+mildness, a most powerful instrument in the hands of the majority.
+The influence on American society is immense. It does not directly coerce citizens but makes the majority more absolute over those in power. It establishes a temperate and regular influence that is always available; while the power itself is diminished, it is more easily employed and more readily abused. By preventing criminal punishments, Americans seem to have avoided the worst consequences of legislative tyranny rather than the tyranny itself.
+Political Jurisdiction In The United States
+> **Quote:** "I am not sure that political jurisdiction, as it is constituted in the United States, is not the most formidable weapon which has ever been placed in the rude grasp of a popular majority."
+I understand, by political jurisdiction, that temporary right of
+pronouncing a legal decision with which a political body may be
+invested.
+When American republics begin to decline, rising impeachments will confirm this observation.
+In absolute governments no utility can accrue from the introduction of
+extraordinary forms of procedure; the prince in whose name an offender
+is prosecuted is as much the sovereign of the courts of justice as of
+everything else, and the idea which is entertained of his power is of
+itself a sufficient security. The only thing he has to fear is, that
+the external formalities of justice should be neglected, and that his
+authority should be dishonored from a wish to render it more absolute.
+But in most free countries, in which the majority can never exercise
+the same influence upon the tribunals as an absolute monarch, the
+judicial power has occasionally been vested for a time in the
+representatives of the nation. It has been thought better to introduce
+a temporary confusion between the functions of the different
+authorities than to violate the necessary principle of the unity of
+government.
+[The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868—resorted to by his political opponents solely to remove him from office, as it could not be argued he was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and from which he was honorably acquitted and remained in office—is a striking confirmation of this remark.—Translator’s Note, 1874.]
+England, France, and the United States have established this political
+jurisdiction by law; and it is curious to examine the different
+adaptations which these three great nations have made of the principle.
+In England and in France the House of Lords and the Chambre des Paris
+*a constitute the highest criminal court of their respective nations,
+and although they do not habitually try all political offences, they
+are competent to try them all. Another political body enjoys the right
+of impeachment before the House of Lords: the only difference which
+exists between the two countries in this respect is, that in England
+the Commons may impeach whomsoever they please before the Lords, whilst
+in France the Deputies can only employ this mode of prosecution against
+the ministers of the Crown.
+## Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution
+[ [As it existed under the constitutional monarchy down to 1848.]]
+In both countries the Upper House may make use of all the existing
+penal laws of the nation to punish the delinquents.
+### Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part I
+In the United States, as well as in Europe, one branch of the
+legislature is authorized to impeach and another to judge: the House of
+Representatives arraigns the offender, and the Senate awards his
+sentence. But the Senate can only try such persons as are brought
+before it by the House of Representatives, and those persons must
+belong to the class of public functionaries. Thus the jurisdiction of
+the Senate is less extensive than that of the Peers of France, whilst
+the right of impeachment by the Representatives is more general than
+that of the Deputies. But the great difference which exists between
+Europe and America is, that in Europe political tribunals are empowered
+to inflict all the dispositions of the penal code, while in America,
+when they have deprived the offender of his official rank, and have
+declared him incapable of filling any political office for the future,
+their jurisdiction terminates and that of the ordinary tribunals
+begins.
+thought
+Suppose, for instance, that the President of the United States has
+committed the crime of high treason; the House of Representatives
+impeaches him, and the Senate degrades him; he must then be tried by a
+jury, which alone can deprive him of his liberty or his life. This
+accurately illustrates the subject we are treating. The political
+jurisdiction which is established by the laws of Europe is intended to
+try great offenders, whatever may be their birth, their rank, or their
+powers in the State; and to this end all the privileges of the courts
+of justice are temporarily extended to a great political assembly. The
+legislator is then transformed into the magistrate; he is called upon
+to admit, to distinguish, and to punish the offence; and as he
+exercises all the authority of a judge, the law restricts him to the
+observance of all the duties of that high office, and of all the
+formalities of justice. When a public functionary is impeached before
+an English or a French political tribunal, and is found guilty, the
+sentence deprives him ipso facto of his functions, and it may pronounce
+him to be incapable of resuming them or any others for the future. But
+in this case the political interdict is a consequence of the sentence,
+and not the sentence itself. In Europe the sentence of a political
+tribunal is to be regarded as a judicial verdict rather than as an
+administrative measure. In the United States the contrary takes place;
+and although the decision of the Senate is judicial in its form, since
+the Senators are obliged to comply with the practices and formalities
+of a court of justice; although it is judicial in respect to the
+motives on which it is founded, since the Senate is in general obliged
+to take an offence at common law as the basis of its sentence;
+nevertheless the object of the proceeding is purely administrative. If
+it had been the intention of the American legislator to invest a
+political body with great judicial authority, its action would not have
+been limited to the circle of public functionaries, since the most
+dangerous enemies of the State may be in the possession of no functions
+at all; and this is especially true in republics, where party influence
+is the first of authorities, and where the strength of many a reader is
+increased by his exercising no legal power.
+Apply five specific changes to a passage from *Democracy in America*.
+If it had been the intention of the American legislator to give society
+the means of repressing State offences by exemplary punishment,
+according to the practice of ordinary justice, the resources of the
+penal code would all have been placed at the disposal of the political
+tribunals. But the weapon with which they are intrusted is an imperfect
+one, and it can never reach the most dangerous offenders, since men who
+aim at the entire subversion of the laws are not likely to murmur at a
+political interdict.
+.  Richer Voice: Change a sentence about the French Revolution.
+.  Deeper Fidelity: Add names (Madison, Hamilton, Morrises) to the Constitutional Convention description.
+.  Additional Quote: Replace a summarized sentence with a verbatim quote.
+.  Metadata Restoration: Add a specific `{note}` tag before the "Federal Powers" section.
+.  Superior Flow: Consolidate/rewrite the final two paragraphs to remove redundancy.
+    *   *Current:* "...opposing a twentieth of its population to the world while carrying revolution beyond its borders."
+    *   *Proposed:* "...opposing a twentieth of its population to the world, bearing the torch of revolution beyond its borders while stifling its devouring flame at home."
+    *   *Location:* Middle of the text, in the paragraph starting with "The American effort to throw off English rule..."
+    *   *Current:* "The Constitutional Convention consisted of only fifty-five members; George Washington presided, and it contained the New World's finest talents."
+    *   *Proposed:* "The Constitutional Convention consisted of only fifty-five members, including Madison, Hamilton, and the Morrises. George Washington presided over this assembly of the New World's finest talents."
+    *   *Location:* Middle of the text, paragraph starting with "America then possessed the double advantage..."
+    *   *Current:* "The early stages of a nation allow complete logic; when we see it, we should remember youth before wisdom."
+    *   *Proposed:* `> **Quote:** "The early stages of national existence are the only periods at which it is possible to maintain the complete logic of legislation; and when we perceive a nation in the enjoyment of this advantage, before we hasten to conclude that it is wise, we should do well to remember that it is young." `
+    *   *Location:* Paragraph starting with "These facts illustrate how rarely..." (This sentence currently ends that paragraph).
+    *   *Current:* "Federal Powers"
+    *   *Proposed:*
+The main object of the political jurisdiction which obtains in the
+United States is, therefore, to deprive the ill-disposed citizen of an
+authority which he has used amiss, and to prevent him from ever
+acquiring it again. This is evidently an administrative measure
+sanctioned by the formalities of a judicial decision. In this matter
+the Americans have created a mixed system; they have surrounded the act
+which removes a public functionary with the securities of a political
+trial; and they have deprived all political condemnations of their
+severest penalties. Every link of the system may easily be traced from
+this point; we at once perceive why the American constitutions subject
+all the civil functionaries to the jurisdiction of the Senate, whilst
+the military, whose crimes are nevertheless more formidable, are
+exempted from that tribunal. In the civil service none of the American
+functionaries can be said to be removable; the places which some of
+them occupy are inalienable, and the others are chosen for a term which
+cannot be shortened. It is therefore necessary to try them all in order
+to deprive them of their authority. But military officers are dependent
+on the chief magistrate of the State, who is himself a civil
+functionary, and the decision which condemns him is a blow upon them
+all.
+        ```
+If we now compare the American and the European systems, we shall meet
+with differences no less striking in the different effects which each
+of them produces or may produce. In France and in England the
+jurisdiction of political bodies is looked upon as an extraordinary
+resource, which is 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 in Europe, are apt to violate the conservative
+principle of the balance of power in the State, and to threaten
+incessantly the lives and liberties of the subject. The same political
+jurisdiction in the United States is only indirectly hostile to the
+balance of power; it cannot menace the lives of the citizens, and it
+does not hover, as in Europe, over the heads of the community, since
+those only who have submitted to its authority on accepting office are
+exposed to the severity of its investigations. It is at the same time
+less formidable and less efficacious; indeed, it has not been
+considered by the legislators of the United States as a remedy for the
+more violent evils of society, but as an ordinary means of conducting
+the government. In this respect it probably exercises more real
+influence on the social body in America than in Europe. We must not be
+misled by the apparent mildness of the American legislation in all that
+relates to political jurisdiction. It is to be observed, in the first
+place, that in the United States the tribunal which passes sentence is
+composed of the same elements, and subject to the same influences, as
+the body which impeaches the offender, and that this uniformity gives
+an almost irresistible impulse to the vindictive passions of parties.
+If political judges in the United States cannot inflict such heavy
+penalties as those of Europe, there is the less chance of their
+acquitting a prisoner; and the conviction, if it is less formidable, is
+more certain. The principal object of the political tribunals of Europe
+is to punish the offender; the purpose of those in America is to
+deprive him of his authority. A political condemnation in the United
+States may, therefore, be looked upon as a preventive measure; and
+there is no reason for restricting the judges to the exact definitions
+of criminal law. Nothing can be more alarming than the excessive
+latitude with which political offences are described in the laws of
+America. Article II., Section 4, of the Constitution of the United
+States runs thus:—“The President, Vice-President, and all civil
+officers of the United States shall be removed from office on
+impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high
+crimes and misdemeanors.” Many of the Constitutions of the States are
+even less explicit. “Public officers,” says the Constitution of
+Massachusetts, *b “shall be impeached for misconduct or
+maladministration;” the Constitution of Virginia declares that all the
+civil officers who shall have offended against the State, by
+maladministration, corruption, or other high crimes, may be impeached
+by the House of Delegates; in some constitutions no offences are
+specified, in order to subject the public functionaries to an unlimited
+responsibility. *c But I will venture to affirm that it is precisely
+their mildness which renders the American laws most formidable in this
+respect. We have shown that in Europe the removal of a functionary and
+his political interdiction are the consequences of the penalty he is to
+undergo, and that in America they constitute the penalty itself. The
+consequence is that in Europe political tribunals are invested with
+rights which they are afraid to use, and that the fear of punishing too
+much hinders them from punishing at all. But in America no one
+hesitates to inflict a penalty from which humanity does not recoil. To
+condemn a political opponent to death, in order to deprive him of his
+power, is to commit what all the world would execrate as a horrible
+assassination; but to declare that opponent unworthy to exercise that
+authority, to deprive him of it, and to leave him uninjured in life and
+limb, may be judged to be the fair issue of the struggle. But this
+sentence, which it is so easy to pronounce, is not the less fatally
+severe to the majority of those upon whom it is inflicted. Great
+criminals may undoubtedly brave its intangible rigor, but ordinary
+offenders will dread it as a condemnation which destroys their position
+in the world, casts a blight upon their honor, and condemns them to a
+shameful inactivity worse than death. The influence exercised in the
+United States upon the progress of society by the jurisdiction of
+political bodies may not appear to be formidable, but it is only the
+more immense. It does not directly coerce the subject, but it renders
+the majority more absolute over those in power; it does not confer an
+unbounded authority on the legislator which can be exerted at some
+momentous crisis, but it establishes a temperate and regular influence,
+which is at all times available. If the power is decreased, it can, on
+the other hand, be more conveniently employed and more easily abused.
+By preventing political tribunals from inflicting judicial punishments
+the Americans seem to have eluded the worst consequences of legislative
+tyranny, rather than tyranny itself; and I am not sure that political
+jurisdiction, as it is constituted in the United States, is not the
+most formidable weapon which has ever been placed in the rude grasp of
+a popular majority. When the American republics begin to degenerate it
+will be easy to verify the truth of this observation, by remarking
+whether the number of political impeachments augments.*d
+        Federal Powers
+[ Chap. I. sect. ii. Section 8.]
+        {note: In this chapter the author points out the essence of the conflict between the seceding States and the Union which caused the Civil War of 1861.}
+        ```
+[ See the constitutions of Illinois, Maine, Connecticut, and Georgia.]
+    *   *Current:*
+        "Executive power is as limited as the sovereignty it represents, whereas in France it is as universal as state authority. The King is a branch of the legislature; the President merely executes law. Yet France is more republican than the Union is monarchical.
+[ See Appendix, N.
+        Executive power profoundly influences nations, so let me clarify the President's role by comparing him to a constitutional king, ignoring deceptive symbols. Monarchies turning republican retain titles and ceremony after power vanishes; republics under one person's control often keep simple demeanors. We must look beneath the surface.
+        The sovereignty of the United States is divided between Union and states, while in France it is unified. This is the fundamental difference: the President's power is as limited as divided sovereignty; the King's is as universal as unified authority. America has a federal government, France a national one."
+[The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868—which was resorted
+to by his political opponents solely as a means of turning him out of
+office, for it could not be contended that he had been guilty of high
+crimes and misdemeanors, and he was in fact honorably acquitted and
+reinstated in office—is a striking confirmation of the truth of this
+remark.—Translator’s Note, 1874.]]
+    *   *Proposed:*
+        "Executive power profoundly influences the destiny of nations. To understand the American President, one must look beneath deceptive symbols and compare his position to that of a constitutional king in Europe.
+## Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution
+        While a King in France is a branch of the legislature, the American President merely executes the law. The fundamental difference lies in sovereignty: the President's power is as limited as the Union's divided sovereignty, whereas the King's is as universal as the unified authority of the French state."
+    *   *Note:* The final paragraph of the current text ("The sovereignty of the United States...") seems to be partially integrated into the new proposed text, and the paragraph starting "Monarchies turning republican..." from the current text is omitted in the proposed replacement logic (since the instruction says "Consolidating these... removes the redundant 'summary' paragraph"). Actually, let's look at the "Current text" provided in the change list vs the whole passage.
+    *   *Current passage at the end:*
+        - P1: "Executive power is as limited as the sovereignty it represents... Yet France is more republican than the Union is monarchical."
+        - P2: "Executive power profoundly influences nations... We must look beneath the surface."
+        - P3: "The sovereignty of the United States is divided... America has a federal government, France a national one."
+    *   *Replacement text:*
+        - P1: "Executive power profoundly influences the destiny of nations. To understand the American President, one must look beneath deceptive symbols and compare his position to that of a constitutional king in Europe."
+        - P2: "While a King in France is a branch of the legislature, the American President merely executes the law. The fundamental difference lies in sovereignty: the President's power is as limited as the Union's divided sovereignty, whereas the King's is as universal as the unified authority of the French state."
+    *   The "Monarchies turning republican..." sentences and the final "America has a federal government..." sentence disappear based on this instruction.
+    *   *Initial lines:* Until now I have viewed... review the Federal Constitution.
+    *   *Headers:* Origin... History Of The Federal Constitution.
+    *   *Body paragraphs:* The thirteen colonies... Thus two opposite tendencies... On February 21, 1787... Quote 1.
+    *   *American effort paragraph:* "The American effort to throw off English rule has been exaggerated. Separated by three thousand miles of ocean and backed by a powerful ally, their success owed more to geography than valor. It would be ridiculous to compare their war to the French Revolution's, when France faced all Europe without credit or allies, **opposing a twentieth of its population to the world, bearing the torch of revolution beyond its borders while stifling its devouring flame at home.**" (Change 1 applied).
+    *   *Quote 2:* "But it is a novelty..."
+    *   *Convention paragraph:* "America then possessed the double advantage of post-revolutionary calm and the presence of great revolutionary leaders. **The Constitutional Convention consisted of only fifty-five members, including Madison, Hamilton, and the Morrises. George Washington presided over this assembly of the New World's finest talents.** After mature deliberation, it offered the body of general laws that still rules the Union. All States adopted it through specially elected representatives, not existing legislatures. The Federal Government began in 1789, after a two-year interregnum, just as the French Revolution began." (Change 2 applied).
+    *   *Sub-headings:* Division of authority... The first question... Federal obligations... Quote 3. When the Constitution... Foreseeing questions... Quote 4. Prerogative Of The Federal Government... External relations... State independence... The Federal legislators clearly understood centralization...
+    *   *Metadata/Header Change:*
+### Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part I
+        "Federal Powers
+        {note: In this chapter the author points out the essence of the conflict between the seceding States and the Union which caused the Civil War of 1861.}" (Change 4 applied).
+I have hitherto considered each State as a separate whole, and I have
+explained the different springs which the people sets in motion, and
+the different means of action which it employs. But all the States
+which I have considered as independent are forced to submit, in certain
+cases, to the supreme authority of the Union. The time is now come for
+me to examine separately the supremacy with which the Union has been
+invested, and to cast a rapid glance over the Federal Constitution.
+    *   *Legislature paragraphs:* The Union's legislature... The question... Quote 5. State independence prevailed... Every ten years...
+    *   *Quote Replacement paragraph:* "These facts illustrate how rarely legislation combines rationality and logic. **> **Quote:** "The early stages of national existence are the only periods at which it is possible to maintain the complete logic of legislation; and when we perceive a nation in the enjoyment of this advantage, before we hasten to conclude that it is wise, we should do well to remember that it is young." " (Change 3 applied).
+    *   *Remaining middle section:* Yet this constitutional arrangement... Yet the legislators could not... The Senate is appointed... The legislators faced a difficult task... The President serves four years... Legislative influence... The struggle remains lopsided... Quote 6.
+    *   *Final Paragraphs (Change 5):*
+        "Executive power profoundly influences the destiny of nations. To understand the American President, one must look beneath deceptive symbols and compare his position to that of a constitutional king in Europe.
+        While a King in France is a branch of the legislature, the American President merely executes the law. The fundamental difference lies in sovereignty: the President's power is as limited as the Union's divided sovereignty, whereas the King's is as universal as the unified authority of the French state." (Change 5 applied).
+    *   Change 1: "opposing a twentieth... stifling its devouring flame at home." (Matches).
+    *   Change 2: "including Madison, Hamilton, and the Morrises. George Washington presided over this assembly..." (Matches).
+    *   Change 3: Replace summary with verbatim quote in the "These facts illustrate..." paragraph. (Matches).
+    *   Change 4: Add `{note}` under "Federal Powers". (Matches).
+    *   Change 5: Replace/Consolidate the final three paragraphs with the two specified ones. (Matches).
+Origin of the first Union—Its weakness—Congress appeals to the
+constituent authority—Interval of two years between this appeal and the
+promulgation of the new Constitution.
+    *Check:* Change 3 replaces the sentence "The early stages of a nation allow complete logic; when we see it, we should remember youth before wisdom." with the quote block.
+History Of The Federal Constitution
+    *Check:* Change 5 replaces:
+The thirteen colonies which simultaneously threw off the yoke of
+England towards the end of the last century professed, as I have
+already observed, the same religion, the same language, the same
+customs, and almost the same laws; they were struggling against a
+common enemy; and these reasons were sufficiently strong to unite them
+one to another, and to consolidate them into one nation. But as each of
+them had enjoyed a separate existence and a government within its own
+control, the peculiar interests and customs which resulted from this
+system were opposed to a compact and intimate union which would have
+absorbed the individual importance of each in the general importance of
+all. Hence arose two opposite tendencies, the one prompting the
+Anglo-Americans to unite, the other to divide their strength. As long
+as the war with the mother-country lasted the principle of union was
+kept alive by necessity; and although the laws which constituted it
+were defective, the common tie subsisted in spite of their
+imperfections. *a But no sooner was peace concluded than the faults of
+the legislation became manifest, and the State seemed to be suddenly
+dissolved. Each colony became an independent republic, and assumed an
+absolute sovereignty. The federal government, condemned to impotence by
+its constitution, and no longer sustained by the presence of a common
+danger, witnessed the outrages offered to its flag by the great nations
+of Europe, whilst it was scarcely able to maintain its ground against
+the Indian tribes, and to pay the interest of the debt which had been
+contracted during the war of independence. It was already on the verge
+of destruction, when it officially proclaimed its inability to conduct
+the government, and appealed to the constituent authority of the
+nation. *b If America ever approached (for however brief a time) that
+lofty pinnacle of glory to which the fancy of its inhabitants is wont
+to point, it was at the solemn moment at which the power of the nation
+abdicated, as it were, the empire of the land. All ages have furnished
+the spectacle of a people struggling with energy to win its
+independence; and the efforts of the Americans in throwing off the
+English yoke have been considerably exaggerated. Separated from their
+enemies by three thousand miles of ocean, and backed by a powerful
+ally, the success of the United States may be more justly attributed to
+their geographical position than to the valor of their armies or the
+patriotism of their citizens. It would be ridiculous to compare the
+American was to the wars of the French Revolution, or the efforts of
+the Americans to those of the French when they were attacked by the
+whole of Europe, without credit and without allies, yet capable of
+opposing a twentieth part of their population to the world, and of
+bearing the torch of revolution beyond their frontiers whilst they
+stifled its devouring flame within the bosom of their country. But it
+is a novelty in the history of society to see a great people turn a
+calm and scrutinizing eye upon itself, when apprised by the legislature
+that the wheels of government are stopped; to see it carefully examine
+the extent of the evil, and patiently wait for two whole years until a
+remedy was discovered, which it voluntarily adopted without having
+wrung a tear or a drop of blood from mankind. At the time when the
+inadequacy of the first constitution was discovered America possessed
+the double advantage of that calm which had succeeded the effervescence
+of the revolution, and of those great men who had led the revolution to
+a successful issue. The assembly which accepted the task of composing
+the second constitution was small; *c but George Washington was its
+President, and it contained the choicest talents and the noblest hearts
+which had ever appeared in the New World. This national commission,
+after long and mature deliberation, offered to the acceptance of the
+people the body of general laws which still rules the Union. All the
+States adopted it successively. *d The new Federal Government commenced
+its functions in 1789, after an interregnum of two years. The
+Revolution of America terminated when that of France began.
+. "Executive power is as limited as the sovereignty it represents..."
+. "Executive power profoundly influences nations..."
+. "The sovereignty of the United States is divided..."
+[ See the articles of the first confederation formed in 1778. This
+constitution was not adopted by all the States until 1781. See also the
+analysis given of this constitution in “The Federalist” from No. 15 to
+No. 22, inclusive, and Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the
+United States,” pp. 85-115.]
+    ...with the two new paragraphs.
+    *Check tags:* Preserve `This book is part of the Timeless Library project, which aims to make old texts more accessible to modern audiences with the aid of AI. For more information, please visit: [timelesslibrary.org](https://timelesslibrary.org)
+[ Congress made this declaration on February 21, 1787.]
+The version of this book is: v1.0
+`, `**Title:** Democracy in America - Volume I (Timeless Library Edition)
+**Originally written by:** Alexis de Tocqueville
+[ It consisted of fifty-five members; Washington, Madison, Hamilton,
+and the two Morrises were amongst the number.]
+**Modernized Edition by:** Timeless Library
+Copyright & License
+[ It was not adopted by the legislative bodies, but representatives
+were elected by the people for this sole purpose; and the new
+constitution was discussed at length in each of these assemblies.]
+The Original Text: The underlying original text of this work is in the Public Domain. It is free of known copyright restrictions.
+The Modernized Text: The modernization, adaptation, and formatting of this edition are Copyright © 2025 by Timeless Library.
+License for Use: This modernized edition is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
+Division of authority between the Federal Government and the States—The
+Government of the States is the rule, the Federal Government the
+exception.
+You are free to:
+The first question which awaited the Americans was intricate, and by no
+means easy of solution: the object was so to divide the authority of
+the different States which composed the Union that each of them should
+continue to govern itself in all that concerned its internal
+prosperity, whilst the entire nation, represented by the Union, should
+continue to form a compact body, and to provide for the general
+exigencies of the people. It was as impossible to determine beforehand,
+with any degree of accuracy, the share of authority which each of two
+governments was to enjoy, as to foresee all the incidents in the
+existence of a nation.
+- Share: Copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
+- Adapt: Remix, transform, and build upon the material.
+The obligations and the claims of the Federal Government were simple
+and easily definable, because the Union had been formed with the
+express purpose of meeting the general exigencies of the people; but
+the claims and obligations of the States were, on the other hand,
+complicated and various, because those Governments had penetrated into
+all the details of social life. The attributes of the Federal
+Government were therefore carefully enumerated and all that was not
+included amongst them was declared to constitute a part of the
+privileges of the several Governments of the States. Thus the
+government of the States remained the rule, and that of the
+Confederation became the exception. *e
+Under the following terms:
+[ See the Amendment to the Federal Constitution; “Federalist,” No. 32;
+Story, p. 711; Kent’s “Commentaries,” vol. i. p. 364.
+- Attribution: You must give appropriate credit to Timeless Library ([timelesslibrary.org](https://timelesslibrary.org)), provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
+- NonCommercial: You may not use the material for commercial purposes (you cannot sell this book or include it in a paid product).
+It is to be observed that whenever the exclusive right of regulating
+certain matters is not reserved to Congress by the Constitution, the
+States may take up the affair until it is brought before the National
+Assembly. For instance, Congress has the right of making a general law
+on bankruptcy, which, however, it neglects to do. Each State is then at
+liberty to make a law for itself. This point has been established by
+discussion in the law-courts, and may be said to belong more properly
+to jurisprudence.]
+To view a copy of this license, visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
+But as it was foreseen that, in practice, questions might arise as to
+the exact limits of this exceptional authority, and that it would be
+dangerous to submit these questions to the decision of the ordinary
+courts of justice, established in the States by the States themselves,
+a high Federal court was created, *f which was destined, amongst other
+functions, to maintain the balance of power which had been established
+by the Constitution between the two rival Governments. *g
+Disclaimer: This text is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement.
+`, etc. None are present except the newly added `{note}` tag. Verbatim quotes must remain.
+[ The action of this court is indirect, as we shall hereafter show.]
+    *Check section titles:* "Do not include the section title in the output." -> I will omit "### Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part I".
+    *Double Check the Quote Placement for Change 3:*
+[ It is thus that “The Federalist,” No. 45, explains the division of
+supremacy between the Union and the States: “The powers delegated by
+the Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those
+which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and
+indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external
+objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers
+reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in
+the ordinary course of affairs, concern the internal order and
+prosperity of the State.” I shall often have occasion to quote “The
+Federalist” in this work. When the bill which has since become the
+Constitution of the United States was submitted to the approval of the
+people, and the discussions were still pending, three men, who had
+already acquired a portion of that celebrity which they have since
+enjoyed—John Jay, Hamilton, and Madison—formed an association with the
+intention of explaining to the nation the advantages of the measure
+which was proposed. With this view they published a series of articles
+in the shape of a journal, which now form a complete treatise. They
+entitled their journal “The Federalist,” a name which has been retained
+in the work. “The Federalist” is an excellent book, which ought to be
+familiar to the statesmen of all countries, although it especially
+concerns America.]
+    Paragraph: "These facts illustrate how rarely legislation combines rationality and logic. The early stages of a nation allow complete logic; when we see it, we should remember youth before wisdom."
+    The second sentence is replaced by the Quote Block.
+Prerogative Of The Federal Government
+    *Double Check Change 5 flow:*
+Power of declaring war, making peace, and levying general taxes vested
+in the Federal Government—What part of the internal policy of the
+country it may direct—The Government of the Union in some respects more
+central than the King’s Government in the old French monarchy.
+    The final three paragraphs of the current text are being replaced by the two proposed ones.
+The external relations of a people may be compared to those of private
+individuals, and they cannot be advantageously maintained without the
+agency of a single head of a Government. The exclusive right of making
+peace and war, of concluding treaties of commerce, of raising armies,
+and equipping fleets, was granted to the Union. *h The necessity of a
+national Government was less imperiously felt in the conduct of the
+internal policy of society; but there are certain general interests
+which can only be attended to with advantage by a general authority.
+The Union was invested with the power of controlling the monetary
+system, of directing the post office, and of opening the great roads
+which were to establish a communication between the different parts of
+the country. *i The independence of the Government of each State was
+formally recognized in its sphere; nevertheless, the Federal Government
+was authorized to interfere in the internal affairs of the States *j in
+a few predetermined cases, in which an indiscreet abuse of their
+independence might compromise the security of the Union at large. Thus,
+whilst the power of modifying and changing their legislation at
+pleasure was preserved in all the republics, they were forbidden to
+enact ex post facto laws, or to create a class of nobles in their
+community. *k Lastly, as it was necessary that the Federal Government
+should be able to fulfil its engagements, it was endowed with an
+unlimited power of levying taxes. *l
+    *Text Assembly:*
+[ See Constitution, sect. 8; “Federalist,” Nos. 41 and 42; Kent’s
+“Commentaries,” vol. i. p. 207; Story, pp. 358-382; Ibid. pp. 409-426.]
+    ...
+    These facts illustrate how rarely legislation combines rationality and logic.
+[ Several other privileges of the same kind exist, such as that which
+empowers the Union to legislate on bankruptcy, to grant patents, and
+other matters in which its intervention is clearly necessary.]
+    > **Quote:** "The early stages of national existence are the only periods at which it is possible to maintain the complete logic of legislation; and when we perceive a nation in the enjoyment of this advantage, before we hasten to conclude that it is wise, we should do well to remember that it is young."
+    ...
+[ Even in these cases its interference is indirect. The Union
+interferes by means of the tribunals, as will be hereafter shown.]
+    (Note: The formatting of the quote should be on its own line for standard markdown.)
+    *Double Check Change 1 text integration:*
+[ Federal Constitution, sect. 10, art. I.]
+    Current: "...opposing a twentieth of its population to the world while carrying revolution beyond its borders."
+    New: "...opposing a twentieth of its population to the world, bearing the torch of revolution beyond its borders while stifling its devouring flame at home."
+[ Constitution, sects. 8, 9, and 10; “Federalist,” Nos. 30-36,
+inclusive, and 41-44; Kent’s “Commentaries,” vol. i. pp. 207 and 381;
+Story, pp. 329 and 514.]
+    This flows well within: "...French Revolution's, when France faced all Europe without credit or allies, [New Text]."
+    *Double Check Change 4 location:*
+In examining the balance of power as established by the Federal
+Constitution; in remarking on the one hand the portion of sovereignty
+which has been reserved to the several States, and on the other the
+share of power which the Union has assumed, it is evident that the
+Federal legislators entertained the clearest and most accurate notions
+on the nature of the centralization of government. The United States
+form not only a republic, but a confederation; nevertheless the
+authority of the nation is more central than it was in several of the
+monarchies of Europe when the American Constitution was formed. Take,
+for instance, the two following examples.
+    Before "Federal Powers". The change says:
+Thirteen supreme courts of justice existed in France, which, generally
+speaking, had the right of interpreting the law without appeal; and
+those provinces which were styled pays d’etats were authorized to
+refuse their assent to an impost which had been levied by the sovereign
+who represented the nation. In the Union there is but one tribunal to
+interpret, as there is one legislature to make the laws; and an impost
+voted by the representatives of the nation is binding upon all the
+citizens. In these two essential points, therefore, the Union exercises
+more central authority than the French monarchy possessed, although the
+Union is only an assemblage of confederate republics.
+    "Federal Powers
+In Spain certain provinces had the right of establishing a system of
+custom-house duties peculiar to themselves, although that privilege
+belongs, by its very nature, to the national sovereignty. In America
+the Congress alone has the right of regulating the commercial relations
+of the States. The government of the Confederation is therefore more
+centralized in this respect than the kingdom of Spain. It is true that
+the power of the Crown in France or in Spain was always able to obtain
+by force whatever the Constitution of the country denied, and that the
+ultimate result was consequently the same; but I am here discussing the
+theory of the Constitution.
+    {note: ...}"
+Federal Powers
+    So I replace "Federal Powers" with "Federal Powers\n\n{note: ...}".
+After having settled the limits within which the Federal Government was
+to act, the next point was to determine the powers which it was to
+exert.
+    *Final check on the text between the end of the metadata and the final paragraphs:*
+Legislative Powers *m
+    "Yet this constitutional arrangement... hidden in monarchies, but always present."
+[ [In this chapter the author points out the essence of the conflict
+between the seceding States and the Union which caused the Civil War of
+.]]
+    Followed by Quote 6: "There is no country..."
+    Then the new final two paragraphs from Change 5.
+Division of the Legislative Body into two branches—Difference in the
+manner of forming the two Houses—The principle of the independence of
+the States predominates in the formation of the Senate—The principle of
+the sovereignty of the nation in the composition of the House of
+Representatives—Singular effects of the fact that a Constitution can
+only be logical in the early stages of a nation.
+    Let's look at the flow near the end of the text.
+The plan which had been laid down beforehand for the Constitutions of
+the several States was followed, in many points, in the organization of
+the powers of the Union. The Federal legislature of the Union was
+composed of a Senate and a House of Representatives. A spirit of
+conciliation prescribed the observance of distinct principles in the
+formation of these two assemblies. I have already shown that two
+contrary interests were opposed to each other in the establishment of
+the Federal Constitution. These two interests had given rise to two
+opinions. It was the wish of one party to convert the Union into a
+league of independent States, or a sort of congress, at which the
+representatives of the several peoples would meet to discuss certain
+points of their common interests. The other party desired to unite the
+inhabitants of the American colonies into one sole nation, and to
+establish a Government which should act as the sole representative of
+the nation, as far as the limited sphere of its authority would permit.
+The practical consequences of these two theories were exceedingly
+different.
+    Old:
+The question was, whether a league was to be established instead of a
+national Government; whether the majority of the State, instead of the
+majority of the inhabitants of the Union, was to give the law: for
+every State, the small as well as the great, would then remain in the
+full enjoyment of its independence, and enter the Union upon a footing
+of perfect equality. If, however, the inhabitants of the United States
+were to be considered as belonging to one and the same nation, it would
+be just that the majority of the citizens of the Union should prescribe
+the law. Of course the lesser States could not subscribe to the
+application of this doctrine without, in fact, abdicating their
+existence in relation to the sovereignty of the Confederation; since
+they would have passed from the condition of a co-equal and
+co-legislative authority to that of an insignificant fraction of a
+great people. But if the former system would have invested them with an
+excessive authority, the latter would have annulled their influence
+altogether. Under these circumstances the result was, that the strict
+rules of logic were evaded, as is usually the case when interests are
+opposed to arguments. A middle course was hit upon by the legislators,
+which brought together by force two systems theoretically
+irreconcilable.
+    ...
+The principle of the independence of the States prevailed in the
+formation of the Senate, and that of the sovereignty of the nation
+predominated in the composition of the House of Representatives. It was
+decided that each State should send two senators to Congress, and a
+number of representatives proportioned to its population. *n It results
+from this arrangement that the State of New York has at the present day
+forty representatives and only two senators; the State of Delaware has
+two senators and only one representative; the State of Delaware is
+therefore equal to the State of New York in the Senate, whilst the
+latter has forty times the influence of the former in the House of
+Representatives. Thus, if the minority of the nation preponderates in
+the Senate,. it may paralyze the decisions of the majority represented
+in the other House, which is contrary to the spirit of constitutional
+government.
+    > **Quote:** "There is no country... public morality."
+[ Every ten years Congress fixes anew the number of representatives
+which each State is to furnish. The total number was 69 in 1789, and
+in 1833. (See “American Almanac,” 1834, p. 194.) The Constitution
+decided that there should not be more than one representative for every
+,000 persons; but no minimum was fixed on. The Congress has not
+thought fit to augment the number of representatives in proportion to
+the increase of population. The first Act which was passed on the
+subject (April 14, 1792: see “Laws of the United States,” by Story,
+vol. i. p. 235) decided that there should be one representative for
+every 33,000 inhabitants. The last Act, which was passed in 1832, fixes
+the proportion at one for 48,000. The population represented is
+composed of all the free men and of three-fifths of the slaves.
+    Executive power is as limited as... monarchical.
+    Executive power profoundly influences nations...
+[The last Act of apportionment, passed February 2, 1872, fixes the
+representation at one to 134,684 inhabitants. There are now (1875) 283
+members 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 the
+representatives which the new States have gained.—Translator’s Note.]]
+    The sovereignty...
+These facts show how rare and how difficult it is rationally and
+logically to combine all the several parts of legislation. In the
+course of time different interests arise, and different principles are
+sanctioned by the same people; and when a general constitution is to be
+established, these interests and principles are so many natural
+obstacles to the rigorous application of any political system, with all
+its consequences. The early stages of national existence are the only
+periods at which it is possible to maintain the complete logic of
+legislation; and when we perceive a nation in the enjoyment of this
+advantage, before we hasten to conclude that it is wise, we should do
+well to remember that it is young. When the Federal Constitution was
+formed, the interests of independence for the separate States, and the
+interest of union for the whole people, were the only two conflicting
+interests which existed amongst the Anglo-Americans, and a compromise
+was necessarily made between them.
+    New:
+It is, however, just to acknowledge that this part of the Constitution
+has not hitherto produced those evils which might have been feared. All
+the States are young and contiguous; their customs, their ideas, and
+their exigencies are not dissimilar; and the differences which result
+from their size or inferiority do not suffice to set their interests at
+variance. The small States have consequently never been induced to
+league themselves together in the Senate to oppose the designs of the
+larger ones; and indeed there is so irresistible an authority in the
+legitimate expression of the will of a people that the Senate could
+offer but a feeble opposition to the vote of the majority of the House
+of Representatives.
+    ...
+It must not be forgotten, on the other hand, that it was not in the
+power of the American legislators to reduce to a single nation the
+people for whom they were making laws. The object of the Federal
+Constitution was not to destroy the independence of the States, but to
+restrain it. By acknowledging the real authority of these secondary
+communities (and it was impossible to deprive them of it), they
+disavowed beforehand the habitual use of constraint in enforcing g the
+decisions of the majority. Upon this principle the introduction of the
+influence of the States into the mechanism of the Federal Government
+was by no means to be wondered at, since it only attested the existence
+of an acknowledged power, which was to be humored and not forcibly
+checked.
+    > **Quote:** "There is no country... public morality."
+A Further Difference Between The Senate And The House Of
+Representatives
+    Executive power profoundly influences the destiny of nations... (new para 1)
+The Senate named by the provincial legislators, the Representatives by
+the people—Double election of the former; single election of the
+latter—Term of the different offices—Peculiar functions of each House.
+    While a King in France... (new para 2)
+The Senate not only differs from the other House in the principle which
+it represents, but also in the mode of its election, in the term for
+which it is chosen, and in the nature of its functions. The House of
+Representatives is named by the people, the Senate by the legislators
+of each State; the former is directly elected, the latter is elected by
+an elected body; the term for which the representatives are chosen is
+only two years, that of the senators is six. The functions of the House
+of Representatives are purely legislative, and the only share it takes
+in the judicial power is in the impeachment of public officers. The
+Senate co-operates in the work of legislation, and tries those
+political offences which the House of Representatives submits to its
+decision. It also acts as the great executive council of the nation;
+the treaties which are concluded by the President must be ratified by
+the Senate, and the appointments he may make must be definitely
+approved by the same body. *o
+    One minor detail: In Change 1, I should ensure the sentence structure remains grammatical.
+[ See “The Federalist,” Nos. 52-56, inclusive; Story, pp. 199-314;
+Constitution of the United States, sects. 2 and 3.] The Executive Power
+*p
+    "...opposing a twentieth of its population to the world, bearing the torch of revolution beyond its borders while stifling its devouring flame at home."
+    Yes, that works.
+[ See “The Federalist,” Nos. 67-77; Constitution of the United States,
+art. 2; Story, p. 315, pp. 615-780; Kent’s “Commentaries,” p. 255.]
+    *Wait, Change 3:*
+    "The early stages of a nation allow complete logic; when we see it, we should remember youth before wisdom."
+Dependence of the President—He is elective and responsible—He is free
+to act in his own sphere under the inspection, but not under the
+direction, of the Senate—His salary fixed at his entry into
+office—Suspensive veto.
+    Replacement:
+The American legislators undertook a difficult task in attempting to
+create an executive power dependent on the majority of the people, and
+nevertheless sufficiently strong to act without restraint in its own
+sphere. It was indispensable to the maintenance of the republican form
+of government that the representative of the executive power should be
+subject to the will of the nation.
+    > **Quote:** "The early stages of national existence are the only periods at which it is possible to maintain the complete logic of legislation; and when we perceive a nation in the enjoyment of this advantage, before we hasten to conclude that it is wise, we should do well to remember that it is young."
+The President is an elective magistrate. His honor, his property, his
+liberty, and his life are the securities which the people has for the
+temperate use of his power. But in the exercise of his authority he
+cannot be said to be perfectly independent; the Senate takes cognizance
+of his relations with foreign powers, and of the distribution of public
+appointments, so that he can neither be bribed nor can he employ the
+means of corruption. The legislators of the Union acknowledged that the
+executive power would be incompetent to fulfil its task with dignity
+and utility, unless it enjoyed a greater degree of stability and of
+strength than had been granted to it in the separate States.
+    Does the paragraph "These facts illustrate..." start before the quote?
+The President is chosen for four years, and he may be reelected; so
+that the chances of a prolonged administration may inspire him with
+hopeful undertakings for the public good, and with the means of
+carrying them into execution. The President was made the sole
+representative of the executive power of the Union, and care was taken
+not to render his decisions subordinate to the vote of a council—a
+dangerous measure, which tends at the same time to clog the action of
+the Government and to diminish its responsibility. The Senate has the
+right of annulling g certain acts of the President; but it cannot
+compel him to take any steps, nor does it participate in the exercise
+of the executive power.
+    Yes: "These facts illustrate how rarely legislation combines rationality and logic." Then the quote.
+The action of the legislature on the executive power may be direct; and
+we have just shown that the Americans carefully obviated this
+influence; but it may, on the other hand, be indirect. Public
+assemblies which have the power of depriving an officer of state of his
+salary encroach upon his independence; and as they are free to make the
+laws, it is to be feared lest they should gradually appropriate to
+themselves a portion of that authority which the Constitution had
+vested in his hands. This dependence of the executive power is one of
+the defects inherent in republican constitutions. The Americans have
+not been able to counteract the tendency which legislative assemblies
+have to get possession of the government, but they have rendered this
+propensity less irresistible. The salary of the President is fixed, at
+the time of his entering upon office, for the whole period of his
+magistracy. The President is, moreover, provided with a suspensive
+veto, which allows him to oppose the passing of such laws as might
+destroy the portion of independence which the Constitution awards him.
+The struggle between the President and the legislature must always be
+an unequal one, since the latter is certain of bearing down all
+resistance by persevering in its plans; but the 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 of two-thirds of the whole
+house. The veto is, in fact, a sort of appeal to the people. The
+executive power, which, without this security, might have been secretly
+oppressed, adopts this means of pleading its cause and stating its
+motives. But if the legislature is certain of overpowering all
+resistance by persevering in its plans, I reply, that in the
+constitutions of all nations, of whatever kind they may be, a certain
+point exists at which the legislator is obliged to have recourse to the
+good sense and the virtue of his fellow-citizens. This point is more
+prominent and more discoverable in republics, whilst it is more remote
+and more carefully concealed in monarchies, but it always exists
+somewhere. There is no country in the world in which everything can be
+provided for by the laws, or in which political institutions can prove
+a substitute for common sense and public morality.
+    *Wait, Change 2:*
+Differences Between The Position Of The President Of The United States
+And That Of A Constitutional King Of France
+    "The Constitutional Convention consisted of only fifty-five members, including Madison, Hamilton, and the Morrises. George Washington presided over this assembly of the New World's finest talents."
+Executive power in the Northern States as limited and as partial as the
+supremacy which it represents—Executive power in France as universal as
+the supremacy it represents—The King a branch of the legislature—The
+President the mere executor of the law—Other differences resulting from
+the duration of the two powers—The President checked in the exercise of
+the executive authority—The King independent in its
+exercise—Notwithstanding these discrepancies France is more akin to a
+republic than the Union to a monarchy—Comparison of the number of
+public officers depending upon the executive power in the two
+countries.
+    This looks correct.
+The executive power has so important an influence on the destinies of
+nations that I am inclined to pause for an instant at this portion of
+my subject, in order more clearly to explain the part it sustains in
+America. In order to form an accurate idea of the position of the
+President of the United States, it may not be irrelevant to compare it
+to that of one of the constitutional kings of Europe. In this
+comparison I shall pay but little attention to the external signs of
+power, which are more apt to deceive the eye of the observer than to
+guide his researches. When a monarchy is being gradually transformed
+into a republic, the executive power retains the titles, the honors,
+the etiquette, and even the funds of royalty long after its authority
+has disappeared. The English, after having cut off the head of one king
+and expelled another from his throne, were accustomed to accost the
+successor of those princes upon their knees. On the other hand, when a
+republic falls under the sway of a single individual, the demeanor of
+the sovereign is simple and unpretending, as if his authority was not
+yet paramount. When the emperors exercised an unlimited control over
+the fortunes and the lives of their fellow-citizens, it was customary
+to call them Caesar in conversation, and they were in the habit of
+supping without formality at their friends’ houses. It is therefore
+necessary to look below the surface.
+    *Final check on the Civil War note:*
+The sovereignty of the United States is shared between the Union and
+the States, whilst in France it is undivided and compact: hence arises
+the first and the most notable difference which exists between the
+President of the United States and the King of France. In the United
+States the executive power is as limited and partial as the sovereignty
+of the Union in whose name it acts; in France it is as universal as the
+authority of the State. The Americans have a federal and the French a
+national Government.
+    `{note: In this chapter the author points out the essence of the conflict between the seceding States and the Union which caused the Civil War of 1861.}`
+    The instruction says:
+    Proposed change:
+    "Federal Powers
+### Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part II
+    {note: ...}"
+    So the note follows the header.
+This cause of inferiority results from the nature of things, but it is
+not the only one; the second in importance is as follows: Sovereignty
+may be defined to be the right of making laws: in France, the King
+really exercises a portion of the sovereign power, since the laws have
+no weight till he has given his assent to them; he is, moreover, the
+executor of all they ordain. The President is also the executor of the
+laws, but he does not really co-operate in their formation, since the
+refusal of his assent does not annul them. He is therefore merely to be
+considered as the agent of the sovereign power. But not only does the
+King of France exercise a portion of the sovereign power, he also
+contributes to the nomination of the legislature, which exercises the
+other portion. He has the privilege of appointing the members of one
+chamber, and of dissolving the other at his pleasure; whereas the
+President of the United States has no share in the formation of the
+legislative body, and cannot dissolve any part of it. The King has the
+same right of bringing forward measures as the Chambers; a right which
+the President does not possess. The King is represented in each
+assembly by his ministers, who explain his intentions, support his
+opinions, and maintain the principles of the Government. The President
+and his ministers are alike excluded from Congress; so that his
+influence and his opinions can only penetrate indirectly into that
+great body. The King of France is therefore on an equal footing with
+the legislature, which can no more act without him than he can without
+it. The President exercises an authority inferior to, and depending
+upon, that of the legislature.
+    Ready to output.
+Even in the exercise of the executive power, properly so called—the
+point upon which his position seems to be most analogous to that of the
+King of France—the President labors under several causes of
+inferiority. The authority of the King, in France, has, in the first
+place, the advantage of duration over that of the President, and
+durability is one of the chief elements of strength; nothing is either
+loved or feared but what is likely to endure. The President of the
+United States is a magistrate elected for four years; the King, in
+France, is an hereditary sovereign. In the exercise of the executive
+power the President of the United States is constantly subject to a
+jealous scrutiny. He may make, but he cannot conclude, a treaty; he may
+designate, but he cannot appoint, a public officer. *q The King of
+France is absolute within the limits of his authority. The President of
+the United States is responsible for his actions; but the person of the
+King is declared inviolable by the French Charter. *r
+    *Wait, one more look at the provided text for Change 5:*
+[ The Constitution had left it doubtful whether the President was
+obliged to consult the Senate in the removal as well as in the
+appointment of Federal officers. “The Federalist” (No. 77) seemed to
+establish the affirmative; but in 1789 Congress formally decided that,
+as the President was responsible for his actions, he ought not to be
+forced to employ agents who had forfeited his esteem. See Kent’s
+“Commentaries”, vol. i. p. 289.]
+    "Executive power profoundly influences the destiny of nations. To understand the American President, one must look beneath deceptive symbols and compare his position to that of a constitutional king in Europe.
+    While a King in France is a branch of the legislature, the American President merely executes the law. The fundamental difference lies in sovereignty: the President's power is as limited as the Union's divided sovereignty, whereas the King's is as universal as the unified authority of the French state."
+[ [This comparison applied to the Constitutional King of France and to
+the powers he held under the Charter of 1830, till the overthrow of the
+monarchy in 1848.—Translator’s Note.]]
+    This is two paragraphs. The rationale says "Consolidating these... removes the redundant 'summary' paragraph." This implies the final three paragraphs of the source are gone and these two are the replacement.
+    Let's check the very last sentence of the "Current Passage": "America has a federal government, France a national one."
+Nevertheless, the supremacy of public opinion is no less above the head
+of 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 fact it exists. In America, it acts by elections and decrees; in
+France it proceeds by revolutions; but notwithstanding the different
+constitutions of these two countries, public opinion is the predominant
+authority in both of them. The fundamental principle of legislation—a
+principle essentially republican—is the same in both countries,
+although its consequences may be different, and its results more or
+less extensive. Whence I am led to conclude that France with its King
+is nearer akin to a republic than the Union with its President is to a
+monarchy.
+    The proposed replacement text for Change 5 does *not* include this. The instruction says "Text that is not mentioned in the change list should remain exactly as it appears...". However, Change 5 specifies the "Proposed change" for the "Location: The final two paragraphs of the passage."
+In what I have been saying I have only touched upon the main points of
+distinction; and if I could have entered into details, the contrast
+would have been rendered still more striking. I have remarked that the
+authority of the President in the United States is only exercised
+within the limits of a partial sovereignty, whilst that of the King in
+France is undivided. I might have gone on to show that the power of the
+King’s government in France exceeds its natural limits, however
+extensive they may be, and penetrates in a thousand different ways into
+the administration of private interests. Amongst the examples of this
+influence may be quoted that which results from the great number of
+public functionaries, who all derive their appointments from the
+Government. This number now exceeds all previous limits; it amounts to
+,000 *s nominations, each of which may be considered as an element
+of power. The President of the United States has not the exclusive
+right of making any public appointments, and their whole number
+scarcely exceeds 12,000. *t
+    Technically, there are *three* paragraphs at the end of the Current Passage.
+[ The sums annually paid by the State to these officers amount to
+,000,000 fr. ($40,000,000).]
+    Para A: "Executive power is as limited..."
+    Para B: "Executive power profoundly influences nations..."
+[ This number is extracted from the “National Calendar” for 1833. The
+“National Calendar” is an American almanac which contains the names of
+all the Federal officers. It results from this comparison that the King
+of France has eleven times as many places at his disposal as the
+President, although the population of France is not much more than
+double that of the Union.
+    Para C: "The sovereignty of the United States..."
+    The instruction says "Location: The final two paragraphs". This might mean Para B and Para C. But the rationale says it consolidates "the same comparison twice—once as a summary and once as the start of the final analysis." Para A and Para C are the comparisons. Para B is the "Executive power profoundly influences nations" part.
+[I have not the means of ascertaining the number of appointments now at
+the disposal of the President of the United States, but his patronage
+and the abuse of it have largely increased since 1833.—Translator’s
+Note, 1875.]]
+    If I only replace Para B and C, Para A remains.
+Accidental Causes Which May Increase The Influence Of The Executive
+Government
+    Para A: "Executive power is as limited as the sovereignty it represents, whereas in France it is as universal as state authority. The King is a branch of the legislature; the President merely executes law. Yet France is more republican than the Union is monarchical."
+External security of the Union—Army of six thousand men—Few ships—The
+President has no opportunity of exercising his great prerogatives—In
+the prerogatives he exercises he is weak.
+    New Para B/C: "Executive power profoundly influences the destiny of nations... While a King in France is a branch of the legislature...".
+If the executive government is feebler in America than in France, the
+cause is more attributable to the circumstances than to the laws of the
+country.
+    This would be redundant. "While a King in France is a branch... the American President merely executes..." is already in Para A.
+It is chiefly in its foreign relations that the executive power of a
+nation is called upon to exert its skill and its vigor. If the
+existence of the Union were perpetually threatened, and if its chief
+interests were in daily connection with those of other powerful
+nations, the executive government would assume an increased importance
+in proportion to the measures expected of it, and those which it would
+carry into effect. The President of the United States is the
+commander-in-chief of the army, but of an army composed of only six
+thousand men; he commands the fleet, but the fleet reckons but few
+sail; he conducts the foreign relations of the Union, but the United
+States are a nation without neighbors. Separated from the rest of the
+world by the ocean, and too weak 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 other nation of the globe.
+    The rationale says "The transformed passage currently repeats the same comparison twice... Consolidating these improves the logical flow and removes the redundant 'summary' paragraph."
+The practical part of a Government must not be judged by the theory of
+its constitution. The President of the United States is in the
+possession of almost royal prerogatives, which he has no opportunity of
+exercising; and those privileges which he can at present use are very
+circumscribed. The laws allow him to possess a degree of influence
+which circumstances do not permit him to employ.
+    Therefore, the "Proposed change" block is the *entirety* of the concluding section starting from "Executive power is as limited..." or "Executive power profoundly influences nations...".
+On the other hand, the great strength of the royal prerogative in
+France arises from circumstances far more than from the laws. There the
+executive government is constantly struggling against prodigious
+obstacles, and exerting all its energies to repress them; so that it
+increases by the extent of its achievements, and by the importance of
+the events it controls, without modifying its constitution. If the laws
+had made it as feeble and as circumscribed as it is in the Union, its
+influence would very soon become still more preponderant.
+    Given "Location: The final two paragraphs", and the text provided in "Current text" for Change 5 includes the starts of the first and second paragraphs, it's clear the intention is to replace that whole concluding block.
+Why The President Of The United States Does Not Require The Majority Of
+The Two Houses In Order To Carry On The Government It is an established
+axiom in Europe that a constitutional King cannot persevere in a system
+of government which is opposed by the two other branches of the
+legislature. But several Presidents of the United States have been
+known to lose the majority in the legislative body without being
+obliged to abandon the supreme power, and without inflicting a serious
+evil upon society. I have heard this fact quoted as an instance of the
+independence and the power of the executive government in America: a
+moment’s reflection will convince us, on the contrary, that it is a
+proof of its extreme weakness.
+    Actually, looking at the "Current text" block in Change 5:
+A King in Europe requires the support of the legislature to enable him
+to perform the duties imposed upon him by the Constitution, because
+those duties are enormous. A constitutional King in Europe is not
+merely the executor of the law, but the execution of its provisions
+devolves so completely upon him that he has the power of paralyzing its
+influence if it opposes his designs. He requires the assistance of the
+legislative assemblies to make the law, but those assemblies stand in
+need of his aid to execute it: these two authorities cannot subsist
+without each other, and the mechanism of government is stopped as soon
+as they are at variance.
+    `"Executive power is as limited as the sovereignty it represents, whereas in France it is as universal as state authority. The King is a branch of the legislature; the President merely executes law. Yet France is more republican than the Union is monarchical. Executive power profoundly influences nations, so let me clarify the President's role by comparing him to a constitutional king, ignoring deceptive symbols..."`
+In America the President cannot prevent any law from being passed, nor
+can he evade the obligation of enforcing it. His sincere and zealous
+co-operation is no doubt useful, but it is not indispensable, in the
+carrying on of public affairs. All his important acts are directly or
+indirectly submitted to the legislature, and of his own free authority
+he 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 the
+legislature, because a collision between them may prove serious; in
+America, this harmony is not indispensable, because such a collision is
+impossible.
+    This "Current text" covers the first and second of the final three paragraphs.
+Election Of The President
+    The "Proposed change" covers the content of all three.
+Dangers of the elective system increase in proportion to the extent of
+the prerogative—This system possible in America because no powerful
+executive authority is required—What circumstances are favorable to the
+elective system—Why the election of the President does not cause a
+deviation from the principles of the Government—Influence of the
+election of the President on secondary functionaries.
+    I will replace the final three paragraphs with the two proposed paragraphs to fulfill the goal of "consolidating" and "removing redundancy" as stated in the rationale.
+The dangers of the system of election applied to the head of the
+executive government of a great people have been sufficiently
+exemplified by experience and by history, and the remarks I am about to
+make refer to America alone. These dangers may be more or less
+formidable in proportion to the place which the executive power
+occupies, and to the importance it possesses in the State; and they may
+vary according to the mode of election and the circumstances in which
+the electors are placed. The most weighty argument against the election
+of a chief magistrate is, that it offers so splendid a lure to private
+ambition, and is so apt to inflame men in the pursuit of power, that
+when legitimate means are wanting force may not unfrequently seize what
+right denied.
+    *Re-check Change 5 "Proposed change" text:*
+It is clear that the greater the privileges of the executive authority
+are, the greater is the temptation; the more the ambition of the
+candidates is excited, the more warmly are their interests espoused by
+a throng of partisans who hope to share the power when their patron has
+won the prize. The dangers of the elective system increase, therefore,
+in the exact ratio of the influence exercised by the executive power in
+the affairs of State. The revolutions of Poland were not solely
+attributable to the elective system in general, but to the fact that
+the elected monarch was the sovereign of a powerful kingdom. Before we
+can discuss the absolute advantages of the elective system we must make
+preliminary inquiries as to whether the geographical position, the
+laws, the habits, the manners, and the opinions of the people amongst
+whom it is to be introduced will admit of the establishment of a weak
+and dependent executive government; for to attempt to render the
+representative of the State a powerful sovereign, and at the same time
+elective, is, in my opinion, to entertain two incompatible designs. To
+reduce hereditary royalty to the condition of an elective authority,
+the only means that I am acquainted with are to circumscribe its sphere
+of action beforehand, gradually to diminish its prerogatives, and to
+accustom the people to live without its protection. Nothing, however,
+is further from the designs of the republicans of Europe than this
+course: as many of them owe their hatred of tyranny to the sufferings
+which they have personally undergone, it is oppression, and not the
+extent of the executive power, which excites their hostility, and they
+attack the former without perceiving how nearly it is connected with
+the latter.
+    Para 1: "Executive power profoundly influences the destiny of nations. To understand the American President, one must look beneath deceptive symbols and compare his position to that of a constitutional king in Europe."
+Hitherto no citizen has shown any disposition to expose his honor and
+his life in order to become the President of the United States; because
+the power of that office is temporary, limited, and subordinate. The
+prize of fortune must be great to encourage adventurers in so desperate
+a game. No candidate has as yet been able to arouse the dangerous
+enthusiasm or the passionate sympathies of the people in his favor, for
+the very simple reason that when he is at the head of the Government he
+has but little power, but little wealth, and but little glory to share
+amongst his friends; and his influence in the State is too small for
+the success or the ruin of a faction to depend upon the elevation of an
+individual to power.
+    Para 2: "While a King in France is a branch of the legislature, the American President merely executes the law. The fundamental difference lies in sovereignty: the President's power is as limited as the Union's divided sovereignty, whereas the King's is as universal as the unified authority of the French state."
+The great advantage of hereditary monarchies is, that as the private
+interest of a family is always intimately connected with the interests
+of the State, the executive government is never suspended for a single
+instant; and if the affairs of a monarchy are not better conducted than
+those of a republic, at least there is always some one to conduct them,
+well or ill, according to his capacity. In elective States, on the
+contrary, the wheels of government cease to act, as it were, of their
+own accord at the approach of an election, and even for some time
+previous to that event. The laws may indeed accelerate the operation of
+the election, which may be conducted with such simplicity and rapidity
+that the seat of power will never be left vacant; but, notwithstanding
+these precautions, a break necessarily occurs in the minds of the
+people.
+    This is a clean, non-redundant ending.
+At the approach of an election the head of the executive government is
+wholly occupied by the coming struggle; his future plans are doubtful;
+he can undertake nothing new, and the he will only prosecute with
+indifference those designs which another will perhaps terminate. “I am
+so near the time of my retirement from office,” said President
+Jefferson on the 21st of January, 1809 (six weeks before the election),
+“that I feel no passion, I take no part, I express no sentiment. It
+appears to me just to leave to my successor the commencement of those
+measures which he will have to prosecute, and for which he will be
+responsible.”
+    One tiny detail: Change 2.
+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
+wider the influence of the executive power extends, the greater and the
+more necessary is its constant action, the more fatal is the term of
+suspense; and a nation which is accustomed to the government, or, still
+more, one used to the administrative protection of a powerful executive
+authority would be infallibly convulsed by an election of this kind. In
+the United States the action of the Government may be slackened with
+impunity, because it is always weak and circumscribed. *u
+    Current: "...fifty-five members; George Washington presided, and it contained the New World's finest talents."
+[ [This, however, may be a great danger. The period during which Mr.
+Buchanan retained office, after the election of Mr. Lincoln, from
+November, 1860, to March, 1861, was that which enabled the seceding
+States of the South to complete their preparations for the Civil War,
+and the Executive Government was paralyzed. No greater evil could
+befall a nation.—Translator’s Note.]]
+    Proposed: "...fifty-five members, including Madison, Hamilton, and the Morrises. George Washington presided over this assembly of the New World's finest talents."
+    Check punctuation. Semicolon vs comma. Done.
+One of the principal vices of the elective system is that it always
+introduces a certain degree of instability into the internal and
+external policy of the State. But this disadvantage is less sensibly
+felt if the share of power vested in the elected magistrate is small.
+In Rome the principles of the Government underwent no variation,
+although the Consuls were changed every year, because the Senate, which
+was an hereditary assembly, possessed the directing authority. If the
+elective system were adopted in Europe, the condition of most of the
+monarchical States would be changed at every new election. In America
+the President exercises a certain influence on State affairs, but he
+does not conduct them; the preponderating power is vested in the
+representatives of the whole nation. The political maxims of the
+country depend therefore on the mass of the people, not on the
+President alone; and consequently in America the elective system has no
+very prejudicial influence on the fixed principles of the Government.
+But the want of fixed principles is an evil so inherent in the elective
+system that it is still extremely perceptible in the narrow sphere to
+which the authority of the President extends.
+    One tiny detail: Change 1.
+The Americans have admitted that the head of the executive power, who
+has to bear the whole responsibility of the duties he is called upon to
+fulfil, ought to be empowered to choose his own agents, and to remove
+them at pleasure: the legislative bodies watch the conduct of the
+President more than they direct it. The consequence of this arrangement
+is, that at every new election the fate of all the Federal public
+officers is in suspense. Mr. Quincy Adams, on his entry into office,
+discharged the majority of the individuals who had been appointed by
+his predecessor: and I am not aware that General Jackson allowed a
+single removable functionary employed in the Federal service to retain
+his place beyond the first year which succeeded his election. It is
+sometimes made a subject of complaint that in the constitutional
+monarchies of Europe the fate of the humbler servants of an
+Administration depends upon that of the Ministers. But in elective
+Governments this evil is far greater. In a constitutional monarchy
+successive ministries are rapidly formed; but as the principal
+representative of the executive power does not change, the spirit of
+innovation is kept within bounds; the changes which take place are in
+the details rather than in the principles of the administrative system;
+but to substitute one system for another, as is done in America every
+four years, by law, is to cause a sort of revolution. As to the
+misfortunes which may fall upon individuals in consequence of this
+state of things, it must be allowed that the uncertain situation of the
+public officers is less fraught with evil consequences in America than
+elsewhere. It is so easy to acquire an independent position in the
+United States that the public officer who loses his place may be
+deprived of the comforts of life, but not of the means of subsistence.
+    Current: "...population to the world while carrying revolution beyond its borders."
+I remarked at the beginning of this chapter that the dangers of the
+elective system applied to the head of the State are augmented or
+decreased by the peculiar circumstances of the people which adopts it.
+However the functions of the executive power may be restricted, it must
+always exercise a great influence upon the foreign policy of the
+country, for a negotiation cannot be opened or successfully carried on
+otherwise than by a single agent. The more precarious and the more
+perilous the position of a people becomes, the more absolute is the
+want of a fixed and consistent external policy, and the more dangerous
+does the elective system of the Chief Magistrate become. The policy of
+the Americans in relation to the whole world is exceedingly simple; for
+it may almost be said that no country stands in need of them, nor do
+they require the co-operation of any other people. Their independence
+is never threatened. In their present condition, therefore, the
+functions of the executive power are no less limited by circumstances
+than by the laws; and the President may frequently change his line of
+policy without involving the State in difficulty or destruction.
+    Proposed: "...population to the world, bearing the torch of revolution beyond its borders while stifling its devouring flame at home."
+Whatever the prerogatives of the executive power may be, the period
+which immediately precedes an election and the moment of its duration
+must always be considered as a national crisis, which is perilous in
+proportion to the internal embarrassments and the external dangers of
+the country. Few of the nations of Europe could escape the calamities
+of anarchy or of conquest every time they might have to elect a new
+sovereign. In America society is so constituted that it can stand
+without assistance upon its own basis; nothing is to be feared from the
+pressure of external dangers, and the election of the President is a
+cause of agitation, but not of ruin.
+    Check punctuation. Comma before "bearing". Done.
+Mode Of Election
+    One tiny detail: Change 4.
+Skill of the American legislators shown in the mode of election adopted
+by them—Creation of a special electoral body—Separate votes of these
+electors—Case in which the House of Representatives is called upon to
+choose the President—Results of the twelve elections which have taken
+place since the Constitution has been established.
+    "Federal Powers
+Besides the dangers which are inherent in the system, many other
+difficulties may arise from the mode of election, which may be obviated
+by the precaution of the legislator. When a people met in arms on some
+public spot to choose its head, it was exposed to all the chances of
+civil war resulting from so martial a mode of proceeding, besides the
+dangers of the elective system in itself. The Polish laws, which
+subjected the election of the sovereign to the veto of a single
+individual, suggested the murder of that individual or prepared the way
+to anarchy.
+    {note: ...}"
+In the examination of the institutions and the political as well as
+social condition of the United States, we are struck by the admirable
+harmony of the gifts of fortune and the efforts of man. The nation
+possessed two of the main causes of internal peace; it was a new
+country, but it was inhabited by a people grown old in the exercise of
+freedom. America had no hostile neighbors to dread; and the American
+legislators, profiting by these favorable circumstances, created a weak
+and subordinate executive power which could without danger be made
+elective.
+    Check wording of note. Done.
+It then only remained for them to choose the least dangerous of the
+various modes of election; and the rules which they laid down upon this
+point admirably correspond to the securities which the physical and
+political constitution of the country already afforded. Their object
+was to find the mode of election which would best express the choice of
+the people with the least possible excitement and suspense. It was
+admitted in the first place that the simple majority should be
+decisive; but the difficulty was to obtain this majority without an
+interval of delay which it was most important to avoid. It rarely
+happens that an individual can at once collect the majority of the
+suffrages of a great people; and this difficulty is enhanced in a
+republic of confederate States, where local influences are apt to
+preponderate. The means by which it was proposed to obviate this second
+obstacle was to delegate the electoral powers of the nation to a body
+of representatives. This mode of election rendered a majority more
+probable; for the fewer the electors are, the greater is the chance of
+their coming to a final decision. It also offered an additional
+probability of a judicious choice. It then remained to be decided
+whether this right of election was to be entrusted to a legislative
+body, the habitual representative assembly of the nation, or whether an
+electoral assembly should be formed for the express purpose of
+proceeding to the nomination of a President. The Americans chose the
+latter alternative, from a belief that the individuals who were
+returned to make the laws were incompetent to represent the wishes of
+the nation in the election of its chief magistrate; and that, as they
+are chosen for more than a year, the constituency they represent might
+have changed its opinion in that time. It was thought that if the
+legislature was empowered to elect the head of the executive power, its
+members would, for some time before the election, be exposed to the
+manoeuvres of corruption and the tricks of intrigue; whereas the
+special electors would, like a jury, remain mixed up with the crowd
+till the day of action, when they would appear for the sole purpose of
+giving their votes.
+    *Final text flow verification:*
+It was therefore established that every State should name a certain
+number of electors, *v who in their turn should elect the President;
+and as it had been observed that the assemblies to which the choice of
+a chief magistrate had been entrusted in elective countries inevitably
+became the centres of passion and of cabal; that they sometimes usurped
+an authority which did not belong to them; and that their proceedings,
+or the uncertainty which resulted from them, were sometimes prolonged
+so much as to endanger the welfare of the State, it was determined that
+the electors should all vote upon the same day, without being convoked
+to the same place. *w This double election rendered a majority
+probable, though not certain; for it was possible that as many
+differences might exist between the electors as between their
+constituents. In this case it was necessary to have recourse to one of
+three measures; either to appoint new electors, or to consult a second
+time those already appointed, or to defer the election to another
+authority. The first two of these alternatives, independently of the
+uncertainty of their results, were likely to delay the final decision,
+and to perpetuate an agitation which must always be accompanied with
+danger. The third expedient was therefore adopted, and it was agreed
+that the votes should be transmitted sealed to the President of the
+Senate, and that they should be opened and counted in the presence of
+the Senate and the House of Representatives. If none of the candidates
+has a majority, the House of Representatives then proceeds immediately
+to elect a President, but with the condition that it must fix upon one
+of the three candidates who have the highest numbers. *x
+    ...
+[ As many as it sends members to Congress. The number of electors at
+the election of 1833 was 288. (See “The National Calendar,” 1833.)]
+    The struggle remains lopsided, as persistence overcomes resistance. But the veto forces reconsideration and requires a two-thirds majority, serving as an appeal to the people. In any constitution, law must ultimately rely on citizens' good sense and virtue—a point obvious in republics, hidden in monarchies, but always present.
+    > **Quote:** "There is no country in the world in which everything can be provided for by the laws, or in which political institutions can prove a substitute for common sense and public morality."
+[ The electors of the same State assemble, but they transmit to the
+central government the list of their individual votes, and not the mere
+result of the vote of the majority.] [Footnote x: In this case it 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 in the
+debate than Rhode Island. Thus the citizens of the Union are first
+consulted as members of one and the same community; and, if they cannot
+agree, recourse is had to the division of the States, each of which has
+a separate and independent vote. This is one of the singularities of
+the Federal Constitution which can only be explained by the jar of
+conflicting interests.]
+    Executive power profoundly influences the destiny of nations. To understand the American President, one must look beneath deceptive symbols and compare his position to that of a constitutional king in Europe.
+    While a King in France is a branch of the legislature, the American President merely executes the law. The fundamental difference lies in sovereignty: the President's power is as limited as the Union's divided sovereignty, whereas the King's is as universal as the unified authority of the French state.
+Thus it is only in case of an event which cannot often happen, and
+which can never be foreseen, that the election is entrusted to the
+ordinary representatives of the nation; and even then they are obliged
+to choose a citizen who has already been designated by a powerful
+minority of the special electors. It is by this happy expedient that
+the respect which is due to the popular voice is combined with the
+utmost celerity of execution and those precautions which the peace of
+the country demands. But the decision of the question by the House of
+Representatives does not necessarily offer an immediate solution of the
+difficulty, for the majority of that assembly may still be doubtful,
+and in this case the Constitution prescribes no remedy. Nevertheless,
+by restricting the number of candidates to three, and by referring the
+matter to the judgment of an enlightened public body, it has smoothed
+all the obstacles *y which are not inherent in the elective system.
+    (Wait, should I keep "America has a federal government, France a national one."? The change 5 "Proposed change" does *not* include it, and the "Current text" provided for Change 5 ends with "..." after symbols. However, the rationale says "Consolidating these... removes the redundant 'summary' paragraph." The final sentence "America has a federal government, France a national one" is part of that redundancy. I will follow the "Proposed change" block exactly.)
+[ Jefferson, in 1801, was not elected until the thirty-sixth time of
+balloting.]
+### Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part II
+thoughtful
+In the forty-four years which have elapsed since the promulgation of
+the Federal Constitution the United States have twelve times chosen a
+President. Ten of these elections took place simultaneously by the
+votes of the special electors in the different States. The House of
+Representatives has only twice exercised its conditional privilege of
+deciding in cases of uncertainty; the first time was at the election of
+Mr. Jefferson in 1801; the second was in 1825, when Mr. Quincy Adams
+was named. *z
+The objective is to refine a specific passage from *Democracy in America - Volume I* by Alexis de Tocqueville based on a list of five proposed changes.
+[ [General Grant is now (1874) the eighteenth President of the United
+States.]]
+    *   *Change 1:* Fix the truncated ending.
+        *   Location: End of the passage.
+        *   Replace "I have explained the circumstances permitting an elective system and the precautions taken. Americans" with: "I have explained the circumstances permitting an elective system and the precautions taken to mitigate its dangers. Americans are accustomed to elections and understand the level of excitement compatible with social order. The vastness of the country and the scattered population make party collisions less dangerous; and because the President’s direct influence is limited, the election—while a national crisis of principle and passion—does not result in the ruin of the state."
+    *   *Change 2:* Add a quote about isolation.
+        *   Location: Paragraph 6.
+        *   Current: "The President commands an army of six thousand and few ships, conducts foreign relations for a nation without neighbours, separated by ocean, with no enemies and few clashing interests."
+        *   New: "> **Quote:** 'The United States are a nation without neighbors. Separated from the rest of the world by the ocean, and too weak 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 other nation of the globe.' "
+    *   *Change 3:* Detail the electoral equality in the House.
+        *   Location: Paragraph 18 (counting carefully). Actually, it's the paragraph starting "If divided, three options existed..." (which is technically the 18th paragraph of text including quotes as blocks).
+        *   Current: "If no majority, the House elects from the top three, with each state having one vote. Citizens are consulted nationally; if no agreement, states decide independently."
+        *   New: "If no majority, the House elects from the top three, with each state having one vote. This means a state like New York has no more influence than Rhode Island. Thus, the citizens are first consulted as members of one nation; if they cannot agree, the decision reverts to the states as independent political entities."
+    *   *Change 4:* Restore Translator's Note tag.
+        *   Location: End of the second-to-last paragraph.
+        *   Current: "[General Grant is now (1874) the eighteenth President of the United States.]"
+        *   New: "[General Grant is now (1874) the eighteenth President of the United States.—Translator’s Note.]"
+    *   *Change 5:* Refine the "Monarchical Paradox" sentence.
+        *   Location: Paragraph 4.
+        *   Current: "This leads me to conclude that France with its King is more republican than the Union with its President is monarchical."
+        *   New: "Whence I am led to conclude that France with its King is nearer akin to a republic than the Union with its President is to a monarchy."
+    *   *Para 1:* "The President's inferiority..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 2:* "Even in executive power..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 3 (Quote):* "> **Quote:** 'The King of France...'" (Keep)
+    *   *Para 4:* "Public opinion dominates both systems... **Whence I am led to conclude that France with its King is nearer akin to a republic than the Union with its President is to a monarchy.**" (Applied Change 5)
+    *   *Para 5:* "The French King's government..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 6:* "The executive is weaker in America... **> **Quote:** 'The United States are a nation without neighbors. Separated from the rest of the world by the ocean, and too weak 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 other nation of the globe.'  If the Union were constantly threatened, the executive would gain importance." (Applied Change 2)
+    *   *Para 7:* "A government cannot be judged..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 8:* "European axioms hold..." (Keep)
+    *   *Subheading:* "Election Of The President"
+    *   *Para 9:* "The dangers of electing..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 10:* "Dangers increase directly..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 11:* "No citizen risks honour..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 12:* "Hereditary monarchies never suspend..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 13 (Quote):* "> **Quote:** 'I am so near...'" (Keep)
+    *   *Para 14 (Note):* "The period during which Mr. Buchanan..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 15:* "The elective system introduces..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 16:* "Americans accept that the executive..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 17:* "Dangers vary by circumstances..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 18:* "Regardless of powers..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 19:* "Long beforehand..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 20 (Quote):* "> **Quote:** 'The President, on the other hand...'" (Keep)
+    *   *Para 21:* "As soon as the result is decided..." (Keep)
+    *   *Subheading:* "Mode Of Election"
+    *   *Para 22:* "The legislators' skill shows..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 23:* "Beyond inherent dangers..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 24:* "America's institutions show..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 25:* "Their task was the least..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 26:* "They chose special electors..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 27:* "Each state appoints electors..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 28:* "If divided, three options existed: new electors, reconsultation, or another authority. The first two would delay and prolong agitation, so the third was chosen. Votes go sealed to the Senate President. **If no majority, the House elects from the top three, with each state having one vote. This means a state like New York has no more influence than Rhode Island. Thus, the citizens are first consulted as members of one nation; if they cannot agree, the decision reverts to the states as independent political entities.**" (Applied Change 3)
+    *   *Para 29:* "Thus, the election rarely reaches the House..." (Keep)
+    *   *Para 30:* "In forty-four years... **[General Grant is now (1874) the eighteenth President of the United States.—Translator’s Note.]**" (Applied Change 4)
+    *   *Last Section/Para:* "Crises Of The Election" / "I have explained the circumstances permitting an elective system and the precautions taken... **to mitigate its dangers. Americans are accustomed to elections and understand the level of excitement compatible with social order. The vastness of the country and the scattered population make party collisions less dangerous; and because the President’s direct influence is limited, the election—while a national crisis of principle and passion—does not result in the ruin of the state.**" (Applied Change 1)
+    *   Check Markdown formatting (quotes, subheadings).
+    *   Verify specific phrasing matches the instructions perfectly.
+    *   Ensure no metadata or introduction.
+    *Note on Para 28 adjustment:* The change says "If no majority, the House elects from the top three, with each state having one vote. This means a state like New York has no more influence than Rhode Island. Thus, the citizens are first consulted as members of one nation; if they cannot agree, the decision reverts to the states as independent political entities."
+Crises Of The Election
+    The current text has: "If no majority, the House elects from the top three, with each state having one vote. Citizens are consulted nationally; if no agreement, states decide independently."
+The Election may be considered as a national crisis—Why?—Passions of
+the people—Anxiety of the President—Calm which succeeds the agitation
+of the election.
+    I will replace the matching sentences as per Change 3.
+I have shown what the circumstances are which favored the adoption of
+the elective system in the United States, and what precautions were
+taken by the legislators to obviate its dangers. The Americans are
+habitually accustomed to all kinds of elections, and they know by
+experience the utmost degree of excitement which is compatible with
+security. The vast extent of the country and the dissemination of the
+inhabitants render a collision between parties less probable and less
+dangerous there than elsewhere. The political circumstances under which
+the elections have hitherto been carried on have presented no real
+embarrassments to the nation.
+    *Note on Para 6 adjustment:* Change 2 replaces "The President commands an army... clashing interests" with the quote. I will ensure the transition to the next sentence "If the Union were..." is smooth.
+Nevertheless, the epoch of the election of a President of the United
+States may be considered as a crisis in the affairs of the nation. The
+influence which he exercises on public business is no doubt feeble and
+indirect; but the choice of the President, which is of small importance
+to each individual citizen, concerns the citizens collectively; and
+however trifling an interest may be, it assumes a great degree of
+importance as soon as it becomes general. The President possesses but
+few means of rewarding his supporters in comparison to the kings of
+Europe, but the places which are at his disposal are sufficiently
+numerous to interest, directly or indirectly, several thousand electors
+in his success. Political parties in the United States are led to rally
+round an individual, in order to acquire a more tangible shape in the
+eyes of the crowd, and the name of the candidate for the Presidency is
+put forward as the symbol and personification of their theories. For
+these reasons parties are strongly interested in gaining the election,
+not so much with a view to the triumph of their principles under the
+auspices of the President-elect as to show by the majority which
+returned him, the strength of the supporters of those principles.
+    *Note on Final Paragraph:* "I have explained... Americans" -> "I have explained... to the ruin of the state." (Complete replacement/extension).
+For a long while before the appointed time is at hand the election
+becomes the most important and the all-engrossing topic of discussion.
+The ardor of faction is redoubled; and all the artificial passions
+which the imagination can create in the bosom of a happy and peaceful
+land are agitated and brought to light. The President, on the other
+hand, is absorbed by the cares of self-defence. He no longer governs
+for the interest of the State, but for that of his re-election; he does
+homage to the majority, and instead of checking its passions, as his
+duty commands him to do, he frequently courts its worst caprices. As
+the election draws near, the activity of intrigue and the agitation of
+the populace increase; the citizens are divided into hostile camps,
+each of which assumes the name of its favorite candidate; the whole
+nation glows with feverish excitement; the election is the daily theme
+of the public papers, the subject of private conversation, the end of
+every thought and every action, the sole interest of the present. As
+soon as the choice is determined, this ardor is dispelled; and as a
+calmer season returns, the current of the State, which had nearly
+broken its banks, sinks to its usual level: *a but who can refrain from
+astonishment at the causes of the storm.
+    *Let's double check Change 2 replacement:*
+[ [Not always. The election of President Lincoln was the signal of
+civil war.—Translator’s Note.]]
+    Current: "The executive is weaker in America due more to circumstances than laws. It is in foreign relations that executive power shows vigor. The President commands an army of six thousand and few ships, conducts foreign relations for a nation without neighbours, separated by ocean, with no enemies and few clashing interests. If the Union were constantly threatened, the executive would gain importance."
+    New: "The executive is weaker in America due more to circumstances than laws. It is in foreign relations that executive power shows vigor. > **Quote:** 'The United States are a nation without neighbors. Separated from the rest of the world by the ocean, and too weak 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 other nation of the globe.'  If the Union were constantly threatened, the executive would gain importance."
+    This looks correct.
+    *Let's double check Change 3 replacement:*
+### Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part III
+    Current: "If divided, three options existed: new electors, reconsultation, or another authority. The first two would delay and prolong agitation, so the third was chosen. Votes go sealed to the Senate President. If no majority, the House elects from the top three, with each state having one vote. Citizens are consulted nationally; if no agreement, states decide independently."
+Re-election Of The President
+    New: "If divided, three options existed: new electors, reconsultation, or another authority. The first two would delay and prolong agitation, so the third was chosen. Votes go sealed to the Senate President. If no majority, the House elects from the top three, with each state having one vote. This means a state like New York has no more influence than Rhode Island. Thus, the citizens are first consulted as members of one nation; if they cannot agree, the decision reverts to the states as independent political entities."
+When the head of the executive power is re-eligible, it is the State
+which is the source of intrigue and corruption—The desire of being
+re-elected the chief aim of a President of the United
+States—Disadvantage of the system peculiar to America—The natural evil
+of democracy is that it subordinates all authority to the slightest
+desires of the majority—The re-election of the President encourages
+this evil.
+    This looks correct.
+It may be asked whether the legislators of the United States did right
+or wrong in allowing the re-election of the President. It seems at
+first sight contrary to all reason to prevent the head of the executive
+power from being elected a second time. The influence which the talents
+and the character of a single individual may exercise upon the fate of
+a whole people, in critical circumstances or arduous times, is well
+known: a law preventing the re-election of the chief magistrate would
+deprive the citizens of the surest pledge of the prosperity and the
+security of the commonwealth; and, by a singular inconsistency, a man
+would be excluded from the government at the very time when he had
+shown his ability in conducting its affairs.
+    *Let's check Change 1 replacement:*
+But if these arguments are strong, perhaps still more powerful reasons
+may be advanced against them. Intrigue and corruption are the natural
+defects of elective government; but when the head of the State can be
+re-elected these evils rise to a great height, and compromise the very
+existence of the country. When a simple candidate seeks to rise by
+intrigue, his manoeuvres must necessarily be limited to a narrow
+sphere; but when the chief magistrate enters the lists, he borrows the
+strength of the government for his own purposes. In the former case the
+feeble resources of an individual are in action; in the latter, the
+State itself, with all its immense influence, is busied in the work of
+corruption and cabal. The private citizen, who employs the most immoral
+practices to acquire power, can only act in a manner indirectly
+prejudicial to the public prosperity. But if the representative of the
+executive descends into the combat, the cares of government dwindle
+into second-rate importance, and the success of his election is his
+first concern. All laws and all the negotiations he undertakes are to
+him nothing more than electioneering schemes; places become the reward
+of services rendered, not to the nation, but to its chief; and the
+influence of the government, if not injurious to the country, is at
+least no longer beneficial to the community for which it was created.
+    Current end: "I have explained the circumstances permitting an elective system and the precautions taken. Americans"
+It is impossible to consider the ordinary course of affairs in the
+United States without perceiving that the desire of being re-elected is
+the chief aim of the President; that his whole administration, and even
+his most indifferent measures, tend to this object; and that, as the
+crisis approaches, his personal interest takes the place of his
+interest in the public good. The principle of re-eligibility renders
+the corrupt influence of elective government still more extensive and
+pernicious.
+    New end: "I have explained the circumstances permitting an elective system and the precautions taken to mitigate its dangers. Americans are accustomed to elections and understand the level of excitement compatible with social order. The vastness of the country and the scattered population make party collisions less dangerous; and because the President’s direct influence is limited, the election—while a national crisis of principle and passion—does not result in the ruin of the state."
+In America it exercises a peculiarly fatal influence on the sources of
+national existence. Every government seems to be afflicted by some evil
+which is inherent in its nature, and the genius of the legislator is
+shown in eluding its attacks. A State may survive the influence of a
+host of bad laws, and the mischief they cause is frequently
+exaggerated; but a law which encourages the growth of the canker within
+must prove fatal in the end, although its bad consequences may not be
+immediately perceived.
+    Wait, Change 1 instructions say "I have explained... taken. Americans" is the current text. My replacement should encompass that whole string. Yes.
+The principle of destruction in absolute monarchies lies in the
+excessive and unreasonable extension of the prerogative of the crown;
+and a measure tending to remove the constitutional provisions which
+counterbalance this influence would be radically bad, even if its
+immediate consequences were unattended with evil. By a parity of
+reasoning, in countries governed by a democracy, where the people is
+perpetually drawing all authority to itself, the laws which increase or
+accelerate its action are the direct assailants of the very principle
+of the government.
+    *Let's check Change 5:*
+The greatest proof of the ability of the American legislators is, that
+they clearly discerned this truth, and that they had the courage to act
+up to it. They conceived that a certain authority above the body of the
+people 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 permanent
+determinations of the majority, but which would be able to resist its
+caprices, and to refuse its most dangerous demands. To this end they
+centred the whole executive power of the nation in a single arm; they
+granted extensive prerogatives to the President, and they armed him
+with the veto to resist the encroachments of the legislature.
+    Current: "Public opinion dominates both systems, though less defined in France. In America it acts through elections; in France, through revolutions. This leads me to conclude that France with its King is more republican than the Union with its President is monarchical."
+But by introducing the principle of re-election they partly destroyed
+their work; and they rendered the President but little inclined to
+exert the great power they had vested in his hands. If ineligible a
+second time, the President would be far from independent of the people,
+for his responsibility would not be lessened; but the favor of the
+people would not be so necessary to him as to induce him to court it by
+humoring its desires. If re-eligible (and this is more especially true
+at the present day, when political morality is relaxed, and when great
+men are rare), the President of the United States becomes an easy tool
+in the hands of the majority. He adopts its likings and its
+animosities, he hastens to anticipate its wishes, he forestalls its
+complaints, he yields to its idlest cravings, and instead of guiding
+it, as the legislature intended that he should do, he is ever ready to
+follow its bidding. Thus, in order not to deprive the State of the
+talents of an individual, those talents have been rendered almost
+useless; and to reserve an expedient for extraordinary perils, the
+country has been exposed to daily dangers.
+    New: "Public opinion dominates both systems, though less defined in France. In America it acts through elections; in France, through revolutions. Whence I am led to conclude that France with its King is nearer akin to a republic than the Union with its President is to a monarchy."
+Federal Courts *b
+    Looks correct.
+[ See chap. VI, entitled “Judicial Power in the United States.” This
+chapter explains the general principles of the American theory 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 of
+the courts of the United States, by Thomas Sergeant. See Story, pp.
+, 162, 489, 511, 581, 668; and the organic law of September 24,
+, in the “Collection of the Laws of the United States,” by Story,
+vol. i. p. 53.]
+    *Translator's note check (Change 4):*
+    Current: "[General Grant is now (1874) the eighteenth President of the United States.]"
+Political importance of the judiciary in the United States—Difficulty
+of treating this subject—Utility of judicial power in
+confederations—What tribunals could be introduced into the
+Union—Necessity of establishing federal courts of justice—Organization
+of the national judiciary—The Supreme Court—In what it differs from all
+known tribunals.
+    New: "[General Grant is now (1874) the eighteenth President of the United States.—Translator’s Note.]"
+I have inquired into the legislative and executive power of the Union,
+and the judicial power now remains to be examined; but in this place I
+cannot conceal my fears from the reader. Their judicial institutions
+exercise a great influence on the condition of the Anglo-Americans, and
+they occupy a prominent place amongst what are probably called
+political institutions: in this respect they are peculiarly deserving
+of our attention. But I am at a loss to explain the political action of
+the American tribunals without entering into some technical details of
+their constitution and their forms of proceeding; and I know not how to
+descend to these minutiae without wearying the curiosity of the reader
+by the natural aridity of the subject, or without risking to fall into
+obscurity through a desire to be succinct. I can scarcely hope to
+escape these 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 the natural disadvantages of my subject, and more especially of the
+point which I am about to discuss.
+    Wait, looking at paragraph 30: "In forty-four years, twelve Presidents were chosen. Ten were decided by electors; the House acted only twice: Jefferson in 1801 and Quincy Adams in 1825. [General Grant is now (1874) the eighteenth President of the United States.]"
+The great difficulty was, not to devise the Constitution to the Federal
+Government, but to find out a method of enforcing its laws. Governments
+have in general but two means of overcoming the opposition of the
+people they govern, viz., the physical force which is at their own
+disposal, and the moral force which they derive from the decisions of
+the courts of justice.
+    The change says: "[General Grant is now (1874) the eighteenth President of the United States.—Translator’s Note.]"
+A government which should have no other means of exacting obedience
+than open war must be very near its ruin, for one of two alternatives
+would then probably occur: if its authority was small and its character
+temperate, 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 was
+enterprising and powerful, it would perpetually have recourse to its
+physical strength, and would speedily degenerate into a military
+despotism. So that its activity would not be less prejudicial to the
+community than its inaction.
+    I will append the "—Translator’s Note." part inside the brackets as requested.
+The great end of justice is to substitute the notion of right for that
+of violence, and to place a legal barrier between the power of the
+government and the use of physical force. The authority which is
+awarded to the intervention of a court of justice by the general
+opinion of mankind is so surprisingly great that it clings to the mere
+formalities of justice, and gives a bodily influence to the shadow of
+the law. The moral force which courts of justice possess renders the
+introduction of physical force exceedingly rare, and is very frequently
+substituted for it; but if the latter proves to be indispensable, its
+power is doubled by the association of the idea of law.
+    Everything seems ready. Proceeding to generate the final Markdown.
+A federal government stands in greater need of the support of judicial
+institutions than any other, because it is naturally weak and exposed
+to formidable opposition. *c If it were always obliged to resort to
+violence in the first instance, it could not fulfil its task. The
+Union, therefore, required a national judiciary to enforce the
+obedience of the citizens to the laws, and to repeal the attacks which
+might be directed against them. The question then remained as to what
+tribunals were to exercise these privileges; were they to be entrusted
+to the courts of justice which were already organized in every State?
+or was it necessary to create federal courts? It may easily be proved
+that the Union could not adapt the judicial power of the States to its
+wants. The separation of the judiciary from the administrative power of
+the State no doubt affects the security of every citizen and the
+liberty of all. But it is no less important to the existence of the
+nation that these several powers should have the same origin, should
+follow the same principles, and act in the same sphere; in a word, that
+they should be correlative and homogeneous. No one, I presume, ever
+suggested the advantage of trying offences committed in France by a
+foreign court of justice, in order to secure the impartiality of the
+judges. The Americans form one people in relation to their Federal
+Government; but in the bosom of this people divers political bodies
+have been allowed to subsist which are dependent on the national
+Government in a few points, and independent in all the rest; which have
+all a distinct origin, maxims peculiar to themselves, and special means
+of carrying on their affairs. To entrust the execution of the laws of
+the Union to tribunals instituted by these political bodies would be to
+allow foreign judges to preside over the nation. Nay, more; not only is
+each State foreign to the Union at large, but it is in perpetual
+opposition to the common interests, since whatever 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 the States would be to allow not
+only foreign but partial judges to preside over the nation.
+### Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part III
+[ Federal laws are those which most require courts of justice, and
+those at the same time which have most rarely established them. The
+reason is that confederations have usually been formed by independent
+States, which entertained no real intention of obeying the central
+Government, and which very readily ceded the right of command to the
+federal executive, and very prudently reserved the right of
+non-compliance to themselves.]
+When the executive can be re-elected, the State becomes a breeding ground for intrigue and corruption. The desire for a second term becomes the President's main goal. This system creates a disadvantage unique to America.
+> **Quote:** "The natural evil of democracy is that it subordinates all authority to the slightest desires of the majority—the re-election of the President encourages this evil."
+But the number, still more than the mere character, of the tribunals of
+the States rendered them unfit for the service of the nation. When the
+Federal Constitution was formed there were already thirteen courts of
+justice in the United States which decided causes without appeal. That
+number is now increased to twenty-four. To suppose that a State can
+subsist when its fundamental laws may be subjected to four-and-twenty
+different interpretations at the same time is to advance a proposition
+alike contrary to reason and to experience.
+Were the framers right to allow re-election? At first glance, preventing a proven leader from serving again seems contrary to all logic, especially given how profoundly one person's talents and character can shape a nation's fate during crisis. A law excluding the chief executive at the moment of proven ability would deprive citizens of their surest pledge of prosperity and, by a singular inconsistency, remove a leader at the very time they have demonstrated the capacity to govern.
+The American legislators therefore agreed to create a federal judiciary
+power to apply the laws of the Union, and to determine certain
+questions affecting 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, to facilitate the expedition of business, inferior courts were
+appended to it, which were empowered to decide causes of small
+importance without appeal, and with appeal causes of more magnitude.
+The members of the Supreme Court are named neither by the people nor
+the legislature, but by the President of the United States, acting with
+the advice of the Senate. In order to render them independent of the
+other authorities, their office was made inalienable; and it was
+determined that their salary, when once fixed, should not be altered by
+the legislature. *d It was easy to proclaim the principle of a Federal
+judiciary, but difficulties multiplied when the extent of its
+jurisdiction was to be determined.
+Yet more powerful reasons exist on the other side. Intrigue and corruption are natural flaws of elective government, but when the head of state can be re-elected, these evils reach dangerous heights. An ordinary candidate's maneuvers are limited to individual resources, but a sitting President borrows the full strength of government for his own purposes. In the former case, we see an individual’s limited resources; in the latter, the State itself, with all its immense influence, is busied in the work of corruption and cabal.
+[ The Union was divided into districts, in each of which a resident
+Federal judge was appointed, and the court in which he presided was
+termed a “District Court.” Each of the judges of the Supreme Court
+annually visits a certain portion of the Republic, in order to try the
+most important causes upon the spot; the court presided over by this
+magistrate is styled a “Circuit Court.” Lastly, all the most serious
+cases of litigation are brought before the Supreme Court, which holds a
+solemn session once a year, at which all the judges of the Circuit
+Courts must attend. The jury was introduced into the Federal Courts in
+the same manner, and in the same cases, as into the courts of the
+States.
+When the executive joins the fray, governing becomes secondary to winning. Laws and negotiations become campaign schemes; positions become rewards for service to the leader rather than the nation. The government's influence, if not harmful, is at least no longer beneficial.
+It is impossible to observe American affairs without realizing that re-election is the President's primary aim. His entire administration bends toward this end. As elections approach, personal interest overtakes the public good. Re-eligibility spreads and intensifies the corrupting influence of elective government.
+It will be observed that no analogy exists between the Supreme Court of
+the United States and the French Cour de Cassation, since the latter
+only hears appeals on questions of law. The Supreme Court decides upon
+the evidence of the fact as well as upon the law of the case, whereas
+the Cour de Cassation does not pronounce a decision of its own, but
+refers the cause to the arbitration of another tribunal. See the law of
+September 24, 1789, “Laws of the United States,” by Story, vol. i. p.
+.]
+Every government suffers some inherent evil; a legislator's skill is measured by how well he evades its attacks. Bad laws can be survived, but a law encouraging an internal cancer must eventually prove fatal. In absolute monarchies, the seed of destruction lies in the unreasonable expansion of royal power; any measure removing constitutional checks is fundamentally bad, even without immediate harm. Similarly, in democracies where the people constantly pull authority toward themselves, any law accelerating this process attacks the government's foundation.
+Means Of Determining The Jurisdiction Of The Federal Courts Difficulty
+of determining the jurisdiction of separate courts of justice in
+confederations—The courts of the Union obtained the right of fixing
+their own jurisdiction—In what respect this rule attacks the portion of
+sovereignty reserved to the several States—The sovereignty of these
+States restricted by the laws, and the interpretation of the
+laws—Consequently, the danger of the several States is more apparent
+than real.
+> **Quote:** "A State may survive the influence of a host of bad laws, and the mischief they cause is frequently exaggerated; but a law which encourages the growth of the canker within must prove fatal in the end."
+As the Constitution of the United States recognized two distinct powers
+in presence of each other, represented in a judicial point of view by
+two distinct classes of courts of justice, the utmost care which could
+be taken in defining their separate jurisdictions would have been
+insufficient to prevent frequent collisions between those tribunals.
+The question then arose to whom the right of deciding the competency of
+each court was to be referred.
+The framers' greatest proof of skill is that they saw this truth and acted courageously. They created an authority above the general population—one independent enough to resist temporary whims yet accountable enough to follow the majority's long-term will. They concentrated executive power in one person, granted extensive powers, and gave the veto to resist legislative overreach.
+In nations which constitute a single body politic, when a question is
+debated between two courts relating to their mutual jurisdiction, a
+third tribunal is generally within reach to decide the difference; and
+this is effected without difficulty, because in these nations the
+questions of judicial competency have no connection with the privileges
+of the national supremacy. But it was impossible to create an arbiter
+between a superior court of the Union and the superior court of a
+separate State which would not belong to one of these two classes. It
+was, therefore, necessary to allow one of these courts to judge its own
+cause, and to take or to retain cognizance of the point which was
+contested. To grant this privilege to the different courts of the
+States would have been to destroy the sovereignty of the Union de facto
+after having established it de jure; for the interpretation of the
+Constitution would soon have restored that portion of independence to
+the States of which the terms of that act deprived them. The object of
+the creation of a Federal tribunal was to prevent the courts of the
+States from deciding questions affecting the national interests in
+their own department, and so to form a uniform body of jurisprudene for
+the interpretation of the laws of the Union. This end would not have
+been accomplished if the courts of the several States had been
+competent to decide upon cases in their separate capacities from which
+they were obliged to abstain as Federal tribunals. The Supreme Court of
+the United States was therefore invested with the right of determining
+all questions of jurisdiction. *e
+But by allowing re-election, they partially undid this work. A President ineligible for a second term would still be responsible to the people without needing to court their every desire. When re-election is possible—and especially today, as political standards have lowered and great leaders are rare—the President becomes a tool of the majority. He adopts their prejudices, anticipates their wishes, yields to their cravings. Instead of guiding as intended, he follows. To preserve an option for extraordinary crises, the country faces daily dangers.
+[ In order to diminish the number of these suits, it was decided that
+in a great many Federal causes the courts of the States should be
+empowered to decide conjointly with those of the Union, the losing
+party having then a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
+States. The Supreme Court of Virginia contested the right of the
+Supreme Court of the United States to judge an appeal from its
+decisions, but unsuccessfully. See “Kent’s Commentaries,” vol. i. p.
+, pp. 370 et seq.; Story’s “Commentaries,” p. 646; and “The Organic
+Law of the United States,” vol. i. p. 35.]
+The political importance of the judiciary is significant but difficult to address. Judicial power is essential in confederations; without national courts, the Union could not survive. The organization of this judiciary, centered on the Supreme Court, differs from any other system.
+I must admit my concerns: American courts influence daily life profoundly and deserve attention, yet explaining their political role risks drowning readers in technicalities. I may bore with dry facts or confuse with brevity—hard to avoid both.
+This was a severe blow upon the independence of the States, which was
+thus 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 a rule which was certain, and a rule which was arbitrary. It is true
+the Constitution had laid down the precise limits of the Federal
+supremacy, but whenever this supremacy is contested by one of the
+States, a Federal tribunal decides the question. Nevertheless, the
+dangers with which the independence of the States was threatened by
+this mode of proceeding are less serious than they appeared to be. We
+shall see hereafter that in America the real strength of the country is
+vested in the provincial far more than in the Federal Government. The
+Federal judges are conscious of the relative weakness of the power in
+whose name they act, and they are more inclined to abandon a right of
+jurisdiction in cases where it is justly their own than to assert a
+privilege to which they have no legal claim.
+The main difficulty was enforcing federal laws. Governments have only two means: physical force or the moral force of court decisions. A government relying only on war is near collapse—weak governments invite anarchy; strong ones become military despotisms. Courts replace violence with legal right, creating a barrier between power and force. The respect for judicial intervention is so great that even legal formalities command authority, making physical force rare and doubling its power when finally needed.
+Different Cases Of Jurisdiction
+> **Quote:** "The authority which is awarded to the intervention of a court of justice by the general opinion of mankind is so surprisingly great that it clings to the mere formalities of justice, and gives a bodily influence to the shadow of the law."
+The matter and the party are the first conditions of the Federal
+jurisdiction—Suits in which ambassadors are engaged—Suits of the
+Union—Of a separate State—By whom tried—Causes resulting from the laws
+of the Union—Why judged by the Federal tribunals—Causes relating to the
+performance of contracts tried by the Federal courts—Consequence of
+this arrangement.
+A federal government needs judicial support more than any other because it is naturally weak and faces strong opposition. Confederations are formed by independent states that grant the executive the right to command while reserving the right to ignore it. Without a national judiciary to ensure compliance, the Union could not function.
+After having appointed the means of fixing the competency of the
+Federal courts, the legislators of the Union defined the cases which
+should come within their jurisdiction. It was established, on the one
+hand, that certain parties must always be brought before the Federal
+courts, without any regard to the special nature of the cause; and, on
+the other, that certain causes must always be brought before the same
+courts, without any regard to the quality of the parties in the suit.
+These distinctions were therefore admitted to be the basis of the
+Federal jurisdiction.
+The question was which courts should handle this. The Union could not rely on state courts. While separating judicial and administrative power is vital for liberty, these powers must share the same origin and principles. No one would suggest French crimes be tried by foreign courts for "impartiality." Yet to the Union, states were both "foreign" and often directly opposed, since any power the Union lost benefited them. To entrust the execution of Union laws to state tribunals would be to allow foreign and partial judges to preside over the nation's interests.
+Ambassadors are the representatives of nations in a state of amity with
+the Union, and whatever concerns these personages concerns in some
+degree the whole Union. When an ambassador is a party in a suit, that
+suit affects the welfare of the nation, and a Federal tribunal is
+naturally called upon to decide it.
+The sheer number of state courts also made them unfit. When the Constitution was written, thirteen independent courts existed; now there are twenty-four. A nation cannot survive when its fundamental laws face twenty-four different simultaneous interpretations.
+The Union itself may be invoked in legal proceedings, and in this case
+it would be alike contrary to the customs of all nations and to common
+sense to appeal to a tribunal representing any other sovereignty than
+its own; the Federal courts, therefore, take cognizance of these
+affairs.
+American legislators therefore created a federal judiciary to apply Union laws and decide questions of national interest. All judicial power was centered in the Supreme Court, with inferior courts added: District Courts for local federal matters, and Circuit Courts where Supreme Court justices heard significant cases locally. The jury system was introduced into these courts just as in state courts. {See the organic law of September 24, 1789}
+When two parties belonging to two different States are engaged in a
+suit, the case cannot with propriety be brought before a court of
+either State. The surest expedient is to select a tribunal like that of
+the Union, which can excite the suspicions of neither party, and which
+offers the most natural as well as the most certain remedy.
+The Supreme Court differs from the French *Cour de Cassation* in that it decides both facts and law, issuing final rulings rather than merely referring cases back.
+When the two parties are not private individuals, but States, an
+important political consideration is added to the same motive of
+equity. The quality of the parties in this case gives a national
+importance to all their disputes; and the most trifling litigation of
+the States may be said to involve the peace of the whole Union. *f
+Supreme Court members are appointed by the President with Senate advice, not by popular vote, and hold office for life with salaries protected from legislative reduction. While establishing the judiciary was easy, defining its jurisdiction proved difficult.
+[ The Constitution also says that the Federal courts shall decide
+“controversies between a State and the citizens of another State.” And
+here a most important question of a constitutional nature arose, which
+was, whether the jurisdiction given by the Constitution in cases in
+which a State is a party extended to suits brought against a State as
+well as by it, or was exclusively confined to the latter. The question
+was most elaborately considered in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, and
+was decided by the majority of the Supreme Court in the affirmative.
+The decision created general alarm among the States, and an amendment
+was proposed and ratified by which the power was entirely taken away,
+so far as it regards suits brought against a State. See Story’s
+“Commentaries,” p. 624, or in the large edition Section 1677.]
+In confederations, defining separate court jurisdictions is problematic. The Union courts eventually obtained the right to determine their own jurisdiction, affecting state sovereignty in several ways. The danger to states is more apparent than real, however.
+Because the Constitution recognized two distinct powers with separate court systems, even careful definitions would have caused frequent clashes. The question arose: who decides jurisdiction? In single-body nations, a third tribunal resolves disputes between courts. But between Union and state courts, no neutral arbiter existed. One court had to judge its own cause. Granting this privilege to state courts would destroy Union sovereignty, as they would restore the independence the Constitution removed through interpretation.
+The nature of the cause frequently prescribes the rule of competency.
+Thus all the questions which concern maritime commerce evidently fall
+under the cognizance of the Federal tribunals. *g Almost all these
+questions are connected with the interpretation of the law of nations,
+and in this respect they essentially interest the Union in relation to
+foreign powers. Moreover, as the sea is not included within the limits
+of any peculiar jurisdiction, the national courts can only hear causes
+which originate in maritime affairs.
+The Supreme Court was therefore invested with the right to determine all questions of jurisdiction.
+[ As for instance, all cases of piracy.]
+> **Quote:** "The Supreme Court of the United States was therefore invested with the right of determining all questions of jurisdiction."
+To reduce lawsuits, state courts were empowered to decide many federal cases, with the losing party able to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Virginia once contested this right unsuccessfully, a blow to state independence restricted not only by laws but by their interpretation—by certain and uncertain rules, by fixed and arbitrary limits. True, the Constitution defined federal supremacy, but whenever states challenge it, a federal tribunal decides.
+The Constitution comprises under one head almost all the cases which by
+their very nature come within the limits of the Federal courts. The
+rule which it lays down is simple, but pregnant with an entire system
+of ideas, and with a vast multitude of facts. It declares that the
+judicial power of the Supreme Court shall extend to all cases in law
+and equity arising under the laws of the United States.
+Nevertheless, the danger to state independence is less serious than it appears, as we shall see that America's real strength lies in local governments far more than the federal one. Federal judges know their power's relative weakness and are more inclined to waive legitimate jurisdiction than claim unauthorized privilege.
+Two examples will put the intention of the legislator in the clearest
+light:
+**Different Cases Of Jurisdiction**
+The Constitution prohibits the States from making laws on the value and
+circulation of money: If, notwithstanding this prohibition, a State
+passes a law of this kind, with which the interested parties refuse to
+comply because it is contrary to the Constitution, the case must come
+before a Federal court, because it arises under the laws of the United
+States. Again, if difficulties arise in the levying of import duties
+which have been voted by Congress, the Federal court must decide the
+case, because it arises under the interpretation of a law of the United
+States.
+Jurisdiction depends on subject matter and parties. Lawsuits involving ambassadors, the Union itself, or disputes between states fall to federal courts. So do cases arising from Union laws and contract fulfillment.
+This rule is in perfect accordance with the fundamental principles of
+the Federal Constitution. The Union, as it was established in 1789,
+possesses, it is true, a limited supremacy; but it was intended that
+within its limits it should form one and the same people. *h Within
+those limits the Union is sovereign. When this point is established and
+admitted, the inference is easy; for if it be acknowledged that the
+United States constitute one and the same people within the bounds
+prescribed by their Constitution, it is impossible to refuse them the
+rights which belong to other nations. But it has been allowed, from the
+origin of society, that every nation has the right of deciding by its
+own courts those questions which concern the execution of its own laws.
+To this it is answered that the Union is in so singular a position that
+in relation to some matters it constitutes a people, and that in
+relation to all the rest it is a nonentity. But the inference to be
+drawn is, that in the laws relating to these matters the Union
+possesses all the rights of absolute sovereignty. The difficulty is to
+know what these matters are; and when once it is resolved (and we have
+shown how it was resolved, in speaking of the means of determining the
+jurisdiction of the Federal courts) no further doubt can arise; for as
+soon as it is established that a suit is Federal—that is to say, that
+it belongs to the share of sovereignty reserved by the Constitution of
+the Union—the natural consequence is that it should come within the
+jurisdiction of a Federal court.
+Ambassadors represent friendly nations; suits involving them affect national welfare and naturally belong to federal tribunals. The Union itself may be sued—it would be absurd to appeal to any tribunal other than its own. When parties from different states sue, neither state's court is proper; a neutral Union tribunal offers the safest solution. When states themselves are parties, even minor litigation involves the Union's peace.
+[ This principle was in some measure restricted by the introduction of
+the several States as independent powers into the Senate, and by
+allowing them to vote separately in the House of Representatives when
+the President is elected by that body. But these are exceptions, and
+the contrary principle is the rule.]
+The Constitution also gives federal courts jurisdiction over controversies between a state and citizens of another state. In *Chisholm v. Georgia*, the Supreme Court decided this included suits against states, causing alarm that led to an amendment removing this power.
+Maritime commerce cases, including piracy, clearly belong to federal authority as they involve international law and the sea lies beyond local jurisdiction.
+Whenever the laws of the United States are attacked, or whenever they
+are resorted to in self-defence, the Federal courts must be appealed
+to. Thus the jurisdiction of the tribunals of the Union extends and
+narrows its limits exactly in the same ratio as the sovereignty of the
+Union augments or decreases. We have shown that the principal aim of
+the legislators of 1789 was to divide the sovereign authority into two
+parts. In the one they placed the control of all the general interests
+of the Union, in the other the control of the special interests of its
+component States. Their chief solicitude was to arm the Federal
+Government with sufficient power to enable it to resist, within its
+sphere, the encroachments of the several States. As for these
+communities, the principle of independence within certain limits of
+their own was adopted in their behalf; and they were concealed from the
+inspection, and protected from the control, of the central Government.
+In speaking of the division of authority, I observed that this latter
+principle had not always been held sacred, since the States are
+prevented from passing certain laws which apparently belong to their
+own particular sphere of interest. When a State of the Union passes a
+law of this kind, the citizens who are injured by its execution can
+appeal to the Federal courts.
+The Constitution groups almost all appropriate cases under a simple rule: judicial power extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the laws of the United States. Two examples clarify: states cannot make laws concerning money's value and circulation—if they do, the case belongs in federal court. If import duty collection faces difficulties, federal courts must decide.
+Thus the jurisdiction of the Federal courts extends not only to all the
+cases which arise under the laws of the Union, but also to those which
+arise under laws made by the several States in opposition to the
+Constitution. The States are prohibited from making ex post facto laws
+in criminal cases, and any person condemned by virtue of a law of this
+kind can appeal to the judicial power of the Union. The States are
+likewise prohibited from making laws which may have a tendency to
+impair the obligations of contracts. *i If a citizen thinks that an
+obligation of this kind is impaired by a law passed in his State, he
+may refuse to obey it, and may appeal to the Federal courts. *j
+This aligns with federal principles. The Union possesses limited supremacy but was intended to form one people within its bounds. Every nation has the right to decide, through its own courts, questions concerning its laws' execution. Some argue the Union is unique—a nation in some matters, a nonentity in others. The logical inference is that regarding those specific matters, it possesses absolute sovereignty. The difficulty is knowing which matters these are; once resolved through jurisdiction-determining means, no doubt remains. Whenever a suit is federal—belonging to the Union's constitutional share of sovereignty—it must fall under federal jurisdiction.
+[ 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 is understood
+by a contract in Federal jurisprudence. A grant made by the State to a
+private individual, and accepted by him, is a contract, and cannot be
+revoked by any future law. A charter granted by the State to a company
+is a contract, and equally binding to the State as to the grantee. The
+clause of the Constitution here referred to insures, therefore, the
+existence of a great part of acquired rights, but not of all. Property
+may legally be held, though it may not have passed into the possessor’s
+hands by means of a contract; and its possession is an acquired right,
+not guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.]
+Whenever Union laws are challenged or used in self-defense, federal courts must hear the case.
+> **Quote:** "The jurisdiction of the tribunals of the Union extends and narrows its limits exactly in the same ratio as the sovereignty of the Union augments or decreases."
+[ A remarkable instance of this is given by Mr. Story (p. 508, or in
+the large edition Section 1388): “Dartmouth College in New Hampshire
+had been founded by a charter granted to certain individuals before the
+American Revolution, and its trustees formed a corporation under this
+charter. The legislature of New Hampshire had, without the consent of
+this corporation, passed an act changing the organization of the
+original provincial charter of the college, and transferring all the
+rights, privileges, and franchises from the old charter trustees to new
+trustees appointed under the act. The constitutionality of the act was
+contested, and, after solemn arguments, it was deliberately held by the
+Supreme Court that the provincial charter was a contract within the
+meaning of the Constitution (Art. I. Section 10), and that the
+emendatory act was utterly void, as impairing the obligation of that
+charter. The college was deemed, like other colleges of private
+foundation, to be a private eleemosynary institution, endowed by its
+charter with a capacity to take property unconnected with the
+Government. Its funds were bestowed upon the faith of the charter, and
+those funds consisted entirely of private donations. It is true that
+the uses were in some sense public, that is, for the general benefit,
+and not for the mere benefit of the corporators; but this did not make
+the corporation a public corporation. It was a private institution for
+general charity. It was not distinguishable in principle from a private
+donation, vested in private trustees, for a public charity, or for a
+particular purpose of beneficence. And the State itself, if it had
+bestowed funds upon a charity of the same nature, could not resume
+those funds.”]
+The 1789 legislators divided sovereign authority: one part for Union interests, one for state interests. Their chief concern was arming the federal government to resist state encroachments within its sphere. States received independence within their limits, shielded from central control.
+I noted earlier that this principle has not always been sacred—states are prevented from passing certain laws belonging to their particular interests. When they do, injured citizens can appeal to federal courts.
+This provision appears to me to be the most serious attack upon the
+independence of the States. The rights awarded to the Federal
+Government for purposes of obvious national importance are definite and
+easily comprehensible; but those with which this last clause invests it
+are not either clearly appreciable or accurately defined. For there are
+vast numbers of political laws which influence the existence of
+obligations of contracts, which may thus furnish an easy pretext for
+the aggressions of the central authority.
+Thus federal jurisdiction extends not only to Union law cases but also to state laws opposing the Constitution. States cannot make *ex post facto* criminal laws, and anyone condemned by such a law can appeal to the Union's judicial power. States also cannot impair contract obligations. Any law expanding, shortening, or changing parties' original contractual intentions necessarily impairs it. In federal jurisprudence, "contract" includes state grants to individuals or company charters—these cannot be revoked by future law.
+A notable example is the *Dartmouth College* case. Founded by a pre-Revolutionary charter, the college faced an act by New Hampshire's legislature reorganizing it and transferring rights to new trustees without consent. The Supreme Court held the charter was a contract and the state act void for impairing it. Though the college served public benefit, it was a private charitable institution funded by private donations given in charter faith. Even if the state had provided funds, it could not later reclaim them.
+This provision is the most serious attack on state independence. Rights granted for obvious national purposes are clear, but these last rights are neither measurable nor defined. Many political laws influence contract obligations, providing easy excuses for central authority to infringe state power.
 ### Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part IV
 Procedure Of The Federal Courts
+Natural weakness of the judiciary power in confederations—Legislators
+ought to strive as much as possible to bring private individuals, and
+not States, before the Federal Courts—How the Americans have succeeded
+in this—Direct prosecution of private individuals in the Federal
+Courts—Indirect prosecution of the States which violate the laws of the
+Union—The decrees of the Supreme Court enervate but do not destroy the
+provincial laws.
+*Natural weakness of the judicial power in confederations—The effort to bring individuals, not States, before Federal Courts—How the Americans succeeded in this—Direct prosecution of individuals—Indirect prosecution of States—The Supreme Court enervates but does not destroy provincial laws.*
+I have shown what the privileges of the Federal courts are, and it is
+no less important to point out the manner in which they are exercised.
+The irresistible authority of justice in countries in which the
+sovereignty in undivided is derived from the fact that the tribunals of
+those countries represent the entire nation at issue with the
+individual against whom their decree is directed, and the idea of power
+is thus introduced to corroborate the idea of right. But this is not
+always the case in countries in which the sovereignty is divided; in
+them the judicial power is more frequently opposed to a fraction of the
+nation than to an isolated individual, and its moral authority and
+physical strength are consequently diminished. In federal States the
+power of the judge is naturally decreased, and that of the justiciable
+parties is augmented. The aim of the legislator in confederate States
+ought therefore to be to render the position of the courts of justice
+analogous to that which they occupy in countries where the sovereignty
+is undivided; in other words, his efforts ought constantly to tend to
+maintain the judicial power of the confederation as the representative
+of the nation, and the justiciable party as the representative of an
+individual interest.
+Having described the powers of the federal courts, their exercise is equally important. Where sovereignty is unified, judicial authority derives from representing the entire nation against the individual, and the weight of national power reinforces legal right. But where sovereignty is divided, judges face a portion of the nation rather than a single person, diminishing both moral authority and physical strength. In federal states, judicial power naturally decreases while litigants' power increases. Therefore, confederation legislators must constantly aim to preserve the federal judiciary as the nation's representative, with litigants representing only individual interests.
+Every government, whatever may be its constitution, requires the means
+of constraining its subjects to discharge their obligations, and of
+protecting its privileges from their assaults. As far as the direct
+action of the Government on the community is concerned, the
+Constitution of the United States contrived, by a master-stroke of
+policy, that the federal courts, acting in the name of the laws, should
+only take cognizance of parties in an individual capacity. For, as it
+had been declared that the Union consisted of one and the same people
+within the limits laid down by the Constitution, the inference was that
+the Government created by this Constitution, and acting within these
+limits, was invested with all the privileges of a national government,
+one of the principal of which is the right of transmitting its
+injunctions directly to the private citizen. When, for instance, the
+Union votes an impost, it does not apply to the States for the levying
+of it, but to every American citizen in proportion to his assessment.
+The Supreme Court, which is empowered to enforce the execution of this
+law of the Union, exerts its influence not upon a refractory State, but
+upon the private taxpayer; and, like the judicial power of other
+nations, it is opposed to the person of an individual. It is to be
+observed that the Union chose its own antagonist; and as that
+antagonist is feeble, he is naturally worsted.
+Every government needs means to compel its subjects and protect its rights. Regarding direct action on the community, the United States Constitution achieved a political masterstroke: federal courts, acting in the name of the law, deal only with individuals. Since the Union consists of a single people within constitutional limits, its government possesses national rights, including the power to command citizens directly. When the Union levies a tax, it addresses every American citizen, not the states. The Supreme Court enforces this law by pressuring the individual taxpayer, not a defiant state. The Union chooses its own antagonist; and as that antagonist is feeble, he is naturally worsted.
+But the difficulty increases when the proceedings are not brought
+forward by but against the Union. The Constitution recognizes the
+legislative power of the States; and a law so enacted may impair the
+privileges of the Union, in which case a collision in unavoidable
+between that body and the State which has passed the law: and it only
+remains to select the least dangerous remedy, which is very clearly
+deducible from the general principles I have before established. *k
+The difficulty increases when proceedings are brought against the Union. The Constitution recognizes state legislative power, and a state law may impair Union rights. Conflict becomes inevitable. Directly suing states would place the judiciary in open hostility toward them—a situation to avoid. Americans believe new laws inevitably harm some individual interest, and legislators use these private interests to attack measures harmful to the Union, extending Supreme Court protection to specific cases.
+[ See Chapter VI. on “Judicial Power in America.”]
+Suppose a state sells territory to a company, then later passes a law disposing of that territory differently, violating the constitutional prohibition against impairing contracts. When the second purchaser tries to take possession, the first owner sues in federal court to nullify the second title. Thus Union judicial power contests state sovereignty indirectly, attacking consequences rather than principle, weakening rather than destroying.
+A final possibility treats states as corporate bodies with civil rights, allowing them to sue or be sued. Here the Union settles lawsuits between states rather than challenging local laws. The danger of powerful factions obstructing justice is most present and hardest to avoid.
+It may be conceived that, in the case under consideration, the Union
+might have used the State before a Federal court, which would have
+annulled the act, and by this means it would have adopted a natural
+course of proceeding; but the judicial power would have been placed in
+open hostility to the State, and it was desirable to avoid this
+predicament as much as possible. The Americans hold that it is nearly
+impossible that a new law should not impair the interests of some
+private individual by its provisions: these private interests are
+assumed by the American legislators as the ground of attack against
+such measures as may be prejudicial to the Union, and it is to these
+cases that 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 territory is
+otherwise disposed of, and that clause of the Constitution which
+prohibits laws impairing the obligation of contracts violated. When the
+purchaser under the second act appears to take possession, the
+possessor under 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. *l Thus, in point of fact, the judicial power of the Union is
+contesting the claims of the sovereignty of a State; but it only acts
+indirectly and upon a special application of detail: it attacks the law
+in its consequences, not in its principle, and it rather weakens than
+destroys it.
+No nation ever established such a great judicial power as the Americans
+[ See Kent’s “Commentaries,” vol. i. p. 387.]
+No more formidable judicial authority has ever existed. The Supreme Court stands above all courts in both the nature of its rights and the status of its litigants.
+European governments have always resisted allowing ordinary courts to decide cases in which they are parties, particularly absolute governments. As popular liberties increase, judicial powers expand, yet no European nation has granted common law judges authority over every legal controversy.
+The last hypothesis that remained was that each State formed a
+corporation enjoying a separate existence and distinct civil rights,
+and that it could therefore sue or be sued before a tribunal. Thus a
+State could bring an action against another State. In this instance the
+Union was not called upon to contest a provincial law, but to try a
+suit in which a State was a party. This suit was perfectly similar to
+any other cause, except that the quality of the parties was different;
+and here the danger pointed out at the beginning of this chapter exists
+with less chance of being avoided. The inherent disadvantage of the
+very essence of Federal constitutions is that they engender parties in
+the bosom of the nation which present powerful obstacles to the free
+course of justice.
+America has done so. The Supreme Court is the ultimate tribunal for all cases arising under federal laws and treaties, maritime cases, and matters of international law. Its functions are essentially political: enforcing Union laws that regulate government-citizen relations and foreign affairs, while states manage relations among citizens.
+High Rank Of The Supreme Court Amongst The Great Powers Of State No
+nation ever constituted so great a judicial power as the
+Americans—Extent of its prerogative—Its political influence—The
+tranquillity and the very existence of the Union depend on the
+discretion of the seven Federal Judges.
+A greater cause of the court's dominance is its power to summon sovereign governments. When the clerk announces "The State of New York versus the State of Ohio," one recognizes no ordinary court. When one party represents one million people and another two million, the responsibility of seven judges becomes immense.
+When we have successively examined in detail the organization of the
+Supreme Court, and the entire prerogatives which it exercises, we shall
+readily admit that a more imposing judicial power was never constituted
+by any people. The Supreme Court is placed at the head of all known
+tribunals, both by the nature of its rights and the class of
+justiciable parties which it controls.
+> **Quote:** "The peace, the prosperity, and the very existence of the Union are vested in the hands of the seven judges. Without their active co-operation the Constitution would be a dead letter: the Executive appeals to them for assistance against the encroachments of the legislative powers; the Legislature demands their protection from the designs of the Executive; they defend the Union from the disobedience of the States, the States from the exaggerated claims of the Union, the public interest against the interests of private citizens, and the conservative spirit of order against the fleeting innovations of democracy."
+In all the civilized countries of Europe the Government has always
+shown the greatest repugnance to allow the cases to which it was itself
+a party to be decided by the ordinary course of justice. This
+repugnance naturally attains its utmost height in an absolute
+Government; and, on the other hand, the privileges of the courts of
+justice are extended with the increasing liberties of the people: but
+no European nation has at present held that all judicial controversies,
+without regard to their origin, can be decided by the judges of common
+law.
+Their power is enormous, but rooted in public opinion.
+In America this theory has been actually put in practice, and the
+Supreme Court of the United States is the sole tribunal of the nation.
+Its power extends to all the cases arising under laws and treaties made
+by the executive and legislative authorities, to all cases of admiralty
+and maritime jurisdiction, and in general to all points which affect
+the law of nations. It may even be affirmed that, although its
+constitution is 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 with the citizens, and of the nation with Foreign Powers:
+the relations of citizens amongst themselves are almost exclusively
+regulated by the sovereignty of the States.
+> **Quote:** "They are the all-powerful guardians of a people which respects law, but they would be impotent against popular neglect or popular contempt."
+A second and still greater cause of the preponderance of this court may
+be adduced. In the nations of Europe the courts of justice are only
+called upon to try the controversies of private individuals; but the
+Supreme Court of the United States summons sovereign powers to its bar.
+When the clerk of the court advances on the steps of the tribunal, and
+simply says, “The State of New York versus the State of Ohio,” it is
+impossible not to feel that the Court which he addresses is no ordinary
+body; and when it is recollected that one of these parties represents
+one million, and the other two millions of men, one is struck by the
+responsibility of the seven judges whose decision is about to satisfy
+or to disappoint so large a number of their fellow-citizens.
+Public opinion is difficult to manage because its limits cannot be defined; exceeding its boundaries is as dangerous as falling short.
+The peace, the prosperity, and the very existence of the Union are
+vested in the hands of the seven judges. Without their active
+co-operation the Constitution would be a dead letter: the Executive
+appeals to them for assistance against the encroachments of the
+legislative powers; the Legislature demands their protection from the
+designs of the Executive; they defend the Union from the disobedience
+of the States, the States from the exaggerated claims of the Union, the
+public interest against the interests of private citizens, and the
+conservative spirit of order against the fleeting innovations of
+democracy. Their power is enormous, but it is clothed in the authority
+of public opinion. They are the all-powerful guardians of a people
+which respects law, but they would be impotent against popular neglect
+or popular contempt. The force of public opinion is the most
+intractable of agents, because its exact limits cannot be defined; and
+it is not less dangerous to exceed than to remain below the boundary
+prescribed.
+Federal judges must be not only knowledgeable, integrity-filled magistrates but statesmen who read the signs of the times, confronting overcomeable obstacles while avoiding threats to Union supremacy.
+The Federal judges must not only be good citizens, and men possessed of
+that information and integrity which are indispensable to magistrates,
+but they must be statesmen—politicians, not unread in the signs of the
+times, not afraid to brave the obstacles which can be subdued, nor slow
+to turn aside such encroaching elements as may threaten the supremacy
+of the Union and the obedience which is due to the laws.
+> **Quote:** The Federal judges must not only be good citizens, and men possessed of that information and integrity which are indispensable to magistrates, but they must be statesmen—politicians, not unread in the signs of the times, not afraid to brave the obstacles which can be subdued, nor slow to turn aside such encroaching elements as may threaten the supremacy of the Union and the obedience which is due to the laws.
+The President, who exercises a limited power, may err without causing
+great mischief in the State. Congress may decide amiss without
+destroying the Union, because the electoral body in which Congress
+originates may cause it to retract its decision by changing its
+members. But if the Supreme Court is ever composed of imprudent men or
+bad citizens, the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war.
+A President's limited mistakes cannot greatly harm the state. Congress can be corrected by voters replacing members. But if the Supreme Court fills with reckless men or bad citizens, the Union could face chaos or civil war.
+The real cause of this danger, however, does not lie in the
+constitution of the tribunal, but in the very nature of Federal
+Governments. We have observed that in confederate peoples it is
+especially necessary to consolidate the judicial authority, because in
+no other nations do those independent persons who are able to cope with
+the social body exist in greater power or in a better condition to
+resist the physical strength of the Government. But the more a power
+requires to be strengthened, the more extensive and independent it must
+be made; and the dangers which its abuse may create are heightened by
+its independence and its strength. The source of the evil is not,
+therefore, in the constitution of the power, but in the constitution of
+those States which render its existence necessary.
+This danger's source lies not in the court's structure but in federal governments' nature. Confederations require strengthened judicial authority because independent entities can resist government force. Yet the more a power needs strengthening, the more extensive and independent it must become, heightening dangers from abuse. The problem's root is not judicial power's setup but the state constitution that necessitates it.
+In What Respects The Federal Constitution Is Superior To That Of The
+States
+---
+In what respects the Constitution of the Union can be compared to that
+of the States—Superiority of the Constitution of the Union attributable
+to the wisdom of the Federal legislators—Legislature of the Union less
+dependent on the people than that of the States—Executive power more
+independent in its sphere—Judicial power less subjected to the
+inclinations of the majority—Practical consequence of these facts—The
+dangers inherent in a democratic government eluded by the Federal
+legislators, and increased by the legislators of the States.
+How the Union's Constitution compares to those of the states
+The Federal Constitution differs essentially from that of the States in
+the ends which it is intended to accomplish, but in the means by which
+these ends are promoted a greater analogy exists between them. The
+objects of the Governments are different, but their forms are the same;
+and in this special point of view there is some advantage in comparing
+them together.
+The Federal Constitution differs fundamentally from state constitutions in goals but shares similar means. The objectives differ, but forms are the same; comparison is therefore useful.
+I am of opinion that the Federal Constitution is superior to all the
+Constitutions of the States, for several reasons.
+I believe the Federal Constitution is superior for several reasons. Created later than most state constitutions, it benefited from experience, though this is secondary. By 1874, forty-six states existed, yet newer republics often amplified rather than avoided earlier flaws.
+The present Constitution of the Union was formed at a later period than
+those of the majority of the States, and it may have derived some
+ameliorations from past experience. But we shall be led to acknowledge
+that this is only a secondary cause of its superiority, when we
+recollect that eleven new States *n have been added to the American
+Confederation since the promulgation of the Federal Constitution, and
+that these new republics have always rather exaggerated than avoided
+the defects which existed in the former Constitutions.
+The primary reason was the character of the legislators. During imminent Confederation collapse, the people chose men of respect rather than mere affection. These founders were nurtured at a time when the spirit of liberty was braced by a struggle against a predominant authority. When the contest ended, they stopped short; they cast a calmer, more penetrating look upon their country and recognized that the only remaining dangers were those resulting from the abuse of freedom. With courageous truth-telling and love of liberty, they dared to propose restrictions against social order's destruction.
+[ [The number of States has now risen to 46 (1874), besides the
+District of Columbia.]]
+Alexander Hamilton expressed that a leader's total submission to public whim undermines government stability. The Executive must withstand temporary delusions, giving the community time for cooler reflection.
+> **Quote:** "The Republican principle demands that the deliberative sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests."
+The chief cause of the superiority of the Federal Constitution lay in
+the character of the legislators who composed it. At the time when it
+was formed the dangers of the Confederation were imminent, and its ruin
+seemed inevitable. In this extremity the people chose the men who most
+deserved the esteem, rather than those who had gained the affections,
+of the country. I have already observed that distinguished as almost
+all the legislators of the Union were for their intelligence, they were
+still more so for their patriotism. They had all been nurtured at a
+time when the spirit of liberty was braced by a continual struggle
+against a powerful and predominant authority. When the contest was
+terminated, whilst the excited passions of the populace persisted in
+warring with dangers which had ceased to threaten them, these men
+stopped short in their career; they cast a calmer and more penetrating
+look upon the country which was now their own; they perceived that the
+war of independence was definitely ended, and that the only dangers
+which America had to fear were those which might result from the abuse
+of the freedom she had won. They had the courage to say what they
+believed to be true, because they were animated by a warm and sincere
+love of liberty; and they ventured to propose restrictions, because
+they were resolutely opposed to destruction. *o
+The people intend the public good but err; they despise flatterers claiming infallibility. When interests conflict with desires, guardians must resist temporary delusions, providing time for reflection. Such conduct has saved the people from fatal errors.
+[ At this time Alexander Hamilton, who was one of the principal
+founders of the Constitution, ventured to express the following
+sentiments in “The Federalist,” No. 71:—
+Most state constitutions assign one-year terms for representatives and two-year terms for senators, binding legislators strictly to constituent whims. The founders increased federal terms to allow independent judgment.
+The Federal Constitution, like state constitutions, divided the legislature into two branches. In states, both chambers represented public passions equally, producing hasty laws. Under the Federal Constitution, eligibility requirements and election methods created a Senate representing greater intelligence and discretion through higher age requirements and election by limited assemblies.
+“There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of
+the Executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in
+the Legislature, as its best recommendation. But such men entertain
+very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was
+instituted as of the true means by which the public happiness may be
+promoted. The Republican principle demands that the deliberative sense
+of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they
+entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an
+unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every
+transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men who
+flatter their prejudices to betray their interests. It is a just
+observation, that the people commonly intend the public good. This
+often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise
+the adulator who should pretend that they always reason right about the
+means of promoting it. They know from experience that they sometimes
+err; and the wonder is that they so seldom err as they do, beset, as
+they continually are, by the wiles of parasites and sycophants; by the
+snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate; by the
+artifices of men who possess their confidence more than they deserve
+it, and of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it. When
+occasions present themselves in which the interests of the people are
+at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of persons whom
+they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests to withstand
+the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for
+more cool and sedate reflection. Instances might be cited in which a
+conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences
+of their own mistakes, and has procured lasting monuments of their
+gratitude to the men who had courage and magnanimity enough to serve
+them at the peril of their displeasure.”]
+Democracies naturally concentrate power in legislatures as the most directly popular branch, a tendency both detrimental to administration and favorable to majority despotism. State legislators yielded to this; Union founders resisted.
+The greater number of the Constitutions of the States assign one year
+for the duration of the House of Representatives, and two years for
+that of the Senate; so that members of the legislative body are
+constantly and narrowly tied down by the slightest desires of their
+constituents. The legislators of the Union were of opinion that this
+excessive dependence of the Legislature tended to alter the nature of
+the main consequences of the representative system, since it vested the
+source, not only of authority, but of government, in the people. They
+increased the length of the time for which the representatives were
+returned, in order to give them freer scope for the exercise of their
+own judgment.
+State executives are passive legislative tools with one-year terms, negligible powers, and salaries subject to legislative cuts. The Federal Constitution concentrates executive power in one individual with a fixed four-year term, unchangeable salary, official subordinates, and limited veto, creating a strong, independent position within prescribed limits.
+The Federal Constitution, as well as the Constitutions of the different
+States, divided the legislative body into two branches. But in the
+States these two branches were composed of the same elements, and
+elected in the same manner. The consequence was that the passions and
+inclinations of the populace were as rapidly and as energetically
+represented in one chamber as in the other, and that laws were made
+with all the characteristics of violence and precipitation. By the
+Federal Constitution the two houses originate in like manner in the
+choice of the people; but the conditions of eligibility and the mode of
+election were changed, to the end that, if, as is the case in certain
+nations, one branch of the Legislature represents the same interests as
+the other, it may at least represent a superior degree of intelligence
+and discretion. A mature age was made one of the conditions of the
+senatorial dignity, and the Upper House was chosen by an elected
+assembly of a limited number of members.
+In all state constitutions, judicial power remains most independent, yet legislatures regulate judges' salaries and sometimes appoint them temporarily, blurring powers. The Federal Constitution insulates judges by fixing salaries and granting life tenure.
+To concentrate the whole social force in the hands of the legislative
+body is the natural tendency of democracies; for as this is the power
+which emanates the most directly from the people, it is made to
+participate most fully in the preponderating authority of the
+multitude, and it is naturally led to monopolize every species of
+influence. This concentration is at once prejudicial to a
+well-conducted administration, and favorable to the despotism of the
+majority. The legislators of the States frequently yielded to these
+democratic propensities, which were invariably and courageously
+resisted by the founders of the Union.
+A careful observer notices that Union business is conducted better than state business. The Federal Government is more fair, temperate, wise, and consistent. Its designs are more durable, its measures executed with greater vigor.
+In the States the executive power is vested in the hands of a
+magistrate, who is apparently placed upon a level with the Legislature,
+but who is in reality nothing more than the blind agent and the passive
+instrument of its decisions. He can derive no influence from the
+duration of his functions, which terminate with the revolving year, or
+from the exercise of prerogatives which can scarcely be said to exist.
+The Legislature can condemn him to inaction by intrusting the execution
+of the laws to special committees of its own members, and can annul his
+temporary dignity by depriving him of his salary. The Federal
+Constitution vests all the privileges and all the responsibility of the
+executive power in a single individual. The duration of the Presidency
+is fixed at four years; the salary of the individual who fills that
+office cannot be altered during the term of his functions; he is
+protected by a body of official dependents, and armed with a suspensive
+veto. In short, every effort was made to confer a strong and
+independent position upon the executive authority within the limits
+which had been prescribed to it.
+Summarizing this chapter: democracies face two main dangers—complete legislative submission to voters, and concentration of all power within the legislature. State legislators encouraged these evils; Union founders resisted them.
+In the Constitutions of all the States the judicial power is that which
+remains the most independent of the legislative authority;
+nevertheless, in all the States the Legislature has reserved to itself
+the right of regulating the emoluments of the judges, a practice which
+necessarily subjects these magistrates to its immediate influence. In
+some States the judges are only temporarily appointed, which deprives
+them of a great portion of their power and their freedom. In others the
+legislative and judicial powers are entirely confounded; thus the
+Senate of New York, for instance, constitutes in certain cases the
+Superior Court 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 that their salary shall not be altered, and that their
+functions shall be inalienable.
+---
+The practical consequences of these different systems may easily be
+perceived. An attentive observer will soon remark that the business of
+the Union is incomparably better conducted than that of any individual
+State. The conduct of the Federal Government is more fair and more
+temperate than that of the States, its designs are more fraught with
+wisdom, its projects are more durable and more skilfully combined, its
+measures are put into execution with more vigor and consistency.
+Characteristics Which Distinguish The Federal Constitution Of The United States Of America From All Other Federal Constitutions
+I recapitulate the substance of this chapter in a few words: The
+existence of democracies is threatened by two dangers, viz., the
+complete subjection of the legislative body to the caprices of the
+electoral body, and the concentration of all the powers of the
+Government in the legislative authority. The growth of these evils has
+been encouraged by the policy of the legislators of the States, but it
+has been resisted by the legislators of the Union by every means which
+lay within their control.
+The United States is neither the first nor only confederation; Switzerland, the Germanic Empire, and the United Provinces provide examples. Their federal governments possessed rights nearly identical to the American Union's: declaring war, raising money and troops, and providing for common interests. Yet these governments were weak while the American Union is vigorous.
+Characteristics Which Distinguish The Federal Constitution Of The
+United States Of America From All Other Federal Constitutions American
+Union appears to resemble all other confederations—Nevertheless its
+effects are different—Reason of this—Distinctions between the Union and
+all other confederations—The American Government not a federal but an
+imperfect national Government.
+The first American Confederation collapsed from governmental weakness, yet possessed more extensive rights than today's Federal Government. The current Constitution contains subtle but crucial principles.
+The United States of America do not afford either the first or the only
+instance of confederate States, several of which have existed in modern
+Europe, without adverting to those of antiquity. Switzerland, the
+Germanic Empire, and the Republic of the United Provinces either have
+been or still are confederations. In studying the constitutions of
+these different countries, the politician is surprised to observe that
+the powers with which they invested the Federal Government are nearly
+identical with the privileges awarded by the American Constitution to
+the Government of the United States. They confer upon the central power
+the same rights of making peace and war, of raising money and troops,
+and of providing for the general exigencies and the common interests of
+the nation. Nevertheless the Federal Government of these different
+peoples has always been as remarkable for its weakness and inefficiency
+as that of the Union is for its vigorous and enterprising spirit.
+Again, the first American Confederation perished through the excessive
+weakness of its Government; and this weak Government was,
+notwithstanding, in possession of rights even more extensive than those
+of the Federal Government of the present day. But the more recent
+Constitution of the United States contains certain principles which
+exercise a most important influence, although they do not at once
+strike the observer.
+It rests on a novel theory: in previous confederations, states agreed to obey federal mandates but reserved enforcement rights. In 1789, American states agreed that the Federal Government would execute its own enactments.
+This Constitution, which may at first sight be confounded with the
+federal constitutions which preceded it, rests upon a novel theory,
+which may be considered as a great invention in modern political
+science. In all the confederations which had been formed before the
+American Constitution of 1789 the allied States agreed to obey the
+injunctions of a Federal Government; but they reserved to themselves
+the right of ordaining and enforcing the execution of the laws of the
+Union. The American States which combined in 1789 agreed that the
+Federal Government should not only dictate the laws, but that it should
+execute it own enactments. In both cases the right is the same, but the
+exercise of the right is different; and this alteration produced the
+most momentous consequences.
+> **Quote:** "The American States which combined in 1789 agreed that the Federal Government should not only dictate the laws, but that it should execute its own enactments."
+In all the confederations which had been formed before the American
+Union the Federal Government demanded its supplies at the hands of the
+separate Governments; and if the measure it prescribed was onerous to
+any one of those bodies means were found to evade its claims: if the
+State was powerful, it had recourse to arms; if it was weak, it
+connived at the resistance which the law of the Union, its sovereign,
+met with, and resorted to inaction under the plea of inability. Under
+these circumstances one of the two alternatives has invariably
+occurred; either the most preponderant of the allied peoples has
+assumed the privileges of the Federal authority and ruled all the
+States in its name, *p or the Federal Government has been abandoned by
+its natural supporters, anarchy has arisen between the confederates,
+and the Union has lost all powers of action. *q
+The legal right is identical, but exercise differs, producing significant consequences. Previous confederations requested supplies from state governments; burdensome states evaded claims, powerful states used force, weak states tolerated resistance. This produced either usurpation by powerful members (Greece under Philip, Low Countries under Holland, German Confederation under Austria and Prussia) or anarchy and Union power loss (Swiss Confederation).
+[ This was the case in Greece, when Philip undertook to execute the
+decree of the Amphictyons; in the Low Countries, where the province of
+Holland always gave the law; and, in our own time, in the Germanic
+Confederation, in which Austria and Prussia assume a great degree of
+influence over the whole country, in the name of the Diet.]
+In America, the Union's subjects are private citizens, not states. The national government taxes each Massachusetts inhabitant, not Massachusetts itself. Its force is self-derived, served by its own officers, army, and courts. States have fewer opportunities and temptations to resist, which would require open law violation, justice system interruption, and declared revolt.
+Previous confederations granted privileges that created more discord than power, increasing claims without enforcement means. > **Quote:** In all former confederations the privileges of the Union furnished more elements of discord than of power... the real weakness of federal governments has almost always been in the exact ratio of their nominal power.  The American Union possesses means to enforce all authorized demands, like standard governments.
+[ Such has always been the situation of the Swiss Confederation, which
+would have perished ages ago but for the mutual jealousies of its
+neighbors.]
+The human mind invents words more slowly than things, forcing imprecise terminology. When nations form a league with supreme authority over states but not individuals, this is called Federal. When peoples fuse into one nation for common interests while remaining distinct otherwise, with central power acting directly on individuals, this is neither exactly national nor federal but lacks a name.
+> **Quote:** "Here the term Federal Government is clearly no longer applicable to a state of things which must be styled an incomplete national Government: a form of government has been found out which is neither exactly national nor federal; but no further progress has been made, and the new word which will one day designate this novel invention does not yet exist."
+In America the subjects of the Union are not States, but private
+citizens: the national Government levies a tax, not upon the State of
+Massachusetts, but upon each inhabitant of Massachusetts. All former
+confederate governments presided over communities, but that of the
+Union rules individuals; its force is not borrowed, but self-derived;
+and it is served by its own civil and military officers, by its own
+army, and its own courts of justice. It cannot be doubted that the
+spirit of the nation, the passions of the multitude, and the provincial
+prejudices of each State tend singularly to diminish the authority of a
+Federal authority thus constituted, and to facilitate the means of
+resistance to its mandates; but the comparative weakness of a
+restricted sovereignty is an evil inherent in the Federal system. In
+America, each State has fewer opportunities of resistance and fewer
+temptations to non-compliance; nor can such a design be put in
+execution (if indeed it be entertained) without an open violation of
+the laws of the Union, a direct interruption of the ordinary course of
+justice, and a bold declaration of revolt; in a word, without taking a
+decisive step which men hesitate to adopt.
+Previous Unions ended in civil war, subjugation, or apathy because peoples were too slow or timid to apply this remedy. The first American Confederation failed from these defects.
+In all former confederations the privileges of the Union furnished more
+elements of discord than of power, since they multiplied the claims of
+the nation without augmenting the means of enforcing them: and in
+accordance with this fact it may be remarked that the real weakness of
+federal governments has almost always been in the exact ratio of their
+nominal power. Such is not the case in the American Union, in which, as
+in ordinary governments, the Federal Government has the means of
+enforcing all it is empowered to demand.
+But the American States belonged to one empire before independence, lacking deep-rooted prejudices and habits of complete self-governance. Superior in political knowledge and sharing it equally, restrained by leading citizens' wisdom, they applied the remedy with firmness and saved their country.
+The human understanding more easily invents new things than new words,
+and we are thence constrained to employ a multitude of improper and
+inadequate expressions. When several nations form a permanent league
+and establish a supreme authority, which, although it has not the same
+influence 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 a
+Federal one. Another form of society is afterwards discovered, in which
+several peoples are fused into one and the same nation with regard to
+certain common interests, although they remain distinct, or at least
+only confederate, with regard to all their other concerns. In this case
+the central power acts directly upon those whom it governs, whom it
+rules, and whom it judges, in the same manner, as, but in a more
+limited circle than, a national government. Here the term Federal
+Government is clearly no longer applicable to a state of things which
+must be styled an incomplete national Government: a form of government
+has been found out which is neither exactly national nor federal; but
+no further progress has been made, and the new word which will one day
+designate this novel invention does not yet exist.
+The absence of this new species of confederation has been the cause
+which has brought all Unions to Civil War, to subjection, or to a
+stagnant apathy, and the peoples which formed these leagues have been
+either too dull to discern, or too pusillanimous to apply this great
+remedy. The American Confederation perished by the same defects.
+But the Confederate States of America had been long accustomed to form
+a portion of one empire before they had won their independence; they
+had not contracted the habit of governing themselves, and their
+national prejudices had not taken deep root in their minds. Superior to
+the rest of the world in political knowledge, and sharing that
+knowledge equally amongst themselves, they were little agitated by the
+passions which generally oppose the extension of federal authority in a
+nation, and those passions were checked by the wisdom of the chief
+citizens. The Americans applied the remedy with prudent firmness as
+soon as they were conscious of the evil; they amended their laws, and
+they saved their country.
 ### Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part V
+Advantages of the federal system in general, and its specific usefulness in America.
+Advantages Of The Federal System In General, And Its Special Utility In
+America.
+In small nations, society's scrutiny reaches every corner, and the drive for improvement touches even minor details. Their weakness limits ambition, focusing all efforts on internal benefit rather than fleeting glory. Individual desires stay limited, wealth remains relatively equal, and life is peaceful and orderly. Yet when tyranny does take root in a small nation, it is more oppressively intrusive, regulating tastes and domestic life. Such invasions are rare, however, and freedom is the natural state of small communities—government rewards are too weak, and individual resources too slim, for power to concentrate easily. If tyranny emerges, subjects can readily overthrow it through collective effort.
+Happiness and freedom of small nations—Power of great nations—Great
+empires favorable to the growth of civilization—Strength often the
+first element of national prosperity—Aim of the Federal system to unite
+the twofold advantages resulting from a small and from a large
+territory—Advantages derived by the United States from this system—The
+law adapts itself to the exigencies of the population; population does
+not conform to the exigencies of the law—Activity, amelioration, love
+and enjoyment of freedom in the American communities—Public spirit of
+the Union the abstract of provincial patriotism—Principles and things
+circulate freely over the territory of the United States—The Union is
+happy and free as a little nation, and respected as a great empire.
+> **Quote:** "Small nations have therefore ever been the cradle of political liberty;"
+In small nations the scrutiny of society penetrates into every part,
+and the spirit of improvement enters into the most trifling details; as
+the ambition of the people is necessarily checked by its weakness, all
+the efforts and resources of the citizens are turned to the internal
+benefit of the community, and are not likely to evaporate in the
+fleeting breath of glory. The desires of every individual are limited,
+because extraordinary faculties are rarely to be met with. The gifts of
+an equal fortune render the various conditions of life uniform, and the
+manners of the inhabitants are orderly and simple. Thus, if one
+estimate the gradations of popular morality and enlightenment, we shall
+generally find that in small nations there are more persons in easy
+circumstances, a more numerous population, and a more tranquil state of
+society, than in great empires.
+Many lost their freedom by expanding, proving their liberty owed more to size than character.
+When tyranny is established in the bosom of a small nation, it is more
+galling than elsewhere, because, as it acts within a narrow circle,
+every point of that circle is subject to its direct influence. It
+supplies the place of those great designs which it cannot entertain by
+a violent or an exasperating interference in a multitude of minute
+details; and it leaves the political world, to which it properly
+belongs, to meddle with the arrangements of domestic life. Tastes as
+well as actions are to be regulated at its pleasure; and the families
+of the citizens as well as the affairs of the State are to be governed
+by its decisions. This invasion of rights occurs, however, but seldom,
+and freedom is in truth the natural state of small communities. The
+temptations which the Government offers to ambition are too weak, and
+the resources of private individuals are too slender, for the sovereign
+power easily to fall within the grasp of a single citizen; and should
+such an event have occurred, the subjects of the State can without
+difficulty overthrow the tyrant and his oppression by a simultaneous
+effort.
+> **Quote:** "The history of the world affords no instance of a great nation retaining the form of republican government for a long series of years, and this has led to the conclusion that such a state of things is impracticable."
+Small nations have therefore ever been the cradle of political liberty;
+and the fact that many of them have lost their immunities by extending
+their dominion shows that the freedom they enjoyed was more a
+consequence of the inferior size than of the character of the people.
+I must criticize the recklessness of trying to limit what is possible; man is hourly deceived by life’s most obvious realities and constantly surprised by what should be most familiar. Regardless, a large republic always faces greater dangers than a small one. All the passions fatal to republics spread as territory grows, while the virtues that maintain dignity do not increase proportionally. Ambition grows with state power; party strength grows with the importance of their goals. Yet devotion to the common good—the surest check on destructive passions—is no stronger in a large republic than a small one. The arrogance of wealth, despair of poverty, massive capital cities, loose morality, crude self-interest, and confusion of interests arise from sheer size. Several of these evils hardly harm monarchies, and some even sustain them. A prince's authority grows with national prosperity, but a republic's only security is majority support, which does not increase proportionally with size. While means of attack multiply, resistance power stays the same—or diminishes—as diverse interests make solid majorities harder to form. Human passions intensify not only from the scale of the objective, but from being shared by millions simultaneously; just as a person feels more in a crowd than in solitude, political passion in great republics becomes an irresistible impetus.
+The history of the world affords no instance of a great nation
+retaining the form of republican government for a long series of years,
+*r and this has led to the conclusion that such a state of things is
+impracticable. For my own part, I cannot but censure the imprudence of
+attempting to limit the possible and to judge the future on the part of
+a being who is hourly deceived by the most palpable realities of life,
+and who is constantly taken by surprise in the circumstances with which
+he is most familiar. But it may be advanced with confidence that the
+existence of a great republic will always be exposed to far greater
+perils than that of a small one.
+Nothing is more harmful to human well-being than vast empires, yet large states have unique advantages. The love of glory is more prominent among those who see the applause of a great nation as a worthy reward. Large nations spread human progress through the rapid flow of ideas and great cities that serve as intellectual centers. Most major discoveries require national power that small governments cannot provide. In large nations, government deals with general concepts, removed from local prejudices, with bolder designs.
+[ I do not speak of a confederation of small republics, but of a great
+consolidated Republic.]
+In peace, small nations enjoy more widespread well-being, but they suffer more acutely in war. Great empires protect most of their people from danger for ages; the populace is inconvenienced more than ruined. Yet the existence of great nations is unavoidable. This necessity introduces physical strength as a condition of national prosperity; it matters little for a people to be affluent and free if they are constantly vulnerable to being pillaged or subjugated. Consequently, unless circumstances are very peculiar, small nations are eventually united with large empires by force or consent.
+> **Quote:** "Physical strength is therefore one of the first conditions of the happiness and even of the existence of nations."
+All the passions which are most fatal to republican institutions spread
+with an increasing territory, whilst the virtues which maintain their
+dignity do not augment in the same proportion. The ambition of the
+citizens increases with the power of the State; the strength of parties
+with the importance of the ends they have in view; but that devotion to
+the common weal which is the surest check on destructive passions is
+not stronger in a large than in a small republic. It might, indeed, be
+proved without difficulty that it is less powerful and less sincere.
+The arrogance of wealth and the dejection of wretchedness, capital
+cities of unwonted extent, a lax morality, a vulgar egotism, and a
+great confusion of interests, are the dangers which almost invariably
+arise from the magnitude of States. But several of these evils are
+scarcely prejudicial to a monarchy, and some of them contribute to
+maintain its existence. In monarchical States the strength of the
+government is its own; it may use, but it does not depend on, the
+community, and the authority of the prince is proportioned to the
+prosperity of the nation; but the only security which a republican
+government possesses against these evils lies 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 number and in influence, the power
+of resistance remains the same, or it may rather be said to diminish,
+since the propensities and interests of the people are diversified by
+the increase of the population, and the difficulty of forming a compact
+majority is constantly augmented. It has been observed, moreover, that
+the intensity of human passions is heightened, not only by the
+importance of the end which they propose to attain, but by the
+multitude of individuals who are animated by them at the same time.
+Every one has had occasion to remark that his emotions in the midst of
+a sympathizing crowd are far greater than those which he would have
+felt in solitude. In great republics the impetus of political passion
+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.
+The federal system was created to combine the benefits of both. The United States demonstrates these advantages clearly.
+It may therefore be asserted as a general proposition that nothing is
+more opposed to the well-being and the freedom of man than vast
+empires. Nevertheless it is important to acknowledge the peculiar
+advantages of great States. For the very reason which renders the
+desire of power more intense in these communities than amongst ordinary
+men, the love of glory 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 their exertions, and an elevating encouragement to man. If we
+would learn why it is that great nations contribute more powerfully to
+the spread of human improvement than small States, we shall discover an
+adequate cause in the rapid and energetic circulation of ideas, and in
+those great cities which are the intellectual centres where all the
+rays of human genius are reflected and combined. To this it may be
+added that most important discoveries demand a display of national
+power which the Government of a small State is unable to make; in great
+nations the Government entertains a greater number of general notions,
+and is more completely disengaged from the routine of precedent and the
+egotism of local prejudice; its designs are conceived with more talent,
+and executed with more boldness.
+In centralized nations, lawmakers must make uniform laws that don't fit local customs, forcing populations to adapt to laws that cannot adapt to them. Confederations avoid this drawback. Congress regulates national measures while states handle administrative details, contributing enormously to individual state well-being. In these communities, undistracted by expansion or self-defense, all public authority and private energy focus on internal improvement. State governments stay close to citizens, aware of daily needs. New projects are proposed annually, discussed in meetings and legislatures, and publicized by the press. This spirit of improvement remains active without disturbing peace; ambition for power yields to a less refined, but also less dangerous, love of comfort. Many Americans believe republican government in the New World depends on the federal system, attributing South America's misfortunes to large, unified republics rather than confederated ones.
+In time of peace the well-being of small nations is undoubtedly more
+general and more complete, but they are apt to suffer more acutely from
+the calamities of war than those great empires whose distant frontiers
+may for ages avert the presence of the danger from the mass of the
+people, which is therefore more frequently afflicted than ruined by the
+evil.
+The love and habits of republican government in the United States were born in townships and provincial assemblies. In Connecticut, where digging a canal is a major political issue and leaders receive no massive wealth or honor, no government is more natural than a republic. This same republican spirit—nurtured in individual states—is later applied to the whole country. The Union's public spirit is a distillation of provincial patriotism. Every citizen channels attachment to their small republic into American patriotism. By defending the Union, they defend their district's prosperity, their right to manage its affairs, and improvements favoring their interests—motives far more effective than national glory.
+But in this matter, as in many others, the argument derived from the
+necessity of the case predominates over all others. If none but small
+nations existed, I do not doubt that mankind would be more happy and
+more free; but the existence of great nations is unavoidable.
+If the character of Americans suited a great republic, the federal system smoothed remaining obstacles. The confederation avoids disadvantages of massive populations. The Union is large in size, but its limited government functions make it feel small. Its actions are significant but rare. Because Union sovereignty is limited, its exercise is compatible with liberty, avoiding the hunger for fame and power that destroyed other great republics. With no single national center, the country avoids massive capital cities, concentrated wealth, extreme poverty, and sudden revolutions. Political passion spends its energy on local interests instead of sweeping destructively across the land.
+This consideration introduces the element of physical strength as a
+condition of national prosperity. It profits a people but little to be
+affluent and free if it is perpetually exposed to be pillaged or
+subjugated; the number of its manufactures and the extent of its
+commerce are of small advantage if another nation has the empire of the
+seas and gives the law in all the markets of the globe. Small nations
+are often impoverished, not because they are small, but because they
+are weak; the great empires prosper less because they are great than
+because they are strong. Physical strength is therefore one of the
+first conditions of the happiness and even of the existence of nations.
+Hence it occurs that, unless very peculiar circumstances intervene,
+small nations are always united to large empires in the end, either by
+force or by their own consent: yet I am unacquainted with a more
+deplorable spectacle than that of a people unable either to defend or
+to maintain its independence.
+Yet goods and ideas circulate freely throughout the Union. The government employs all available talent. Within its borders, deep peace prevails; abroad, it ranks among the most powerful nations. Two thousand miles of coastline are open to global trade, and its flag is respected on the most distant seas.
+The Federal system was created with the intention of combining the
+different advantages which result from the greater and the lesser
+extent of nations; and a single glance over the United States of
+America suffices to discover the advantages which they have derived
+from its adoption.
+> **Quote:** "The Union is as happy and as free as a small people, and as glorious and as strong as a great nation."
+In great centralized nations the legislator is obliged to impart a
+character of uniformity to the laws which does not always suit the
+diversity of customs and of districts; as he takes no cognizance of
+special cases, he can only proceed upon general principles; and the
+population is obliged to conform to the exigencies of the legislation,
+since the legislation cannot adapt itself to the exigencies and the
+customs of the population, which is the cause of endless trouble and
+misery. This disadvantage does not exist in confederations. Congress
+regulates the principal measures of the national Government, and all
+the details of the administration are reserved to the provincial
+legislatures. It is impossible to imagine how much this division of
+sovereignty contributes to the well-being of each of the States which
+compose the Union. In these small communities, which are never agitated
+by the desire of aggrandizement or the cares of self-defence, all
+public authority and private energy is employed in internal
+amelioration. The central government of each State, which is in
+immediate juxtaposition to the citizens, is daily apprised of the wants
+which arise in society; and new projects are proposed every year, which
+are discussed either at town meetings or by the legislature of the
+State, and which are transmitted by the press to stimulate the zeal and
+to excite the interest of the citizens. This spirit of amelioration is
+constantly alive in the American republics, without compromising their
+tranquillity; the ambition of power yields to the less refined and less
+dangerous love of comfort. It is generally believed in America that the
+existence and the permanence of the republican form of government in
+the New World depend upon the existence and the permanence of the
+Federal system; and it is not unusual to attribute a large share of the
+misfortunes which have befallen the new States of South America to the
+injudicious erection of great republics, instead of a divided and
+confederate sovereignty.
+Why the federal system is not suited for all peoples, and how the Anglo-Americans were able to adopt it.
+It is incontestably true that the love and the habits of republican
+government in the United States were engendered in the townships and in
+the provincial assemblies. In a small State, like that of Connecticut
+for instance, where cutting a canal or laying down a road is a
+momentous political question, where the State has no army to pay and no
+wars to carry on, and where much wealth and much honor cannot be
+bestowed upon the chief citizens, no form of government can be more
+natural or more appropriate than that of a republic. But it is this
+same republican spirit, it is these manners and customs of a free
+people, which are engendered and nurtured in the different States, to
+be afterwards applied to the country at large. The public spirit of the
+Union is, so to speak, nothing more than an abstract of the patriotic
+zeal of the provinces. Every citizen of the United States transfuses
+his attachment to his little republic in the common store of American
+patriotism. In defending the Union he defends the increasing prosperity
+of his own district, the right of conducting its affairs, and the hope
+of causing measures of improvement to be adopted which may be favorable
+to his own interest; and these are motives which are wont to stir men
+more readily than the general interests of the country and the glory of
+the nation.
+A legislator may direct the vessel of state, but like a navigator, he can neither change its structure, command the winds, nor calm the waters that swell beneath him.
+On the other hand, if the temper and the manners of the inhabitants
+especially fitted them to promote the welfare of a great republic, the
+Federal system smoothed the obstacles which they might have
+encountered. The confederation of all the American States presents none
+of the ordinary disadvantages resulting from great agglomerations of
+men. The Union is a great republic in extent, but the paucity of
+objects for which its Government provides assimilates it to a small
+State. Its acts are important, but they are rare. As the sovereignty of
+the Union is limited and incomplete, its exercise is not incompatible
+with liberty; for it does not excite those insatiable desires of fame
+and power which have proved so fatal to great republics. As there is no
+common centre to the country, vast capital cities, colossal wealth,
+abject poverty, and sudden revolutions are alike unknown; and political
+passion, instead of spreading over the land like a torrent of
+desolation, spends its strength against the interests and the
+individual passions of every State.
+Every federal system contains flaws that challenge lawmakers—extreme complexity, requiring daily judgment from citizens. Practical knowledge of government is common among Americans, yet the Constitution assumes vast knowledge.
+Nevertheless, all commodities and ideas circulate throughout the Union
+as freely as in a country inhabited by one people. Nothing checks the
+spirit of enterprise. Government avails itself of the assistance of all
+who have talents or knowledge to serve it. Within the frontiers of the
+Union the profoundest peace prevails, as within the heart of some great
+empire; abroad, it ranks with the most powerful nations of the earth;
+two thousand miles of coast are open to the commerce of the world; and
+as it possesses the keys of the globe, its flags is respected in the
+most remote seas. The Union is as happy and as free as a small people,
+and as glorious and as strong as a great nation.
+> **Quote:** "The government of the Union depends entirely upon legal fictions; the Union is an ideal nation which only exists in the mind, and whose limits and extent can only be discerned by the understanding."
+Why The Federal System Is Not Adapted To All Peoples, And How The
+Anglo-Americans Were Enabled To Adopt It.
+Once the theory is understood, countless practical difficulties remain. Union sovereignty is so entwined with state sovereignty that their boundaries blur. The entire structure is artificial and would poorly suit a people unaccustomed to self-government or lacking political science knowledge among all classes. I have never been more impressed by American good sense than by their ingenious navigation of Federal Constitution difficulties. Ordinary citizens easily distinguish Congressional obligations from state ones and can point out precise jurisdiction limits between federal and state courts.
+Every Federal system contains defects which baffle the efforts of the
+legislator—The Federal system is complex—It demands a daily exercise of
+discretion on the part of the citizens—Practical knowledge of
+government common amongst the Americans—Relative weakness of the
+Government of the Union, another defect inherent in the Federal
+system—The Americans have diminished without remedying it—The
+sovereignty of the separate States apparently weaker, but really
+stronger, than that of the Union—Why?—Natural causes of union must
+exist between confederate peoples besides the laws—What these causes
+are amongst the Anglo-Americans—Maine and Georgia, separated by a
+distance of a thousand miles, more naturally united than Normandy and
+Brittany—War, the main peril of confederations—This proved even by the
+example of the United States—The Union has no great wars to
+fear—Why?—Dangers to which Europeans would be exposed if they adopted
+the Federal system of the Americans.
+The U.S. Constitution is like exquisite works of industry useful only in their inventors' hands. This is illustrated by Mexico, which copied the Anglo-American Constitution of 1824 almost exactly. Though they borrowed the letter of the law, they could not import the spirit that gives it life. They remained caught between dual government gears, with state and Union sovereignty constantly colliding. Mexico remains trapped between anarchy and military despotism.
+When a legislator succeeds, after persevering efforts, in exercising an
+indirect influence upon the destiny of nations, his genius is lauded by
+mankind, whilst, in point of fact, the geographical position of the
+country which he is unable to change, a social condition which arose
+without his co-operation, manners and opinions which he cannot trace to
+their source, and an origin with which he is unacquainted, exercise so
+irresistible an influence over the courses of society that he is
+himself borne away by the current, after an ineffectual resistance.
+Like the navigator, he may direct the vessel which bears him along, but
+he can neither change its structure, nor raise the winds, nor lull the
+waters which swell beneath him.
+The second and most fatal defect is the relative weakness of central government. All confederations rest on divided sovereignty.
+I have shown the advantages which the Americans derive from their
+federal system; it remains for me to point out the circumstances which
+rendered that system practicable, as its benefits are not to be enjoyed
+by all nations. The incidental defects of the Federal system which
+originate in the laws may be corrected by the skill of the legislator,
+but there are further evils inherent in the system which cannot be
+counteracted by the peoples which adopt it. These nations must
+therefore find the strength necessary to support the natural
+imperfections of their Government.
+> **Quote:** "A divided sovereignty must always be less powerful than an entire supremacy."
+The most prominent evil of all Federal systems is the very complex
+nature of the means they employ. Two sovereignties are necessarily in
+presence of each other. The legislator may simplify and equalize the
+action of these two sovereignties, by limiting each of them to a sphere
+of authority accurately defined; but he cannot combine them into one,
+or prevent them from coming into collision at certain points. The
+Federal system therefore rests upon a theory which is necessarily
+complicated, and which demands the daily exercise of a considerable
+share of discretion on the part of those it governs.
+Americans have shown remarkable ingenuity in restricting Union power within narrow federal limits while maintaining the appearance and force of a national government, diminishing though not eliminating natural confederation dangers.
+A proposition must be plain to be adopted by the understanding of a
+people. A false notion which is clear and precise will always meet with
+a greater number of adherents in the world than a true principle which
+is obscure or involved. Hence it arises that parties, which are like
+small communities in the heart of the nation, invariably adopt some
+principle or some name as a symbol, which very inadequately represents
+the end they have in view and the means which are at their disposal,
+but without which they could neither act nor subsist. The governments
+which are founded upon a single principle or a single feeling which is
+easily defined are perhaps not the best, but they are unquestionably
+the strongest and the most durable in the world.
+The Constitution allows Congress to call forth militia and names the President commander-in-chief. In the War of 1812, the President ordered Northern State militias to the frontiers, but Connecticut and Massachusetts, whose interests were hurt, refused. They argued no actual invasion existed and that while the Union could call militia, states retained officer appointment rights, so no federal officer could command except the President personally. These destructive doctrines, supported by governors, legislatures, and courts, forced the federal government to find troops elsewhere. Even during the Revolutionary War, despite enthusiasm and Washington's leadership, Congress had almost no resources. Supplies and troops were constantly missing, and the Union was saved more by enemy weakness than its own strength. During the Civil War, the same structural weakness emerged when figures like General Lee held primary loyalty to their state rather than the Union.
+In examining the Constitution of the United States, which is the most
+perfect federal constitution that ever existed, one is startled, on the
+other hand, at the variety of information and the excellence of
+discretion which it presupposes in the people whom it is meant to
+govern. The government of the Union depends entirely upon legal
+fictions; the Union is an ideal nation which only exists in the mind,
+and whose limits and extent can only be discerned by the understanding.
+If federal courts violated important state law, the real conflict would be between the state and Union. For example, while the Union can sell unoccupied lands, a state like Ohio might claim the same right. The resulting legal battle would actually be a struggle for power between Ohio and the Union. If federal and state courts ruled differently, the legal fiction maintaining peace would collapse.
+When once the general theory is comprehended, numberless difficulties
+remain to be solved in its application; for the sovereignty of the
+Union is so involved in that of the States that it is impossible to
+distinguish its boundaries at the first glance. The whole structure of
+the Government is artificial and conventional; and it would be ill
+adapted to a people which has not been long accustomed to conduct its
+own affairs, or to one in which the science of politics has not
+descended to the humblest classes of society. I have never been more
+struck by the good sense and the practical judgment of the Americans
+than in the ingenious devices by which they elude the numberless
+difficulties resulting from their Federal Constitution. I scarcely ever
+met with a plain American citizen who could not distinguish, with
+surprising facility, the obligations created by the laws of Congress
+from those created by the laws of his own State; and who, after having
+discriminated between the matters which come under the cognizance of
+the Union and those which the local legislature is competent to
+regulate, could not point out the exact limit of the several
+jurisdictions of the Federal courts and the tribunals of the State.
+It is doubtful American legislators destroyed the cause of such conflicts. It could be argued they could not ensure federal victory in crisis. The Union has money and troops, but people's hearts and prejudices belong to the States.
+The Constitution of the United States is like those exquisite
+productions of human industry which ensure wealth and renown to their
+inventors, but which are profitless in any other hands. This truth is
+exemplified by the condition of Mexico at the present time. The
+Mexicans were desirous of establishing a federal system, and they took
+the Federal Constitution of their neighbors, the Anglo-Americans, as
+their model, and copied it with considerable accuracy. *s But although
+they had borrowed the letter of the law, they were unable to create or
+to introduce the spirit and the sense which give it life. They were
+involved in ceaseless embarrassments between the mechanism of their
+double government; the sovereignty of the States and that of the Union
+perpetually exceeded their respective privileges, and entered into
+collision; and to the present day Mexico is alternately the victim of
+anarchy and the slave of military despotism.
+> **Quote:** "The sovereignty of the Union is factitious, that of the States is natural, and derives its existence from its own simple influence, like the authority of a parent."
+[ See the Mexican Constitution of 1824.]
+Union power affects only a few major interests, representing a vast but distant country and claiming vague patriotism. State authority controls every citizen daily, protecting property, freedom, and life. Considering traditions, customs, and local attachments, we cannot doubt the superiority of power interwoven with every instinct that makes love of country powerful.
+Since legislators cannot prevent dangerous collisions between coexisting sovereignties, they must encourage peace and discourage warfare between members. A federal pact cannot last unless allied communities share enough common incentives to make dependence agreeable. All confederations have been held together by common interests serving as intellectual ties. Human sentiments and principles matter as much as interests—a certain uniformity of civilization is as necessary as uniformity of interests. In Switzerland, the difference between Uri and Vaud is as great as between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries. Strictly speaking, Switzerland has never had a true federal government; the union between such different cantons exists only on paper.
+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 the
+relative weakness of the government of the Union. The principle upon
+which all confederations rest is that of a divided sovereignty. The
+legislator may render this partition less perceptible, he may even
+conceal it for a time from the public eye, but he cannot prevent it
+from existing, and a divided sovereignty must always be less powerful
+than an entire supremacy. The reader has seen in the remarks I have
+made on the Constitution of the United States that the Americans have
+displayed singular ingenuity in combining the restriction of the power
+of the Union within the narrow limits of a federal government with the
+semblance and, to a certain extent, with the force of a national
+government. By this means the legislators of the Union have succeeded
+in diminishing, though not in counteracting the natural danger of
+confederations.
+One factor strongly supporting the American government is that states share not just similar interests, common origin, and language, but the same stage of civilization. The distance from Maine to Georgia is about a thousand miles, yet their civilizational difference is slighter than between neighboring French provinces of Normandy and Brittany. Maine and Georgia have more natural reason to confederate than provinces separated only by a bridge.
+It has been remarked that the American Government does not apply itself
+to the States, but that it immediately transmits its injunctions to the
+citizens, and compels them as isolated individuals to comply with its
+demands. But if the Federal law were to clash with the interests and
+the prejudices of a State, it might be feared that all the citizens of
+that State would conceive themselves to be interested in the cause of a
+single individual who should refuse to obey. If all the citizens of the
+State were aggrieved at the same time and in the same manner by the
+authority of the Union, the Federal Government would vainly attempt to
+subdue them individually; they would instinctively unite in a common
+defence, and they would derive a ready-prepared organization from the
+share of sovereignty which the institution of their State allows them
+to enjoy. Fiction would give way to reality, and an organized portion
+of the territory might then contest the central authority. *t The same
+observation holds good with regard to the Federal jurisdiction. If the
+courts of the Union violated an important law of a State in a private
+case, the real, if not the apparent, contest would arise between the
+aggrieved State represented by a citizen and the Union represented by
+its courts of justice. *u
+Geography also aided American legislators. War is the most critical event in a people's history—the moment when a nation struggles with focused energy to defend its existence. While skill and common sense may maintain internal peace, major war can only be sustained through great sacrifices, forcing nations to increase central government power. Those that failed were conquered. Long war presents a grim choice: ruin by defeat or despotism by success. War reveals government's inherent weakness, and federal governments are particularly weak.
+[ [This is precisely what occurred in 1862, and the following paragraph
+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.]]
+Federal systems lack centralized administration, and their central government is often imperfectly organized—a significant disadvantage against unified states. Even in the U.S. Constitution, this weakness is noticeable. The only real safeguard against collapse from major war is exemption from such conflict. Located in the center of a massive continent with endless industrial opportunities, the Union is as much insulated from the world as if its frontiers were girt by the ocean. Canada is small, divided, and ice-locked half the year. To the south, Mexico's internal instability and poverty prevent it from being a major threat, despite occasional hostilities like the 1846 war that conquered California. European powers are too distant to be formidable.
+The great advantage of the United States is not a Constitution allowing it to fight major wars, but a geographical position making such wars highly unlikely.
+[ For instance, the Union possesses by the Constitution the right of
+selling unoccupied lands for its own profit. Supposing that the State
+of Ohio should claim the same right in behalf of certain territories
+lying within its boundaries, upon the plea that the Constitution refers
+to those lands alone which do not belong to the jurisdiction of any
+particular State, and consequently should choose to dispose of them
+itself, the litigation would be carried on in the names of the
+purchasers from the State of Ohio and the purchasers from the Union,
+and not in the names of Ohio and the Union. But what would become of
+this legal fiction if the Federal purchaser was confirmed in his right
+by the courts of the Union, whilst the other competitor was ordered to
+retain possession by the tribunals of the State of Ohio?]
+I highly value the federal system as one of the best arrangements for human prosperity and freedom. I envy nations that can adopt it. Yet I do not believe a confederated people can long withstand an equal contest with a centralized nation of similar strength. A people dividing sovereignty in the presence of Europe's great military powers would, in my view, surrender its power and perhaps its existence. The New World's position is so fortunate that man has no enemy but himself. To be happy and free, he need only seek prosperity and knowledge of liberty.
+He would have but a partial knowledge of the world who should imagine
+that it is possible, by the aid of legal fictions, to prevent men from
+finding out and employing those means of gratifying their passions
+which have been left open to them; and it may be doubted whether the
+American legislators, when they rendered a collision between the two
+sovereigns less probable, destroyed the cause of such a misfortune. But
+it may even be affirmed that they were unable to ensure the
+preponderance of the Federal element in a case of this kind. The Union
+is possessed of money and of troops, but the affections and the
+prejudices of the people are in the bosom of the States. The
+sovereignty of the Union is an abstract being, which is connected with
+but few external objects; the sovereignty of the States is hourly
+perceptible, easily understood, constantly active; and if the former is
+of recent creation, the latter is coeval with the people itself. The
+sovereignty of the Union is factitious, that of the States is natural,
+and derives its existence from its own simple influence, like the
+authority of a parent. The supreme power of the nation only affects a
+few of the chief interests of society; it represents an immense but
+remote country, and claims a feeling of patriotism which is vague and
+ill defined; but the authority of the States controls every individual
+citizen at every hour and in all circumstances; it protects his
+property, his freedom, and his life; and when we recollect the
+traditions, the customs, the prejudices of local and familiar
+attachment with which it is connected, we cannot doubt of the
+superiority of a power which is interwoven with every circumstance that
+renders the love of one’s native country instinctive in the human
+heart.
+Since legislators are unable to obviate such dangerous collisions as
+occur between the two sovereignties which coexist in the federal
+system, their first object must be, not only to dissuade the
+confederate States from warfare, but to encourage such institutions as
+may promote the maintenance of peace. Hence it results that the Federal
+compact cannot be lasting unless there exists in the communities which
+are leagued together a certain number of inducements to union which
+render their common dependence agreeable, and the task of the
+Government light, and that system cannot succeed without the presence
+of favorable circumstances added to the influence of good laws. All the
+peoples which have ever formed a confederation have been held together
+by a certain number of common interests, which served as the
+intellectual ties of association.
+But the sentiments and the principles of man must be taken into
+consideration as well as his immediate interests. A certain uniformity
+of civilization is not less necessary to the durability of a
+confederation than a uniformity of interests in the States which
+compose it. In Switzerland the difference which exists between the
+Canton of Uri and the Canton of Vaud is equal to that between the
+fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries; and, properly speaking,
+Switzerland has never possessed a federal government. The union between
+these two cantons only subsists upon the map, and their discrepancies
+would soon be perceived if an attempt were made by a central authority
+to prescribe the same laws to the whole territory.
+One of the circumstances which most powerfully contribute to support
+the Federal Government in America is that the States have not only
+similar interests, a common origin, and a common tongue, but that they
+are also arrived at the same stage of civilization; which almost always
+renders a union feasible. I do not know of any European nation, how
+small soever it may be, which does not present less uniformity in its
+different provinces than the American people, which occupies a
+territory as extensive as one-half of Europe. The distance from the
+State of Maine to that of Georgia is reckoned at about one thousand
+miles; but the difference between the civilization of Maine and that of
+Georgia is slighter than the difference between the habits of Normandy
+and those of Brittany. Maine and Georgia, which are placed at the
+opposite extremities of a great empire, are consequently in the natural
+possession of more real inducements to form a confederation than
+Normandy and Brittany, which are only separated by a bridge.
+The geographical position of the country contributed to increase the
+facilities which the American legislators derived from the manners and
+customs of the inhabitants; and it is to this circumstance that the
+adoption and the maintenance of the Federal system are mainly
+attributable.
+The most important occurrence which can mark the annals of a people is
+the breaking out of a war. In war a people struggles with the energy of
+a single man against foreign nations in the defence of its very
+existence. The skill of a government, the good sense of the community,
+and the natural fondness which men entertain for their country, may
+suffice to maintain peace in the interior of a district, and to favor
+its internal prosperity; but a nation can only carry on a great war at
+the cost of more numerous and more painful sacrifices; and to suppose
+that a great number of men will of their own accord comply with these
+exigencies of the State is to betray an ignorance of mankind. All the
+peoples which have been obliged to sustain a long and serious warfare
+have 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 alternative of
+being abandoned to ruin by defeat or to despotism by success. War
+therefore renders the symptoms of the weakness of a government most
+palpable and most alarming; and I have shown that the inherent defeat
+of federal governments is that of being weak.
+The Federal system is not only deficient in every kind of centralized
+administration, but the central government itself is imperfectly
+organized, which is invariably an influential cause of inferiority when
+the nation is opposed to other countries which are themselves governed
+by a single authority. In the Federal Constitution of the United
+States, by which the central government possesses more real force, this
+evil is still extremely sensible. An example will illustrate the case
+to the reader.
+The Constitution confers upon Congress the right of calling forth
+militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and
+repel invasions; and another article declares that the President of the
+United States is the commander-in-chief of the militia. In the war of
+the President ordered the militia of the Northern States to march
+to the frontiers; but Connecticut and Massachusetts, whose interests
+were impaired by the war, refused to obey the command. They argued that
+the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to call forth the
+militia in case of insurrection or invasion, but that in the present
+instance there was neither invasion nor insurrection. They added, that
+the same Constitution which conferred upon the Union the right of
+calling forth the militia reserved to the States that of naming the
+officers; and that consequently (as they understood the clause) no
+officer of the Union had any right to command the militia, even during
+war, except the President in person; and in this case they were ordered
+to join an army commanded by another individual. These absurd and
+pernicious doctrines received the sanction not only of the governors
+and the legislative bodies, but also of the courts of justice in both
+States; and the Federal Government was constrained to raise elsewhere
+the troops which it required. *v
+[ Kent’s “Commentaries,” vol. i. p. 244. I have selected an example
+which relates to a time posterior to the promulgation of the present
+Constitution. If I had gone back to the days of the Confederation, I
+might have given still more striking instances. The whole nation was at
+that time in a state of enthusiastic excitement; the Revolution was
+represented by a man who was the idol of the people; but at that very
+period Congress had, to say the truth, no resources at all at its
+disposal. Troops and supplies were perpetually wanting. The
+best-devised projects failed in the execution, and the Union, which was
+constantly on the verge of destruction, was saved by the weakness of
+its enemies far more than by its own strength. [All doubt as to the
+powers of the Federal Executive was, however, removed by its efforts in
+the Civil War, and those powers were largely extended.]]
+The only safeguard which the American Union, with all the relative
+perfection of its laws, possesses against the dissolution which would
+be produced by a great war, lies in its probable exemption from that
+calamity. Placed in the centre of an immense continent, which offers a
+boundless field for human industry, the Union is almost as much
+insulated from the world as if its frontiers were girt by the ocean.
+Canada contains only a million of inhabitants, and its population is
+divided into two inimical nations. The rigor of the climate limits the
+extension of its territory, and shuts up its ports during the six
+months of winter. From Canada to the Gulf of Mexico a few savage tribes
+are to be met with, which retire, perishing in their retreat, before
+six thousand soldiers. To the South, the Union has a point of contact
+with the empire of Mexico; and it is thence that serious hostilities
+may one day be expected to arise. But for a long while to come the
+uncivilized state of the Mexican community, the depravity of its
+morals, and its extreme poverty, will prevent that country from ranking
+high amongst nations. *w As for the Powers of Europe, they are too
+distant to be formidable.
+[ [War broke out between the United States and Mexico in 1846, and
+ended in the conquest of an immense territory, including California.]]
+The great advantage of the United States does not, then, consist in a
+Federal Constitution which allows them to carry on great wars, but in a
+geographical position which renders such enterprises extremely
+improbable.
+No one can be more inclined than I am myself to appreciate the
+advantages of the federal system, which I hold to be one of the
+combinations most favorable to the prosperity and freedom of man. I
+envy the lot of those nations which have been enabled to adopt it; but
+I cannot believe that any confederate peoples could maintain a long or
+an equal contest with a nation of similar strength in which the
+government should be centralized. A people which should divide its
+sovereignty into fractional powers, in the presence of the great
+military monarchies of Europe, would, in my opinion, by that very act,
+abdicate its power, and perhaps its existence and its name. But such is
+the admirable position of the New World that man has no other enemy
+than himself; and that, in order to be happy and to be free, it
+suffices to seek the gifts of prosperity and the knowledge of freedom.
 ## Chapter IX: Why The People May Strictly Be Said To Govern In The United States
+I have hitherto examined the institutions of the United States; I have
+passed their legislation in review, and I have depicted the present
+characteristics of political society in that country. But a sovereign
+power exists above these institutions and beyond these characteristic
+features which may destroy or modify them at its pleasure—I mean that
+of the people. It remains to be shown in what manner this power, which
+regulates the laws, acts: its propensities and its passions remain to
+be pointed out, as well as the secret springs which retard, accelerate,
+or direct its irresistible course; and the effects of its unbounded
+authority, with the destiny which is probably reserved for it.
+**From *Democracy in America*, Volume I (1835)**
+In America the people appoints the legislative and the executive power,
+and furnishes the jurors who punish all offences against the laws. The
+American institutions are democratic, not only in their principle but
+in all their consequences; and the people elects its representatives
+directly, and for the most part annually, in order to ensure their
+dependence. The people is therefore the real directing power; and
+although the form of government is representative, it is evident that
+the opinions, the prejudices, the interests, and even the passions of
+the community are hindered by no durable obstacles from exercising a
+perpetual influence on society. In the United States the majority
+governs in the name of the people, as is the case in all the countries
+in which the people is supreme. The majority is principally composed of
+peaceful citizens who, either by inclination or by interest, are
+sincerely desirous of the welfare of their country. But they are
+surrounded by the incessant agitation of parties, which attempt to gain
+their co-operation and to avail themselves of their support.
+I have examined American institutions, legislation, and political society. But above them lies a sovereign power that can destroy or modify them at will: the people. I must now show how this power operates—its tendencies, passions, the secret springs that retard, accelerate, or direct its irresistible course, the effects of its unlimited authority, and its likely destiny.
+In America, the people appoint legislative and executive powers and provide jurors for all legal offenses. American institutions are democratic, not only in their principle but in all their consequences; representatives are elected directly, mostly annually, to remain dependent on voters.
+> **Quote:** "The people is therefore the real directing power; and although the form of government is representative, it is evident that the opinions, the prejudices, the interests, and even the passions of the community are hindered by no durable obstacles from exercising a perpetual influence on society."
+In the United States, the majority governs in the name of the people, as in all countries where the people are supreme. This majority is mainly composed of peaceful citizens who, by inclination or interest, sincerely desire their country's welfare. But they are surrounded by the incessant agitation of parties seeking their cooperation and support.
 ## Chapter X: Parties In The United States
+We must distinguish between populations so vast they become rival nations under one government and true parties, which divide citizens over principles affecting the entire country equally.
+> **Quote:** "Parties are a necessary evil in free governments;"
+Their character varies with the era. When nations suffer unbearable hardships threatening society itself, great parties emerge. In calmer times, when change proceeds too slowly to notice, small parties dominate. We mistake this slow progress for a standstill, much as a man walking seems stationary to those who run. The former prioritize principles over outcomes, general ideas over cases, ideology over leaders. They display nobler spirit, deeper convictions, and courage, disguising private interest as public good. Minor parties lack conviction, openly display selfishness, and employ petty methods. Great parties convulse society; small ones merely agitate or degrade it. While minor parties may occasionally save society by a useful upheaval, great ones invariably disturb it.
+> **Quote:** "Society is convulsed by great parties, by minor ones it is agitated; it is torn by the former, by the latter it is degraded."
+Great distinction to be made between parties—Parties which are to each
+other as rival nations—Parties properly so called—Difference between
+great and small parties—Epochs which produce them—Their
+characteristics—America has had great parties—They are
+extinct—Federalists—Republicans—Defeat of the Federalists—Difficulty of
+creating parties in the United States—What is done with this
+intention—Aristocratic or democratic character to be met with in all
+parties—Struggle of General Jackson against the Bank.
+America once had great parties, but they are extinct. After the War of Independence, the nation split between two ancient viewpoints: limiting popular power versus extending it indefinitely. Unlike elsewhere, this conflict never turned violent. Both sides agreed on essentials; neither needed to destroy the constitution or social order. The Federalists, seeking to limit popular power, took their name from the Union's Constitution. Though always a minority in democratic America, they included nearly all the war's great figures and wielded substantial moral influence. The Confederation's failure had made people fear anarchy, which the Federalists temporarily exploited. For a decade they led, implementing some principles, until Jefferson's election in 1801 brought the Republicans to power, bolstered by his immense celebrity, talent, and popularity.
+The Federalists' methods were artificial; they rose through their leaders' virtues and talents. Once the Republicans took office, the Federalists collapsed into a hopeless minority. They soon ceased to exist.
+The Federalists' brief dominance was fortunate. They resisted their era's inevitable tendencies, giving the republic time to stabilize. Many of their principles entered their opponents' creed; today's Federal Constitution remains their monument. Yet their disappearance has cost America politically: prosperity increased while political morality suffered.
+No great parties exist today. Some threaten the Union's future peace, but none challenge its government or social order. Current divisions reflect temporary interests rather than principles. North and South, for instance, clashed over trade restrictions—industrial North favoring them, agricultural South opposing them. These regional interests resemble rival nations more than parties.
+ Parties In The United States
+Without great parties, America is filled with minor controversies. Creating parties is difficult: no religious hatred exists because all faiths are respected; no rank jealousy because the people are supreme; no widespread poverty because geography offers unlimited opportunity.
+Yet ambitious men still need parties to gain power. The political climber begins with his own interests, calculates which others can be merged with them, then invents a doctrine to serve this new association—adopting it much like a King’s imprimatur was once attached to a book—providing the seal of authority to a work it did not actually produce. To outsiders, these disputes seem incomprehensibly petty.
+A great distinction must be made between parties. Some countries are so
+large that the different populations which inhabit them have
+contradictory interests, although they are the subjects of the same
+Government, and they may thence be in a perpetual state of opposition.
+In this case the different fractions of the people may more properly be
+considered as distinct nations than as mere parties; and if a civil war
+breaks out, the struggle is carried on by rival peoples rather than by
+factions in the State.
+But beneath these factions lie the ancient divisions of free societies. One seeks to limit popular authority; the other to expand it. Aristocratic or democratic passions, though invisible to superficial observers, form the soul of every American party. When Jackson attacked the Bank of the United States, the educated classes rallied to the Bank while common people supported the President. The people did not reach this conclusion through reason; rather, they were irritated to find an independent, permanent institution standing as an obstacle to their otherwise absolute power.
+But when the citizens entertain different opinions upon subjects which
+affect the whole country alike, such, for instance, as the principles
+upon which the government is to be conducted, then distinctions arise
+which may correctly be styled parties. Parties are a necessary evil in
+free governments; but they have not at all times the same character and
+the same propensities.
+Traces Of The Aristocratic Party In The United States
+At certain periods a nation may be oppressed by such insupportable
+evils as to conceive the design of effecting a total change in its
+political constitution; at other times the mischief lies still deeper,
+and the existence of society itself is endangered. Such are the times
+of great revolutions and of great parties. But between these epochs of
+misery and of confusion there are periods during which human society
+seems to rest, and mankind to make a pause. This pause is, indeed, only
+apparent, for time does not stop its course for nations any more than
+for men; they are all advancing towards a goal with which they are
+unacquainted; and we only imagine them to be stationary when their
+progress escapes our observation, as men who are going at a foot-pace
+seem to be standing still to those who run.
+When the democratic party gained irresistible dominance, the wealthy classes withdrew from politics completely. Wealth became an obstacle to power. They retreated into private life, forming exclusive circles with their own tastes and pleasures, while publicly praising republican government. After hating their enemies, men are most likely to flatter them.
+But however this may be, there are certain epochs at which the changes
+that take place in the social and political constitution of nations are
+so slow and so insensible that men imagine their present condition to
+be a final state; and the human mind, believing itself to be firmly
+based upon certain foundations, does not extend its researches beyond
+the horizon which it descries. These are the times of small parties and
+of intrigue.
+A wealthy citizen hides his riches as anxiously as a Jew in the Middle Ages might have concealed his wealth. His dress is plain, his manner modest, but his home sparkles with luxury, admitting only select guests he deems equals. No European aristocrat is more exclusive. Yet this same man walks to his modest office where anyone may approach him, chats with his cobbler about state affairs, and shakes hands before parting.
+The political parties which I style great are those which cling to
+principles more than to their consequences; to general, and not to
+especial cases; to ideas, and not to men. These parties are usually
+distinguished by a nobler character, by more generous passions, more
+genuine convictions, and a more bold and open conduct than the others.
+In them private interest, which always plays the chief part in
+political passions, is more studiously veiled under the pretext of the
+public good; and it may even be sometimes concealed from the eyes of
+the very persons whom it excites and impels.
+Beneath this forced enthusiasm lies deep distaste for democratic institutions. The common people are objects of contempt and fear. If democracy's mismanagement ever produces a revolutionary crisis, or monarchy becomes feasible, this truth will become obvious.
+Minor parties are, on the other hand, generally deficient in political
+faith. As they are not sustained or dignified by a lofty purpose, they
+ostensibly display the egotism of their character in their actions.
+They glow with a factitious zeal; their language is vehement, but their
+conduct is timid and irresolute. The means they employ are as wretched
+as the end at which they aim. Hence it arises that when a calm state of
+things succeeds a violent revolution, the leaders of society seem
+suddenly to disappear, and the powers of the human mind to lie
+concealed. Society is convulsed by great parties, by minor ones it is
+agitated; it is torn by the former, by the latter it is degraded; and
+if these sometimes save it by a salutary perturbation, those invariably
+disturb it to no good end.
+The two primary weapons parties use are the public press and political associations.
+America has already lost the great parties which once divided the
+nation; and if her happiness is considerably increased, her morality
+has suffered by their extinction. When the War of Independence was
+terminated, and the foundations of the new Government were to be laid
+down, the nation was divided between two opinions—two opinions which
+are as old as the world, and which are perpetually to be met with under
+all the forms and all the names which have ever obtained in free
+communities—the one tending to limit, the other to extend indefinitely,
+the power of the people. The conflict of these two opinions never
+assumed that degree of violence in America which it has frequently
+displayed elsewhere. Both parties of the Americans were, in fact,
+agreed upon the most essential points; and neither of them had to
+destroy a traditionary constitution, or to overthrow the structure of
+society, in order to ensure its own triumph. In neither of them,
+consequently, were a great number of private interests affected by
+success or by defeat; but moral principles of a high order, such as the
+love of equality and of independence, were concerned in the struggle,
+and they sufficed to kindle violent passions.
+The party which desired to limit the power of the people endeavored to
+apply its doctrines more especially to the Constitution of the Union,
+whence it derived its name of Federal. The other party, which affected
+to be more exclusively attached to the cause of liberty, took that of
+Republican. America is a land of democracy, and the Federalists were
+always in a minority; but they reckoned on their side almost all the
+great men who had been called forth by the War of Independence, and
+their moral influence was very considerable. Their cause was, moreover,
+favored by circumstances. The ruin of the Confederation had impressed
+the people with a dread of anarchy, and the Federalists did not fail to
+profit by this transient disposition of the multitude. For ten or
+twelve years they were at the head of affairs, and they were able to
+apply some, though not all, of their principles; for the hostile
+current was becoming from day to day too violent to be checked or
+stemmed. In 1801 the Republicans got possession of the Government;
+Thomas Jefferson was named President; and he increased the influence of
+their party by the weight of his celebrity, the greatness of his
+talents, and the immense extent of his popularity.
+The means by which the Federalists had maintained their position were
+artificial, and their resources were temporary; it was by the virtues
+or the talents of their leaders that they had risen to power. When the
+Republicans attained to that lofty station, their opponents were
+overwhelmed by utter defeat. An immense majority declared itself
+against the retiring party, and the Federalists found themselves in so
+small a minority that they at once despaired of their future success.
+From that moment the Republican or Democratic party *a has proceeded
+from conquest to 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, of which one joined the victorious Republicans, and the
+other abandoned its rallying-point and its name. Many years have
+already elapsed since they ceased to exist as a party.
+[ [It is scarcely necessary to remark that in more recent times the
+signification of these terms has changed. The Republicans are the
+representatives of the old Federalists, and the Democrats of the old
+Republicans.—Trans. Note (1861).]] The accession of the Federalists to
+power was, in my opinion, one of the most fortunate incidents which
+accompanied the formation of the great American Union; they resisted
+the inevitable propensities of their age and of the country. But
+whether their theories were good or bad, they had the effect of being
+inapplicable, as a system, to the society which they professed to
+govern, and that which occurred under the auspices of Jefferson must
+therefore have taken place sooner or later. But their Government gave
+the new republic time to acquire a certain stability, and afterwards to
+support the rapid growth of the very doctrines which they had combated.
+A considerable number of their principles were in point of fact
+embodied in the political creed of their opponents; and the Federal
+Constitution which subsists at the present day is a lasting monument of
+their patriotism and their wisdom.
+Great political parties are not, then, to be met with in the United
+States at the present time. Parties, indeed, may be found which
+threaten the future tranquillity of the Union; but there are none which
+seem to contest the present form of Government or the present course of
+society. The parties by which the Union is menaced do not rest upon
+abstract principles, but upon temporal interests. These interests,
+disseminated in the provinces of so vast an empire, may be said to
+constitute rival nations rather than parties. Thus, upon a recent
+occasion, the North contended for the system of commercial prohibition,
+and the South took up arms in favor of free trade, simply because the
+North is a manufacturing and the South an agricultural district; and
+that the restrictive system which was profitable to the one was
+prejudicial to the other. *b
+[ [The divisions of North and South have since acquired a far greater
+degree of intensity, and the South, though conquered, still presents a
+formidable spirit of opposition to Northern government.—Translator’s
+Note, 1875.]]
+In the absence of great parties, the United States abound with lesser
+controversies; and public opinion is divided into a thousand minute
+shades of difference upon questions of very little moment. The pains
+which are taken to create parties are inconceivable, and at the present
+day it is no easy task. In the United States there is no religious
+animosity, because all religion is respected, and no sect is
+predominant; there is no jealousy of rank, because the people is
+everything, and none can contest its authority; lastly, there is no
+public indigence to supply the means of agitation, because the physical
+position of the country opens so wide a field to industry that man is
+able to accomplish the most surprising undertakings with his own native
+resources. Nevertheless, ambitious men are interested in the creation
+of parties, since it is difficult to eject a person from authority upon
+the mere ground that his place is coveted by others. The skill of the
+actors in the political world lies therefore in the art of creating
+parties. A political aspirant in the United States begins by
+discriminating his own interest, and by calculating upon those
+interests which may be collected around and amalgamated with it; he
+then contrives to discover some doctrine or some principle which may
+suit the purposes of this new association, and which he adopts in order
+to bring forward his party and to secure his popularity; just as the
+imprimatur of a King was in former days incorporated with the volume
+which it authorized, but to which it nowise belonged. When these
+preliminaries are terminated, the new party is ushered into the
+political world.
+All the domestic controversies of the Americans at first appear to a
+stranger to be so incomprehensible and so puerile that he is at a loss
+whether to pity a people which takes such arrant trifles in good
+earnest, or to envy the happiness which enables it to discuss them. But
+when he comes to study the secret propensities which govern the
+factions of America, he easily perceives that the greater part of them
+are more or less connected with one or the other of those two divisions
+which have always existed in free communities. The deeper we penetrate
+into the working of these parties, the more do we perceive that the
+object of the one is to limit, and that of the other to extend, the
+popular authority. I do not assert that the ostensible end, or even
+that the secret aim, of American parties is to promote the rule of
+aristocracy or democracy in the country; but I affirm that aristocratic
+or democratic passions may easily be detected at the bottom of all
+parties, and that, although they escape a superficial observation, they
+are the main point and the very soul of every faction in the United
+States.
+To quote a recent example. When the President attacked the Bank, the
+country was excited and parties were formed; the well-informed classes
+rallied round the Bank, the common people round the President. But it
+must not be imagined that the people had formed a rational opinion upon
+a question which offers so many difficulties to the most experienced
+statesmen. The Bank is a great establishment which enjoys an
+independent existence, and the people, accustomed to make and unmake
+whatsoever it pleases, is startled to meet with this obstacle to its
+authority. In the midst of the perpetual fluctuation of society the
+community is irritated by so permanent an institution, and is led to
+attack it in order to see whether it can be shaken and controlled, like
+all the other institutions of the country.
+Remains Of The Aristocratic Party In The United States
+Secret opposition of wealthy individuals to democracy—Their
+retirement—Their taste for exclusive pleasures and for luxury at
+home—Their simplicity abroad—Their affected condescension towards the
+people.
+It sometimes happens in a people amongst which various opinions prevail
+that the balance of the several parties is lost, and one of them
+obtains an irresistible preponderance, overpowers all obstacles,
+harasses its opponents, and appropriates all the resources of society
+to its own purposes. The vanquished citizens despair of success and
+they conceal their dissatisfaction in silence and in general apathy.
+The nation seems to be governed by a single principle, and the
+prevailing party assumes the credit of having restored peace and
+unanimity to the country. But this apparent unanimity is merely a cloak
+to alarming dissensions and perpetual opposition.
+This is precisely what occurred in America; when the democratic party
+got the upper hand, it took exclusive possession of the conduct of
+affairs, and from that time the laws and the customs of society have
+been adapted to its caprices. At the present day the more affluent
+classes of society are so entirely removed from the direction of
+political affairs in the United States that wealth, far from conferring
+a right to the exercise of power, is rather an obstacle than a means of
+attaining 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
+concentrate all their enjoyments in the privacy of their homes, where
+they occupy a rank which cannot be assumed in public; and they
+constitute a private society in the State, which has its own tastes and
+its own pleasures. They submit to this state of things as an
+irremediable evil, but they are careful not to show that they are
+galled by its continuance; it is even not uncommon to hear them laud
+the delights of a republican government, and the advantages of
+democratic institutions when they are in public. Next to hating their
+enemies, men are most inclined to flatter them.
+Mark, for instance, that opulent citizen, who is as anxious as a Jew of
+the Middle Ages to conceal his wealth. His dress is plain, his demeanor
+unassuming; but the interior of his dwelling glitters with luxury, and
+none but a few chosen guests whom he haughtily styles his equals are
+allowed to penetrate into this sanctuary. No European noble is more
+exclusive in his pleasures, or more jealous of the smallest advantages
+which his privileged station confers upon him. But the very same
+individual crosses the city to reach a dark counting-house in the
+centre of traffic, where every one may accost him who pleases. If he
+meets his cobbler upon the way, they stop and converse; the two
+citizens discuss the affairs of the State in which they have an equal
+interest, and they shake hands before they part.
+But beneath this artificial enthusiasm, and these obsequious attentions
+to the preponderating power, it is easy to perceive that the wealthy
+members of the community entertain a hearty distaste to the democratic
+institutions of their country. The populace is at once the object of
+their scorn and of their fears. If the maladministration of the
+democracy ever brings about a revolutionary crisis, and if monarchical
+institutions ever become practicable in the United States, the truth of
+what I advance will become obvious.
+The two chief weapons which parties use in order to ensure success are
+the public press and the formation of associations.
 ## Chapter XI: Liberty Of The Press In The United States
+The freedom of the press extends beyond politics to all human opinions, modifying customs as well as laws. I will later examine its influence on civil society and the character of the Anglo-Americans, but here I focus on its political effects. I confess I do not feel that firm attachment to press freedom which supreme goods inspire; I approve it more for the evils it prevents than the advantages it ensures.
+No tenable middle ground exists between complete independence and entire subjection of public expression. Try an offending writer before a jury, and a single acquittal makes his opinion the nation's. Bring him before permanent judges, and the legal proceedings themselves publicize what no book would have dared voice. Language is the mere carcass of a thought; tribunals may condemn the form, but the spirit of the work is too subtle for their authority. Having done too much to turn back and too little to succeed, you must proceed further. But censor the press, and the tongue of the public speaker will still be heard—you are forced to destroy the liberty of discourse as well. You have moved from extreme independence to extreme subjection without finding rest.
+Certain nations cherish press freedom for specific reasons beyond these general motives. In countries where government agents violate laws with impunity, press freedom becomes citizens' only guarantee of liberty and security. The people might then say: "Give us the right to prosecute your offenses before ordinary courts, and perhaps we will waive our right of appeal to public opinion."
+> **Quote:** In this case the liberty of the press is not merely a guarantee, but it is the only guarantee, of their liberty and their security which the citizens possess.
+Difficulty of restraining the liberty of the press—Particular reasons
+which some nations have to cherish this liberty—The liberty of the
+press a necessary consequence of the sovereignty of the people as it is
+understood in America—Violent language of the periodical press in the
+United States—Propensities of the periodical press—Illustrated by the
+United States—Opinion of the Americans upon the repression of the abuse
+of the liberty of the press by judicial prosecutions—Reasons for which
+the press is less powerful in America than in France.
+But where the sovereignty of the people prevails, censorship is not merely dangerous but absurd. When every citizen's right to participate in government is acknowledged, every citizen must be presumed able to distinguish between opinions and evaluate evidence. Censorship and universal suffrage are irreconcilable; they cannot long coexist. Not one of twelve million Americans has dared propose restricting press freedom. The first newspaper I examined contained this article:
+Liberty Of The Press In The United States
+> **Quote:** "In all this affair the language of Jackson has been that of a heartless despot, solely occupied with the preservation of his own authority. Ambition is his crime, and it will be his punishment too: intrigue is his native element, and intrigue will confound his tricks, and will deprive him of his power: he governs by means of corruption, and his immoral practices will redound to his shame and confusion. His conduct in the political arena has been that of a shameless and lawless gamester. He succeeded at the time, but the hour of retribution approaches, and he will be obliged to disgorge his winnings, to throw aside his false dice, and to end his days in some retirement, where he may curse his madness at his leisure; for repentance is a virtue with which his heart is likely to remain forever unacquainted."
+The influence of the liberty of the press does not affect political
+opinions alone, but it extends to all the opinions of men, and it
+modifies customs as well as laws. In another part of this work I shall
+attempt to determinate the degree of influence which the liberty of the
+press has exercised upon civil society in the United States, and to
+point out the direction which it has given to the ideas, as well as the
+tone which it has imparted to the character and the feelings, of the
+Anglo-Americans, but at present I purpose simply to examine the effects
+produced by the liberty of the press in the political world.
+Many Frenchmen imagine press violence stems from social instability and hardship, expecting it to moderate as society calms. But America's tranquility—with few revolutionary seeds—confirms that periodical press possesses passions independent of circumstances. Its language is no less violent than France's, yet its power is less. There, attacking existing laws is no crime unless accompanied by violent violation. Americans believe courts cannot check press abuses because language's subtlety evades judicial analysis. To act effectively would require a tribunal devoted to the existing order, rising above public opinion, conducting secret proceedings, and punishing intentions more than words. Whoever could create such a tribunal would already be supreme master.
+I confess that I do not entertain that firm and complete attachment to
+the liberty of the press which things that are supremely good in their
+very nature are wont to excite in the mind; and I approve of it more
+from a recollection of the evils it prevents than from a consideration
+of the advantages it ensures.
+The limited influence of American newspapers has several causes. England's press freedom predates its colonies, so it holds no novelty. The press cannot create passions, only inflame existing ones, and American politics rarely touch deep material interests. A single glance reveals the difference: French newspapers focus on political discussion while American papers devote three-quarters of their space to advertisements.
+If any one could point out an intermediate and yet a tenable position
+between the complete independence and the entire subjection of the
+public expression of opinion, I should perhaps be inclined to adopt it;
+but the difficulty is to discover this position. If it is your
+intention to correct the abuses of unlicensed printing and to restore
+the use of orderly language, you may in the first instance try the
+offender by a jury; but if the jury acquits him, the opinion which was
+that of a single individual becomes the opinion of the country at
+large. Too much and too little has therefore hitherto been done. If you
+proceed, you must bring the delinquent before a court of permanent
+judges. But even here the cause must be heard before it can be decided;
+and the very principles which no book would have ventured to avow are
+blazoned forth in the pleadings, and what was obscurely hinted at in a
+single composition is then repeated in a multitude of other
+publications. The language in which a thought is embodied is the mere
+carcass of the thought, and not the idea itself; tribunals may condemn
+the form, but the sense and spirit of the work is too subtle for their
+authority. Too much has still been done to recede, too little to attain
+your end; you must therefore proceed. If you establish a censorship of
+the press, the tongue of the public speaker will still make itself
+heard, and you have only increased the mischief. The powers of thought
+do not rely, like the powers of physical strength, upon the number of
+their mechanical agents, nor can a host of authors be reckoned like the
+troops which compose an army; on the contrary, the authority of a
+principle is often increased by the smallness of the number of men by
+whom it is expressed. The words of a strong-minded man, which penetrate
+amidst the passions of a listening assembly, have more power than the
+vociferations of a thousand orators; and if it be allowed to speak
+freely in any public place, the consequence is the same as if free
+speaking was allowed in every village. The liberty of discourse must
+therefore be destroyed as well as 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 have brought you to the feet of a despot. You
+have been led from the extreme of independence to the extreme of
+subjection without meeting with a single tenable position for shelter
+or repose.
+Centralization also matters. In France, press power concentrates in few hands, making it an enemy governments might truce with but cannot resist. No such centralization exists in America. Without licenses, financial guarantees, or stamp taxes, anyone can start a newspaper; a small readership covers expenses. The number of publications is staggering. As one enlightened American observed:
+There are certain nations which have peculiar reasons for cherishing
+the liberty of the press, independently of the general motives which I
+have just pointed out. For in certain countries which profess to enjoy
+the privileges of freedom every individual agent of the Government may
+violate the laws with impunity, since those whom he oppresses cannot
+prosecute him before the courts of justice. In this case the liberty of
+the press is not merely a guarantee, but it is the only guarantee, of
+their liberty and their security which the citizens possess. If the
+rulers of these nations propose to abolish the independence of the
+press, the people would be justified in saying: Give us the right of
+prosecuting your offences before the ordinary tribunals, and perhaps we
+may then waive our right of appeal to the tribunal of public opinion.
+> **Quote:** "the only way to neutralize the effect of public journals is to multiply them indefinitely."
+But in the countries in which the doctrine of the sovereignty of the
+people ostensibly prevails, the censorship of the press is not only
+dangerous, but it is absurd. When the right of every citizen to
+co-operate in the government of society is acknowledged, every citizen
+must be presumed to possess the power of discriminating between the
+different opinions of his contemporaries, and of appreciating the
+different facts from which inferences may be drawn. The sovereignty of
+the people and the liberty of the press may therefore be looked upon as
+correlative institutions; just as the censorship of the press and
+universal suffrage are two things which are irreconcilably opposed, and
+which cannot long be retained among the institutions of the same
+people. Not a single individual of the twelve millions who inhabit the
+territory of the United States has as yet dared to propose any
+restrictions to the liberty of the press. The first newspaper over
+which I cast my eyes, upon my arrival in America, contained the
+following article:
+This political axiom baffles European governments, which concentrate press authority even while resisting it.
+In all this affair the language of Jackson has been that of a heartless
+despot, solely occupied with the preservation of his own authority.
+Ambition is his crime, and it will be his punishment too: intrigue is
+his native element, and intrigue will confound his tricks, and will
+deprive him of his power: he governs by means of corruption, and his
+immoral practices will redound to his shame and confusion. His conduct
+in the political arena has been that of a shameless and lawless
+gamester. He succeeded at the time, but the hour of retribution
+approaches, and he will be obliged to disgorge his winnings, to throw
+aside his false dice, and to end his days in some retirement, where he
+may curse his madness at his leisure; for repentance is a virtue with
+which his heart is likely to remain forever unacquainted.
+Almost every American village has its newspaper. This fragmentation prevents unified discipline, and competition keeps profits low, deterring distinguished classes from journalism. Most journalists occupy humble positions with limited education and coarse thinking. The French journalist employs violent but often eloquent and high-minded discourse; the American journalist makes blunt, crude appeals to crowd passions, abandoning principles to attack character and invade private lives. (Prominent citizens generally avoid writing for the press unless they must personally address the public to correct facts or repel slander.)
+It is not uncommonly imagined in France that the virulence of the press
+originates in the uncertain social condition, in the political
+excitement, and the general sense of consequent evil which prevail in
+that country; and it is therefore supposed that as soon as society has
+resumed a certain degree of composure the press will abandon its
+present vehemence. I am inclined to think that the above causes explain
+the reason of the extraordinary ascendency it has acquired over the
+nation, but that they do not exercise much influence upon the tone of
+its language. The periodical press appears to me to be actuated by
+passions and propensities independent of the circumstances in which it
+is placed, and the present position of America corroborates this
+opinion.
+Yet the press remains immensely influential in America, driving political life across the vast territory, detecting hidden motives, calling leaders before public opinion, rallying interests, and outlining party creeds. When many newspapers unite, their influence becomes irresistible.
+America is perhaps, at this moment, the country of the whole world
+which contains the fewest germs of revolution; but the press is not
+less destructive in its principles than in France, and it displays the
+same violence without the same reasons for indignation. In America, as
+in France, it constitutes a singular power, so strangely composed of
+mingled good and evil that it is at the same time indispensable to the
+existence of freedom, and nearly incompatible with the maintenance of
+public order. Its power is certainly much greater in France than in the
+United States; though nothing is more rare in the latter country than
+to hear of a prosecution having been instituted against it. The reason
+of this is perfectly simple: the Americans, having once admitted the
+doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, apply it with perfect
+consistency. It was never their intention to found a permanent state of
+things with elements which undergo daily modifications; and there is
+consequently nothing criminal in an attack upon the existing laws,
+provided it be not attended with a violent infraction of them. They are
+moreover of opinion that courts of justice are unable to check the
+abuses of the press; and that as the subtilty of human language
+perpetually eludes the severity of judicial analysis, offences of this
+nature are apt to escape the hand which attempts to apprehend them.
+They hold that to act with efficacy upon the press it would be
+necessary to find a tribunal, not only devoted to the existing order of
+things, but capable of surmounting the influence of public opinion; a
+tribunal which should conduct its proceedings without publicity, which
+should pronounce its decrees without assigning its motives, and punish
+the intentions even more than the language of an author. Whosoever
+should have the power of creating and maintaining a tribunal of this
+kind would waste his time in prosecuting the liberty of the press; for
+he would be the supreme master of the whole community, and he would be
+as free to rid himself of the authors as of their writings. In this
+question, therefore, there is no medium between servitude and extreme
+license; in order to enjoy the inestimable benefits which the liberty
+of the press ensures, it is necessary to submit to the inevitable evils
+which it engenders. To expect to acquire the former and to escape the
+latter is to cherish one of those illusions which commonly mislead
+nations in their times of sickness, when, tired with faction and
+exhausted by effort, they attempt to combine hostile opinions and
+contrary principles upon the same soil.
+> **Quote:** "In the United States each separate journal exercises but little authority, but the power of the periodical press is only second to that of the people."
+The small influence of the American journals is attributable to several
+reasons, amongst which are the following:
+Opinions formed under press freedom often prove more durable than those formed under censorship. Democracy raises new individuals constantly, yet general principles remain stable. Once Americans adopt an idea, removing it becomes nearly impossible. The same persistence appears in England, where a century of press freedom has produced both greater liberty of conscience and more unshakable prejudice than elsewhere.
+The liberty of writing, like all other liberty, is most formidable when
+it is a novelty; for a people which has never been accustomed to
+co-operate in the conduct of State affairs places implicit confidence
+in the first tribune who arouses its attention. The Anglo-Americans
+have 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 America
+politics are discussed with animation and a varied activity, but they
+rarely touch those deep passions which are excited whenever the
+positive interest of a part of the community is impaired: but in the
+United States the interests of the community are in a most prosperous
+condition. A single glance upon a French and an American newspaper is
+sufficient to show the difference which exists between the two nations
+on this head. In France the space allotted to commercial advertisements
+is very limited, and the intelligence is not considerable, but the most
+essential part of the journal is that which contains the discussion of
+the politics of the day. In America three-quarters of the enormous
+sheet which is set before the reader are filled with advertisements,
+and the remainder is frequently occupied by political intelligence or
+trivial anecdotes: it is only from time to time that one finds a corner
+devoted to passionate discussions like those with which the journalists
+of France are wont to indulge their readers.
+This stems from what seems paradoxical: liberty of press itself. Nations hold opinions from pride as much as conviction—because they chose them freely. A man of genius observed that "ignorance lies at the two ends of knowledge." More precisely, absolute convictions occupy the extremes while doubt lies in the middle. The intellect follows three stages: initial dogmatic belief, then doubt when facing objections, and finally rational conviction after resolving those doubts—though this last stage rarely inspires equal passion.
+It has been demonstrated by observation, and discovered by the innate
+sagacity of the pettiest as well as the greatest of despots, that the
+influence of a power is increased in proportion as its direction is
+rendered more central. In France the press combines a twofold
+centralization; almost all its power is centred in the same spot, and
+vested in the same hands, for its organs are far from numerous. The
+influence of a public press thus constituted, upon a sceptical nation,
+must be unbounded. It is an enemy with which a Government may sign an
+occasional truce, but which it is difficult to resist for any length of
+time.
+When press freedom influences people in the first stage, it doesn't disturb their habit of believing without investigation, but constantly changes the objects of belief. The intellectual horizon shows only one point, but that point moves constantly—sign of sudden revolutions. Soon the cycle finishes; ideas are tested, doubt becomes universal. Most people either believe without knowing why or know not what to believe. Few attain rational, independent conviction. In times of religious passion, people change views; in skepticism, everyone clings to their own. The same occurs politically: when every theory is challenged, citizens stick to one chosen belief—not certain it's excellent, but unconvinced any other is better. Martyrs are fewer, but so are those who abandon beliefs entirely. When no opinion seems certain, people cling to their position's material interests, which are more tangible and permanent.
+Neither of these kinds of centralization exists in America. The United
+States have no metropolis; the intelligence as well as the power of the
+country are dispersed abroad, and instead of radiating from a point,
+they cross each other in every direction; the Americans have
+established no central control over the expression of opinion, any more
+than over the conduct of business. These are circumstances which do not
+depend on human foresight; but it is owing to the laws of the Union
+that there are no licenses to be granted to printers, no securities
+demanded from editors as in France, and no stamp duty as in France and
+formerly in England. The consequence of this is that nothing is easier
+than to set up a newspaper, and a small number of readers suffices to
+defray the expenses of the editor.
+Whether aristocracy or democracy is better suited to govern is a difficult question. What is certain is that democracy annoys one part of the community while aristocracy oppresses another. When the struggle is reduced to the simple expression of poverty versus wealth, the tendency of each side becomes evident.
+The number of periodical and occasional publications which appears in
+the United States actually surpasses belief. The most enlightened
+Americans attribute the subordinate influence of the press to this
+excessive dissemination; and it is adopted as an axiom of political
+science in that country that the only way to neutralize the effect of
+public journals is to multiply them indefinitely. I cannot conceive
+that a truth which is so self-evident should not already have been more
+generally admitted in Europe; it is comprehensible that the persons who
+hope to bring about revolutions by means of the press should be
+desirous of confining its action to a few powerful organs, but it is
+perfectly incredible that the partisans of the existing state of
+things, and the natural supporters of the law, should attempt to
+diminish the influence of the press by concentrating its authority. The
+Governments of Europe seem to treat the press with the courtesy of the
+knights of old; they are anxious to furnish it with the same central
+power which they have found to be so trusty a weapon, in order to
+enhance the glory of their resistance 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 of design
+can be communicated to so multifarious a host, and each one is
+consequently led to fight under his own standard. All the political
+journals of the United States are indeed arrayed on the side of the
+administration or against it; but they attack and defend in a thousand
+different ways. They cannot succeed in forming those great currents of
+opinion which overwhelm the most solid obstacles. This division of the
+influence of the press produces a variety of other consequences which
+are scarcely less remarkable. The facility with which journals can be
+established induces a multitude of individuals to take a part in them;
+but as the extent of competition precludes the possibility of
+considerable profit, the most distinguished classes of society are
+rarely led to engage in these undertakings. But such is the number of
+the public prints that, even if they were a source of wealth, writers
+of ability could not be found to direct them all. The journalists of
+the United States are usually placed in a very humble position, with a
+scanty education and a vulgar turn of mind. The will of the majority is
+the most general of laws, and it establishes certain habits which form
+the characteristics of each peculiar class of society; thus it dictates
+the etiquette practised at courts and the etiquette of the bar. The
+characteristics of the French journalist consist in a violent, but
+frequently an eloquent and lofty, manner of discussing the politics of
+the day; and the exceptions to this habitual practice are only
+occasional. The characteristics of the American journalist consist in
+an open and coarse appeal to the passions of the populace; and he
+habitually abandons the principles of political science to assail the
+characters of individuals, to track them into private life, and
+disclose all 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
+the newspapers upon the taste and the morality of the American people,
+but my present subject exclusively concerns the political world. It
+cannot be denied that the effects of this extreme license of the press
+tend indirectly to the maintenance of public order. The individuals who
+are already in the possession of a high station in the esteem of their
+fellow-citizens are afraid to write in the newspapers, and they are
+thus deprived of the most powerful instrument which they can use to
+excite the passions of the multitude to their own advantage. *a
+[ They only write in the papers when they choose to address the people
+in their own name; as, for instance, when they are called upon to repel
+calumnious imputations, and to correct a misstatement of facts.]
+The personal opinions of the editors have no kind of weight in the eyes
+of the public: the only use of a journal is, that it imparts the
+knowledge of certain facts, and it is only by altering or distorting
+those facts that a journalist can contribute to the support of his own
+views.
+But although the press is limited to these resources, its influence in
+America is immense. It is the power which impels the circulation of
+political life through all the districts of that vast territory. Its
+eye is 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, and it draws up the creed which factions adopt; for it
+affords a means of intercourse between parties which hear, and which
+address each other without ever having been in immediate contact. When
+a great number of the organs of the press adopt the same line of
+conduct, their influence becomes irresistible; and public opinion, when
+it is perpetually assailed from the same side, eventually yields to the
+attack. In the United States each separate journal exercises but little
+authority, but the power of the periodical press is only second to that
+of the people. *b
+[ See Appendix, P.]
+The opinions established in the United States under the empire of the
+liberty of the press are frequently more firmly rooted than those which
+are formed elsewhere under the sanction of a censor.
+In the United States the democracy perpetually raises fresh individuals
+to the conduct of public affairs; and the measures of the
+administration are consequently seldom regulated by the strict rules of
+consistency or of order. But the general principles of the Government
+are more stable, and the opinions most prevalent in society are
+generally more durable than in many other countries. When once the
+Americans have taken up an idea, whether it be well or ill founded,
+nothing is more difficult than to eradicate it from their minds. The
+same tenacity of opinion has been observed in England, where, for the
+last century, greater freedom of conscience and more invincible
+prejudices have existed than in all the other countries of Europe. I
+attribute this consequence to a cause which may at first sight appear
+to have a very opposite tendency, namely, to the liberty of the press.
+The nations amongst which this liberty exists are as apt to cling to
+their opinions from pride as from conviction. They cherish them because
+they hold them to be just, and because they exercised their own
+free-will in choosing them; and they maintain them not only because
+they are true, but because they are their own. Several other reasons
+conduce to the same end.
+It was remarked by a man of genius that “ignorance lies at the two ends
+of knowledge.” Perhaps it would have been more correct to have said,
+that absolute convictions are to be met with at the two extremities,
+and that doubt lies in the middle; for the human intellect may be
+considered in three distinct states, which frequently succeed one
+another. A man believes implicitly, because he adopts a proposition
+without inquiry. He doubts as soon as he is assailed by the objections
+which his inquiries may have aroused. But he frequently succeeds in
+satisfying these doubts, and then he begins to believe afresh: he no
+longer lays hold on a truth in its most shadowy and uncertain form, but
+he sees it clearly before him, and he advances onwards by the light it
+gives him. *c
+[ It may, however, be doubted whether this rational and self-guiding
+conviction arouses as much fervor or enthusiastic devotedness in men as
+their first dogmatical belief.]
+When the liberty of the press acts upon men who are in the first of
+these three states, it does not immediately disturb their habit of
+believing implicitly without investigation, but it constantly modifies
+the objects of their intuitive convictions. The human mind continues to
+discern but one point upon the whole intellectual horizon, and that
+point is in continual motion. Such are the symptoms of sudden
+revolutions, and of the misfortunes which are sure to befall those
+generations which abruptly adopt the unconditional freedom of the
+press.
+The circle of novel ideas is, however, soon terminated; the touch of
+experience is upon them, and the doubt and mistrust which their
+uncertainty produces become universal. We may rest assured that the
+majority of mankind will either believe they know not wherefore, or
+will not know what to believe. Few are the beings who can ever hope to
+attain to that state of rational and independent conviction which true
+knowledge can beget in defiance of the attacks of doubt.
+It has been remarked that in times of great religious fervor men
+sometimes change their religious opinions; whereas in times of general
+scepticism everyone clings to his own persuasion. The same thing takes
+place in politics under the liberty of the press. In countries where
+all the theories of social science have been contested in their turn,
+the citizens who have adopted one of them stick to it, not so much
+because they are assured of its excellence, as because they are not
+convinced of the superiority of any other. In the present age men are
+not very ready to die in defence of their opinions, but they are rarely
+inclined to change them; and there are fewer martyrs as well as fewer
+apostates.
+Another still more valid reason may yet be adduced: when no abstract
+opinions are looked upon as certain, men cling to the mere propensities
+and external interests of their position, which are naturally more
+tangible and more permanent than any opinions in the world.
+It is not a question of easy solution whether aristocracy or democracy
+is most fit to govern a country. But it is certain that democracy
+annoys one part of the community, and that aristocracy oppresses
+another part. When the question is reduced to the simple expression of
+the struggle between poverty and wealth, the tendency of each side of
+the dispute becomes perfectly evident without further controversy.
 ## Chapter XII: Political Associations In The United States
+The daily use Americans make of the right of association—Three types of political associations—How Americans apply the representative system to associations—Dangers to the State—The Great Convention of 1831 regarding the Tariff—The legislative nature of this Convention—Why the unlimited right of association is less dangerous in the United States than elsewhere—Why it may be seen as necessary—The utility of associations in a democratic society.
+Daily use which the Anglo-Americans make of the right of
+association—Three kinds of political associations—In what manner the
+Americans apply the representative system to associations—Dangers
+resulting to the State—Great Convention of 1831 relative to the
+Tariff—Legislative character of this Convention—Why the unlimited
+exercise of the right of association is less dangerous in the United
+States than elsewhere—Why it may be looked upon as necessary—Utility of
+associations in a democratic people.
 Political Associations In The United States
+In no country in the world has the principle of association been more
+successfully used, or more unsparingly applied to a multitude of
+different objects, than in America. Besides the permanent associations
+which are established by law under the names of townships, cities, and
+counties, a vast number of others are formed and maintained by the
+agency of private individuals.
+In America the principle of association has been more successfully and extensively applied than anywhere else. Beyond permanent legal associations—townships, cities, counties—vast numbers are formed by private individuals.
+The citizen of the United States is taught from his earliest infancy to
+rely upon his own exertions in order to resist the evils and the
+difficulties of life; he looks upon social authority with an eye of
+mistrust and anxiety, and he only claims its assistance when he is
+quite unable to shift without it. This habit may even be traced in the
+schools of the rising generation, where the children in their games are
+wont to submit to rules which they have themselves established, and to
+punish misdemeanors which they have themselves defined. The same spirit
+pervades every act of social life. If a stoppage occurs in a
+thoroughfare, and the circulation of the public is hindered, the
+neighbors immediately constitute a deliberative body; and this
+extemporaneous assembly gives rise to an executive power which remedies
+the inconvenience before anybody has thought of recurring to an
+authority superior to that of the persons immediately concerned. If the
+public pleasures are concerned, an association is formed to provide for
+the splendor and the regularity of the entertainment. Societies are
+formed to resist enemies which are exclusively of a moral nature, and
+to diminish the vice of intemperance: in the United States associations
+are established to promote public order, commerce, industry, morality,
+and religion; for there is no end which the human will, seconded by the
+collective exertions of individuals, despairs of attaining.
+Americans learn from childhood to rely on their own efforts, viewing social authority with suspicion and seeking its help only when absolutely necessary. This habit appears even in schoolyards, where children submit to rules they have established and define the offenses they punish. The same spirit shapes all social life: if a road is blocked, neighbors form a deliberative body and create executive power to remedy it before appealing to higher authority. Associations form for public entertainment, to diminish the vice of intemperance, and to advance public order, commerce, industry, morality, and religion. No goal seems unattainable when human will is backed by collective effort.
+I shall hereafter have occasion to show the effects of association upon
+the course of society, and I must confine myself for the present to the
+political world. When once the right of association is recognized, the
+citizens may employ it in several different ways.
+Once recognized, the right of association may be exercised in three ways. First, individuals may publicly support doctrines and commit to spreading them. This resembles press freedom but carries more authority: opinions take precise form, supporters become acquainted, and enthusiasm grows with numbers. Association channels disparate minds toward one goal.
+An association consists simply in the public assent which a number of
+individuals give to certain doctrines, and in the engagement which they
+contract to promote the spread of those doctrines by their exertions.
+The right of association with these views is very analogous to the
+liberty of unlicensed writing; but societies thus formed possess more
+authority than the press. When an opinion is represented by a society,
+it necessarily assumes a more exact and explicit form. It numbers its
+partisans, and compromises their welfare in its cause: they, on the
+other hand, become acquainted with each other, and their zeal is
+increased by their number. An association unites the efforts of minds
+which have a tendency to diverge in one single channel, and urges them
+vigorously towards one single end which it points out.
+Second, associations may establish meeting centers across the country. This increases activity and influence, allowing people to combine action and maintain opinions with an energy the written word cannot match.
+The second degree in the right of association is the power of meeting.
+When an association is allowed to establish centres of action at
+certain important points in the country, its activity is increased and
+its influence extended. Men have the opportunity of seeing each other;
+means of execution are more readily combined, and opinions are
+maintained with a degree of warmth and energy which written language
+cannot approach.
+Third, supporters may form electoral bodies and choose delegates to a central assembly—strictly speaking, applying the representative system to a party.
+Lastly, in the exercise of the right of political association, there is
+a third degree: the partisans of an opinion may unite in electoral
+bodies, and choose delegates to represent them in a central assembly.
+This is, properly speaking, the application of the representative
+system to a party.
+Thus: first, purely intellectual bonds between individuals; second, fractional assemblies; third, a nation within a nation, a government within Government. Their delegates, like actual representatives, carry collective force and national dignity. Though they cannot make laws, they can challenge existing ones and draft future legislation.
+Thus, in the first instance, a society is formed between individuals
+professing the same opinion, and the tie which keeps it together is of
+a purely intellectual nature; in the second case, small assemblies are
+formed which only represent a fraction of the party. Lastly, in the
+third case, they constitute a separate nation in the midst of the
+nation, a government within the Government. Their delegates, like the
+real delegates of the majority, represent the entire collective force
+of their party; and they enjoy a certain degree of that national
+dignity and great influence which belong to the chosen representatives
+of the people. 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,
+and of drawing up beforehand those which they may afterwards cause to
+be adopted.
+A deliberating minority alongside a legislative majority poses grave risks in nations unaccustomed to freedom or gripped by violent passions. The public imagination often blurs the crucial distinction—clear to thinking men—between proving one law superior and proving it should replace another. When two nearly equal parties each claim majority status, a parallel power with near-equal moral authority will struggle to remain content with suggestion rather than enforcement.
+If, in a people which is imperfectly accustomed to the exercise of
+freedom, or which is exposed to violent political passions, a
+deliberating minority, which confines itself to the contemplation of
+future laws, be placed in juxtaposition to the legislative majority, I
+cannot but believe that public tranquillity incurs very great risks in
+that nation. There is doubtless a very wide difference between proving
+that one law is in itself better than another and proving that the
+former ought to be substituted for the latter. But the imagination of
+the populace is very apt to overlook this difference, which is so
+apparent to the minds of thinking men. It sometimes happens that a
+nation is divided into two nearly equal parties, each of which affects
+to represent the majority. If, in immediate contiguity to the directing
+power, another power be established, which exercises almost as much
+moral authority as the former, it is not to be believed that it will
+long be content to speak without acting; or that it will always be
+restrained by the abstract consideration of the nature of associations
+which are meant to direct but not to enforce opinions, to suggest but
+not to make the laws.
+Press independence is the fundamental element of modern freedom, deserving unrestrained exercise. But unlimited political association cannot be equated with press freedom—it is less necessary and more dangerous. A nation may limit it without losing self-control, sometimes being forced to for its own authority.
+The more we consider the independence of the press in its principal
+consequences, the more are we convinced that it is the chief and, so to
+speak, the constitutive element of freedom in the modern world. A
+nation which is determined to remain free is therefore right in
+demanding the unrestrained exercise of this independence. But the
+unrestrained liberty of political association cannot be entirely
+assimilated to the liberty of the press. The one is at the same time
+less necessary and more dangerous than the other. A nation may confine
+it within certain limits without forfeiting any part of its
+self-control; and it may sometimes be obliged to do so in order to
+maintain its own authority.
+The tariff issue ignited intense party feeling, pitting North against South. In 1831, at the dispute's height, a Massachusetts citizen proposed through the press that tariff opponents send delegates to Philadelphia. Within days the proposal spread from Maine to New Orleans. South Carolina alone sent sixty-three delegates. On October 1, 1831, this "Convention" of over two hundred members met. Its public debates immediately assumed a legislative character, examining Congress's powers, free trade theories, and tariff clauses. After ten days, it adjourned after declaring: (I) Congress had no right to create a tariff, and the existing tariff was unconstitutional; (II) prohibiting free trade harmed all nations, especially America.
+In America the liberty of association for political purposes is
+unbounded. An example will show in the clearest light to what an extent
+this privilege is tolerated.
+The unrestrained freedom of association has not produced fatal consequences in America. Imported from England, it has always existed here, so that the exercise of this privilege is now amalgamated with the manners and customs of the people.
+The question of the tariff, or of free trade, produced a great
+manifestation of party feeling in America; the tariff was not only a
+subject of debate as a matter of opinion, but it exercised a favorable
+or a prejudicial influence upon several very powerful interests of the
+States. The North attributed a great portion of its prosperity, and the
+South all its sufferings, to this system; insomuch that for a long time
+the tariff was the sole source of the political animosities which
+agitated the Union.
+> **Quote:** "At the present time the liberty of association is become a necessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority."
+In 1831, when the dispute was raging with the utmost virulence, a
+private citizen of Massachusetts proposed to all the enemies of the
+tariff, by means of the public prints, to send delegates to
+Philadelphia in order to consult together upon the means which were
+most fitted to promote freedom of trade. This proposal circulated in a
+few days from Maine to New Orleans by the power of the printing-press:
+the opponents of the tariff adopted it with enthusiasm; meetings were
+formed on all sides, and delegates were named. The majority of these
+individuals were well known, and some of them had earned a considerable
+degree of celebrity. South Carolina alone, which afterwards took up
+arms in the same cause, sent sixty-three delegates. On October 1, 1831,
+this assembly, which according to the American custom had taken the
+name of a Convention, met at Philadelphia; it consisted of more than
+two hundred members. Its debates were public, and they at once assumed
+a legislative character; the extent of the powers of Congress, the
+theories of free trade, and the different clauses of the tariff, were
+discussed in turn. At the end of ten days’ deliberation the Convention
+broke up, after having published an address to the American people, in
+which it declared:
+When a party dominates in America, it controls all public authority, with supporters occupying all offices. Barred from power, opposition leaders need a way to oppose minority moral authority to majority physical power—a dangerous remedy for a more formidable danger.
+I. That Congress had not the right of making a tariff, and that the
+existing tariff was unconstitutional;
+> **Quote:** "There are no countries in which associations are more needed, to prevent the despotism of faction or the arbitrary power of a prince, than those which are democratically constituted."
+II. That the prohibition of free trade was prejudicial to the interests
+of all nations, and to that of the American people in particular.
+In aristocratic nations, nobles and wealthy classes are natural associations checking power. Where these don't exist, without artificial substitutes, no lasting protection remains against tyranny; a great people could be oppressed with impunity.
+It must be acknowledged that the unrestrained liberty of political
+association has not hitherto produced, in the United States, those
+fatal consequences which might perhaps be expected from it elsewhere.
+The right of association was imported from England, and it has always
+existed in America; so that the exercise of this privilege is now
+amalgamated with the manners and customs of the people. At the present
+time the liberty of association is become a necessary guarantee against
+the tyranny of the majority. In the United States, as soon as a party
+is become preponderant, all public authority passes under its control;
+its private supporters occupy all the places, and have all the force of
+the administration at their disposal. As the most distinguished
+partisans of the other side of the question are unable to surmount the
+obstacles which exclude them from power, they require some means of
+establishing themselves upon their own basis, and of opposing the moral
+authority of the minority to the physical power which domineers over
+it. Thus a dangerous expedient is used to obviate a still more
+formidable danger.
+Great political Conventions, though sometimes necessary, are serious events that wise Americans view with alarm. In 1831, distinguished members worked to moderate its language and limits. That Convention likely influenced discontented minds, preparing the 1832 revolt against Union commercial laws.
+The omnipotence of the majority appears to me to present such extreme
+perils to the American Republics that the dangerous measure which is
+used to repress it seems to be more advantageous than prejudicial. And
+here I am about to advance a proposition which may remind the reader of
+what I said before in speaking of municipal freedom: There are no
+countries in which associations are more needed, to prevent the
+despotism of faction or the arbitrary power of a prince, than those
+which are democratically constituted. In aristocratic nations the body
+of the nobles and the more opulent part of the community are in
+themselves natural associations, which act as checks upon the abuses of
+power. In countries in which these associations do not exist, if
+private individuals are unable to create an artificial and a temporary
+substitute for them, I can imagine no permanent protection against the
+most galling tyranny; and a great people may be oppressed by a small
+faction, or by a single individual, with impunity.
+The unrestrained freedom of association is the longest privilege to learn. Though it may not throw a nation into anarchy, it constantly increases that risk. Yet this dangerous liberty provides security: where associations are free, secret societies are unknown. America has factions but no conspiracies.
+The meeting of a great political Convention (for there are Conventions
+of all kinds), which may frequently become a necessary measure, is
+always a serious occurrence, even in America, and one which is never
+looked forward to, by the judicious friends of the country, without
+alarm. This was very perceptible in the Convention of 1831, at which
+the exertions of all the most distinguished members of the Assembly
+tended to moderate its language, and to restrain the subjects which it
+treated within certain limits. It is probable, in fact, that the
+Convention of 1831 exercised a very great influence upon the minds of
+the malcontents, and prepared them for the open revolt against the
+commercial laws of the Union which took place in 1832.
+Different ways in which the right of association is understood in Europe and the United States—Different ways it is used.
+It cannot be denied that the unrestrained liberty of association for
+political purposes is the privilege which a people is longest in
+learning 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 of
+another kind; in countries where associations are free, secret
+societies are unknown. In America there are numerous factions, but no
+conspiracies.
+> **Quote:** "The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, is that of combining his exertions with those of his fellow-creatures, and of acting in common with them."
+Different ways in which the right of association is understood in
+Europe and in the United States—Different use which is made of it.
+The right of association is nearly as inalienable as personal liberty; attacking it damages society's foundations. While it brings benefits to some nations, others pervert it. Comparing discreet management with degenerated license may be useful.
+The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for
+himself, is that of combining his exertions with those of his
+fellow-creatures, and of acting in common with them. I am therefore led
+to conclude that the right of association is almost as inalienable as
+the right of personal liberty. No legislator can attack it without
+impairing the very foundations of society. Nevertheless, if the liberty
+of association is a fruitful source of advantages and prosperity to
+some nations, it may be perverted or carried to excess by others, and
+the element of life may be changed into an element of destruction. A
+comparison of the different methods which associations pursue in those
+countries in which they are managed with discretion, as well as in
+those where liberty degenerates into license, may perhaps be thought
+useful both to governments and to parties.
+Most Europeans view associations as weapons, hastily made and tested in battle. Though formed for discussion, imminent action dominates minds; they are armies in effect. Talking serves only to count strength and boost courage before marching against the enemy. Legal means are considered but never the only means.
+The greater part of Europeans look upon an association as a weapon
+which is to be hastily fashioned, and immediately tried in the
+conflict. A society is formed for discussion, but the idea of impending
+action prevails in the minds of those who constitute it: it is, in
+fact, an army; and the time given to parley serves to reckon up the
+strength and to animate the courage of the host, after which they
+direct their march against the enemy. Resources which lie within the
+bounds of the law may suggest themselves to the persons who compose it
+as means, but never as the only means, of success.
+> **Quote:** "A society is formed for discussion, but the idea of impending action prevails in the minds of those who constitute it: it is, in fact, an army; and the time given to parley serves to reckon up the strength and to animate the courage of the host, after which they direct their march against the enemy."
+Such, however, is not the manner in which the right of association is
+understood in the United States. In America the citizens who form the
+minority associate, in order, in the first place, to show their
+numerical strength, and so to diminish the moral authority of the
+majority; and, in the second place, to stimulate competition, and to
+discover those arguments which are most fitted to act upon the
+majority; for they always entertain hopes of drawing over their
+opponents to their own side, and of afterwards disposing of the supreme
+power in their name. Political associations in the United States are
+therefore peaceable in their intentions, and strictly legal in the
+means which they employ; and they assert with perfect truth that they
+only aim at success by lawful expedients.
+This is not how Americans understand association. They form minorities first to show numerical strength and reduce majority moral authority, and second to discover persuasion arguments, hoping eventually to win opponents over. US political associations are peaceful in intention and strictly legal in method, aiming to succeed only through lawful means.
+The difference which exists between the Americans and ourselves depends
+on several causes. In Europe there are numerous parties so
+diametrically opposed to the majority that they can never hope to
+acquire its support, and at the same time they think that they are
+sufficiently strong in themselves to struggle and to defend their
+cause. When a party of this kind forms an association, its object is,
+not to conquer, but to fight. In America the individuals who hold
+opinions very much opposed to those of the majority are no sort of
+impediment to its power, and all other parties hope to win it over to
+their own principles in the end. The exercise of the right of
+association becomes dangerous in proportion to the impossibility which
+excludes great parties from acquiring the majority. In a country like
+the United States, in which the differences of opinion are mere
+differences of hue, the right of association may remain unrestrained
+without evil consequences. The inexperience of many of the European
+nations in the enjoyment of liberty leads them only to look upon the
+liberty of association as a right of attacking the Government. The
+first notion which presents itself to a party, as well as to an
+individual, when it has acquired a consciousness of its own strength,
+is that of violence: the notion of persuasion arises at a later period
+and is only derived from experience. The English, who are divided into
+parties which differ most essentially from each other, rarely abuse the
+right of association, because they have long been accustomed to
+exercise it. In France the passion for war is so intense that there is
+no undertaking so mad, or so injurious to the welfare of the State,
+that a man does not consider himself honored in defending it, at the
+risk of his life.
+The difference stems from several causes. European parties, hopelessly opposed to the majority, aim to fight rather than persuade. In America, where differences of opinion are mere differences of hue, parties hope to win the majority over. Association becomes dangerous in proportion to the impossibility of becoming majority.
+But perhaps the most powerful of the causes which tend to mitigate the
+excesses of political association in the United States is Universal
+Suffrage. In countries in which universal suffrage exists the majority
+is never doubtful, because neither party can pretend to represent that
+portion of the community which has not voted. The associations which
+are formed are aware, as well as the nation at large, that they do not
+represent the majority: this is, indeed, a condition inseparable from
+their existence; for if they did represent the preponderating power,
+they would change the law instead of soliciting its reform. The
+consequence of this is that the moral influence of the Government which
+they attack is very much increased, and their own power is very much
+enfeebled.
+Inexperienced European nations see association only as a right to attack government. A party's first impulse, like an individual's, is violence; persuasion comes later through experience. The English, long accustomed to association, rarely abuse it. In France, the passion for war is so intense that men would defend reckless, harmful projects at risk of life.
+In Europe there are few associations which do not affect to represent
+the majority, or which do not believe that they represent it. This
+conviction or this pretension tends to augment their force amazingly,
+and contributes no less to legalize their measures. Violence may seem
+to be excusable in defence of the cause of oppressed right. Thus it is,
+in the vast labyrinth of human laws, that extreme liberty sometimes
+corrects the abuses of license, and that extreme democracy obviates the
+dangers of democratic government. In Europe, associations consider
+themselves, in some degree, as the legislative and executive councils
+of the people, which is unable to speak for itself. In America, where
+they only represent a minority of the nation, they argue and they
+petition.
+Perhaps the most powerful mitigating cause is Universal Suffrage. Where it exists, the majority is never in doubt, since no party can claim to represent non-voters. Associations know they don't represent the majority—a condition essential to their existence, for representing the majority would mean changing rather than reforming law. Thus government's moral influence increases while associations' power weakens.
+The means which the associations of Europe employ are in accordance
+with the end which they propose to obtain. As the principal aim of
+these bodies is to act, and not to debate, to fight rather than to
+persuade, they are naturally led to adopt a form of organization which
+differs from the ordinary customs of civil bodies, and which assumes
+the habits and the maxims of military life. They centralize the
+direction of their resources as much as possible, and they intrust the
+power of the whole party to a very small number of leaders.
+In Europe, associations claim to represent the majority, increasing their force and justifying violence as defense of oppressed rights. They see themselves as legislative and executive councils for a mute people. In America, representing only a minority, they argue and petition.
+The members of these associations respond to a watchword, like soldiers
+on duty; they profess the doctrine of passive obedience; say rather,
+that in uniting together they at once abjure the exercise of their own
+judgment and free will; and the tyrannical control which these
+societies exercise is often far more insupportable than the authority
+possessed over society by the Government which they attack. Their moral
+force is much diminished by these excesses, and they lose the powerful
+interest which is always excited by a struggle between oppressors and
+the oppressed. The man who in given cases consents to obey his fellows
+with servility, and who submits his activity and even his opinions to
+their control, can have no claim to rank as a free citizen.
+European methods match their goals: acting and fighting rather than debating, they adopt military organization, centralizing resources in few leaders. Members respond to watchwords like soldiers, practicing passive obedience, renouncing judgment and free will. This tyrannical control often exceeds government authority, diminishing moral strength and the interest of struggle. A man who submits his opinions to such control cannot claim to be a free citizen.
+The Americans have also established certain forms of government which
+are applied to their associations, but these are invariably borrowed
+from the forms of the civil administration. The independence of each
+individual is formally recognized; the tendency of the members of the
+association points, as it does in the body of the community, towards
+the same end, but they are not obliged to follow the same track. No one
+abjures the exercise of his reason and his free will; but every one
+exerts that reason and that will for the benefit of a common
+undertaking.
+Americans borrow forms of civil administration for their associations, formally recognizing individual independence. Members work toward common goals without forced uniformity, using their reason and free will for shared success rather than renouncing them.
 ## Chapter XIII: Government Of The Democracy In America
+### Chapter XIII: Government Of The Democracy In America—Part I
+I am well aware of the difficulties which attend this part of my
+subject, but although every expression which I am about to make use of
+may clash, upon some one point, with the feelings of the different
+parties which divide my country, I shall speak my opinion with the most
+perfect openness.
+### Chapter XIII: Government Of The Democracy In America—Part I
+In Europe we are at a loss how to judge the true character and the more
+permanent propensities of democracy, because in Europe two conflicting
+principles exist, and we do not know what to attribute to the
+principles themselves, and what to refer to the passions which they
+bring into collision. Such, however, is not the case in America; there
+the people reigns without any obstacle, and it has no perils to dread
+and no injuries to avenge. In America, democracy is swayed by its own
+free propensities; its course is natural and its activity is
+unrestrained; the United States consequently afford the most favorable
+opportunity of studying its real character. And to no people can this
+inquiry be more vitally interesting than to the French nation, which is
+blindly driven onwards by a daily and irresistible impulse towards a
+state of things which may prove either despotic or republican, but
+which will assuredly be democratic.
+I know my views may conflict with various parties in my country, but I will state them openly. In Europe, two conflicting principles obscure democracy's true character; we cannot separate principle from passion. America offers clarity: the people rule unobstructed, guided by natural inclinations. This matters vitally to France, which is irresistibly moving toward a democratic future, whether despotic or republican.
+Universal Suffrage
+Universal suffrage exists throughout the Union among diverse populations. I have observed its effects in Louisiana, New England, Georgia, and Canada—places strangers to each other in language, religion, and lifestyle. It produces neither purely good nor purely evil consequences, and its effects differ significantly from European expectations.
+I have already observed that universal suffrage has been adopted in all
+the States of the Union; it consequently occurs amongst different
+populations which occupy very different positions in the scale of
+society. I have had opportunities of observing its effects in different
+localities, and amongst races of men who are nearly strangers to each
+other by their language, their religion, and their manner of life; in
+Louisiana as well as in New England, in Georgia and in Canada. I have
+remarked that Universal Suffrage is far from producing in America
+either all the good or all the evil consequences which are assigned to
+it in Europe, and that its effects differ very widely from those which
+are usually attributed to it.
+Many Europeans believe universal suffrage entrusts affairs to worthy men, claiming the public instinctively identifies those most fit to govern. My observations contradict this. I was surprised by the abundance of talent among citizens and its absence in government. Capable men rarely lead, and this has worsened as democracy expanded. The caliber of statesmen has declined remarkably in fifty years.
+Choice Of The People, And Instinctive Preferences Of The American
+Democracy
+Several causes explain this. Despite all efforts, the people's intelligence cannot be raised beyond a certain level. The mind requires significant time for education, regardless of accessible resources. The ability to live without manual labor sets the limit of intellectual improvement. Where people must work to survive, this boundary exists. A state where all are highly informed is as improbable as one where all are wealthy.
+In the United States the most able men are rarely placed at the head of
+affairs—Reason of this peculiarity—The envy which prevails in the lower
+orders of France against the higher classes is not a French, but a
+purely democratic sentiment—For what reason the most distinguished men
+in America frequently seclude themselves from public affairs.
+Though citizens sincerely want the country's welfare, they cannot discern the best means. Judging character requires long observation and vast knowledge—beyond even brilliant minds. The people lack time and means, so they hastily follow superficial appeals, often yielding to the clamor of a mountebank who knows how to stimulate their tastes, while their true friends fail.
+Many people in Europe are apt to believe without saying it, or to say
+without believing it, that one of the great advantages of universal
+suffrage is, that it entrusts the direction of public affairs to men
+who are worthy of the public confidence. They admit that the people is
+unable to govern for itself, but they aver that it is always sincerely
+disposed to promote the welfare of the State, and that it instinctively
+designates those persons who are animated by the same good wishes, and
+who are the most fit to wield the supreme authority. I confess that the
+observations I made in America by no means coincide with these
+opinions. On my arrival in the United States I was surprised to find so
+much distinguished talent among the subjects, and so little among the
+heads of the Government. It is a well-authenticated fact, that at the
+present day the most able men in the United States are very rarely
+placed at the head of affairs; and it must be acknowledged that such
+has been the result in proportion as democracy has outstepped all its
+former limits. The race of American statesmen has evidently dwindled
+most remarkably in the course of the last fifty years.
+Moreover, democracy lacks not only sound judgment but the desire to find worthy men. Democratic institutions foster envy by awakening a passion for equality they can never satisfy. Pascal wrote it "flies with eternal flight." The lower classes are agitated by uncertain success, moving from enthusiasm to bitterness. Any superiority irritates them.
+Several causes may be assigned to this phenomenon. It is impossible,
+notwithstanding the most strenuous exertions, to raise the intelligence
+of the people above a certain level. Whatever may be the facilities of
+acquiring information, whatever may be the profusion of easy methods
+and of cheap science, the human mind can never be instructed and
+educated without devoting a considerable space of time to those
+objects.
+Some think this instinct is uniquely French, but it belongs to democratic institutions generally, not any specific nation. In America, people don't hate the upper classes but carefully exclude them from power. They don't fear distinguished talent but are rarely charmed by it and stingy with approval of those who rise without popular support.
+The greater or the lesser possibility of subsisting without labor is
+therefore the necessary boundary of intellectual improvement. This
+boundary is more remote in some countries and more restricted in
+others; but it must exist somewhere as long as the people is
+constrained to work in order to procure the means of physical
+subsistence, that is to say, as long as it retains its popular
+character. It is therefore quite as difficult to imagine a State in
+which all the citizens should be very well informed as a State in which
+they should all be wealthy; these two difficulties may be looked upon
+as correlative. It may very readily be admitted that the mass of the
+citizens are sincerely disposed to promote the welfare of their
+country; nay more, it may even be allowed that the lower classes are
+less apt to be swayed by considerations of personal interest than the
+higher orders: but it is always more or less impossible for them to
+discern the best means of attaining the end which they desire with
+sincerity. Long and patient observation, joined to a multitude of
+different notions, is required to form a just estimate of the character
+of a single individual; and can it be supposed that the vulgar have the
+power of succeeding in an inquiry which misleads the penetration of
+genius itself? The people has neither the time nor the means which are
+essential to the prosecution of an investigation of this kind: its
+conclusions are hastily formed from a superficial inspection of the
+more prominent features of a question. Hence it often assents to the
+clamor of a mountebank who knows the secret of stimulating its tastes,
+while its truest friends frequently fail in their exertions.
+These tendencies lead distinguished men to withdraw, as it's nearly impossible to maintain independence without compromise. Chancellor Kent noted that the best-fitted men would have "too much reserve in their manners, and too much austerity in their principles" to be elected by universal suffrage. Such opinions were published without contradiction in 1830!
+Moreover, the democracy is not only deficient in that soundness of
+judgment which is necessary to select men really deserving of its
+confidence, but it has neither the desire nor the inclination to find
+them out. It cannot be denied that democratic institutions have a very
+strong tendency to promote the feeling of envy in the human heart; not
+so much because they afford to every one the means of rising to the
+level of any of his fellow-citizens, as because those means perpetually
+disappoint the persons who employ them. Democratic institutions awaken
+and foster a passion for equality which they can never entirely
+satisfy. This complete equality eludes the grasp of the people at the
+very moment at which it thinks to hold it fast, and “flies,” as Pascal
+says, “with eternal flight”; the people is excited in the pursuit of an
+advantage, which is more precious because it is not sufficiently remote
+to be unknown, or sufficiently near to be enjoyed. The lower orders are
+agitated by the chance of success, they are irritated by its
+uncertainty; and they pass from the enthusiasm of pursuit to the
+exhaustion of ill-success, and lastly to the acrimony of
+disappointment. Whatever transcends their own limits appears to be an
+obstacle to their desires, and there is no kind of superiority, however
+legitimate it may be, which is not irksome in their sight.
+> **Quote:** I hold it to be sufficiently demonstrated that universal suffrage is by no means a guarantee of the wisdom of the popular choice, and that, whatever its advantages may be, this is not one of them.
+It has been supposed that the secret instinct which leads the lower
+orders to remove their superiors as much as possible from the direction
+of public affairs is peculiar to France. This, however, is an error;
+the propensity to which I allude is not inherent in any particular
+nation, but in democratic institutions in general; and although it may
+have been heightened by peculiar political circumstances, it owes its
+origin to a higher cause.
+In great danger, people often choose the most capable citizens. Nations, like individuals, rise above or sink below their normal level in crisis. Though peril sometimes stifles energy, more often extraordinary virtues emerge. The people briefly forget their envy and great names emerge. American statesmen were superior fifty years ago during the Revolution; as Tocqueville observes, 'The race of American statesmen has evidently dwindled most remarkably in the course of the last fifty years.' This decline occurred as normal conditions returned and the great efforts of the founding era subsided.
+In the United States the people is not disposed to hate the superior
+classes of society; but it is not very favorably inclined towards them,
+and it carefully excludes them from the exercise of authority. It does
+not entertain any dread of distinguished talents, but it is rarely
+captivated by them; and it awards its approbation very sparingly to
+such as have risen without the popular support.
+While temporary events restrain democratic passions, the community's intelligence and customs exert a more permanent influence. In New England, education and liberty arose from moral and religious principles. Where society is stable with fixed habits, lower classes respect intellectual superiority. Consequently, democracy there makes more judicious choices.
+Whilst the natural propensities of democracy induce the people to
+reject the most distinguished citizens as its rulers, these individuals
+are no less apt to retire from a political career in which it is almost
+impossible to retain their independence, or to advance without
+degrading themselves. This opinion has been very candidly set forth by
+Chancellor Kent, who says, in speaking with great eulogiums of that
+part of the Constitution which empowers the Executive to nominate the
+judges: “It is indeed probable that the men who are best fitted to
+discharge the duties of this high office would have too much reserve in
+their manners, and too much austerity in their principles, for them to
+be returned by the majority at an election where universal suffrage is
+adopted.” Such were the opinions which were printed without
+contradiction in America in the year 1830!
+Moving south to newer, less established states with less education, talent and virtue become rarer. In the new Southwestern states, formed yesterday from adventurers and speculators, we are amazed at who holds authority. What force can protect the state?
+I hold it to be sufficiently demonstrated that universal suffrage is by
+no means a guarantee of the wisdom of the popular choice, and that,
+whatever its advantages may be, this is not one of them.
+Some laws correct democracy's dangerous tendencies. In the House of Representatives, one finds obscure individuals—small-town lawyers, businessmen, lower classes—rather than famous men. Some representatives cannot even write correctly despite widespread education.
+Causes Which May Partly Correct These Tendencies Of The Democracy
+Contrary effects produced on peoples as well as on individuals by great
+dangers—Why so many distinguished men stood at the head of affairs in
+America fifty years ago—Influence which the intelligence and the
+manners of the people exercise upon its choice—Example of New
+England—States of the Southwest—Influence of certain laws upon the
+choice of the people—Election by an elected body—Its effects upon the
+composition of the Senate.
+Nearby, the Senate contains the celebrated men of America—eloquent advocates, distinguished generals, and wise magistrates. What then causes this contrast, and why does one assembly display a poverty of talent while the other seems to enjoy a monopoly of intelligence? Both emanate from the people and universal suffrage, but the House is elected directly, while the Senate is chosen by elected bodies.
+When a State is threatened by serious dangers, the people frequently
+succeeds in selecting the citizens who are the most able to save it. It
+has been observed that man rarely retains his customary level in
+presence of very critical circumstances; he rises above or he sinks
+below his usual condition, and the same thing occurs in nations at
+large. Extreme perils sometimes quench the energy of a people instead
+of stimulating it; they excite without directing its passions, and
+instead of clearing they confuse its powers of perception. The Jews
+deluged the smoking ruins of their temple with the carnage of the
+remnant of their host. But it is more common, both in the case of
+nations and in that of individuals, to find extraordinary virtues
+arising from the very imminence of the danger. Great characters are
+then thrown into relief, as edifices which are concealed by the gloom
+of night are illuminated by the glare of a conflagration. At those
+dangerous times genius no longer abstains from presenting itself in the
+arena; and the people, alarmed by the perils of its situation, buries
+its envious passions in a short oblivion. Great names may then be drawn
+from the balloting-box.
+The entire body of citizens elects state legislatures, which choose senators—an indirect application of universal suffrage. Though not aristocratic, this filtering refines discretion and elevates choices, representing nobler community inclinations rather than petty passions.
+I have already observed that the American statesmen of the present day
+are very inferior to those who stood at the head of affairs fifty years
+ago. This is as much a consequence of the circumstances as of the laws
+of the country. When America was struggling in the high cause of
+independence to throw off the yoke of another country, and when it was
+about to usher a new nation into the world, the spirits of its
+inhabitants were roused to the height which their great efforts
+required. In this general excitement the most distinguished men were
+ready to forestall the wants of the community, and the people clung to
+them for support, and placed them at its head. But events of this
+magnitude are rare, and it is from an inspection of the ordinary course
+of affairs that our judgment must be formed.
+American republics may need to incorporate more indirect elections or risk perishing. This system is the only way to bring political power within reach of all classes. Those who see it as merely partisan or fear it are mistaken.
+If passing occurrences sometimes act as checks upon the passions of
+democracy, the intelligence and the manners of the community exercise
+an influence which is not less powerful and far more permanent. This is
+extremely perceptible in the United States.
+Rare elections cause violent agitation as parties fight for a rarely available prize. Frequent elections maintain feverish excitement and continuous instability. Americans chose the latter evil—and the resulting legislative instability.
+In New England the education and the liberties of the communities were
+engendered by the moral and religious principles of their founders.
+Where society has acquired a sufficient degree of stability to enable
+it to hold certain maxims and to retain fixed habits, the lower orders
+are accustomed to respect intellectual superiority and to submit to it
+without complaint, although they set at naught all those privileges
+which wealth and birth have introduced among mankind. The democracy in
+New England consequently makes a more judicious choice than it does
+elsewhere.
+Hamilton wrote: "It might perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones, and may be used to the one purpose as well as to the other. But this objection will have little weight with those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the laws which form the greatest blemish in the character and genius of our governments."
+But as we descend towards the South, to those States in which the
+constitution of society is more modern and less strong, where
+instruction is less general, and where the principles of morality, of
+religion, and of liberty are less happily combined, we perceive that
+the talents and the virtues of those who are in authority become more
+and more rare.
+And again: "The facility and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable. . . . The mischievous effects of the mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members would fill a volume: every new election in the States is found to change one-half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions and of measures, which forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, poisons the blessings of liberty itself, and diminishes the attachment and reverence of the people toward a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity."
+Lastly, when we arrive at the new South-western States, in which the
+constitution of society dates but from yesterday, and presents an
+agglomeration of adventurers and speculators, we are amazed at the
+persons who are invested with public authority, and we are led to ask
+by what force, independent of the legislation and of the men who direct
+it, the State can be protected, and society be made to flourish.
+Jefferson, America's greatest Democrat, noted: "The instability of our laws is really a very serious inconvenience. I think that we ought to have obviated it by deciding that a whole year should always be allowed to elapse between the bringing in of a bill and the final passing of it. It should afterward be discussed and put to the vote without the possibility of making any alteration in it; and if the circumstances of the case required a more speedy decision, the question should not be decided by a simple majority, but by a majority of at least two-thirds of both houses."
+There are certain laws of a democratic nature which contribute,
+nevertheless, to correct, in some measure, the dangerous tendencies of
+democracy. On entering the House of Representatives of Washington one
+is struck by the vulgar demeanor of that great assembly. The eye
+frequently does not discover a man of celebrity within its walls. Its
+members are almost all obscure individuals whose names present no
+associations to the mind: they are mostly village lawyers, men in
+trade, or even persons belonging to the lower classes of society. In a
+country in which education is very general, it is said that the
+representatives of the people do not always know how to write
+correctly.
+American public officers blend with citizens—no palaces, guards, or uniforms. Government is a necessary evil, not a blessing. Officers are polite, accessible, attentive. I was pleased by these traits and by citizens' sturdy independence—they respect the office more than the officer, and the person more than symbols of authority.
+At a few yards’ distance from this spot is the door of the Senate,
+which contains within a small space a large proportion of the
+celebrated men of America. Scarcely an individual is to be perceived in
+it who does not recall the idea of an active and illustrious career:
+the Senate is composed of eloquent advocates, distinguished generals,
+wise magistrates, and statesmen of note, whose language would at all
+times do honor to the most remarkable parliamentary debates of Europe.
+Uniforms' influence is exaggerated. I never saw an American officer respected less without them. Conversely, when a French judge mocks defendants, stripping his robes might restore his human dignity.
+What then is the cause of this strange contrast, and why are the most
+able citizens to be found in one assembly rather than in the other? Why
+is the former body remarkable for its vulgarity and its poverty of
+talent, whilst the latter seems to enjoy a monopoly of intelligence and
+of sound judgment? Both of these assemblies emanate from the people;
+both of them are chosen by universal suffrage; and no voice has
+hitherto been heard to assert in America that the Senate is hostile to
+the interests of the people. From what cause, then, does so startling a
+difference arise? The only reason which appears to me adequately to
+account for it is, that the House of Representatives is elected by the
+populace directly, and that the Senate is elected by elected bodies.
+The whole body of the citizens names the legislature of each State, and
+the Federal Constitution converts these legislatures into so many
+electoral bodies, which return the members of the Senate. The senators
+are elected by an indirect application of universal suffrage; for the
+legislatures which name them are not aristocratic or privileged bodies
+which exercise the electoral franchise in their own right; but they are
+chosen by the totality of the citizens; they are generally elected
+every year, and new members may constantly be chosen who will employ
+their electoral rights in conformity with the wishes of the public. But
+this transmission of the popular authority through an assembly of
+chosen men operates an important change in it, by refining its
+discretion and improving the forms which it adopts. Men who are chosen
+in this manner accurately represent the majority of the nation which
+governs them; but they represent the elevated thoughts which are
+current in the community, the propensities which prompt its nobler
+actions, rather than the petty passions which disturb or the vices
+which disgrace it.
+A democracy may permit judicial pomp without compromising principles, as privileges belong to the office. But unpaid offices would require wealthy men, creating aristocracy. When a republic makes offices unpaid, it moves toward monarchy; when a monarchy pays unpaid officers, it moves toward despotism or republicanism.
+The time may be already anticipated at which the American Republics
+will be obliged to introduce the plan of election by an elected body
+more frequently into their system of representation, or they will incur
+no small risk of perishing miserably amongst the shoals of democracy.
+America's complete absence of unpaid officials shows democracy's absolute power. All services are paid, giving everyone right and means. Though all may qualify, not all seek office.
+And here I have no scruple in confessing that I look upon this peculiar
+system of election as the only means of bringing the exercise of
+political power to the level of all classes of the people. Those
+thinkers 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 to fall into as great an error in the one case as in the other.
+Where election extends to all offices, no "political career" exists. Men rise by chance and lack security. In peaceful times, office offers little attraction for the ambitious. In America, political participants often have modest ambitions. Wealth-seeking diverts talented men from power. A man often enters politics only after failing at managing his own affairs. The mediocrity in office stems as much from this as from democracy's poor choices. Superior men do not step forward.
+Influence Which The American Democracy Has Exercised On The Laws
+Relating To Elections
+Magistrates exercise considerable arbitrary power under both absolute rule and democracy. In despotism, the sovereign controls the lives, property, and even the honor of his subjects, yet allows officials great latitude because he is certain they will not use it against him. He dislikes being constrained by his own rules.
+When elections are rare, they expose the State to a violent crisis—When
+they are frequent, they keep up a degree of feverish excitement—The
+Americans have preferred the second of these two evils—Mutability of
+the laws—Opinions of Hamilton and Jefferson on this subject.
+In democracy, the majority can remove officers annually, so fears no abuse. Preferring flexibility, it lets officials act rather than prescribing fixed rules that would restrict both official and people.
+When elections recur at long intervals the State is exposed to violent
+agitation every time they take place. Parties exert themselves to the
+utmost 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, the
+consequences of their disappointed ambition may prove most disastrous;
+if, on the other hand, the legal struggle can be repeated within a
+short space of time, the defeated parties take patience. When elections
+occur frequently, their recurrence keeps society in a perpetual state
+of feverish excitement, and imparts a continual instability to public
+affairs.
+In democracy, arbitrary power exceeds even despotism. The sovereign is supreme and universally present. American officials are more independent within their legal sphere than European officers, often left to choose their own means.
+Thus, on the one hand the State is exposed to the perils of a
+revolution, on the other to perpetual mutability; the former system
+threatens the very existence of the Government, the latter is an
+obstacle to all steady and consistent policy. The Americans have
+preferred the second of these evils to the first; but they were led to
+this conclusion by their instinct much more than by their reason; for a
+taste for variety is one of the characteristic passions of democracy.
+An extraordinary mutability has, by this means, been introduced into
+their legislation. Many of the Americans consider the instability of
+their laws as a necessary consequence of a system whose general results
+are beneficial. But no one in the United States affects to deny the
+fact of this instability, or to contend that it is not a great evil.
+In New England, selectmen create jury lists from voters of good reputation, with final jurors drawn by lot. They can also post drunkards' names in taverns and forbid serving them. Such censorial power would be revolting to the population of the most absolute monarchies, yet it is submitted to here without difficulty.
+Hamilton, after having demonstrated the utility of a power which might
+prevent, or which might at least impede, the promulgation of bad laws,
+adds: “It might perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws
+includes that of preventing good ones, and may be used to the one
+purpose as well as to the other. But this objection will have little
+weight with those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of that
+inconstancy and mutability in the laws which form the greatest blemish
+in the character and genius of our governments.” (Federalist, No. 73.)
+And again in No. 62 of the same work he observes: “The facility and
+excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments
+are most liable. . . . The mischievous effects of the mutability in the
+public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members would
+fill a volume: every new election in the States is found to change
+one-half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a
+change of opinions and of measures, which forfeits the respect and
+confidence of other nations, poisons the blessings of liberty itself,
+and diminishes the attachment and reverence of the people toward a
+political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity.”
+Nowhere does law leave more to official discretion than in democratic republics, as this power carries no alarming consequences. Official freedom increases with expanded suffrage and shortened terms, making conversion to monarchy difficult.
+Jefferson himself, the greatest Democrat whom the democracy of America
+has yet produced, pointed out the same evils. “The instability of our
+laws,” said he in a letter to Madison, “is really a very serious
+inconvenience. I think that we ought to have obviated it by deciding
+that a whole year should always be allowed to elapse between the
+bringing in of a bill and the final passing of it. It should afterward
+be discussed and put to the vote without the possibility of making any
+alteration in it; and if the circumstances of the case required a more
+speedy decision, the question should not be decided by a simple
+majority, but by a majority of at least two-thirds of both houses.”
+Only in limited monarchies does law both define and oversee officials' actions. Power divided between king and people creates mutual interest in official stability. Each fears dependence on the other, so they agree to bind officials with regulations they cannot evade.
+Public Officers Under The Control Of The Democracy In America Simple
+exterior of the American public officers—No official costume—All public
+officers are remunerated—Political consequences of this system—No
+public career exists in America—Result of this.
+Public officers in the United States are commingled with the crowd of
+citizens; they have neither palaces, nor guards, nor ceremonial
+costumes. This simple exterior of the persons in authority is connected
+not only with the peculiarities of the American character, but with the
+fundamental principles of that society. In the estimation of the
+democracy a government is not a benefit, but a necessary evil. A
+certain degree of power must be granted to public officers, for they
+would be of no use without it. But the ostensible semblance of
+authority is by no means indispensable to the conduct of affairs, and
+it is needlessly offensive to the susceptibility of the public. The
+public officers themselves are well aware that they only enjoy the
+superiority over their fellow-citizens which they derive from their
+authority upon condition of putting themselves on a level with the
+whole community by their manners. A public officer in the United States
+is uniformly civil, accessible to all the world, attentive to all
+requests, and obliging in his replies. I was pleased by these
+characteristics of a democratic government; and I was struck by the
+manly independence of the citizens, who respect the office more than
+the officer, and who are less attached to the emblems of authority than
+to the man who bears them.
+I am inclined to believe that the influence which costumes really
+exercise, in an age like that in which we live, has been a good deal
+exaggerated. I never perceived that a public officer in America was the
+less respected whilst he was in the discharge of his duties because his
+own merit was set off by no adventitious signs. On the other hand, it
+is very doubtful whether a peculiar dress contributes to the respect
+which public characters ought to have for their own position, at least
+when they are not otherwise inclined to respect it. When a magistrate
+(and in France such instances are not rare) indulges his trivial wit at
+the expense of the prisoner, or derides the predicament in which a
+culprit is 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 of mankind when he is reduced to the apparel of a private
+citizen.
+A democracy may, however, allow a certain show of magisterial pomp, and
+clothe its officers in silks and gold, without seriously compromising
+its principles. Privileges of this kind are transitory; they belong to
+the place, and are distinct from the individual: but if public officers
+are not uniformly remunerated by the State, the public charges must be
+entrusted to men of opulence and independence, who constitute the basis
+of an aristocracy; and if the people still retains its right of
+election, that election can only be made from a certain class of
+citizens. When a democratic republic renders offices which had formerly
+been remunerated gratuitous, it may safely be believed that the State
+is advancing to monarchical institutions; and when a monarchy begins to
+remunerate such officers as had hitherto been unpaid, it is a sure sign
+that it is approaching toward a despotic or a republican form of
+government. The substitution of paid for unpaid functionaries is of
+itself, in my opinion, sufficient to constitute a serious revolution.
+I look upon the entire absence of gratuitous functionaries in America
+as one of the most prominent signs of the absolute dominion which
+democracy exercises in that country. All public services, of whatsoever
+nature they may be, are paid; so that every one has not merely the
+right, but also the means of performing them. Although, in democratic
+States, all the citizens are qualified to occupy stations in the
+Government, all are not tempted to try for them. The number and the
+capacities of the candidates are more apt to restrict the choice of
+electors than the connections of the candidateship.
+In nations in which the principle of election extends to every place in
+the State no political career can, properly speaking, be said to exist.
+Men are promoted as if by chance to the rank which they enjoy, and they
+are by no means sure of retaining it. The consequence is that in
+tranquil times public functions offer but few lures to ambition. In the
+United States the persons who engage in the perplexities of political
+life are individuals of very moderate pretensions. The pursuit of
+wealth generally diverts men of great talents and of great passions
+from the pursuit of power, and it very frequently happens that a man
+does not undertake to direct the fortune of the State until he has
+discovered his incompetence to conduct his own affairs. The vast number
+of very ordinary men who occupy public stations is quite as
+attributable to these causes as to the bad choice of the democracy. In
+the United States, I am not sure that the people would return the men
+of superior abilities who might solicit its support, but it is certain
+that men of this 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 in
+absolute monarchies and in democratic republics than it is in limited
+monarchies—Arbitrary power of the Magistrates in New England.
+In two different kinds of government the magistrates *a exercise a
+considerable degree of arbitrary power; namely, under the absolute
+government of a single individual, and under that of a democracy. This
+identical result proceeds from causes which are nearly analogous.
+[ I here use the word magistrates in the widest sense in which it can
+be taken; I apply it to all the officers to whom the execution of the
+laws is intrusted.]
+In despotic States the fortune of no citizen is secure; and public
+officers are not more safe than private individuals. The sovereign, who
+has under his control the lives, the property, and sometimes the honor
+of the men whom he employs, does not scruple to allow them a great
+latitude of action, because he is convinced that they will not use it
+to his prejudice. In despotic States the sovereign is so attached to
+the exercise of his power, that he dislikes the constraint even of his
+own regulations; and he is well pleased that his agents should follow a
+somewhat fortuitous line of conduct, provided he be certain that their
+actions will never counteract his desires.
+In democracies, as the majority has every year the right of depriving
+the officers whom it has appointed of their power, it has no reason to
+fear any abuse of their authority. As the people is always able to
+signify its wishes to those who conduct the Government, it prefers
+leaving them to make their own exertions to prescribing an invariable
+rule of conduct which would at once fetter their activity and the
+popular authority.
+It may even be observed, on attentive consideration, that under the
+rule of a democracy the arbitrary power of the magistrate must be still
+greater than in despotic States. In the latter the sovereign has the
+power of punishing all the faults with which he becomes acquainted, but
+it would be vain for him to hope to become acquainted with all those
+which are committed. In the former the sovereign power is not only
+supreme, but it is universally present. The American functionaries are,
+in point of fact, much more independent in the sphere of action which
+the law traces out for them than any public officer in Europe. Very
+frequently the object which they are to accomplish is simply pointed
+out to them, and the choice of the means is left to their own
+discretion.
+In New England, for instance, the selectmen of each township are bound
+to draw up the list of persons who are to serve on the jury; the only
+rule which is laid down to guide them in their choice is that they are
+to select citizens possessing the elective franchise and enjoying a
+fair reputation. *b In France the lives and liberties of the subjects
+would be thought to be in danger if a public officer of any kind was
+entrusted with so formidable a right. In New England the same
+magistrates are empowered to post the names of habitual drunkards in
+public-houses, and to prohibit the inhabitants of a town from supplying
+them with liquor. *c A censorial power of this excessive kind would be
+revolting to the population of the most absolute monarchies; here,
+however, it is submitted to without difficulty.
+[ See the Act of February 27, 1813. “General Collection of the Laws of
+Massachusetts,” vol. ii. p. 331. It should be added that the jurors are
+afterwards drawn from these lists by lot.]
+[ See Act of February 28, 1787. “General Collection of the Laws of
+Massachusetts,” vol. i. p. 302.]
+Nowhere has so much been left by the law to the arbitrary determination
+of the magistrate as in democratic republics, because this arbitrary
+power is unattended by any alarming consequences. It may even be
+asserted that the freedom of the magistrate increases as the elective
+franchise is extended, and as the duration of the time of office is
+shortened. Hence arises the great difficulty which attends the
+conversion of a democratic republic into a monarchy. The magistrate
+ceases to be elective, but he retains the rights and the habits of an
+elected officer, which lead directly to despotism.
+It is only in limited monarchies that the law, which prescribes the
+sphere in which public officers are to act, superintends all their
+measures. The cause of this may be easily detected. In limited
+monarchies the power is divided between the King and the people, both
+of whom are interested in the stability of the magistrate. The King
+does not venture to place the public officers under the control of the
+people, lest they should be tempted to betray his interests; on the
+other hand, the people fears lest the magistrates should serve to
+oppress the liberties of the country, if they were entirely dependent
+upon the Crown; they cannot therefore be said to depend on either one
+or the other. The same cause which induces the king and the people to
+render public officers independent suggests the necessity of such
+securities as may prevent their independence from encroaching upon the
+authority of the former and the liberties of the latter. They
+consequently agree as to the necessity of restricting the functionary
+to a line of conduct laid down beforehand, and they are interested in
+confining 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 fewer traces
+than the occurrences of a family—Newspapers the only historical
+remains—Instability of the administration prejudicial to the art of
+government.
+In America, public acts frequently leave fewer traces than private family histories. The authority of public figures is so brief, and they melt so quickly back into the shifting population, that administration becomes oral and traditional. Very little is committed to writing; what little exists vanishes like the Sibyl's leaves in the slightest breeze.
+The authority which public men possess in America is so brief, and they
+are so soon commingled with the ever-changing population of the
+country, that the acts of a community frequently leave fewer traces
+than the occurrences of a private family. The public administration is,
+so to speak, oral and traditionary. But little is committed to writing,
+and that little is wafted away forever, like the leaves of the Sibyl,
+by the smallest breeze.
+> **Quote:** "But little is committed to writing, and that little is wafted away forever, like the leaves of the Sibyl, by the smallest breeze."
+The only historical remains in the United States are the newspapers;
+but if a number be wanting, the chain of time is broken, and the
+present is severed from the past. I am convinced that in fifty years it
+will be more difficult to collect authentic documents concerning the
+social condition of the Americans at the present day than it is to find
+remains of the administration of France during the Middle Ages; and if
+the United States were ever invaded by barbarians, it would be
+necessary to have recourse to the history of other nations in order to
+learn anything of the people which now inhabits them.
+Newspapers are the only historical records, yet if one issue is missing, the chain breaks and the present severs from the past. I am convinced that in fifty years, collecting authentic documents on American social conditions will prove harder than finding medieval French administrative records. If barbarians invaded America, histories of other nations would be needed to learn about its people.
+The instability of the administration has penetrated into the habits of
+the people: it even appears to suit the general taste, and no one cares
+for what occurred before his time. No methodical system is pursued; no
+archives are formed; and no documents are brought together when it
+would be very easy to do so. Where they exist, little store is set upon
+them; and I have amongst my papers several original public documents
+which were given to me in answer to some of my inquiries. In America
+society seems to live from hand to mouth, like an army in the field.
+Nevertheless, the art of administration may undoubtedly be ranked as a
+science, and no sciences can be improved if the discoveries and
+observations of successive generations are not connected together in
+the order in which they occur. One man, in the short space of his life
+remarks a fact; another conceives an idea; the former invents a means
+of execution, the latter reduces a truth to a fixed proposition; and
+mankind gathers the fruits of individual experience upon its way and
+gradually forms the sciences. But the persons who conduct the
+administration in America can seldom afford any instruction to each
+other; and when they assume the direction of society, they simply
+possess those attainments which are most widely disseminated in the
+community, and no experience peculiar to themselves. Democracy, carried
+to its furthest limits, is therefore prejudicial to the art of
+government; and for this reason it is better adapted to a people
+already versed in the conduct of an administration than to a nation
+which is uninitiated in public affairs.
+> **Quote:** "In America society seems to live from hand to mouth, like an army in the field."
+This remark, indeed, is not exclusively applicable to the science of
+administration. Although a democratic government is founded upon a very
+simple and natural principle, it always presupposes the existence of a
+high degree of culture and enlightenment in society. *d At the first
+glance 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
+in the succession of human history.
+This instability has seeped into popular habits and even suits the general taste, as no one cares for what occurred before their time. No archives are created, documents are not gathered even when easy to do so, and where they exist they are poorly valued. Among my papers are original public documents given simply in response to inquiries.
+[ It is needless to observe that I speak here of the democratic form of
+government as applied to a people, not merely to a tribe.]
+The art of administration ranks as a science, yet no science improves unless discoveries link together across generations. One person observes a fact; another conceives an idea; a third invents execution; a fourth shapes a principle. Humanity gathers fruits of experience and gradually builds the sciences. But American administrators can rarely teach one another; they possess only common knowledge, not specialized experience. Democracy pushed to its limit is therefore detrimental to the art of government; it better suits an experienced people than a nation new to public affairs.
+This observation applies beyond administrative science. Though democratic government rests on a simple, natural principle, it assumes high culture and enlightenment within society. At first glance one might imagine it belongs to earliest ages, but mature observation convinces us it could only appear last in human history. (I speak here of democracy applied to an entire people, not merely a tribe.)
 Charges Levied By The State Under The Rule Of The American Democracy
+In all communities citizens divisible into three classes—Habits of each
+of these classes in the direction of public finances—Why public
+expenditure must tend to increase when the people governs—What renders
+the extravagance of a democracy less to be feared in America—Public
+expenditure under a democracy.
+Citizens can be divided into three classes. We will examine how each influences public finances, why spending rises under popular rule, what makes democratic extravagance less dangerous in America, and the nature of public spending under democracy.
+Before we can affirm whether a democratic form of government is
+economical or not, we must establish a suitable standard of comparison.
+The question would be one of easy solution if we were to attempt to
+draw a parallel between a democratic republic and an absolute monarchy.
+The public expenditure would be found to be more considerable under the
+former than under the latter; such is the case with all free States
+compared to those which are not so. It is certain that despotism ruins
+individuals by preventing them from producing wealth, much more than by
+depriving them of the wealth they have produced; it dries up the source
+of riches, whilst it usually respects acquired property. Freedom, on
+the contrary, engenders far more benefits than it destroys; and the
+nations which are favored by free institutions invariably find that
+their resources increase even more rapidly than their taxes.
+Before judging a democratic government's economy, we must establish a proper standard. Comparing a democratic republic to an absolute monarchy would easily show higher spending under the former, as is true of all free states versus despotic ones. Despotism ruins individuals more by preventing production than by seizing wealth; it dries up the source of riches while respecting existing property. Freedom creates more benefits than it destroys, and nations with free institutions find resources grow faster than taxes. My goal is to compare free nations and highlight democracy's influence on finances.
+My present object is to compare free nations to each other, and to
+point out the influence of democracy upon the finances of a State.
+The population can always be divided into three distinct classes: the wealthy; those in comfortable circumstances; and those with little or no property who subsist on work performed for the other two. The proportions vary with society's state, but the divisions never disappear.
+Communities, as well as organic bodies, are subject to certain fixed
+rules in their formation which they cannot evade. They are composed of
+certain elements which are common to them at all times and under all
+circumstances. The people may always be mentally divided into three
+distinct classes. The first of these classes consists of the wealthy;
+the second, of those who are in easy circumstances; and the third is
+composed of those who have little or no property, and who subsist more
+especially by the work which they perform for the two superior orders.
+The proportion of the individuals who are included in these three
+divisions may vary according to the condition of society, but the
+divisions themselves can never be obliterated.
+Each class influences financial administration according to its tendencies. If the wealthy hold exclusive legislative power, they will not be stingy with public funds, because taxes on large fortunes only slightly reduce luxury and are hardly felt. If the middle class makes the laws, they will certainly not be lavish, because nothing burdens a small income more than high taxes. The government of the middle class seems to me the most economical—though perhaps not the most enlightened or generous—of free governments.
+It is evident that each of these classes will exercise an influence
+peculiar to its own propensities upon the administration of the
+finances of the State. If the first of the three exclusively possesses
+the legislative power, it is probable that it will not be sparing of
+the public funds, because the taxes which are levied on a large fortune
+only tend to diminish the sum of superfluous enjoyment, and are, in
+point of fact, but little felt. If the second class has the power of
+making the laws, it will certainly not be lavish of taxes, because
+nothing is so onerous as a large impost which is levied upon a small
+income. The government of the middle classes appears to me to be the
+most economical, though perhaps not the most enlightened, and certainly
+not the most generous, of free governments.
+But if the lowest classes hold legislative authority, spending tends to increase for two reasons. Since most law-makers have no property to tax, all public spending benefits them at no personal cost. And those with a little property easily structure taxes to fall on the wealthy—a tactic the rich cannot use when in power. In countries where the poor (using the term relatively) hold exclusive law-making power, expect little economy. Spending will be high because taxes do not affect those who levy them, or are structured to spare those classes.
+But let us now suppose that the legislative authority is vested in the
+lowest orders: there are two striking reasons which show that the
+tendency of the expenditure will be to increase, not to diminish. As
+the great majority of those who create the laws are possessed of no
+property upon which taxes can be imposed, all the money which is spent
+for the community appears to be spent to their advantage, at no cost of
+their own; and those who are possessed of some little property readily
+find means of regulating the taxes so that they are burdensome to the
+wealthy and profitable to the poor, although the rich are unable to
+take the same advantage when they are in possession of the Government.
+> **Quote:** "In other words, the government of the democracy is the only one under which the power which lays on taxes escapes the payment of them."
+In countries in which the poor *e should be exclusively invested with
+the power of making the laws no great economy of public expenditure
+ought to be expected: that expenditure will always be considerable;
+either because the taxes do not weigh upon those who levy them, or
+because they are levied in such a manner as not to weigh upon those
+classes. In other words, the government of the democracy is the only
+one under which the power which lays on taxes escapes the payment of
+them.
+One might argue that the people's true interest is tied to the wealthy's, since the people suffer from harsh measures. But isn't it also kings' true interest to make subjects happy, or nobles' to welcome newcomers? If long-term advantages overcame immediate passions, tyrannical monarchs and exclusive aristocracies would never have existed.
+[ The word poor is used here, and throughout the remainder of this
+chapter, in a relative, not in an absolute sense. Poor men in America
+would often appear rich in comparison with the poor of Europe; but they
+may with propriety by styled poor in comparison with their more
+affluent countrymen.]
+One might object that the poor never hold sole law-making power. I respond that wherever universal suffrage exists, the majority holds legislative authority. If the poor always form the majority, then in countries with universal suffrage they effectively hold sole power. The majority has always consisted of those with no property or insufficient property to live without working.
+> **Quote:** "Universal suffrage does therefore, in point of fact, invest the poor with the government of society."
+It may be objected (but the argument has no real weight) that the true
+interest of the people is indissolubly connected with that of the
+wealthier portion of the community, since it cannot but suffer by the
+severe measures to which it resorts. But is it not the true interest of
+kings to render their subjects happy, and the true interest of nobles
+to admit recruits into their order on suitable grounds? If remote
+advantages had power to prevail over the passions and the exigencies of
+the moment, no such thing as a tyrannical sovereign or an exclusive
+aristocracy could ever exist.
+The disastrous impact popular authority can have on finances was clear in some ancient democratic republics, where the treasury was drained to support indigent citizens or fund games and theater. Though the representative system was poorly understood then and popular passion is now less directly felt, we can still expect a representative will ultimately align with constituents' principles.
+Again, it may be objected that the poor are never invested with the
+sole power of making the laws; but I reply, that wherever universal
+suffrage has been established the majority of the community
+unquestionably exercises the legislative authority; and if it be proved
+that the poor always constitute the majority, it may be added, with
+perfect truth, that in the countries in which they possess the elective
+franchise they possess the sole power of making laws. But it is certain
+that in all the nations of the world the greater number has always
+consisted of those persons who hold no property, or of those whose
+property is insufficient to exempt them from the necessity of working
+in order to procure an easy subsistence. Universal suffrage does
+therefore, in point of fact, invest the poor with the government of
+society.
+Democratic extravagance is less to be feared as more people acquire property. The rich become less essential, and it grows harder to impose taxes that spare the lower classes. Universal suffrage would therefore be less dangerous in France than England, where taxable property is concentrated. America, where most citizens possess some wealth, is in an even more favorable position.
+The disastrous influence which popular authority may sometimes exercise
+upon the finances of a State was very clearly seen in some of the
+democratic republics of antiquity, in which the public treasure was
+exhausted in order to relieve indigent citizens, or to supply the games
+and theatrical amusements of the populace. It is true that the
+representative system was then very imperfectly known, and that, at the
+present time, the influence of popular passion is less felt in the
+conduct of public affairs; but it may be believed that the delegate
+will in the end conform to the principles of his constituents, and
+favor their propensities as much as their interests.
+Other factors increase spending in democracies. When aristocracy governs, leaders are personally exempt from hardship by status; they seek power and fame, not improvement of condition. Being far above the people, they do not feel their suffering acutely. As long as the people seem resigned, rulers are content. Aristocracy focuses more on maintaining influence than improving condition.
+The extravagance of democracy is, however, less to be dreaded in
+proportion as the people acquires a share of property, because on the
+one hand the contributions of the rich are then less needed, and, on
+the other, it is more difficult to lay on taxes which do not affect the
+interests of the lower classes. On this account universal suffrage
+would be less dangerous in France than in England, because in the
+latter country the property on which taxes may be levied is vested in
+fewer hands. America, where the great majority of the citizens possess
+some fortune, is in a still more favorable position than France.
+Conversely, when the people hold supreme authority, their constant awareness of struggle drives rulers to seek constant improvements. A thousand things are targeted for betterment; the smallest details are scrutinized for reform. Changes involving significant expense are favored, as the goal is to make life tolerable for the poor, who cannot pay for these changes themselves.
+There are still further causes which may increase the sum of public
+expenditure in democratic countries. When the aristocracy governs, the
+individuals who conduct the affairs of State are exempted by their own
+station in society from every kind of privation; they are contented
+with their position; power and renown are the objects for which they
+strive; and, as they are placed far above the obscurer throng of
+citizens, they do not always distinctly perceive how the well-being of
+the mass of the people ought to redound to their own honor. They are
+not indeed callous to the sufferings of the poor, but they cannot feel
+those miseries as acutely as if they were themselves partakers of them.
+Provided that the people appear to submit to its lot, the rulers are
+satisfied, and they demand nothing further from the Government. An
+aristocracy is more intent upon the means of maintaining its influence
+than upon the means of improving its condition.
+All democratic societies are stirred by vague excitement and feverish impatience, creating a multitude of innovations that cost money.
+When, on the contrary, the people is invested with the supreme
+authority, the perpetual sense of their own miseries impels the rulers
+of society to seek for perpetual ameliorations. A thousand different
+objects are subjected to improvement; the most trivial details are
+sought out as susceptible of amendment; and those changes which are
+accompanied 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.
+In monarchies and aristocracies, rulers' taste for power and fame is fueled by ambition, leading to expensive projects. In democracies, where rulers face their own hardships, they can only be appealed to through things that improve well-being, requiring financial sacrifice. When a people reflects on its situation, it discovers needs it had not noticed before, turning to state coffers. Thus public costs increase as civilization spreads and taxes rise as knowledge permeates the community.
+Moreover, all democratic communities are agitated by an ill-defined
+excitement and by a kind of feverish impatience, that engender a
+multitude of innovations, almost all of which are attended with
+expense.
+Democratic government is often more expensive because it does not always know how to be economical. Its goals change frequently and officials are replaced even more often, so projects are often poorly managed or left unfinished. In the first case the state spends far more than necessary; in the second the expense is entirely wasted. (For perspective, the U.S. Treasury's gross receipts in 1832 were about $28,000,000 and rose to $411,000,000 by 1870; spending rose from $30,000,000 to $309,000,000.)
+In monarchies and aristocracies the natural taste which the rulers have
+for power and for renown is stimulated by the promptings of ambition,
+and they are frequently incited by these temptations to very costly
+undertakings. In democracies, where the rulers labor under privations,
+they can only be courted by such means as improve their well-being, and
+these improvements cannot take place without a sacrifice of money. When
+a people begins to reflect upon its situation, it discovers a multitude
+of wants to which it had not before been subject, and to satisfy these
+exigencies recourse must be had to the coffers of the State. Hence it
+arises that the public charges increase in proportion as civilization
+spreads, and that imposts are augmented as knowledge pervades the
+community.
+In democracies those who set high salaries have no chance of benefiting from them. American democracy tends to raise low-level workers' salaries while lowering high-level officials' pay.
+The last cause which frequently renders a democratic government dearer
+than any other is, that a democracy does not always succeed in
+moderating its expenditure, because it does not understand the art of
+being economical. As the designs which it entertains are frequently
+changed, and the agents of those designs are still more frequently
+removed, its undertakings are often ill conducted or left unfinished:
+in the former case the State spends sums out of all proportion to the
+end which it proposes to accomplish; in the second, the expense itself
+is unprofitable. *f
+There is a strong reason democracies economize on public salaries: the citizens who pay are numerous, while those who might receive are relatively few. In aristocratic countries, those who set high salaries often hope to benefit personally or see them as resources for their children.
+[ The gross receipts of the Treasury of the United States in 1832 were
+about $28,000,000; in 1870 they had risen to $411,000,000. The gross
+expenditure in 1832 was $30,000,000; in 1870, $309,000,000.]
+A democratic state is very stingy toward top officials. In America, secondary officers are paid much better and high-level officials much worse than elsewhere. These opposite effects stem from the same cause: the people set salaries based on their own needs. It is considered fair that public servants should live as comfortably as the public itself. (Private business is so lucrative in the U.S. that the state must pay competitive wages to find workers.)
+But regarding high-ranking officials, this rule fails and popular decision is guided by chance. The poor cannot imagine upper-class needs. A sum that seems small to the rich appears enormous to a poor person thinking only of life's necessities. To him, a Governor earning $1,200 or $1,500 a year (as in Ohio) seems incredibly lucky. If you argue that a great nation's representative should maintain splendor for foreign eyes, looking at his humble home and hard work he is shocked by such "insufficient" wealth. The low-level officer is almost an equal, earning interest, while the high-level official is raised above, triggering envy.
+Tendencies Of The American Democracy As Regards The Salaries Of Public
+Officers
+This is very clear in the United States, where salaries seem to decrease as authority increases. Examining the federal salary scale of 1831 (compared to France under constitutional monarchy) illustrates this:
+In the democracies those who establish high salaries have no chance of
+profiting by them—Tendency of the American democracy to increase the
+salaries of subordinate officers and to lower those of the more
+important functionaries—Reason of this—Comparative statement of the
+salaries of public officers in the United States and in France.
+**United States (Treasury Department)**
+There is a powerful reason which usually induces democracies to
+economize upon the salaries of public officers. As the number of
+citizens who dispense the remuneration is extremely large in democratic
+countries, so the number of persons who can hope to be benefited by the
+receipt of it is comparatively small. In aristocratic countries, on the
+contrary, the individuals who fix high salaries have almost always a
+vague hope of profiting by them. These appointments may be looked upon
+as a capital which they create for their own use, or at least as a
+resource for their children.
+* Messenger: $700
+* Lowest-paid Clerk: $1,000
+* Highest-paid Clerk: $1,600
+* Chief Clerk: $2,000
+* Secretary of State: $6,000
+* The President: $25,000
+It must, however, be allowed that a democratic State is most
+parsimonious towards its principal agents. In America the secondary
+officers are much better paid, and the dignitaries of the
+administration much worse, than they are elsewhere.
+**France (Ministry of Finance)**
+These opposite effects result from the same cause; the people fixes the
+salaries of the public officers in both cases; and the scale of
+remuneration is determined by the consideration of its own wants. It is
+held to be fair that the servants of the public should be placed in the
+same easy circumstances as the public itself; *g but when the question
+turns upon the salaries of the great officers of State, this rule
+fails, and chance alone can guide the popular decision. The poor have
+no adequate conception of the wants which the higher classes of society
+may feel. The sum which is scanty to the rich appears enormous to the
+poor man whose wants do not extend beyond the necessaries of life; and
+in his estimation the Governor of a State, with his twelve or fifteen
+hundred dollars a year, is a very fortunate and enviable being. *h If
+you undertake to convince him that the representative of a great people
+ought to be able to maintain some show of splendor in the eyes of
+foreign nations, he will perhaps assent to your meaning; but when he
+reflects on his own humble dwelling, and on the hard-earned produce of
+his wearisome toil, he remembers all that he could do with a salary
+which you say is insufficient, and he is startled or almost frightened
+at the sight of such uncommon wealth. Besides, the secondary public
+officer is almost on a level with the people, whilst the others are
+raised above it. The former may therefore excite his interest, but the
+latter begins to arouse his envy.
+* Messenger: 1,500 fr.
+* Lowest-paid Clerk: 1,000 to 1,800 fr.
+* Highest-paid Clerk: 3,200 to 8,600 fr.
+* General Secretary: 20,000 fr.
+* The Minister: 80,000 fr.
+* The King: 12,000,000 fr.
+[ The easy circumstances in which secondary functionaries are placed in
+the United States result also from another cause, which is independent
+of the general tendencies of democracy; every kind of private business
+is very lucrative, and the State would not be served at all if it did
+not pay its servants. The country is in the position of a commercial
+undertaking, which is obliged to sustain an expensive competition,
+notwithstanding its tastes for economy.]
+In France democratic tendencies are also exerting influence, as high salaries are being lowered and low ones raised compared to previous eras (the Minister of Finance's salary was halved between Empire and 1835). Yet the disparity remains significant.
+Under aristocratic rule the opposite often occurs: high officials receive lavish salaries while lower ones barely survive. Aristocracy views the poor without envy and is slow to understand—or, more accurately, entirely unfamiliar with—their hardships.
+[ The State of Ohio, which contains a million of inhabitants, gives its
+Governor a salary of only $1,200 a year.]
+> **Quote:** "The poor man is not (if we use the term aright) the fellow of the rich one; but he is a being of another species."
+An aristocracy therefore cares little about lower-level employees; their salaries are typically raised only when they refuse to work for such compensation.
+This is very clearly seen in the United States, where the salaries seem
+to decrease as the authority of those who receive them augments *i
+Democracy's stinginess toward high officials has encouraged the belief that it is far more frugal than it actually is. While democracy barely provides enough for leaders to maintain an honorable lifestyle, it lavishes enormous sums on public needs and pleasures. This is evident in American budgets for poor relief and free education. In 1831 New York—which had 1.9 million inhabitants, roughly double the Nord department's population—spent $250,000 on poor relief and at least $1,000,000 on free instruction. Tax money may be used for better purposes in a democracy, but it is certainly not saved.
+[ To render this assertion perfectly evident, it will suffice to
+examine the scale of salaries of the agents of the Federal Government.
+I have added the salaries attached to the corresponding officers in
+France under the constitutional monarchy to complete the comparison.
+> **Quote:** "In general, democracy gives largely to the community, and very sparingly to those who govern it."
+     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
+The opposite occurs in aristocratic countries, where state funds are spent for those at the government's head.
+     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.
+Difficulty of Distinguishing The Causes Which Contribute To The Economy Of The American Government
+I have perhaps done wrong in selecting France as my standard of
+comparison. In France the democratic tendencies of the nation exercise
+an ever-increasing influence upon the Government, and the Chambers show
+a disposition to raise the low salaries and to lower the principal
+ones. Thus, the Minister of Finance, who received 160,000 fr. under the
+Empire, receives 80,000 fr. in 1835: the Directeurs-generaux of
+Finance, who then received 50,000 fr. now receive only 20,000 fr. [This
+comparison is based on the state of things existing in France and the
+United States in 1831. It has since materially altered in both
+countries, but not so much as to impugn the truth of the author’s
+observation.]]
+We often err when researching facts that influence human destiny, as nothing is harder to evaluate than their true value. One nation may be naturally inconsistent and passionate; another sober and calculating—traits that may stem from physical environment or obscure historical causes. Some love grand displays and do not regret fleeting celebration costs. Others prefer more retiring pleasures and seem almost ashamed of appearing to be pleased. Some value public building beauty; others treat art with indifference and view anything unproductive with contempt. Some are driven by fame; others by money.
+Under the rule of an aristocracy it frequently happens, on the
+contrary, that whilst the high officers are receiving munificent
+salaries, the inferior ones have not more than enough to procure the
+necessaries of life. The reason of this fact is easily discoverable
+from causes very analogous to those to which I have just alluded. If a
+democracy is unable to conceive the pleasures of the rich or to witness
+them without envy, an aristocracy is slow to understand, or, to speak
+more correctly, is unacquainted with, the privations of the poor. The
+poor man is not (if we use the term aright) the fellow of the rich one;
+but he is a being of another species. An aristocracy is therefore apt
+to care but little for the fate of its subordinate agents; and their
+salaries are only raised when they refuse to perform their service for
+too scanty a remuneration.
+Beyond laws, all these factors affect state finances. Americans avoid spending on galas not only because the people control taxation, but because they do not enjoy public celebrations. They reject architectural ornament not only because of democratic institutions, but because they are a commercial nation. Private habits translate into public life. We must carefully distinguish thriftiness caused by institutions from thriftiness resulting from culture and customs.
+It is the parsimonious conduct of democracy towards its principal
+officers which has countenanced a supposition of far more economical
+propensities than any which it really possesses. It is true that it
+scarcely allows the means of honorable subsistence to the individuals
+who conduct its affairs; but enormous sums are lavished to meet the
+exigencies or to facilitate the enjoyments of the people. *j The money
+raised by taxation may be better employed, but it is not saved. In
+general, democracy gives largely to the community, and very sparingly
+to those who govern it. The reverse is the case in aristocratic
+countries, where the money of the State is expended to the profit of
+the persons who are at the head of affairs.
+Whether The Expenditure Of The United States Can Be Compared To That Of France
+[ See the American budgets for the cost of indigent citizens and
+gratuitous instruction. In 1831 $250,000 were spent in the State of New
+York for the maintenance of the poor, and at least $1,000,000 were
+devoted to gratuitous instruction. (William’s “New York Annual
+Register,” 1832, pp. 205 and 243.) The State of New York contained only
+,900,000 inhabitants in the year 1830, which is not more than double
+the amount of population in the Department du Nord in France.]
+Two points must be established to estimate public charges: national wealth and tax rate. Yet France's wealth and expenses are not accurately known, and for similar reasons neither are those of the United States. Many have attempted to compare the countries' public spending, but these efforts failed. A few words explain why they could not succeed.
+Evaluating a people's public burden requires knowing their wealth and what portion goes to the state. Showing total tax without showing resources is pointless; what matters is the relationship between spending and revenue. A tax a wealthy person easily affords might drive a poor person into misery.
+Difficulty of Distinguishing The Causes Which Contribute To The Economy
+Of The American Government
+National wealth consists of population, real estate, and personal property. Population is easily counted, but the other two are harder to determine. Valuing all cultivated land is difficult, and estimating total personal property is nearly impossible because of its variety and volume. Even Europe's oldest nations, despite centralized governments, have not determined their exact total wealth.
+We are liable to frequent errors in the research of those facts which
+exercise a serious influence upon the fate of mankind, since nothing is
+more difficult than to appreciate their real value. One people is
+naturally inconsistent and enthusiastic; another is sober and
+calculating; and these characteristics originate in their physical
+constitution or in remote causes with which we are unacquainted.
+America has never attempted this. How could such a study succeed where society lacks routine, the federal government lacks agents to gather data, and statistics are not studied because no one has time to collect or read them? The basic data for these calculations do not exist in the Union. The relative wealth of the two countries remains unknown.
+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, on the
+contrary, are attached to more retiring pleasures, and seem almost
+ashamed of appearing to be pleased. In some countries the highest value
+is set upon the beauty of public edifices; in others the productions of
+art are treated with indifference, and everything which is unproductive
+is looked down upon with contempt. In some renown, in others money, is
+the ruling passion.
+Setting aside wealth comparison and focusing only on actual taxes does not make the task easier. France's government has not published full results of direct and indirect taxes, particularly municipal spending. America's difficulties are greater: the Union publishes its spending and the twenty-four states publish revenues, but county and township costs are unknown.
+Independently of the laws, all these causes concur to exercise a very
+powerful influence upon the conduct of the finances of the State. If
+the Americans never spend the money of the people in galas, it is not
+only because the imposition of taxes is under the control of the
+people, but because the people takes no delight in public rejoicings.
+If they repudiate all ornament from their architecture, and set no
+store on any but the more practical and homely advantages, it is not
+only because they live under democratic institutions, but because they
+are a commercial nation. The habits of private life are continued in
+public; and we ought carefully to distinguish that economy which
+depends upon their institutions from that which is the natural result
+of their manners and customs.
+During my stay I attempted to discover various states' local spending. While I obtained budgets for larger townships, smaller ones proved impossible. I did find data for thirteen Pennsylvania counties for 1830, thanks to Philadelphia's Mayor Richards. These counties—including Philadelphia, Alleghany, and others—represented a diverse state average. Their inhabitants contributed about $4.05 each to combined federal, state, and county expenses. This figure is incomplete, excluding township costs and reflecting only one year.
+Whether The Expenditure Of The United States Can Be Compared To That Of
+France
+The federal government cannot force local governments to provide information, and decentralization means officials often ignore requests. Comparisons are also complicated because governments demand personal services as well as money. When a state calls a militia, the citizen gives valuable time and potential earnings—a hidden tax on his labor.
+Two points to be established in order to estimate the extent of the
+public charges, viz., the national wealth and the rate of taxation—The
+wealth and the charges of France not accurately known—Why the wealth
+and charges of the Union cannot be accurately known—Researches of the
+author with a view to discover the amount of taxation of
+Pennsylvania—General symptoms which may serve to indicate the amount of
+the public charges in a given nation—Result of this investigation for
+the Union.
+The two countries have different obligations. France's government pays clergy; America follows the voluntary principle. America provides legal support for the poor; France leaves them to private charity. France's roads are free; America's are often toll roads. Even knowing exact tax totals, fair comparison would remain elusive. It is dangerous to rely on statistics not based on strictly accurate math; the mind is easily imposed upon by a false affectation of exactness and adopts errors dressed in the forms of mathematical truth.
+Many attempts have recently been made in France to compare the public
+expenditure of that country with the expenditure of the United States;
+all these attempts have, however, been unattended by success, and a few
+words will suffice to show that they could not have had a satisfactory
+result.
+Instead of numbers we should look for prosperity's signs. Does the country flourish? After paying the state, does the poor man have enough to live and the rich enough to enjoy? Are both classes satisfied and striving to improve? If industry has capital and capital is employed, we can infer Americans contribute a much smaller income portion to the state than the French.
+In order to estimate the amount of the public charges of a people two
+preliminaries are indispensable: it is necessary, in the first place,
+to know the wealth of that people; and in the second, to learn what
+portion of that wealth is devoted to the expenditure of the State. To
+show the amount of taxation without showing the resources which are
+destined to meet the demand, is to undertake a futile labor; for it is
+not the expenditure, but the relation of the expenditure to the
+revenue, which it is desirable to know.
+Indeed it could not be otherwise. France's debt partly results from two invasions—a calamity the Union does not fear. Being in Europe, France must maintain a massive standing army, while the isolated U.S. needs only 6,000 soldiers. France has a 300-ship fleet; America has 52.
+The same rate of taxation which may easily be supported by a wealthy
+contributor will reduce a poor one to extreme misery. The wealth of
+nations is composed of several distinct elements, of which population
+is 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 of the inhabitants; but the two others cannot be determined with
+so much facility. It is difficult to take an exact account of all the
+lands in a country which are under cultivation, with their natural or
+their acquired value; and it is still more impossible to estimate the
+entire personal property which is at the disposal of a nation, and
+which eludes the strictest analysis by the diversity and the number of
+shapes under which it may occur. And, indeed, we find that the most
+ancient civilized nations of Europe, including even those in which the
+administration is most central, have not succeeded, as yet, in
+determining the exact condition of their wealth.
+> **Quote:** "No parallel can be drawn between the finances of two countries so differently situated."
+In America the attempt has never been made; for how would such an
+investigation be possible in a country where society has not yet
+settled into habits of regularity and tranquillity; where the national
+Government is not assisted by a multiple of agents whose exertions it
+can command and direct to one sole end; and where statistics are not
+studied, because no one is able to collect the necessary documents, or
+to find time to peruse them? Thus the primary elements of the
+calculations which have been made in France cannot be obtained in the
+Union; the relative wealth of the two countries is unknown; the
+property of the former is not accurately determined, and no means exist
+of computing that of the latter.
+(It should be noted that by 1870, U.S. public debt rose to over $2.4 billion from the Civil War, while France's debt also more than doubled from the Second Empire and 1870 war.)
+I consent, therefore, for the sake of the discussion, to abandon this
+necessary term of the comparison, and I confine myself to a computation
+of the actual amount of taxation, without investigating the relation
+which subsists between the taxation and the revenue. But the reader
+will perceive that my task has not been facilitated by the limits which
+I here lay down for my researches.
+Looking at the Union itself, we can see if its government is truly economical. These republics often lack perseverance and steady employee oversight, spending money pointlessly or inefficiently. Driven by democratic impulses, they spend heavily to satisfy lower classes—funding education, caring for the poor, and paying even the lowest officials well. This may be rational and useful, but it is expensive.
+It cannot be doubted that the central administration of France,
+assisted by all the public officers who are at its disposal, might
+determine with exactitude the amount of the direct and indirect taxes
+levied upon the citizens. But this investigation, which no private
+individual can undertake, has not hitherto been completed by the French
+Government, or, at least, its results have not been made public. We are
+acquainted with the sum total of the charges of the State; we know the
+amount of the departmental expenditure; but the expenses of the
+communal divisions have not been computed, and the amount of the public
+expenses of France is consequently unknown.
+> **Quote:** "Wherever the poor direct public affairs and dispose of the national resources, it appears certain that, as they profit by the expenditure of the State, they are apt to augment that expenditure."
+If we now turn to America, we shall perceive that the difficulties are
+multiplied and enhanced. The Union publishes an exact return of the
+amount of its expenditure; the budgets of the four and twenty States
+furnish similar returns of their revenues; but the expenses incident to
+the affairs of the counties and the townships are unknown. *k
+I conclude that the democratic government of the Americans is not a 'cheap' government, as sometimes claimed.
+[ The Americans, as we have seen, have four separate budgets, the
+Union, the States, the Counties, and the Townships having each
+severally their own. During my stay in America I made every endeavor to
+discover the amount of the public expenditure in the townships and
+counties of the principal States of the Union, and I readily obtained
+the budget of the larger townships, but I found it quite impossible to
+procure that of the smaller ones. I possess, however, some documents
+relating to county expenses, which, although incomplete, are still
+curious. I have to thank Mr. Richards, Mayor of Philadelphia, for the
+budgets 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 495,207
+inhabitants. On looking at the map of Pennsylvania, it will be seen
+that these thirteen counties are scattered in every direction, and so
+generally affected by the causes which usually influence the condition
+of a country, that they may easily be supposed to furnish a correct
+average of the financial state of the counties of Pennsylvania in
+general; and thus, upon reckoning that the expenses of these counties
+amounted in the year 1830 to about $361,650, or nearly 75 cents for
+each inhabitant, and calculating that each of them contributed in the
+same year about $2.55 towards the Union, and about 75 cents to the
+State of Pennsylvania, it appears that they each contributed as their
+share of all the public expenses (except those of the townships) the
+sum of $4.05. This calculation is doubly incomplete, as it applies only
+to a single year and to one part of the public charges; but it has at
+least the merit of not being conjectural.]
+> **Quote:** "I have no hesitation in predicting that, if the people of the United States is ever involved in serious difficulties, its taxation will speedily be increased to the rate of that which prevails in the greater part of the aristocracies and the monarchies of Europe."
+(This prediction was subsequently proven correct by history.)
+The authority of the Federal government cannot oblige the provincial
+governments to throw any light upon this point; and even if these
+governments were inclined to afford their simultaneous co-operation, it
+may be doubted whether they possess the means of procuring a
+satisfactory answer. Independently of the natural difficulties of the
+task, the political organization of the country would act as a
+hindrance to the success of their efforts. The county and town
+magistrates are not appointed by the authorities of the State, and they
+are not subjected to their control. It is therefore very allowable to
+suppose that, if the State was desirous of obtaining the returns which
+we require, its design would be counteracted by the neglect of those
+subordinate officers whom it would be obliged to employ. *l It is, in
+point of fact, useless to inquire what the Americans might do to
+forward this inquiry, since it is certain that they have hitherto done
+nothing at all. There does not exist a single individual at the present
+day, in America or in Europe, who can inform us what each citizen of
+the Union annually contributes to the public charges of the nation. *m
+[Footnote l: Those who have attempted to draw a comparison between the
+expenses of France and America have at once perceived that no such
+comparison could be drawn between the total expenditure of the two
+countries; but they have endeavored to contrast detached portions of
+this expenditure. It may readily be shown that this second system is
+not at all less defective than the first. If I attempt to compare the
+French budget with the budget of the Union, it must be remembered that
+the latter embraces much fewer objects than then central Government of
+the former country, and that the expenditure must consequently be much
+smaller. If I contrast the budgets of the Departments with those of the
+States which constitute the Union, it must be observed that, as the
+power and control exercised by the States is much greater than that
+which is exercised by the Departments, their expenditure is also more
+considerable. As for the budgets of the counties, nothing of the kind
+occurs in the French system of finances; and it is, again, doubtful
+whether the corresponding expenses should be referred to the budget of
+the State or to those of the municipal divisions. Municipal expenses
+exist in both countries, but they are not always analogous. In America
+the townships discharge a variety of offices which are reserved in
+France to the Departments or to the State. It may, moreover, be asked
+what is to be understood by the municipal expenses of America. The
+organization of the municipal bodies or townships differs in the
+several States. Are we to be guided by what occurs in New England or in
+Georgia, in Pennsylvania or in the State of Illinois? A kind of analogy
+may very readily be perceived between certain budgets in the two
+countries; but as the elements of which they are composed always differ
+more or less, no fair comparison can be instituted between them. [The
+same difficulty exists, perhaps to a greater degree at the present
+time, when the taxation of America has largely increased.—1874.]]
+[ Even if we knew the exact pecuniary contributions of every French and
+American citizen to the coffers of the State, we should only come at a
+portion of the truth. Governments do not only demand supplies of money,
+but they call for personal services, which may be looked upon as
+equivalent to a given sum. When a State raises an army, besides the pay
+of the troops, which is furnished by the entire nation, each soldier
+must give up his time, the value of which depends on the use he might
+make of it if he were not in the service. The same remark applies to
+the militia; the citizen who is in the militia devotes a certain
+portion of valuable time to the maintenance of the public peace, and he
+does in reality surrender to the State those earnings which he is
+prevented from gaining. Many other instances might be cited in addition
+to these. The governments of France and of America both levy taxes of
+this kind, which weigh upon the citizens; but who can estimate with
+accuracy their relative amount in the two countries?
+This, however, is not the last of the difficulties which prevent us
+from comparing the expenditure of the Union with that of France. The
+French Government contracts certain obligations which do not exist in
+America, and vice versa. The French Government pays the clergy; in
+America the voluntary principle prevails. In America there is a legal
+provision for the poor; in France they are abandoned to the charity of
+the public. The French public officers are paid by a fixed salary; in
+America they are allowed certain perquisites. In France contributions
+in kind take place on very few roads; in America upon almost all the
+thoroughfares: in the former country the roads are free to all
+travellers; in the latter turnpikes abound. All these differences in
+the manner in which contributions are levied in the two countries
+enhance the difficulty of comparing their expenditure; for there are
+certain expenses which the citizens would not be subject to, or which
+would at any rate be much less considerable, if the State did not take
+upon itself to act in the name of the public.]
+Hence we must conclude that it is no less difficult to compare the
+social expenditure than it is to estimate the relative wealth of France
+and America. I will even add that it would be dangerous to attempt this
+comparison; for when statistics are not based upon computations which
+are strictly accurate, they mislead instead of guiding aright. The mind
+is easily imposed upon by the false affectation of exactness, which
+prevails even in the misstatements of science, and it adopts with
+confidence errors which are dressed in the forms of mathematical truth.
+We abandon, therefore, our numerical investigation, with the hope of
+meeting with data of another kind. In the absence of positive
+documents, we may form an opinion as to the proportion which the
+taxation of a people bears to its real prosperity, by observing whether
+its external appearance is flourishing; whether, after having
+discharged the calls of the State, the poor man retains the means of
+subsistence, and the rich the means of enjoyment; and whether both
+classes are contented with their position, seeking, however, to
+ameliorate it by perpetual exertions, so that industry is never in want
+of capital, nor capital unemployed by industry. The observer who draws
+his inferences from these signs will, undoubtedly, be led to the
+conclusion that the American of the United States contributes a much
+smaller portion of his income to the State than the citizen of France.
+Nor, indeed, can the result be otherwise.
+A portion of the French debt is the consequence of two successive
+invasions; and the Union has no similar calamity to fear. A nation
+placed upon the continent of Europe is obliged to maintain a large
+standing army; the isolated position of the Union enables it to have
+only 6,000 soldiers. The French have a fleet of 300 sail; the Americans
+have 52 vessels. *n How, then, can the inhabitants of the Union be
+called upon to contribute as largely as the inhabitants of France? No
+parallel can be drawn between the finances of two countries so
+differently situated.
+[ See the details in the Budget of the French Minister of Marine; and
+for America, the National Calendar of 1833, p. 228. [But the 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 the
+extravagance of the Second Empire and by the war of 1870.]]
+It is by examining what actually takes place in the Union, and not by
+comparing the Union with France, that we may discover whether the
+American Government is really economical. On casting my eyes over the
+different republics which form the confederation, I perceive that their
+Governments lack perseverance in their undertakings, and that they
+exercise no steady control over the men whom they employ. Whence I
+naturally infer that they must often spend the money of the people to
+no purpose, or consume more of it than is really necessary to their
+undertakings. Great efforts are made, in accordance with the democratic
+origin of society, to satisfy the exigencies of the lower orders, to
+open the career of power to their endeavors, and to diffuse knowledge
+and comfort amongst them. The poor are maintained, immense sums are
+annually devoted to public instruction, all services whatsoever are
+remunerated, and the most subordinate agents are liberally paid. If
+this kind of government appears to me to be useful and rational, I am
+nevertheless constrained to admit that it is expensive.
+Wherever the poor direct public affairs and dispose of the national
+resources, it appears certain that, as they profit by the expenditure
+of the State, they are apt to augment that expenditure.
+I conclude, therefore, without having recourse to inaccurate
+computations, and without hazarding a comparison which might prove
+incorrect, that the democratic government of the Americans is not a
+cheap government, as is sometimes asserted; and I have no hesitation in
+predicting that, if the people of the United States is ever involved in
+serious difficulties, its taxation will speedily be increased to the
+rate of that which prevails in the greater part of the aristocracies
+and the monarchies of Europe. *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 The Resulting Effects On Public Morality**
+Corruption And Vices Of The Rulers In A Democracy, And Consequent
+Effects Upon Public Morality
+> "In aristocracies rulers sometimes endeavor to corrupt the people—In democracies rulers frequently show themselves to be corrupt—In the former their vices are directly prejudicial to the morality of the people—In the latter their indirect influence is still more pernicious."
+In aristocracies rulers sometimes endeavor to corrupt the people—In
+democracies rulers frequently show themselves to be corrupt—In the
+former their vices are directly prejudicial to the morality of the
+people—In the latter their indirect influence is still more pernicious.
+A distinction must be made when aristocratic and democratic principles attack one another for encouraging corruption. In aristocratic governments, those at the head of affairs are wealthy men who desire only power. In democracies, politicians are often poor and have their fortunes to make. Consequently, aristocratic rulers are rarely susceptible to bribery, while democratic ones are. Yet because aristocratic leaders already possess wealth and need win over relatively few men, the government is, so to speak, put up for auction. In democracies, those who hunger for power are seldom wealthy and must bribe so many that the attempt becomes pointless.
+A distinction must be made, when the aristocratic and the democratic
+principles mutually inveigh against each other, as tending to
+facilitate corruption. In aristocratic governments the individuals who
+are placed at 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 rarely accessible to corruption, and have very little
+craving for money; whilst the reverse is the case in democratic
+nations.
+Many French officials over the last forty years have been accused of building their fortunes at the state's expense—a charge rarely leveled against the old monarchy's public figures. Yet in France, bribing voters is almost unknown, whereas it is openly carried on in England. In the United States, I never heard anyone accused of using wealth to corrupt the public, but I often heard officials' integrity questioned and their success attributed to low-level intrigue.
+But in aristocracies, as those who are desirous of arriving at the head
+of affairs are possessed of considerable wealth, and as the number of
+persons by whose assistance they may rise is comparatively small, the
+government 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 are very seldom wealthy, and the number of citizens who confer
+that power is extremely great. Perhaps in democracies the number of men
+who might be bought 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 that the attempt is rendered nugatory.
+If aristocrats sometimes try to corrupt the people, democratic rulers are often corrupt themselves. In the former case, the people's morality is directly attacked; in the latter, an indirect influence is exerted that is even more pernicious. Since democratic rulers are almost always under suspicion of dishonorable conduct, they unintentionally lend governmental authority to the very base practices they are accused of, discouraging virtuous independence and fostering corrupt ambition. The corruption of men who rise by chance has a coarse, vulgar quality contagious to the masses, whereas aristocratic depravity carries a refinement that often prevents its spread.
+Many of the men who have been in the administration in France during
+the last forty years have been accused of making their fortunes at the
+expense of the State or of its allies; a reproach which was rarely
+addressed to the public characters of the ancient monarchy. But in
+France the practice of bribing electors is almost unknown, whilst it is
+notoriously and publicly carried on in England. In the United States I
+never heard a man accused of spending his wealth in corrupting the
+populace; but I have often heard the probity of public officers
+questioned; still more frequently have I heard their success attributed
+to low intrigues and immoral practices.
+The people cannot navigate the labyrinth of court intrigue or detect depravity beneath elegant manners, but they understand stealing from the treasury and selling political favors. When private citizens see an equal rise from obscurity to riches and power, they attribute his success to flaws rather than talents, forming an odious association between turpitude and power, unworthiness and success, and utility and dishonor.
+If, then, the men who conduct the government of an aristocracy
+sometimes endeavor to corrupt the people, the heads of a democracy are
+themselves corrupt. In the former case the morality of the people is
+directly assailed; in the latter an indirect influence is exercised
+upon the people which is still more to be dreaded.
+> "In reality it is far less prejudicial to witness the immorality of the great than to witness that immorality which leads to greatness."
+As the rulers of democratic nations are almost always exposed to the
+suspicion of dishonorable conduct, they in some measure lend the
+authority of the Government to the base practices of which they are
+accused. They thus afford an example which must prove discouraging to
+the struggles of virtuous independence, and must foster the secret
+calculations of a vicious ambition. If it be asserted that evil
+passions are displayed in all ranks of society, that they ascend the
+throne by hereditary right, and that despicable characters are to be
+met with at the head of aristocratic nations as well as in the sphere
+of a democracy, this objection has but little weight in my estimation.
+The corruption of men who have casually risen to power has a coarse and
+vulgar infection in it which renders it contagious to the multitude. On
+the contrary, there is a kind of aristocratic refinement and an air of
+grandeur in the depravity of the great, which frequently prevent it
+from spreading abroad.
+**Efforts Of Which A Democracy Is Capable**
+The people can never penetrate into the perplexing labyrinth of court
+intrigue, and it will always have difficulty in detecting the turpitude
+which lurks under elegant manners, refined tastes, and graceful
+language. But to pillage the public purse, and to vend the favors of
+the State, are arts which the meanest villain may comprehend, and hope
+to practice in his turn.
+Until now, the Union has had only one struggle for its existence. At the war's beginning, there were extraordinary displays of patriotism, notably Americans collectively stopping tea consumption—a significant sacrifice for a habit-bound people. But as the contest dragged on, private self-interest appeared. No money flowed into the public treasury; few recruits joined the army. Hamilton wrote that tax laws multiplied in vain, popular administration and scarce money defeating every collection attempt.
+In reality it is far less prejudicial to witness the immorality of the
+great than to witness that immorality which leads to greatness. In a
+democracy private citizens see a man of their own rank in life, who
+rises from that obscure position, and who becomes possessed of riches
+and of power in a few years; the spectacle excites their surprise and
+their envy, and they are led to inquire how the person who was
+yesterday their equal is to-day their ruler. To attribute his rise to
+his talents or his virtues is unpleasant; for it is tacitly to
+acknowledge that they are themselves less virtuous and less talented
+than he was. They are therefore led (and not unfrequently their
+conjecture is a correct one) to impute his success mainly to some one
+of his defects; and an odious mixture is thus formed of the ideas of
+turpitude and power, unworthiness and success, utility and dishonor.
+Later history, particularly the Civil War, demonstrated that when necessity arose, the American people were capable of the most enormous sacrifices in money and men. Yet military drafts remain unknown; men are induced by bonuses. The people's beliefs and habits so oppose compulsion that I doubt conscription could ever be legalized. How can a great continental war be fought without it? The Union's small navy, staffed by volunteers, costs incredibly despite limited ships. I have heard American statesmen admit the Union will struggle at sea without forced recruitment, but the difficulty is persuading the people to submit to compulsion.
+Efforts Of Which A Democracy Is Capable
+Democracy seems better suited for peaceful management or occasional bursts of vigor than for enduring the long-term storms of political life. Enthusiasm prompts exposure to danger, but perseverance requires clear focus on goals—a perception of the future often missing in democracies. The populace is more apt to feel than to reason; if its present sufferings are great, it fears the immediate pain and forgets the far greater calamities of defeat.
+The Union has only had one struggle hitherto for its
+existence—Enthusiasm at the commencement of the war—Indifference
+towards its close—Difficulty of establishing military conscription or
+impressment of seamen in America—Why a democratic people is less
+capable of sustained effort than another.
+Moreover, lower classes suffer current hardships far more acutely. A nobleman risks life with equal chance of glory; taxes merely annoy the rich but can be fatal to the poor. This relative weakness is perhaps the greatest obstacle to establishing democratic republics in Europe, where surrounding nations would need similar institutions.
+I here warn the reader that I speak of a government which implicitly
+follows the real desires of a people, and not of a government which
+simply commands in its name. Nothing is so irresistible as a tyrannical
+power commanding in the name of the people, because, whilst it
+exercises that moral influence which belongs to the decision of the
+majority, it acts at the same time with the promptitude and the
+tenacity of a single man.
+While democracy increases society's real strength over time, it can never concentrate as much power at a single point as aristocracy or monarchy. A century-old republic might be more prosperous than despotic neighbors, but would risk conquest more often.
+It is difficult to say what degree of exertion a democratic government
+may be capable of making a crisis in the history of the nation. But no
+great democratic republic has hitherto existed in the world. To style
+the oligarchy which ruled over France in 1793 by that name would be to
+offer an insult to the republican form of government. The United States
+afford the first example of the kind.
+**Self-Control Of The American Democracy**
+The American Union has now subsisted for half a century, in the course
+of which time its existence has only once been attacked, namely, during
+the War of Independence. At the commencement of that long war, various
+occurrences took place which betokened an extraordinary zeal for the
+service of the country. *p But as the contest was prolonged, symptoms
+of private egotism began to show themselves. No money was poured into
+the public treasury; few recruits could be raised to join the army; the
+people wished to acquire independence, but was very ill-disposed to
+undergo the privations by which alone it could be obtained. “Tax laws,”
+says Hamilton in the “Federalist” (No. 12), “have in vain been
+multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been
+tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed and the
+treasuries of the States have remained empty. The popular system of
+administration inherent in the nature of popular government, coinciding
+with the real scarcity of money incident to a languid and mutilated
+state of trade, has hitherto defeated every experiment for extensive
+collections, and has at length taught the different legislatures the
+folly of attempting them.”
+The American people are slow to accept what benefits them, surrounded by flatterers. They respect laws they make themselves, but an unpopular law not perceived as immediately useful would not pass or be obeyed.
+[ One of the most singular of these occurrences was the resolution
+which the Americans took of temporarily abandoning the use of tea.
+Those who know that men usually cling more to their habits than to
+their life will doubtless admire this great though obscure sacrifice
+which was made by a whole people.]
+No law exists against fraudulent bankruptcies—not because they're rare, but because they're common; the majority fears prosecution more than losses. In the Southwest, citizens take justice into their own hands, with frequent murders due to rough manners and preference for duels.
+In Philadelphia, when I suggested taxing cheap brandy causing crimes, I was told legislators feared revolt and losing their seats. "So the drinking population is the majority?" I inferred. Statesmen assure that time and hardship will teach true interests.
+The United States have not had any serious war to carry on ever since
+that period. In order, therefore, to appreciate the sacrifices which
+democratic nations may impose upon themselves, we must wait until the
+American people is obliged to put half its entire income at the
+disposal of the Government, as was done by the English; or until it
+sends forth a twentieth part of its population to the field of battle,
+as was done by France. *q
+Democracy is more prone to error than monarchy or aristocracy, yet more likely to return to the right path once it acknowledges mistakes, unhampered by internal interests that conflict with the majority. But it only discovers truth through experience—while nations may perish waiting.
+[ [The Civil War showed that when the necessity arose the American
+people, both in the North and in the South, are capable of making the
+most enormous sacrifices, both in money and in men.]]
+The American advantage lies not in superior enlightenment but in repairing mistakes. However, this requires a certain level of civilization. Some peoples' education is so flawed, their character such a mixture of passion and ignorance, that they cannot see causes of their misery. The Indian tribes I visited witness their own decline; they feel the woe that each year heaps upon them, yet they will perish to a man before accepting the remedy of civilization's protection.
+South American revolutions have persisted for twenty-five years—perhaps chaos is their natural state. Society is trapped in insurmountable difficulties; inhabitants pursue internal destruction. Considering their misery and crime, I might think despotism a benefit, if those words could coexist.
+In America the use of conscription is unknown, and men are induced to
+enlist by bounties. The notions and habits of the people of the United
+States are so opposed to compulsory enlistment that I do not imagine it
+can ever be sanctioned by the laws. What is termed the conscription in
+France is assuredly the heaviest tax upon the population of that
+country; yet how could a great continental war be carried on without
+it? The Americans have not adopted the British impressment of seamen,
+and they have nothing which corresponds to the French system of
+maritime conscription; the navy, as well as the merchant service, is
+supplied by voluntary service. But it is not easy to conceive how a
+people can sustain a great maritime war without having recourse to one
+or the other of these two systems. Indeed, the Union, which has fought
+with some honor upon the seas, has never possessed a very numerous
+fleet, and the equipment of the small number of American vessels has
+always been excessively expensive.
+**Conduct Of Foreign Affairs By The American Democracy**
+I have heard American statesmen confess that the Union will have great
+difficulty in maintaining its rank on the seas without adopting the
+system of impressment or of maritime conscription; but the difficulty
+is to induce the people, which exercises the supreme authority, to
+submit to impressment or any compulsory system.
+Washington and Jefferson directed American foreign policy. Article II entrusts treaties to President and Senate, distancing policy from direct popular control. Washington's farewell address established enduring principles:
+It is incontestable that in times of danger a free people displays far
+more energy than one which is not so. But I incline to believe that
+this is more especially the case in those free nations in which the
+democratic element preponderates. Democracy appears to me to be much
+better adapted for the peaceful conduct of society, or for an
+occasional effort of remarkable vigor, than for the hardy and prolonged
+endurance of the storms which beset the political existence of nations.
+The reason is very evident; it is enthusiasm which prompts men to
+expose themselves to dangers and privations, but they will not support
+them long without reflection. There is more calculation, even in the
+impulses of bravery, than is generally attributed to them; and although
+the first efforts are suggested by passion, perseverance is maintained
+by a distinct regard of the purpose in view. A portion of what we value
+is exposed, in order to save the remainder.
+> "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so 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 steer clear 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 be understood 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, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense; but in my opinion it is unnecessary, and would be unwise, to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, in a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies."
+But it is this distinct perception of the future, founded upon a sound
+judgment and an enlightened experience, which is most frequently
+wanting in democracies. The populace is more apt to feel than to
+reason; and if its present sufferings are great, it is to be feared
+that the still greater sufferings attendant upon defeat will be
+forgotten.
+Earlier he observed:
+Another cause tends to render the efforts of a democratic government
+less persevering than those of an aristocracy. Not only are the lower
+classes less awakened than the higher orders to the good or evil
+chances of the future, but they are liable to suffer far more acutely
+from present privations. The noble exposes his life, indeed, but the
+chance of glory is equal to the chance of harm. If he sacrifices a
+large portion of his income to the State, he deprives himself for a
+time of the pleasures of affluence; but to the poor man death is
+embellished by no pomp or renown, and the imposts which are irksome to
+the rich are fatal to him.
+> "The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
+This relative impotence of democratic republics is, perhaps, the
+greatest obstacle to the foundation of a republic of this kind in
+Europe. In order that such a State should subsist in one country of the
+Old World, it would be necessary that similar institutions should be
+introduced into all the other nations.
+Washington kept America at peace while nations warred, establishing neutrality toward Europe's conflicts. Jefferson added that Americans should never seek foreign privileges to avoid granting them in return.
+I am of opinion that a democratic government tends in the end to
+increase the real strength of society; but it can never combine, upon a
+single point and at a given time, so much power as an aristocracy or a
+monarchy. If a democratic country remained during a whole century
+subject to a republican government, it would probably at the end of
+that period be more populous and more prosperous than the neighboring
+despotic States. But it would have incurred the risk of being conquered
+much oftener than they would in that lapse of years.
+These simple principles simplified foreign policy. With no part in European affairs and no powerful continental neighbors, the Union has no foreign interests to debate. The country is removed from the Old World's passions by location and policy, free from entangling alliances. Foreign policy consists more in avoiding interference than active involvement.
+Self-Control Of The American Democracy
+It is therefore difficult to determine how wisely American democracy will conduct foreign affairs. I do not hesitate to state that democratic governments appear significantly inferior in foreign relations. Experience can foster 'good sense'—that science of daily life—which suffices for internal affairs. But foreign policy demands qualities democracies lack: the ability to regulate the details of a great undertaking, to persevere in a design, and to work with secrecy and patience. These belong to individuals or aristocracies—the means by which nations achieve dominance.
+The American people acquiesces slowly, or frequently does not
+acquiesce, in what is beneficial to its interests—The faults of the
+American democracy are for the most part reparable.
+Conversely, aristocracy's natural defects are relatively harmless in foreign affairs. Its main fault—pursuing its own advantage rather than the people's—rarely differs from national interest internationally.
+The difficulty which a democracy has in conquering the passions and in
+subduing the exigencies of the moment, with a view to the future, is
+conspicuous in the most trivial occurrences of the United States. The
+people, which is surrounded by flatterers, has great difficulty in
+surmounting its inclinations, and whenever it is solicited to undergo a
+privation or any kind of inconvenience, even to attain an end which is
+sanctioned by its own rational conviction, it almost always refuses to
+comply at first. The deference of the Americans to the laws has been
+very justly applauded; but it must be added that in America the
+legislation is made by the people and for the people. Consequently, in
+the United States the law favors those classes which are most
+interested in evading it elsewhere. It may therefore be supposed that
+an offensive law, which should not be acknowledged to be one of
+immediate utility, would either not be enacted or would not be obeyed.
+Democracy's tendency to follow passion over prudence was evident during the French Revolution. American interests clearly required staying out of Europe's bloodshed, but popular sympathy for France was so violent that only Washington's character and popularity prevented war with England. His efforts to restrain noble but reckless passions nearly cost him his country's love; the majority condemned his policy, now unanimously approved. As Marshall noted, no leader can oppose popular opinion long. Washington lost his House majority, was compared to Benedict Arnold, and accused of monarchical tendencies by a "paper nobility."
+In America there is no law against fraudulent bankruptcies; not because
+they are few, but because there are a great number of bankruptcies. The
+dread of being prosecuted as a bankrupt acts with more intensity upon
+the mind of the majority of the people than the fear of being involved
+in losses or ruin by the failure of other parties, and a sort of guilty
+tolerance is extended by the public conscience to an offence which
+everyone condemns in his individual capacity. In the new States of the
+Southwest the citizens generally take justice into their own hands, and
+murders are of very frequent occurrence. This arises from the rude
+manners and the ignorance of the inhabitants of those deserts, who do
+not perceive the utility of investing the law with adequate force, and
+who prefer duels to prosecutions.
+Almost all nations that exerted world influence through grand designs—from Romans to English—were aristocratic. Nothing has such consistency of purpose as an aristocracy: too large for intrigue's charms, too small for thoughtless passion's intoxication.
+Someone observed to me one day, in Philadelphia, that almost all crimes
+in America are caused by the abuse of intoxicating liquors, which the
+lower classes can procure in great abundance, from their excessive
+cheapness. “How comes it,” said I, “that you do not put a duty upon
+brandy?” “Our legislators,” rejoined my informant, “have frequently
+thought of this expedient; but the task of putting it in operation is a
+difficult one; a revolt might be apprehended, and the members who
+should vote for a law of this kind would be sure of losing their
+seats.” “Whence I am to infer,” replied I, “that the drinking
+population constitutes the majority in your country, and that
+temperance is somewhat unpopular.”
+> **Quote:** "[An aristocratic body] has the energy of a firm and enlightened individual, added to the power which it derives from perpetuity."
+When these things are pointed out to the American statesmen, they
+content themselves with assuring you that time will operate the
+necessary change, and that the experience of evil will teach the people
+its true interests. This is frequently true, although a democracy is
+more liable to error than a monarch or a body of nobles; the chances of
+its regaining the right path when once it has acknowledged its mistake,
+are greater also; because it is rarely embarrassed by internal
+interests, which conflict with those of the majority, and resist the
+authority of reason. But a democracy can only obtain truth as the
+result of experience, and many nations may forfeit their existence
+whilst they are awaiting the consequences of their errors.
+## Chapter XIV: Advantages American Society Derive From Democracy
+The great privilege of the Americans does not simply consist in their
+being more enlightened than other nations, but in their being able to
+repair the faults they may commit. To which it must be added, that a
+democracy cannot derive substantial benefit from past experience,
+unless it be arrived at a certain pitch of knowledge and civilization.
+There are tribes and peoples whose education has been so vicious, and
+whose character presents so strange a mixture of passion, of ignorance,
+and of erroneous notions upon all subjects, that they are unable to
+discern the causes of their own wretchedness, and they fall a sacrifice
+to ills with which they are unacquainted.
+I have crossed vast tracts of country that were formerly inhabited by
+powerful Indian nations which are now extinct; I have myself passed
+some time in the midst of mutilated tribes, which witness the daily
+decline of their numerical strength and of the glory of their
+independence; and I have heard these Indians themselves anticipate the
+impending doom of their race. Every European can perceive means which
+would rescue these unfortunate beings from inevitable destruction. They
+alone are insensible to the expedient; they feel the woe which year
+after year heaps upon their heads, but they will perish to a man
+without accepting the remedy. It would be necessary to employ force to
+induce them to submit to the protection and the constraint of
+civilization.
+The incessant revolutions which have convulsed the South American
+provinces for the last quarter of a century have frequently been
+adverted to with astonishment, and expectations have been expressed
+that those nations would speedily return to their natural state. But
+can it be affirmed that the turmoil of revolution is not actually the
+most natural state of the South American Spaniards at the present time?
+In that country society is plunged into difficulties from which all its
+efforts are insufficient to rescue it. The inhabitants of that fair
+portion of the Western Hemisphere seem obstinately bent on pursuing the
+work of inward havoc. If they fall into a momentary repose from the
+effects of exhaustion, that repose prepares them for a fresh state of
+frenzy. When I consider their condition, which alternates between
+misery and crime, I should be inclined to believe that despotism itself
+would be a benefit to them, if it were possible that the words
+despotism and benefit 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 by
+Washington and Jefferson—Almost all the defects inherent in democratic
+institutions are brought to light in the conduct of foreign
+affairs—Their advantages are less perceptible.
+We have seen that the Federal Constitution entrusts the permanent
+direction of the external interests of the nation to the President and
+the Senate, *r which tends in some degree to detach the general foreign
+policy of the Union from the control of the people. It cannot therefore
+be asserted with truth that the external affairs of State are conducted
+by the democracy.
+[ “The President,” says the Constitution, Art. II, sect. 2, Section 2,
+“shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to
+make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur.” The
+reader is reminded that the senators are returned for a term of six
+years, and that they are chosen by the legislature of each State.]
+The policy of America owes its rise to Washington, and after him to
+Jefferson, who established those principles which it observes at the
+present day. Washington said in the admirable letter which he addressed
+to his fellow-citizens, and which may be looked upon as his political
+bequest to the country: “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to
+foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with
+them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have
+already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good
+faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to
+us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in
+frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to
+our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate
+ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her
+politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her
+friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and
+enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under
+an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy
+material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an
+attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon
+to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the
+impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard
+the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our
+interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages
+of so 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 steer clear 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 be understood 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, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense;
+but in my opinion it is unnecessary, and would be unwise, to extend
+them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments,
+in a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary
+alliances for extraordinary emergencies.” In a previous part of the
+same letter Washington makes the following admirable and just remark:
+“The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an
+habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its
+animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it
+astray from its duty 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 all
+the other nations of the globe were at war; and he laid it down as a
+fundamental doctrine, that the true interest of the Americans consisted
+in a perfect neutrality with regard to the internal dissensions of the
+European Powers.
+Jefferson went still further, and he introduced a maxim into the policy
+of the Union, which affirms that “the Americans ought never to solicit
+any privileges from foreign nations, in order not to be obliged to
+grant similar privileges themselves.”
+These two principles, which were so plain and so just as to be adapted
+to the capacity of the populace, have greatly simplified the foreign
+policy of the United States. As the Union takes no part in the affairs
+of Europe, it has, properly speaking, no foreign interests to discuss,
+since it has at present no powerful neighbors on the American
+continent. The country is as much removed from the passions of the Old
+World by its position as by the line of policy which it has chosen, and
+it is neither called upon to repudiate nor to espouse the conflicting
+interests of Europe; whilst the dissensions of the New World are still
+concealed within the bosom of the future.
+The Union is free from all pre-existing obligations, and it is
+consequently enabled to profit by the experience of the old nations of
+Europe, without being obliged, as they are, to make the best of the
+past, and to adapt it to their present circumstances; or to accept that
+immense inheritance which they derive from their forefathers—an
+inheritance of glory mingled with calamities, and of alliances
+conflicting with national antipathies. The foreign policy of the United
+States is reduced by its very nature to await the chances of the future
+history of the nation, and for the present it consists more in
+abstaining from interference than in exerting its activity.
+It is therefore very difficult to ascertain, at present, what degree of
+sagacity the American democracy will display in the conduct of the
+foreign policy of the country; and upon this point its adversaries, as
+well as its advocates, must suspend their judgment. As for myself I
+have no hesitation in avowing my conviction, that it is most especially
+in the conduct of foreign relations that democratic governments appear
+to me to be decidedly inferior to governments carried on upon different
+principles. Experience, instruction, and habit may almost always
+succeed in creating a species of practical discretion in democracies,
+and that science of the daily occurrences of life which is called good
+sense. Good sense may suffice to direct the ordinary course of society;
+and amongst a people whose education has been provided for, the
+advantages of democratic liberty in the internal affairs of the country
+may more than compensate for the evils inherent in a democratic
+government. But such is not always the case in the mutual relations of
+foreign nations.
+Foreign politics demand scarcely any of those qualities which a
+democracy possesses; and they require, on the contrary, the perfect use
+of almost all those faculties in which it is deficient. Democracy is
+favorable to the increase of the internal resources of the State; it
+tends to diffuse a moderate independence; it promotes the growth of
+public spirit, and fortifies the respect which is entertained for law
+in all classes of society; and these are advantages which only exercise
+an indirect influence over the relations which one people bears to
+another. But a democracy is unable to regulate the details of an
+important undertaking, to persevere in a design, and to work out its
+execution in the presence of serious obstacles. It cannot combine its
+measures with secrecy, and it will not await their consequences with
+patience. These are qualities which more especially belong to an
+individual or to an aristocracy; and they are precisely the means by
+which an individual people 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 the
+direction of the external affairs of a State. The capital fault of
+which aristocratic bodies may be accused is that they are more apt to
+contrive their own advantage than that of the mass of the people. In
+foreign politics it is rare for the interest of the aristocracy to be
+in any way distinct from that of the people.
+The propensity which democracies have to obey the impulse of passion
+rather than the suggestions of prudence, and to abandon a mature design
+for the gratification of a momentary caprice, was very clearly seen in
+America on the breaking out of the French Revolution. It was then as
+evident to the simplest capacity as it is at the present time that the
+interest of the Americans forbade them to take any part in the contest
+which was about to deluge Europe with blood, but which could by no
+means injure the welfare of their own country. Nevertheless the
+sympathies of the people declared themselves with so much violence in
+behalf of France that nothing but the inflexible character of
+Washington, and the immense popularity which he enjoyed, could have
+prevented the Americans from declaring war against England. And even
+then, the exertions which the austere reason of that great man made to
+repress the generous but imprudent passions of his fellow-citizens,
+very nearly deprived him of the sole recompense which he had ever
+claimed—that of his country’s love. The majority then reprobated the
+line of policy which he adopted, and which has since been unanimously
+approved by the nation. *s If the Constitution and the favor of the
+public had not entrusted the direction of the foreign affairs of the
+country to Washington, it is certain that the American nation would at
+that time have taken the very measures which it now condemns.
+[ See the fifth volume of Marshall’s “Life of Washington.” In a
+government constituted like that of the United States, he says, “it is
+impossible for the chief magistrate, however firm he may be, to oppose
+for any length of time the torrent of popular opinion; and the
+prevalent opinion of that day seemed to incline to war. In fact, in the
+session of Congress held at the time, it was frequently seen that
+Washington had lost the majority in the House of Representatives.” The
+violence of the language used against him in public was extreme, and in
+a political meeting they did not scruple to compare him indirectly to
+the treacherous Arnold. “By the opposition,” says Marshall, “the
+friends of the administration were declared to be an aristocratic and
+corrupt faction, who, from a desire to introduce monarchy, were hostile
+to France and under the influence of Britain; that they were a paper
+nobility, whose extreme sensibility at every measure which threatened
+the funds, induced a tame submission to injuries and insults, which the
+interests and honor of the nation required them to resist.”]
+Almost all the nations which have ever exercised a powerful influence
+upon the destinies of the world by conceiving, following up, and
+executing vast designs—from the Romans to the English—have been
+governed by aristocratic institutions. Nor will this be a subject of
+wonder when we recollect that nothing in the world has so absolute a
+fixity of purpose as an aristocracy. The mass of the people may be led
+astray by ignorance or passion; the mind of a king may be biased, and
+his perseverance in his designs may be shaken—besides which a king is
+not immortal—but an aristocratic body is too numerous to be led astray
+by the blandishments of intrigue, and yet not numerous enough to yield
+readily to the intoxicating influence of unreflecting passion: it has
+the energy of a firm and enlightened individual, added to the power
+which it derives from perpetuity.
+## Chapter XIV: Advantages American Society Derive From Democracy
 ### Chapter XIV: Advantages American Society Derive From Democracy—Part I
+**The Real Advantages American Society Derives from Democratic Government**
+What The Real Advantages Are Which American Society Derives From The
+Government Of The Democracy
+I must remind the reader that American institutions represent only one possible democratic form, not necessarily the best, and that the benefits I describe are not exclusive to these particular laws.
+Before I enter upon the subject of the present chapter I am induced to
+remind the reader of what I have more than once adverted to in the
+course of this book. The political institutions of the United States
+appear to me to be one of the forms of government which a democracy may
+adopt; but I do not regard the American Constitution as the best, or as
+the only one, which a democratic people may establish. In showing the
+advantages which the Americans derive from the government of democracy,
+I am therefore very far from meaning, or from believing, that similar
+advantages can only be obtained from the same laws.
+**The General Tendency of Laws Under American Democracy and the Habits of Those Who Apply Them**
+General Tendency Of The Laws Under The Rule Of The American Democracy,
+And Habits Of Those Who Apply Them
+The defects of democratic government are obvious, its advantages only discernible through long observation. In America, democratic laws are often flawed or incomplete, sometimes infringing on rights or authorizing dangerous ones. Even when good, their constant change is itself an evil. How is it, then, that the American republics prosper and maintain their position?
+Defects of a democratic government easy to be discovered—Its advantages
+only to be discerned by long observation—Democracy in America often
+inexpert, but the general tendency of the laws advantageous—In the
+American democracy public officers have no permanent interests distinct
+from those of the majority—Result of this state of things.
+We must distinguish between a law's goal and its methods—between its absolute and relative excellence. A law favoring a minority at the majority's expense may be skillfully drafted, but the more effective it is, the greater the harm.
+The defects and the weaknesses of a democratic government may very
+readily be discovered; they are demonstrated by the most flagrant
+instances, whilst its beneficial influence is less perceptibly
+exercised. A single glance suffices to detect its evil consequences,
+but its good qualities can only be discerned by long observation. The
+laws of the American democracy are frequently defective or incomplete;
+they sometimes attack vested rights, or give a sanction to others which
+are dangerous to the community; but even if they were good, the
+frequent changes which they undergo would be an evil. How comes it,
+then, that the American republics prosper and maintain their position?
+Democratic laws generally promote the welfare of the greatest number, for they spring from the majority. While the majority may err, it cannot have interests contrary to its own advantage. Aristocratic laws, by contrast, concentrate wealth and power in a minority's hands, since aristocracy is inherently a minority. The purpose of democratic legislation is thus more useful to more citizens, though this is the extent of its advantage.
+In the consideration of laws a distinction must be carefully observed
+between the end at which they aim and the means by which they are
+directed to that end, between their absolute and their relative
+excellence. If it be the intention of the legislator to favor the
+interests of the minority at the expense of the majority, and if the
+measures he takes are so combined as to accomplish the object he has in
+view with the least possible expense of time and exertion, the law may
+be well drawn up, although its purpose be bad; and the more efficacious
+it is, the greater is the mischief which it causes.
+Aristocracies are infinitely more skilled at lawmaking. They possess self-control, form long-term plans, and focus collective force on single objectives. Democracies lack these methods; their laws are often ineffective or badly timed, unintentionally working against their own cause. Yet their goal is more useful.
+Democratic laws generally tend to promote the welfare of the greatest
+possible number; for they emanate from the majority of the citizens,
+who are subject to error, but who cannot have an interest opposed to
+their own advantage. The laws of an aristocracy tend, on the contrary,
+to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the minority, because
+an aristocracy, by its very nature, constitutes a minority. It may
+therefore be asserted, as a general proposition, that the purpose of a
+democracy in the conduct of its legislation is useful to a greater
+number of citizens than that of an aristocracy. This is, however, the
+sum total of its advantages.
+Imagine a community that can survive temporary bad laws while awaiting the beneficial general tendency of legislation. Such a community would thrive under democracy despite its flaws, which is precisely what occurs in America. As I have remarked before:
+Aristocracies are infinitely more expert in the science of legislation
+than democracies ever can be. They are possessed of a self-control
+which protects them from the errors of temporary excitement, and they
+form lasting designs which they mature with the assistance of favorable
+opportunities. Aristocratic government proceeds with the dexterity of
+art; it understands how to make the collective force of all its laws
+converge at the same time to a given point. Such is not the case with
+democracies, whose laws are almost always ineffective or inopportune.
+The means of democracy are therefore more imperfect than those of
+aristocracy, and the measures which it unwittingly adopts are
+frequently opposed to its own cause; but the object it has in view is
+more useful.
+> **Quote:** "the great advantage of the Americans consists in their being able to commit faults which they may afterward repair."
+Let us now imagine a community so organized by nature, or by its
+constitution, that it can support the transitory action of bad laws,
+and that it can await, without destruction, the general tendency of the
+legislation: we shall then be able to conceive that a democratic
+government, notwithstanding its defects, will be most fitted to conduce
+to the prosperity of this community. This is precisely what has
+occurred in the United States; and I repeat, what I have before
+remarked, that the great advantage of the Americans consists in their
+being able to commit faults which they may afterward repair.
+The same holds for public officials. American democracy often errs in selecting administrators, yet the state prospers. First, the governed are more enlightened and vigilant regarding their interests, preventing representatives from straying from the public good. Second, democratic officials, though more likely to abuse power, hold it for shorter periods.
+An analogous observation may be made respecting public officers. It is
+easy to perceive that the American democracy frequently errs in the
+choice of the individuals to whom it entrusts the power of the
+administration; but it is more difficult to say why the State prospers
+under their rule. In the first place it is to be remarked, that if in a
+democratic State the governors have less honesty and less capacity than
+elsewhere, the governed, on the other hand, are more enlightened and
+more attentive to their interests. As the people in democracies is more
+incessantly vigilant in its affairs and more jealous of its rights, it
+prevents its representatives from abandoning that general line of
+conduct which its own interest prescribes. In the second place, it must
+be remembered that if the democratic magistrate is more apt to misuse
+his power, he possesses it for a shorter period of time. But there is
+yet another reason which is still more general and conclusive. It is no
+doubt of importance to the welfare of nations that they should be
+governed by men of talents and virtue; but it is perhaps still more
+important that the interests of those men should not differ from the
+interests of the community at large; for, if such were the case,
+virtues of a high order might become useless, and talents might be
+turned to a bad account. I say that it is important that the interests
+of the persons in authority should not conflict with or oppose the
+interests of the community at large; but I do not insist upon their
+having the same interests as the whole population, because I am not
+aware that such a state of things ever existed in any country.
+But there is a more general reason. While governing by virtuous, talented men is important, it is perhaps more vital that their interests not conflict with the community's. No system favors all classes equally; aristocratic governments risk the poor's interests, democratic governments the rich's. The advantage of democracy is not in favoring everyone's prosperity, but in serving the greatest number.
+No political form has hitherto been discovered which is equally
+favorable to the prosperity and the development of all the classes into
+which society is divided. These classes continue to form, as it were, a
+certain number of distinct nations in the same nation; and experience
+has shown that it is no less dangerous to place the fate of these
+classes exclusively in the hands of any one of them than it is to make
+one people the arbiter of the destiny of another. When the rich alone
+govern, the interest of the poor is always endangered; and when the
+poor make the laws, that of the rich incurs very serious risks. The
+advantage of democracy does not consist, therefore, as has sometimes
+been asserted, in favoring the prosperity of all, but simply in
+contributing to the well-being of the greatest possible number.
+American officials are often inferior in ability and morality to those aristocracy would raise, but their interests merge with the majority's. They may be untrustworthy or mistaken, but never systematically opposed to the majority's will. Mismanagement is an isolated, short-term event. Corruption and incompetence do not link men permanently; these vices are limited to the official's person.
+The men who are entrusted with the direction of public affairs in the
+United States are frequently inferior, both in point of capacity and of
+morality, to those whom aristocratic institutions would raise to power.
+But their interest is identified and confounded with that of the
+majority of their fellow-citizens. They may frequently be faithless and
+frequently mistaken, but they will never systematically adopt a line of
+conduct opposed to the will of the majority; and it is impossible that
+they should give a dangerous or an exclusive tendency to the
+government.
+Under aristocracies, public men serve class interests that often diverge from the majority's. This common, lasting bond unites them across generations, encouraging cooperation toward goals that do not ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The English aristocracy, perhaps history's most liberal, has consistently supplied honorable, enlightened statesmen. Yet English legislation has frequently sacrificed the poor's welfare to the rich's advantage and the majority's rights to the few's privileges, creating extremes of wealth and risk.
+The mal-administration of a democratic magistrate is a mere isolated
+fact, which only occurs during the short period for which he is
+elected. Corruption and incapacity do not act as common interests,
+which may connect men permanently with one another. A corrupt or an
+incapable magistrate will not concert his measures with another
+magistrate, simply because that individual is as corrupt and as
+incapable as himself; and these two men will never unite their
+endeavors to promote the corruption and inaptitude of their remote
+posterity. The ambition and the manoeuvres of the one will serve, on
+the contrary, to unmask the other. The vices of a magistrate, in
+democratic states, are usually peculiar to his own person.
+In America, officials have no interests to promote connected with their caste; government's general influence is beneficial, though its administrators are often unskilled and sometimes contemptible. As I have noted:
+But under aristocratic governments public men are swayed by the
+interest of their order, which, if it is sometimes confounded with the
+interests of the majority, is very frequently distinct from them. This
+interest is the common and lasting bond which unites them together; it
+induces them to coalesce, and to combine their efforts in order to
+attain an end which does not always ensure the greatest happiness of
+the greatest number; and it serves not only to connect the persons in
+authority, but to unite them to a considerable portion of the
+community, since a numerous body of citizens belongs to the
+aristocracy, without being invested with official functions. The
+aristocratic magistrate is therefore constantly supported by a portion
+of the community, as well as by the Government of which he is a member.
+> **Quote:** "In aristocratic governments public men may frequently do injuries which they do not intend, and in democratic states they produce advantages which they never thought of."
+The common purpose which connects the interest of the magistrates in
+aristocracies with that of a portion of their contemporaries identifies
+it with that of future generations; their influence belongs to the
+future as much as to the present. The aristocratic magistrate is urged
+at 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 indeed aristocracies are often carried away by the spirit of their
+order without being corrupted by it; and they unconsciously fashion
+society to their own ends, and prepare it for their own descendants.
+Democratic institutions have a hidden tendency to make citizens' efforts serve community prosperity despite their vices, while aristocratic institutions incline officials to contribute to citizens' hardships despite their virtues.
+The English aristocracy is perhaps the most liberal which ever existed,
+and no body of men has ever, uninterruptedly, furnished so many
+honorable and enlightened individuals to the government of a country.
+It cannot, however, escape observation that in the legislation of
+England the good of the poor has been sacrificed to the advantage of
+the rich, and the rights of the majority to the privileges of the few.
+The consequence is, that England, at the present day, combines the
+extremes of fortune in the bosom of her society, and her perils and
+calamities are almost equal to her power and her renown. *a
+**Public Spirit in the United States**
+[ [The legislation of England for the forty years is certainly not
+fairly open to this criticism, which was written before the Reform Bill
+of 1832, and accordingly Great Britain has thus far escaped and
+surmounted the perils and calamities to which she seemed to be
+exposed.]]
+One patriotism arises from instinctive, disinterested feeling—the love of one's birthplace, customs, and traditions. This passion, sometimes fueled by religious enthusiasm, can inspire immense effort but is more likely to produce temporary bursts than continuous exertion. It persists while society remains rooted in unquestioned traditions.
+But there is a more rational attachment, less passionate but more productive and lasting. It emerges with knowledge, is nurtured by laws and civil rights, and merges with personal interest. A citizen understands how national prosperity affects his own well-being; he works to promote it first from self-interest, second from right.
+In the United States, where the public officers have no interests to
+promote connected with their caste, the general and constant influence
+of the Government is beneficial, although the individuals who conduct
+it are frequently unskilful and sometimes contemptible. There is indeed
+a secret tendency in democratic institutions to render the exertions of
+the citizens subservient to the prosperity of the community,
+notwithstanding their private vices and mistakes; whilst in
+aristocratic institutions there is a secret propensity which,
+notwithstanding the talents and the virtues of those who conduct the
+government, leads them to contribute to the evils which oppress their
+fellow-creatures. In aristocratic governments public men may frequently
+do injuries which they do not intend, and in democratic states they
+produce advantages which they never thought of.
+When ancient customs change, morality fades, religious belief shakes, and tradition breaks—while knowledge remains incomplete and rights insecure—the country becomes a vague concept. Citizens are freed from prejudice without accepting reason; they possess neither monarchical instinct nor republican reflection, but retreat into the > **Quote:** "dull precincts of a narrow egotism."
+Public Spirit In The United States
+Retreat is impossible. One cannot restore lost vitality any more than childhood innocence. The only path forward is to accelerate the merging of private and public interests, since selfless patriotism has passed forever. I do not claim political rights should be immediately universal, but I maintain the most powerful way to interest people in their country's welfare is to make them participants in government. In Europe, the number of active citizens will vary with the extent of these rights.
+Patriotism of instinct—Patriotism of reflection—Their different
+characteristics—Nations ought to strive to acquire the second when the
+first has disappeared—Efforts of the Americans to it—Interest of the
+individual intimately connected with that of the country.
+In America, the inhabitants arrived recently without ancient customs or traditions; instinctive patriotism hardly exists. Yet everyone actively interests himself in township, county, and state affairs because everyone, in his own way, plays a part in governing society. Americans keenly understand how general prosperity affects their own well-being—a simple observation rarely made elsewhere. They view prosperity as the result of their own efforts; the citizen treats public success as private interest, contributing not from pride or duty but from what I will venture to term > **Quote:** "cupidity."
+There is one sort of patriotic attachment which principally arises from
+that instinctive, disinterested, and undefinable feeling which connects
+the affections of man with his birthplace. This natural fondness is
+united to a taste for ancient customs, and to a reverence for ancestral
+traditions of the past; those who cherish it love their country as they
+love the mansions of their fathers. They enjoy the tranquillity which
+it affords them; they cling to the peaceful habits which they have
+contracted within its bosom; they are attached to the reminiscences
+which it awakens, and they are even pleased by the state of obedience
+in which they are placed. This patriotism is sometimes stimulated by
+religious enthusiasm, and then it is capable of making the most
+prodigious efforts. It is in itself a kind of religion; it does not
+reason, but it acts from the impulse of faith and of sentiment. By some
+nations the monarch has been regarded as a personification of the
+country; and the fervor of patriotism being converted into the fervor
+of loyalty, they took a sympathetic pride in his conquests, and gloried
+in his power. At one time, under the ancient monarchy, the French felt
+a sort of satisfaction in the sense of their dependence upon the
+arbitrary pleasure of their king, and they were wont to say with pride,
+“We are the subjects of the most powerful king in the world.”
+Nothing is more awkward in daily life than this sensitive patriotism of the Americans. A foreigner might praise many institutions but ask permission to criticize peculiarities—a permission stubbornly refused. America is thus a free country where, to avoid offending anyone, you may not speak freely of individuals, the state, citizens, authorities, or projects—in short, of anything except perhaps climate and soil. And even then, Americans defend both as if they had designed them.
+But, like all instinctive passions, this kind of patriotism is more apt
+to prompt transient exertion than to supply the motives of continuous
+endeavor. It may save the State in critical circumstances, but it will
+not unfrequently allow the nation to decline in the midst of peace.
+Whilst the manners of a people are simple and its faith unshaken,
+whilst society is steadily based upon traditional institutions whose
+legitimacy has never been contested, this instinctive patriotism is
+wont to endure.
+Our time requires a choice between the patriotism of the many and the government of the few; the energy created by the former is incompatible with the stability guarantees of the latter.
+But there is another species of attachment to a country which is more
+rational than the one we have been describing. It is perhaps less
+generous and less ardent, but it is more fruitful and more lasting; it
+is coeval with the spread of knowledge, it is nurtured by the laws, it
+grows by the exercise of civil rights, and, in the end, it is
+confounded with the personal interest of the citizen. A man comprehends
+the influence which the prosperity of his country has upon his own
+welfare; he is aware that the laws authorize him to contribute his
+assistance to that prosperity, and he labors to promote it as a portion
+of his interest in the first place, and as a portion of his right in
+the second.
+**Notion Of Rights In The United States**
+But epochs sometimes occur, in the course of the existence of a nation,
+at which the ancient customs of a people are changed, public morality
+destroyed, religious belief disturbed, and the spell of tradition
+broken, whilst the diffusion of knowledge is yet imperfect, and the
+civil rights of the community are ill secured, or confined within very
+narrow limits. The country then assumes a dim and dubious shape in the
+eyes of the citizens; they no longer behold it in the soil which they
+inhabit, for that soil is to them a dull inanimate clod; nor in the
+usages of their forefathers, which they have been taught to look upon
+as a debasing yoke; nor in religion, for of that they doubt; nor in the
+laws, which do not originate in their own authority; nor in the
+legislator, whom they fear and despise. The country is lost to their
+senses, they can neither discover it under its own nor under borrowed
+features, and they entrench themselves within the dull precincts of a
+narrow egotism. They are emancipated from prejudice without having
+acknowledged the empire of reason; they are neither animated by the
+instinctive patriotism of monarchical subjects nor by the thinking
+patriotism of republican citizens; but they have stopped halfway
+between the two, in the midst of confusion and of distress.
+Nothing is higher than the principle of right, which merges with virtue. I have noted:
+In this predicament, to retreat is impossible; for a people cannot
+restore the vivacity of its earlier times, any more than a man can
+return to the innocence and the bloom of childhood; such things may be
+regretted, but they cannot be renewed. The only thing, then, which
+remains to be done is to proceed, and to accelerate the union of
+private with public interests, since the period of disinterested
+patriotism is gone by forever.
+> **Quote:** "The idea of right is simply that of virtue introduced into the political world."
+I am certainly very far from averring that, in order to obtain this
+result, the exercise of political rights should be immediately granted
+to all the members of the community. But I maintain that the most
+powerful, and perhaps the only, means of interesting men in the welfare
+of their country which we still possess is to make them partakers in
+the Government. At the present time civic zeal seems to me to be
+inseparable from the exercise of political rights; and I hold that the
+number of citizens will be found to augment or to decrease in Europe in
+proportion as those rights are extended.
+It defines anarchy and tyranny, teaching us to obey without submission. There are no great nations without the concept of rights.
+In the United States the inhabitants were thrown but as yesterday upon
+the soil which they now occupy, and they brought neither customs nor
+traditions with them there; they meet each other for the first time
+with no previous acquaintance; in short, the instinctive love of their
+country can scarcely exist in their minds; but everyone takes as
+zealous an interest in the affairs of his township, his county, and of
+the whole State, as if they were his own, because everyone, in his
+sphere, takes an active part in the government of society.
+The only way to instill this concept is to grant all members peaceful exercise of certain rights. A child uses everything for his own purposes until he learns that his possessions can be taken; he then respects others' rights to protect his own. In America, complaints against property are unheard because there is no permanent destitute class; everyone has property to defend and thus recognizes ownership.
+The lower orders in the United States are alive to the perception of
+the influence exercised by the general prosperity upon their own
+welfare; and simple as this observation is, it is one which is but too
+rarely made by the people. But in America the people regards this
+prosperity as the result of its own exertions; the citizen looks upon
+the fortune of the 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 shall venture to term cupidity.
+The same occurs politically. In America, the lowest classes respect political rights because they exercise them; they refrain from attacking others' rights to protect their own. While Europeans sometimes resist the highest power, Americans submit without complaint to the lowliest magistrate.
+It is unnecessary to study the institutions and the history of the
+Americans in order to discover the truth of this remark, for their
+manners render it sufficiently evident. As the American participates in
+all that is done in his country, he thinks himself obliged to defend
+whatever may be censured; for it is not only his country which is
+attacked upon these occasions, but it is himself. The consequence is,
+that his national pride resorts to a thousand artifices, and to all the
+petty tricks of individual vanity.
+This appears even in national character. In France, few pleasures are reserved for the upper classes; the poor admitted everywhere behave well and respect shared enjoyments. In England, where wealth monopolizes entertainment and power, the poor cause damage when entering rich preserves—unsurprising, since they have nothing to lose. This has improved as more public parks and museums became available.
+Nothing is more embarrassing in the ordinary intercourse of life than
+this irritable patriotism of the Americans. A stranger may be very well
+inclined to praise many of the institutions of their country, but he
+begs permission to blame some of the peculiarities which he observes—a
+permission which is, however, inexorably refused. America is therefore
+a free country, in which, lest anybody should be hurt by your remarks,
+you are not allowed to speak freely of private individuals, or of the
+State, of the citizens or of the authorities, of public or of private
+undertakings, or, in short, of anything at all, except it be of the
+climate and the soil; and even then Americans will be found ready to
+defend either the one or the other, as if they had been contrived by
+the inhabitants of the country.
+Democratic government brings political rights down to humble citizens, just as wealth distribution brings property within everyone's reach. I do not claim teaching rights-exercise is easy, but the results are significant. Now is the time: religious belief is shaken, divine right fades, public morality corrupts, moral rights disappear. Argument replaces faith, calculation replaces impulse.
+In our times option must be made between the patriotism of all and the
+government of a few; for the force and activity which the first confers
+are irreconcilable with the guarantees of tranquillity which the second
+furnishes.
+> **Quote:** "If, in the midst of this general disruption, you do not succeed in connecting the notion of rights with that of personal interest, which is the only immutable point in the human heart, what means will you have of governing the world except by fear?"
+Notion Of Rights In The United States
+When I am told that because laws are weak and passions high we must not increase democratic rights, I reply that these are precisely the reasons we must. Governments have greater interest in this than society, for governments can be destroyed while society cannot.
+No great people without a notion of rights—How the notion of rights can
+be given to people—Respect of rights in the United States—Whence it
+arises.
+But I do not wish to exaggerate America's example. There, political rights were granted when they could hardly be abused, for citizens were few and simple. As they grew, Americans extended democracy's reach rather than its power. Granting political rights to the previously disenfranchised is a critical, necessary transition. Like a child who might kill before understanding life's value, the newly enfranchised are *Homo puer robustus*—a robust but inexperienced child. In America, states where citizens have longest enjoyed rights make the best use of them.
+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
+political world. It is the idea of right which enabled men to define
+anarchy and tyranny; and which taught them to remain independent
+without arrogance, as well as to obey without servility. The man who
+submits to violence is debased by his compliance; but when he obeys the
+mandate of one who possesses that right of authority which he
+acknowledges in a fellow-creature, he rises in some measure above the
+person who delivers the command. There are no great men without virtue,
+and there are no great nations—it may almost be added that there would
+be no society—without the notion of rights; for what is the condition
+of a mass of rational and intelligent beings who are only united
+together by the bond of force?
+> **Quote:** "It cannot be repeated too often that nothing is more fertile in prodigies than the art of being free; but there is nothing more arduous than the apprenticeship of liberty."
+I am persuaded that the only means which we possess at the present time
+of inculcating the notion of rights, and of rendering it, as it were,
+palpable to the senses, is to invest all the members of the community
+with the peaceful exercise of certain rights: this is very clearly seen
+in children, who are men without the strength and the experience of
+manhood. When a child begins to move in the midst of the objects which
+surround him, he is instinctively led to turn everything which he can
+lay his hands upon to his own purposes; he has no notion of the
+property of others; but as he gradually learns the value of things, and
+begins to perceive that he may in his turn be deprived of his
+possessions, he becomes more circumspect, and he observes those rights
+in others which he wishes to have respected in himself. The principle
+which the child derives from the possession of his toys is taught to
+the man by the objects which he may call his own. In America those
+complaints against property in general which are so frequent in Europe
+are never heard, because in America there are no paupers; and as
+everyone has property of his own to defend, everyone recognizes the
+principle upon which he holds it.
+Despotism promises to fix problems, upholds rights, protects the oppressed, maintains order. The nation is lulled by temporary prosperity until it wakes to misery. Liberty, by contrast, is born amid unrest, perfected through struggle, and its benefits only appreciated after long endurance.
+The same thing occurs in the political world. In America the lowest
+classes have conceived a very high notion of political rights, because
+they exercise those rights; and they refrain from attacking those of
+other people, in order to ensure their own from attack. Whilst in
+Europe the same classes sometimes recalcitrate even against the supreme
+power, the American submits without a murmur to the authority of the
+pettiest magistrate.
+This truth is exemplified by the most trivial details of national
+peculiarities. In France very few pleasures are exclusively reserved
+for the higher classes; the poor are admitted wherever the rich are
+received, and they consequently behave with propriety, and respect
+whatever contributes to the enjoyments in which they themselves
+participate. In England, where wealth has a monopoly of amusement as
+well as of power, complaints are made that whenever the poor happen to
+steal into the enclosures which are reserved for the pleasures of the
+rich, they commit acts of wanton mischief: can this be wondered at,
+since care has been taken that they should have nothing to lose? *b
+[ [This, too, has been amended by much larger provisions for the
+amusements of the people in public parks, gardens, museums, etc.; and
+the conduct of the people in these places of amusement has improved in
+the same proportion.]]
+The government of democracy brings the notion of political rights to
+the level of the humblest citizens, just as the dissemination of wealth
+brings the notion of property within the reach of all the members of
+the community; and I confess that, to my mind, this is one of its
+greatest advantages. I do not assert that it is easy to teach men to
+exercise political rights; but I maintain that, when it is possible,
+the effects which result from it are highly important; and I add that,
+if there ever was a time at which such an attempt ought to be made,
+that time is our own. It is clear that the influence of religious
+belief is shaken, and that the notion of divine rights is declining; it
+is evident that public morality is vitiated, and the notion of moral
+rights is also disappearing: these are general symptoms of the
+substitution of argument for faith, and of calculation for the impulses
+of sentiment. If, in the midst of this general disruption, you do not
+succeed in connecting the notion of rights with that of personal
+interest, which is the only immutable point in the human heart, what
+means will you have of governing the world except by fear? When I am
+told that, since the laws are weak and the populace is wild, since
+passions are excited and the authority of virtue is paralyzed, no
+measures must be taken to increase the rights of the democracy, I
+reply, that it is for these very reasons that some measures of the kind
+must be taken; and I am persuaded that governments are still more
+interested in taking them than society at large, because governments
+are liable to be destroyed and society cannot perish.
+I am not, however, inclined to exaggerate the example which America
+furnishes. In those States the people are invested with political
+rights at a time when they could scarcely be abused, for the citizens
+were few in number and simple in their manners. As they have increased,
+the Americans have not augmented the power of the democracy, but they
+have, if I may use the expression, extended its dominions. It cannot be
+doubted that the moment at which political rights are granted to a
+people that had before been without them is a very critical, though it
+be a necessary one. A child may kill before he is aware of the value of
+life; and he may deprive another person of his property before he is
+aware that his own may be taken away from him. The lower orders, when
+first they are invested with political rights, stand, in relation to
+those rights, in the same position as the child does to the whole of
+nature, and the celebrated adage may then be applied to them, Homo puer
+robustus. This truth may even be perceived in America. The States in
+which the citizens have enjoyed their rights longest are those in which
+they make the best use of them.
+It cannot be repeated too often that nothing is more fertile in
+prodigies than the art of being free; but there is nothing more arduous
+than the apprenticeship of liberty. Such is not the case with despotic
+institutions: despotism often promises to make amends for a thousand
+previous ills; it supports the right, it protects the oppressed, and it
+maintains public order. The nation is lulled by the temporary
+prosperity which accrues to it, until it is roused to a sense of its
+own misery. Liberty, on the contrary, is generally established in the
+midst of agitation, it is perfected by civil discord, and its benefits
+cannot be appreciated 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 they
+entertain for it—Personal interest of everyone to increase the
+authority of the law.
+Americans' respect for law approaches parental affection. While consulting the entire population isn't always possible, when it is, the law's authority strengthens enormously. This popular origin may compromise legislative excellence, but its authority overawes the imagination of even those most inclined to contest it. Political parties understand this: they always claim majority support, claiming the true majority abstained from voting, or appealing to the disenfranchised when defeated.
+It is not always feasible to consult the whole people, either directly
+or indirectly, in the formation of the law; but it cannot be denied
+that, when such a measure is possible the authority of the law is very
+much augmented. This popular origin, which impairs the excellence and
+the wisdom of legislation, contributes prodigiously to increase its
+power. There is an amazing strength in the expression of the
+determination of a whole people, and when it declares itself the
+imagination of those who are most inclined to contest it is overawed by
+its authority. The truth of this fact is very well known by parties,
+and they consequently strive to make out a majority whenever they can.
+If they have not the greater number of voters on their side, they
+assert that the true majority abstained from voting; and if they are
+foiled even there, they have recourse to the body of those persons who
+had no votes to give.
+In the United States, excepting slaves, servants, and those on public assistance, every class votes and thus contributes to lawmaking. Therefore, attacking the laws means changing the nation's opinion or trampling its decisions.
+In the United States, except slaves, servants, and paupers in the
+receipt of relief from the townships, there is no class of persons who
+do not exercise the elective franchise, and who do not indirectly
+contribute to make the laws. Those who design to attack the laws must
+consequently either modify the opinion of the nation or trample upon
+its decision.
+A second, weightier reason exists: everyone has personal interest in universal obedience. Today's minority may become tomorrow's majority, so it respects laws it will soon enforce. However annoying, the citizen complies because the law issues from his own authority—a contract he entered voluntarily.
+A second reason, which is still more weighty, may be further adduced;
+in the United States everyone is personally interested in enforcing the
+obedience of the whole community to the law; for as the minority may
+shortly rally the majority to its principles, it is interested in
+professing that respect for the decrees of the legislator which it may
+soon have occasion to claim for its own. However irksome an enactment
+may be, the citizen of the United States complies with it, not only
+because it is the work of the majority, but because it originates in
+his own authority, and he regards it as a contract to which he is
+himself a party.
+Thus America lacks that turbulent population viewing law as natural enemy. On the contrary, all classes display confidence in legislation, feeling a parental affection for it.
+In the United States, then, that numerous and turbulent multitude does
+not exist which always looks upon the law as its natural enemy, and
+accordingly surveys it with fear and with fear and with distrust. It is
+impossible, on the other hand, not to perceive that all classes display
+the utmost reliance upon the legislation of their country, and that
+they are attached to it by a kind of parental affection.
+But I am wrong to say "all classes." In America, the hierarchy reverses: the wealthy occupy the poor's Old World position, and it is they who frequently view law with suspicion.
+I am wrong, however, in saying all classes; for as in America the
+European scale of authority is inverted, the wealthy are there placed
+in a position analogous to that of the poor in the Old World, and it is
+the opulent classes which frequently look upon the law with suspicion.
+I have already observed that the advantage of democracy is not, as has
+been sometimes asserted, that it protects the interests of the whole
+community, but simply that it protects those of the majority. In the
+United States, where the poor rule, the rich have always some reason to
+dread the abuses of their power. This natural anxiety of the rich may
+produce a sullen dissatisfaction, but society is not disturbed by it;
+for the same reason which induces the rich to withhold their confidence
+in the legislative authority makes them obey its mandates; their
+wealth, which prevents them from making the law, prevents them from
+withstanding it. Amongst civilized nations revolts are rarely excited,
+except by such persons as have nothing to lose by them; and if the laws
+of a democracy are not always worthy of respect, at least they always
+obtain it; for those who usually infringe the laws have no excuse for
+not complying with the enactments they have themselves made, and by
+which they are themselves benefited, whilst the citizens whose
+interests might be promoted by the infraction of them are induced, by
+their character and their stations, to submit to the decisions of the
+legislature, whatever they may be. Besides which, the people in America
+obeys the law not only because it emanates from the popular authority,
+but because that authority may modify it in any points which may prove
+vexatory; a law is observed because it is a self-imposed evil in the
+first place, and an evil of transient duration in the second.
+> **Quote:** "I have already observed that the advantage of democracy is not, as has been sometimes asserted, that it protects the interests of the whole community, but simply that it protects those of the majority."
+Activity Which Pervades All The Branches Of The Body Politic In The
+United States; Influence Which It Exercises Upon Society
+In America, where the poor hold power, the rich naturally fear its abuse. This anxiety may cause quiet dissatisfaction, but does not disturb society. Their wealth, which denies them lawmaking power, also prevents resistance: among civilized nations, revolts are rarely started by those with something to lose. Law-breakers lack excuse, having made the regulations themselves. And those whose interests might be served by breaking the law submit due to social position. Moreover, Americans obey because the law is a self-imposed evil of transient duration—popular authority can modify any oppressive part.
+More difficult to conceive the political activity which pervades the
+United States than the freedom and equality which reign there—The great
+activity which perpetually agitates the legislative bodies is only an
+episode to the general activity—Difficult for an American to confine
+himself to his own business—Political agitation extends to all social
+intercourse—Commercial activity of the Americans partly attributable to
+this cause—Indirect advantages which society derives from a democratic
+government.
+Activity Which Pervades All Branches Of The Body Politic In The United States; Influence Which It Exercises Upon Society
+On passing from a country in which free institutions are established to
+one where they do not exist, the traveller is struck by the change; in
+the former all is bustle and activity, in the latter everything is calm
+and motionless. In the one, amelioration and progress are the general
+topics of inquiry; in the other, it seems as if the community only
+aspired to repose in the enjoyment of the advantages which it has
+acquired. Nevertheless, the country which exerts itself so strenuously
+to promote its welfare is generally more wealthy and more prosperous
+than that which appears to be so contented with its lot; and when we
+compare them together, we can scarcely conceive how so many new wants
+are daily felt in the former, whilst so few seem to occur in the
+latter.
+The political activity saturating the United States is harder to imagine than its freedom and equality. The great activity constantly agitating legislative bodies is only one part of a universal movement: Americans struggle to stick strictly to their own business, political agitation extends to all social interactions, and commercial activity partly results from this. These are the indirect advantages democratic government confers upon society.
+If this remark is applicable to those free countries in which
+monarchical and aristocratic institutions subsist, it is still more
+striking with regard to democratic republics. In these States it is not
+only a portion of the people which is busied with the amelioration of
+its social condition, but the whole community is engaged in the task;
+and it is not the exigencies and the convenience of a single class for
+which a provision is to be made, but the exigencies and the convenience
+of all ranks of life.
+Moving from a free country to one without free institutions, the traveler is struck by the contrast: the former bustles with activity and constant talk of improvement; the latter rests motionless, content with its acquisitions. Yet the active country is generally wealthier. Comparing them, we can hardly understand how so many new needs arise daily in one, so few in the other.
+It is not impossible to conceive the surpassing liberty which the
+Americans enjoy; some idea may likewise be formed of the extreme
+equality which subsists amongst them, but the political activity which
+pervades the United States must be seen in order to be understood. No
+sooner do you set foot upon the American soil than you are stunned by a
+kind of tumult; a confused clamor is heard on every side; and a
+thousand simultaneous voices demand the immediate satisfaction of their
+social wants. Everything is in motion around you; here, the people of
+one quarter of a town are met to decide upon the building of a church;
+there, the election of a representative is going on; a little further
+the delegates of a district are posting to the town in order to consult
+upon some local improvements; or in another place the laborers of a
+village quit their ploughs to deliberate upon the project of a road or
+a public school. Meetings are called for the sole purpose of declaring
+their disapprobation of the line of conduct pursued by the Government;
+whilst in other assemblies the citizens salute the authorities of the
+day as the fathers of their country. Societies are formed which regard
+drunkenness as the principal cause of the evils under which the State
+labors, and which solemnly bind themselves to give a constant example
+of temperance. *c
+This observation applies even more strikingly to democratic republics, where the entire community—not just a portion—works to improve social conditions, making provisions for all ranks of life.
+[ At the time of my stay in the United States the temperance societies
+already consisted of more than 270,000 members, and their effect had
+been to diminish the consumption of fermented liquors by 500,000
+gallons per annum in the State of Pennsylvania alone.]
+America's vast liberty and equality can be imagined, but its political activity must be seen. Upon arrival, you are stunned by tumult: a confused clamor, a thousand voices demanding satisfaction of social needs. Everything moves. Here, neighbors meet to build a church; there, a representative is being elected. Elsewhere, district delegates consult on improvements; elsewhere, laborers leave plows to debate roads or schools. Meetings denounce government; others hail authorities as fathers of the country. Temperance societies, viewing drunkenness as the state's main problem, pledge abstinence. During my stay, these societies counted 270,000 members and had reduced spirit consumption by 500,000 gallons annually in Pennsylvania alone.
+The great agitation in American legislatures—alone noticed abroad—is merely an episode of a universal movement rising from the lowest classes through every rank. No greater effort could be exerted in pursuit of well-being.
+The great political agitation of the American legislative bodies, which
+is the only kind of excitement that attracts the attention of foreign
+countries, is a mere episode or a sort of continuation of that
+universal movement which originates in the lowest classes of the people
+and extends successively to all the ranks of society. It is impossible
+to spend more efforts in the pursuit of enjoyment.
+Political concerns consume massive time. Almost the only pleasure an American imagines is participating in government. This influences the smallest habits: women attend meetings for relief from household chores; debating clubs substitute for theater. An American does not converse but discusses, falling into academic dissertations. He addresses you as if at a public meeting, inevitably calling his interlocutor "Gentlemen" when excited.
+The cares of political life engross a most prominent place in the
+occupation of a citizen in the United States, and almost the only
+pleasure of which an American has any idea is to take a part in the
+Government, and to discuss the part he has taken. This feeling pervades
+the most trifling habits of life; even the women frequently attend
+public meetings and listen to political harangues as a recreation after
+their household labors. Debating clubs are to a certain extent a
+substitute for theatrical entertainments: an American cannot converse,
+but he can discuss; and when he attempts to talk he falls into a
+dissertation. He speaks to you as if he was addressing a meeting; and
+if he should chance to warm in the course of the discussion, he will
+infallibly say, “Gentlemen,” to the person with whom he is conversing.
+Some peoples reluctantly exercise political rights, within the limits of a wholesome egotism, marked out by four sunk fences and a quickset hedge. But an American limited to private affairs would feel half his existence stolen, a void unbearable. Montesquieu noted the same despondency among Romans under the first Caesars, thrown from political excitement into private stagnation.
+In some countries the inhabitants display a certain repugnance to avail
+themselves of the political privileges with which the law invests them;
+it would seem that they set too high a value upon their time to spend
+it on the interests of the community; and they prefer to withdraw
+within the exact limits of a wholesome egotism, marked out by four sunk
+fences and a quickset hedge. But if an American were condemned to
+confine his activity to his own affairs, he would be robbed of one half
+of his existence; he would feel an immense void in the life which he is
+accustomed to lead, and his wretchedness would be unbearable. *d I am
+persuaded that, if ever a despotic government is established in
+America, it will find it more difficult to surmount the habits which
+free institutions have engendered than to conquer the attachment of the
+citizens to freedom.
+This agitation influences all social interactions, and may be democracy's greatest advantage. I praise it less for what it does than for what it causes. The people often manage public business poorly, but participation expands their ideas and breaks mental routines. The humblest individual gains self-respect, commands enlightened minds, and is courted by deceivers who inadvertently instruct him. He joins projects that give him taste for undertakings, sees improvements to common property, and desires to improve his own. He is perhaps no happier, but more informed and active. I have no doubt that America's democratic institutions, combined with its physical environment, indirectly cause its extraordinary commercial activity—not through laws themselves, but through the experience of participating in legislation.
+[ The same remark was made at Rome under the first Caesars. Montesquieu
+somewhere alludes to the excessive despondency of certain Roman
+citizens who, after the excitement of political life, were all at once
+flung back into the stagnation of private life.]
+Democracy's critics are right: a single individual performs his duties better than a community government. One-person rule—assuming equal education—is more consistent, persistent, and accurate than a crowd's, and better at judging character. But democracy produces more in total; if it does fewer things well, it does a greater number of things. It never displays a regular, methodical system; it often abandons projects before they bear fruit or risks dangerous consequences. Yet under it, private effort accomplishes more than public administration.
+> **Quote:** "Democracy does not confer the most skilful kind of government upon the people, but it produces that 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, under favorable circumstances, beget the most amazing benefits."
+This ceaseless agitation which democratic government has introduced
+into the political world influences all social intercourse. I am not
+sure that upon the whole this is not the greatest advantage of
+democracy. And I am much less inclined to applaud it for what it does
+than for what it causes to be done. It is incontestable that the people
+frequently conducts public business very ill; but it is impossible that
+the lower orders should take a part in public business without
+extending the circle of their ideas, and without quitting the ordinary
+routine of their mental acquirements. The humblest individual who is
+called upon to co-operate in the government of society acquires a
+certain degree of self-respect; and as he possesses authority, he can
+command the services of minds much more enlightened than his own. He is
+canvassed by a multitude of applicants, who seek to deceive him in a
+thousand different ways, but who instruct him by their deceit. He takes
+a part in political undertakings which did not originate in his own
+conception, but which give him a taste for undertakings of the kind.
+New ameliorations are daily pointed out in the property which he holds
+in common with others, and this gives him the desire of improving that
+property which is more peculiarly his own. He is perhaps neither
+happier nor better than those who came before him, but he is better
+informed and more active. I have no doubt that the democratic
+institutions of the United States, joined to the physical constitution
+of the country, are the cause (not the direct, as is so often asserted,
+but the indirect cause) of the prodigious commercial activity of the
+inhabitants. It is not engendered by the laws, but the people learns
+how to promote it by the experience derived from legislation.
+Today, as the West's destiny hangs in balance, some attack democracy as an enemy while others worship it as a new deity. Both know little of their object; they strike in the dark.
+When the opponents of democracy assert that a single individual
+performs the duties which he undertakes much better than the government
+of the community, it appears to me that they are perfectly right. The
+government of an individual, supposing an equality of instruction on
+either side, is more consistent, more persevering, and more accurate
+than that of a multitude, and it is much better qualified judiciously
+to discriminate the characters of the men it employs. If any deny what
+I advance, they have certainly never seen a democratic government, or
+have formed their opinion upon very partial evidence. It is true that
+even when local circumstances and the disposition of the people allow
+democratic institutions to subsist, they never display a regular and
+methodical system of government. Democratic liberty is far from
+accomplishing all the projects it undertakes, with the skill of an
+adroit despotism. It frequently abandons them before they have borne
+their fruits, or risks them when the consequences may prove dangerous;
+but in the end it produces more than any absolute government, and if it
+do fewer things well, it does a greater number of things. Under its
+sway the transactions of the public administration are not nearly so
+important as what is done by private exertion. Democracy does not
+confer the most skilful kind of government upon the people, but it
+produces that 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, under favorable circumstances, beget the most amazing
+benefits. These are the true advantages of democracy.
+First, understand society's purpose and government's goal. If you would elevate the human spirit, teach noble feelings, inspire men with a scorn for mere temporal advantage, foster deep convictions and honorable devotion, refine habits, polish manners, cultivate arts, promote love of poetry, beauty, and fame, build a people capable of powerful action among nations and achieving historical fame—if these are your primary objects, avoid democratic government, which would be an unreliable guide.
+In the present age, when the destinies of Christendom seem to be in
+suspense, some hasten to assail democracy as its foe whilst it is yet
+in its early growth; and others are ready with their vows of adoration
+for this new deity which is springing forth from chaos: but both
+parties are very imperfectly acquainted with the object of their hatred
+or of their desires; they strike in the dark, and distribute their
+blows by mere chance.
+But if you would direct man's activity toward comfort and necessities; if practical understanding outweighs genius; if you prefer peaceable habits to heroic virtues, minor vices to major crimes, and fewer noble deeds in proportion to reduced offenses; if widespread prosperity satisfies you more than brilliant society; if government's primary object is to ensure maximum enjoyment and minimum misery for each individual—then equalizing conditions and establishing democracy is your best means.
+We must first understand what the purport of society and the aim of
+government is held to be. If it be your intention to confer a certain
+elevation upon the human mind, and to teach it to regard the things of
+this world with generous feelings, to inspire men with a scorn of mere
+temporal advantage, to give birth to living convictions, and to keep
+alive the spirit of honorable devotedness; if you hold it to be a good
+thing to refine the habits, to embellish the manners, to cultivate the
+arts of a nation, and to promote the love of poetry, of beauty, and of
+renown; if you would constitute a people not unfitted to act with power
+upon all other nations, nor unprepared for those high enterprises
+which, whatever be the result of its efforts, will leave a name forever
+famous in time—if you believe such to be the principal object of
+society, you must avoid the government of democracy, which would be a
+very uncertain guide to the end you have in view.
+But if the time for choice has passed, and superhuman power drives us toward one government regardless of our wishes, let us at least make the best of it. Let us study its good and evil tendencies to foster the former and restrain the latter.
+But if you hold it to be expedient to divert the moral and intellectual
+activity of man to the production of comfort, and to the acquirement of
+the necessaries of life; if a clear understanding be more profitable to
+man than genius; if your object be not to stimulate the virtues of
+heroism, but to create habits of peace; if you had rather witness vices
+than crimes and are content to meet with fewer noble deeds, provided
+offences be diminished in the same proportion; if, instead of living in
+the midst of a brilliant state of society, you are contented to have
+prosperity around you; if, in short, you are of opinion that the
+principal object of a Government is not to confer the greatest possible
+share of power and of glory upon the body of the nation, but to ensure
+the greatest degree of enjoyment and the least degree of misery to each
+of the individuals who compose it—if such be your desires, you can have
+no surer means of satisfying them than by equalizing the conditions of
+men, and establishing democratic institutions.
+## Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of Majority, And Its Consequences
+But if the time be passed at which such a choice was possible, and if
+some superhuman power impel us towards one or the other of these two
+governments without consulting our wishes, let us at least endeavor to
+make the best of that which is allotted to us; and let us so inquire
+into its good and its evil propensities as to be able to foster the
+former and repress the latter to the utmost.
+## Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of Majority, And Its Consequences
 ### Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of Majority, And Its Consequences—Part I
+The natural strength of the majority in democracies—and how most American constitutions have increased this strength by artificial means—is a central feature of the United States, achieved through pledged delegates, moral power, belief in infallibility, and growing respect for its rights.
+> **Quote:** "The very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute sovereignty of the majority; for there is nothing in democratic States which is capable of resisting it."
+Natural strength of the majority in democracies—Most of the American
+Constitutions have increased this strength by artificial means—How this
+has been done—Pledged delegates—Moral power of the majority—Opinion as
+to its infallibility—Respect for its rights, how augmented in the
+United States.
+In examining the Federal Constitution, we previously observed that the efforts of the Union’s legislators were diametrically opposed to this tendency. The result is that the Federal Government is more independent within its own sphere than the state governments. However, the Federal Government rarely interferes beyond foreign affairs; the state governments, in reality, direct American society.
+Unlimited Power Of The Majority In The United States, And Its
+Consequences
+The legislature is the political institution most easily swayed by majority wishes. Americans determined its members should be elected directly by the people for very short terms, subjecting them to the daily passions of constituents. Members of both houses are drawn from the same social class and nominated in the same manner, making changes nearly as rapid as in a single assembly. Almost all governmental authority has been entrusted to such a legislature.
+The very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute
+sovereignty of the majority; for there is nothing in democratic States
+which is capable of resisting it. Most of the American Constitutions
+have sought to increase this natural strength of the majority by
+artificial means. *a
+But while the law strengthened authorities already strong, it further weakened those naturally weak. It stripped executive representatives of all stability and independence, making them entirely subject to the whims of the legislature and depriving them of even the minor influence democratic government might allow. In several states, the judiciary was also made subject to the elective discretion of the majority, and in all of them, its existence depended on the pleasure of the legislative authority, since representatives set the annual salaries of the judges.
+[ We observed, in examining the Federal Constitution, that the efforts
+of the legislators of the Union had been diametrically opposed to the
+present tendency. The consequence has been that the Federal Government
+is more independent in its sphere than that of the States. But the
+Federal Government scarcely ever interferes in any but external
+affairs; and the governments of the State are in the governments of the
+States are in reality the authorities which direct society in America.]
+Custom has gone even further than law. A practice becoming more common will eventually undermine representative government: voters frequently dictate a delegate's specific line of conduct and impose obligations that the delegate is pledged to fulfill. Aside from the lack of tumult, this comes to the same thing as if the majority of the populace held its deliberations in the market-place.
+Several other circumstances make majority power not only dominant but irresistible.
+The legislature is, of all political institutions, the one which is
+most easily swayed by the wishes of the majority. The Americans
+determined that the members of the legislature should be elected by the
+people immediately, and for a very brief term, in order to subject
+them, not only to the general convictions, but even to the daily
+passion, of their constituents. The members of both houses are taken
+from the same class in society, and are nominated in the same manner;
+so that the modifications of the legislative bodies are almost as rapid
+and quite as irresistible as those of a single assembly. It is to a
+legislature thus constituted that almost all the authority of the
+government has been entrusted.
+> **Quote:** "The moral authority of the majority is partly based upon the notion that there is more intelligence and more wisdom in a great number of men collected together than in a single individual, and that the quantity of legislators is more important than their quality."
+But whilst the law increased the strength of those authorities which of
+themselves were strong, it enfeebled more and more those which were
+naturally weak. It deprived the representatives of the executive of all
+stability and independence, and by subjecting them completely to the
+caprices of the legislature, it robbed them of the slender influence
+which the nature of a democratic government might have allowed them to
+retain. In several States the judicial power was also submitted to the
+elective discretion of the majority, and in all of them its existence
+was made to depend on the pleasure of the legislative authority, since
+the representatives were empowered annually to regulate the stipend of
+the judges.
+This theory of equality is applied to the human intellect itself; human pride is thus assailed in its last retreat by a doctrine that the minority is hesitant to admit and only slowly accepts. Like all other powers, and perhaps more than any other, the authority of the many requires the validation of time. At first it forces obedience through compulsion, but its laws are not truly respected until they have been maintained for a long period.
+Custom, however, has done even more than law. A proceeding which will
+in the end set all the guarantees of representative government at
+naught is becoming more and more general in the United States; it
+frequently happens that the electors, who choose a delegate, point out
+a certain line of conduct to him, and impose upon him a certain number
+of positive obligations which he is pledged to fulfil. With the
+exception of the tumult, this comes to the same thing as if the
+majority of the populace held its deliberations in the market-place.
+The majority's right to govern society, believed to derive from superior intelligence, was introduced by the first settlers. This idea, which alone could create a free nation, has merged with the people's customs and the minor details of social life. Under the old monarchy, the French held the maxim—which remains a fundamental principle of the English Constitution—that the King could do no wrong; if he did, the blame was placed on his advisors. This notion favored obedience, allowing subjects to complain about laws without losing respect for the lawgiver.
+Several other circumstances concur in rendering the power of the
+majority in America not only preponderant, but irresistible. The moral
+authority of the majority is partly based upon the notion that there is
+more intelligence and more wisdom in a great number of men collected
+together than in a single individual, and that the quantity of
+legislators is more important than their quality. The theory of
+equality is in fact applied to the intellect of man: and human pride is
+thus assailed in its last retreat by a doctrine which the minority
+hesitate to admit, and in which they very slowly concur. Like all other
+powers, and perhaps more than all other powers, the authority of the
+many requires the sanction of time; at first it enforces obedience by
+constraint, but its laws are not respected until they have long been
+maintained.
+> **Quote:** "The Americans entertain the same opinion with respect to the majority."
+The right of governing society, which the majority supposes itself to
+derive from its superior intelligence, was introduced into the United
+States by the first settlers, and this idea, which would be sufficient
+of itself to create a free nation, has now been amalgamated with the
+manners of the people and the minor incidents of social intercourse.
+The majority's moral power rests on another principle: the interests of the many should be preferred over those of the few. Respect for majority rights naturally increases or decreases according to the state of political parties. When a nation is divided into irreconcilable factions, majority privilege is often ignored because its demands become intolerable. If an American majority tried to strip a class of long-held privileges, the minority would likely be less willing to comply. But because the United States was colonized by people of equal rank, there is as yet no natural or permanent source of conflict between the interests of its inhabitants.
+The French, under the old monarchy, held it for a maxim (which is still
+a fundamental principle of the English Constitution) that the King
+could do no wrong; and if he did do wrong, the blame was imputed to his
+advisers. This notion was highly favorable to habits of obedience, and
+it enabled the subject to complain of the law without ceasing to love
+and honor the lawgiver. The Americans entertain the same opinion with
+respect to the majority.
+In certain communities the minority can never hope to win over the majority because they would have to surrender their very reason for contention. An aristocracy, for example, can never become a majority while keeping exclusive privileges, nor can it give them up without ceasing to be an aristocracy.
+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 those
+of the few. It will readily be perceived that the respect here
+professed for the rights of the majority must naturally increase or
+diminish according to the state of parties. When a nation is divided
+into several irreconcilable factions, the privilege of the majority is
+often overlooked, because it is intolerable to comply with its demands.
+In the United States, political questions are not framed in such absolute terms, and all parties recognize majority rights because they hope to use them for their own benefit. Consequently, the majority exercises enormous actual authority and a moral influence that is nearly as dominant; no obstacles exist which can impede or so much as retard its progress, or which can induce it to heed the complaints of those whom it crushes upon its path. This state of affairs is inherently fatal and dangerous for the future.
+If there existed in America a class of citizens whom the legislating
+majority sought to deprive of exclusive privileges which they had
+possessed for ages, and to bring down from an elevated station to the
+level of the ranks of the multitude, it is probable that the minority
+would be less ready to comply with its laws. But as the United States
+were colonized by men holding equal rank amongst themselves, there is
+as yet no natural or permanent source of dissension between the
+interests of its different inhabitants.
+**How The Unlimited Power Of The Majority Increases In America The Instability Of Legislation And Administration Inherent In Democracy**
+There are certain communities in which the persons who constitute the
+minority can never hope to draw over the majority to their side,
+because they must then give up the very point which is at issue between
+them. Thus, an aristocracy can never become a majority whilst it
+retains its exclusive privileges, and it cannot cede its privileges
+without ceasing to be an aristocracy.
+Americans increase the instability of laws—inherent in democracy—by changing the legislature annually and giving it unbounded authority. This also affects administration. In America, social improvements are pursued more energetically but with less perseverance than in Europe.
+In the United States political questions cannot be taken up in so
+general and absolute a manner, and all parties are willing to recognize
+the right of the majority, because they all hope to turn those rights
+to their own advantage at some future time. The majority therefore in
+that country exercises a prodigious actual authority, and a moral
+influence which is scarcely less preponderant; no obstacles exist which
+can impede or so much as retard its progress, or which can induce it to
+heed the complaints of those whom it crushes upon its path. This state
+of things is fatal in itself and dangerous for the future.
+The natural flaws of democratic institutions increase with majority power. The instability of laws, the most obvious evil inherent in democracy, results from rapid leadership cycles and is more or less noticeable depending on the legislature's authority and means of action.
+How The Unlimited Power Of The Majority Increases In America The
+Instability Of Legislation And Administration Inherent In Democracy The
+Americans increase the mutability of the laws which is inherent in
+democracy by changing the legislature every year, and by investing it
+with unbounded authority—The same effect is produced upon the
+administration—In America social amelioration is conducted more
+energetically but less perseveringly than in Europe.
+In America, legislative authority is supreme; nothing stops it from achieving goals quickly with irresistible power. The very conditions that contribute most to democratic instability—allowing whims to be applied to every object of the State—operate fully here. As a result, America is currently the country where laws last the shortest time.
+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 the majority. To begin with the most evident of them all; the
+mutability of the laws is an evil inherent in democratic government,
+because it is natural to democracies to raise men to power in very
+rapid succession. But this evil is more or less sensible in proportion
+to the authority and the means of action which the legislature
+possesses.
+Almost all American constitutions have been amended within thirty years; not a single state has failed to modify its legislative principles in that time. As for laws themselves, state archives confirm legislative activity never slows. Not that American democracy is naturally less stable, but that it follows capricious impulses in law formation. For instance, the legislative acts published by the State of Massachusetts between 1780 and 1823 already filled three thick volumes, even though many obsolete laws were omitted. Yet Massachusetts, which is no more populous than a French department, is often considered the most stable, consistent, and wise in its undertakings of the whole Union.
+In America the authority exercised by the legislative bodies is
+supreme; nothing prevents them from accomplishing their wishes with
+celerity, and with irresistible power, whilst they are supplied by new
+representatives every year. That is to say, the circumstances which
+contribute most powerfully to democratic instability, and which admit
+of the free application of caprice to every object in the State, are
+here in full operation. In conformity with this principle, America is,
+at the present day, the country in the world where laws last the
+shortest time. Almost all the American constitutions have been amended
+within the course of thirty years: there is therefore not a single
+American State which has not modified the principles of its legislation
+in that lapse of time. As for the laws themselves, a single glance upon
+the archives of the different States of the Union suffices to convince
+one that in America the activity of the legislator never slackens. Not
+that the American democracy is naturally less stable than any other,
+but that it is allowed to follow its capricious propensities in the
+formation of the laws. *b
+The omnipotence of the majority and the absolute speed with which its decisions are carried out make not only law but also execution and administration unstable. Since the majority is the only power worth courting, its projects are taken up with great passion; as soon as its attention shifts, that passion vanishes. In Europe's free states, by contrast, the administration is both independent and secure, so legislative projects are carried out even if the legislature’s immediate focus moves elsewhere.
+[ The legislative acts promulgated by the State of Massachusetts alone,
+from the year 1780 to the present time, already fill three stout
+volumes; and it must not be forgotten that the collection to which I
+allude was published in 1823, when many old laws which had fallen into
+disuse were omitted. The State of Massachusetts, which is not more
+populous than a department of France, may be considered as the most
+stable, the most consistent, and the most sagacious in its undertakings
+of the whole Union.]
+In America, certain improvements are undertaken with more zeal and activity; in Europe, the same goals are pursued with less social effort but more consistency.
+A few years ago, several religious individuals sought to improve prison conditions. The public was moved by their reports, and the reform of criminals became a popular cause. New prisons were built, and for the first time, the idea of rehabilitating rather than just punishing offenders became part of prison discipline. But this positive change, which the public supported so heartily and which the efforts of citizens had accelerated, could not be completed instantly. While new penitentiaries were being built as quickly as the majority demanded, the old prisons still housed many inmates. These jails became more unhealthy and corrupt as the new ones were improved, creating a stark contrast. The majority was so focused on founding new prisons that the existing ones were forgotten; as attention shifted to the new, the care previously given to the old ceased. The salutary regulations of discipline were first relaxed, and afterwards broken; so that in the immediate neighborhood of a prison reflecting the enlightened spirit of our time, dungeons might be met with which reminded the visitor of the barbarity of the Middle Ages.
+The omnipotence of the majority, and the rapid as well as absolute
+manner in which its decisions are executed in the United States, has
+not only the effect of rendering the law unstable, but it exercises the
+same influence upon the execution of the law and the conduct of the
+public administration. As the majority is the only power which it is
+important to court, all its projects are taken up with the greatest
+ardor, but no sooner is its attention distracted than all this ardor
+ceases; whilst in the free States of Europe the administration is at
+once independent and secure, 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 and
+activity than elsewhere; in Europe the same ends are promoted by much
+less social effort, more continuously applied.
+Some years ago several pious individuals undertook to ameliorate the
+condition of the prisons. The public was excited by the statements
+which they put forward, and the regeneration of criminals became a very
+popular undertaking. New prisons were built, and for the first time the
+idea of reforming as well as of punishing the delinquent formed a part
+of prison discipline. But this happy alteration, in which the public
+had taken so hearty an interest, and which the exertions of the
+citizens had irresistibly accelerated, could not be completed in a
+moment. Whilst the new penitentiaries were being erected (and it was
+the pleasure of the majority that they should be terminated with all
+possible celerity), the old prisons existed, which still contained a
+great number of offenders. These jails became more unwholesome and more
+corrupt in proportion as the new establishments were beautified and
+improved, forming a contrast which may readily be understood. The
+majority was so eagerly employed in founding the new prisons that those
+which already existed were forgotten; and as the general attention was
+diverted to a novel object, the care which had hitherto been bestowed
+upon the others ceased. The salutary regulations of discipline were
+first relaxed, and afterwards broken; so that in the immediate
+neighborhood of a prison which bore witness to the mild and enlightened
+spirit of our time, dungeons might be met with which reminded the
+visitor of the barbarity of the Middle Ages.
 ### Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of Majority, And Its Consequences—Part II
+Tyranny Of The Majority
+I hold it to be an impious and an execrable maxim that, in political terms, a people has the right to do whatever it pleases; yet I have also maintained that all authority originates in the will of the majority. Am I, then, contradicting myself?
+How the principle of the sovereignty of the people is to be
+understood—Impossibility of conceiving a mixed government—The sovereign
+power must centre somewhere—Precautions to be taken to control its
+action—These precautions have not been taken in the United
+States—Consequences.
+A universal law—known as Justice—has been established and sanctioned, not just by a majority of this or that people, but by the majority of all humanity. Therefore, the rights of every nation are confined within the boundaries of what is just. A nation can be seen as a jury empowered to represent society at large and apply this great, universal law. Should such a jury have more power than the society from which those laws originated?
+I hold it to be an impious and an execrable maxim that, politically
+speaking, a people has a right to do whatsoever it pleases, and yet I
+have asserted that all authority originates in the will of the
+majority. Am I then, in contradiction with myself?
+> **Quote:** "When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right which the majority has of commanding, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind."
+A general law—which bears the name of Justice—has been made and
+sanctioned, not only by a majority of this or that people, but by a
+majority of mankind. The rights of every people are consequently
+confined within the limits of what is just. A nation may be considered
+in 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
+which the laws it applies originate?
+It has been claimed that a people can never entirely step beyond the limits of justice and reason in its own internal affairs, and consequently, full power can be safely granted to the majority. But this is the language of a slave.
+When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right which
+the majority has of commanding, but I simply appeal from the
+sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind. It has been
+asserted that a people can never entirely outstep the boundaries of
+justice and of reason in those affairs which are more peculiarly its
+own, and that consequently, full power may fearlessly be given to the
+majority by which it is represented. But this language is that of a
+slave.
+A collective majority is an entity whose opinions, and often whose interests, conflict with those of another called the minority. If we admit that a single man with absolute power can abuse it by harming his opponents, why shouldn't a majority be liable to the same criticism? People do not change their character by gathering in a crowd; nor does their patience increase because they become aware of their collective strength. Just as one nation can act tyrannically toward another, political parties—which are like smaller nations within a larger one—can treat one another as hostile foreigners. For these reasons, I can never willingly grant any group of my fellow human beings that unlimited authority which I would refuse to any single individual.
+A majority taken collectively may be regarded as a being whose
+opinions, and most frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of
+another being, which is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a
+man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by wronging his
+adversaries, why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach?
+Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration; nor does
+their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with the
+consciousness of their strength. *c And for these reasons I can never
+willingly invest any number of my fellow-creatures with that unlimited
+authority which I should refuse to any one of them.
+I do not believe it is possible to combine several conflicting principles in the same government so that they actually balance each other while maintaining freedom.
+[ No one will assert that a people cannot forcibly wrong another
+people; but parties may be looked upon as lesser nations within a
+greater one, and they are aliens to each other: if, therefore, it be
+admitted that a nation can act tyrannically towards another nation, it
+cannot be denied that a party may do the same towards another party.]
+> **Quote:** "The form of government which is usually termed mixed has always appeared to me to be a mere chimera."
+Strictly speaking, no such thing exists, because in every society, one dominant principle of action can always be found. Eighteenth-century England, often cited as an example, was essentially aristocratic, even though it contained powerful democratic elements. The laws and customs were such that the aristocracy would ultimately prevail and direct public affairs according to its own will. The mistake arose from focusing too much on the visible struggle without considering the likely outcome, which was the truly important factor. When a society actually has a mixed government—meaning it is equally divided between two opposing principles—it must either undergo a revolution or fall into complete collapse.
+I do not think that it is possible to combine several principles in the
+same government, so as at the same time to maintain freedom, and really
+to oppose them to one another. The form of government which is usually
+termed mixed has always appeared to me to be a mere chimera. Accurately
+speaking there is no such thing as a mixed government (with the meaning
+usually given to that word), because in all communities some one
+principle of action may be discovered which preponderates over the
+others. England in the last century, which has been more especially
+cited as an example of this form of Government, was in point of fact an
+essentially aristocratic State, although it comprised very powerful
+elements of democracy; for the laws and customs of the country were
+such that the aristocracy could not but preponderate in the end, and
+subject the direction of public affairs to its own will. The error
+arose from too much attention being paid to the actual struggle which
+was going on between the nobles and the people, without considering the
+probable issue of the contest, which was in reality the important
+point. When a community really has a mixed government, that is to say,
+when it is equally divided between two adverse principles, it must
+either pass through a revolution or fall into complete dissolution.
+I am therefore convinced that one social power must always predominate over the others. However, I believe liberty is endangered when this power faces no obstacles that might slow its progress and force it to moderate its own intensity.
+I am therefore of opinion that some one social power must always be
+made to predominate over the others; but I think that liberty is
+endangered when this power is checked by no obstacles which may retard
+its course, and force it to moderate its own vehemence.
+> **Quote:** "Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing; human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion, and God alone can be omnipotent, because His wisdom and His justice are always equal to His power."
+Unlimited power is in itself a bad and dangerous thing; human beings
+are not competent to exercise it with discretion, and God alone can be
+omnipotent, because His wisdom and His justice are always equal to His
+power. But no power upon earth is so worthy of honor for itself, or of
+reverential obedience to the rights which it represents, that I would
+consent to admit its uncontrolled and all-predominant authority. When I
+see that the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on a
+people or upon a king, upon an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy
+or a republic, I recognize the germ of tyranny, and I journey onward to
+a land of more hopeful institutions.
+No power on earth is so worthy of honor in itself, or so deserving of obedience to the rights it represents, that I would consent to its uncontrolled and all-encompassing authority. When I see the right and the means of absolute command granted to a people or a king, an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I recognize the germ of tyranny, and I journey onward to a land of more hopeful institutions.
+In my opinion the main evil of the present democratic institutions of
+the United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from
+their weakness, but from their overpowering strength; and I am not so
+much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as
+at the very inadequate securities which exist against tyranny.
+In my view, the primary evil of the current democratic institutions in the United States does not stem from their weakness, as is often claimed in Europe, but from their overwhelming strength. I am not so much alarmed by the excessive liberty that exists there as by the inadequate safeguards against tyranny.
+When an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, to whom
+can he apply for redress? If to public opinion, public opinion
+constitutes the majority; if to the legislature, it represents the
+majority, and implicitly obeys its injunctions; if to the executive
+power, it is appointed by the majority, and remains a passive tool in
+its hands; the public troops consist of the majority under arms; the
+jury 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, you
+must submit to it as well as you can. *d
+When an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, to whom can they turn? If they turn to public opinion, public opinion is the majority. If to the legislature, it represents the majority and follows its orders implicitly. If to the executive, it is appointed by the majority and serves as its passive tool. The police and military are the majority under arms. The jury is the majority empowered to hear cases. In some states, even the judges are elected by the majority. No matter how unjust or absurd the harm, you must submit as best you can.
+[ A striking instance of the excesses which may be occasioned by the
+despotism of the majority occurred at Baltimore in the year 1812. At
+that time the war was very popular in Baltimore. A journal which had
+taken the other side of the question excited the indignation of the
+inhabitants by its opposition. The populace assembled, broke the
+printing-presses, and attacked the houses of the newspaper editors. The
+militia was called out, but no one obeyed the call; and the only means
+of saving the poor wretches who were threatened by the frenzy of the
+mob was to throw them into prison as common malefactors. But even this
+precaution was ineffectual; the mob collected again during the night,
+the magistrates again made a vain attempt to call out the militia, the
+prison was forced, one of the newspaper editors was killed upon the
+spot, and the others were left for dead; the guilty parties were
+acquitted by the jury when they were brought to trial.
+The dangers of this majority despotism are not merely theoretical. In 1812, a popular war in Baltimore led a mob to destroy the printing presses of an opposing newspaper and attack its editors. The militia refused to intervene, and the only way to protect the editors was to put them in prison for their own safety. Even then, the mob broke into the jail, killing one editor and leaving others for dead; yet a jury later acquitted the murderers. Similarly, in Pennsylvania, despite the state's Quaker roots and legal tolerance, Black citizens are effectively barred from voting. Though they have the legal right, they stay away from the polls out of fear of being physically attacked by the white majority, whom the magistrates are unable or unwilling to restrain. In these cases, the majority claims the right not only to make the laws but to break them when it suits their prejudices.
+Conversely, if a legislature could represent the majority without becoming a slave to its passions, an executive retain some independent authority, and a judiciary remain separate from the other two, a government could be democratic without the risk of tyrannical abuse.
+I said one day to an inhabitant of Pennsylvania, “Be so good as to
+explain to me how it happens that in a State founded by Quakers, and
+celebrated for its toleration, freed blacks are not allowed to exercise
+civil rights. They pay the taxes; is it not fair that they should have
+a vote?”
+I am not saying that tyrannical abuses are currently frequent in America, but I maintain that there is no reliable barrier against them. The factors that currently moderate the government are found more in the circumstances and customs than in the formal laws.
+“You insult us,” replied my informant, “if you imagine that our
+legislators could have committed so gross an act of injustice and
+intolerance.”
+We must distinguish between tyranny and arbitrary power. Tyranny can be exercised through the law itself, making it non-arbitrary. Arbitrary power can be used for the public good, making it non-tyrannical.
+“What! then the blacks possess the right of voting in this county?”
+In the United States, the majority's unlimited power encourages both the legal despotism of the legislature and the arbitrary authority of officials. The majority has total control over both the creation and execution of the law. Because it holds equal power over officials and the public, it views public officers as its passive agents and expects them to carry out its goals. The specific duties and privileges of these offices are rarely defined in detail; instead, the majority treats them like a master treats servants who work under his constant gaze, retaining the power to direct or reprimand them at any moment.
+“Without the smallest doubt.”
+Generally, American officials are far more independent than French civil servants within their assigned roles. Sometimes, they are even allowed by popular authority to exceed those limits. Backed by the opinion and cooperation of the majority, they venture into displays of power that would shock a European. In this way, habits are forming in the heart of a free country that may one day prove fatal to its liberties.
+“How comes it, then, that at the polling-booth this morning I did not
+perceive a single negro in the whole meeting?”
+“This is not the fault of the law: the negroes have an undisputed right
+of 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 are
+afraid of being maltreated; in this country the law is sometimes unable
+to maintain its authority without the support of the majority. But in
+this case the majority entertains very strong prejudices against the
+blacks, and the magistrates are unable to protect them in the exercise
+of 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 as
+to represent the majority without necessarily being the slave of its
+passions; an executive, so as to retain a certain degree of
+uncontrolled authority; and a judiciary, so as to remain independent of
+the two other powers; a government would be formed which would still be
+democratic without incurring any risk of tyrannical abuse.
+I do not say that tyrannical abuses frequently occur in America at the
+present day, but I maintain that no sure barrier is established against
+them, and that the causes which mitigate the government are to be found
+in the circumstances and the manners of the country more than in its
+laws.
+Effects Of The Unlimited Power Of The Majority Upon The Arbitrary
+Authority Of The American Public Officers
+Liberty left by the American laws to public officers within a certain
+sphere—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 is
+not arbitrary; arbitrary power may be exercised for the good of the
+community at large, in which case it is not tyrannical. Tyranny usually
+employs arbitrary means, but, if necessary, it can rule without them.
+In the United States the unbounded power of the majority, which is
+favorable to the legal despotism of the legislature, is likewise
+favorable to the arbitrary authority of the magistrate. The majority
+has an 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 and the community at large, it considers public officers as its
+passive agents, and readily confides the task of serving its designs to
+their vigilance. The details of their office and the privileges which
+they are to enjoy are rarely defined beforehand; but the majority
+treats them as a master does his servants when they are always at work
+in his sight, and he has the power of directing or reprimanding them at
+every instant.
+In general the American functionaries are far more independent than the
+French civil officers within the sphere which is prescribed to them.
+Sometimes, even, they are allowed by the popular authority to exceed
+those bounds; and as they are protected by the opinion, and backed by
+the co-operation, of the majority, they venture upon such
+manifestations of their power as astonish a European. By this means
+habits are formed in the heart of a free country which may some day
+prove fatal to its liberties.
 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 the
+majority upon opinion—Democratic republics have deprived despotism of
+its physical instruments—Their despotism sways the minds of men.
+By examining public opinion in the United States, we can clearly see how the power of the majority surpasses any power we know in Europe. Intellectual principles usually exert an influence so invisible and subtle that they escape oppression. Even the most absolute monarchs in Europe cannot stop dissenting ideas from circulating secretly through their kingdoms or even within their own courts. This is not the case in America. As long as the majority is undecided, discussion continues; but once its decision is final, a submissive silence takes over, and both friends and opponents join in praising its wisdom. No monarch is so absolute as to unite all the powers of society and crush opposition with the energy of a majority that possesses the right to both make and enforce the laws.
+It is in the examination of the display of public opinion in the United
+States that we clearly perceive how far the power of the majority
+surpasses all the powers with which we are acquainted in Europe.
+Intellectual principles exercise an influence which is so invisible,
+and often so inappreciable, that they baffle the toils of oppression.
+At the present time the most absolute monarchs in Europe are unable to
+prevent certain notions, which are opposed to their authority, from
+circulating in secret throughout their dominions, and even in their
+courts. Such is not the case in America; as long as the majority is
+still undecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision
+is irrevocably pronounced, a submissive silence is observed, and the
+friends, as well as the opponents, of the measure unite in assenting to
+its propriety. The reason of this is perfectly clear: no monarch is so
+absolute as to combine all the powers of society in his own hands, and
+to conquer all opposition with the energy of a majority which is
+invested with the right of making and of executing the laws.
+> **Quote:** "The authority of a king is purely physical, and it controls the actions of the subject without subduing his private will; but the majority possesses a power which is physical and moral at the same time; it acts upon the will as well as upon the actions of men, and it represses not only all contest, but all controversy."
+The authority of a king is purely physical, and it controls the actions
+of the subject without subduing his private will; but the majority
+possesses a power which is physical and moral at the same time; it acts
+upon the will as well as upon the actions of men, and it represses not
+only all contest, but all controversy. I know no country in which there
+is so little true independence of mind and freedom of discussion as in
+America. In any constitutional state in Europe every sort of religious
+and political theory may be advocated and propagated abroad; for there
+is no country in Europe so subdued by any single authority as not to
+contain citizens who are ready to protect the man who raises his voice
+in the cause of truth from the consequences of his hardihood. If he is
+unfortunate enough to live under an absolute government, the people is
+upon his side; if he inhabits a free country, he may find a shelter
+behind the authority of the throne, if he require one. The aristocratic
+part of society supports him in some countries, and the democracy in
+others. But in a nation where democratic institutions exist, organized
+like those of the United States, there is but one sole authority, one
+single element of strength and of success, with nothing beyond it.
+I know of no country where there is so little true independence of mind and freedom of discussion as in America. In any constitutional state in Europe, any religious or political theory can be advocated and spread; no European country is so dominated by a single authority that it lacks citizens ready to protect someone speaking truth from the consequences of their boldness. If he lives under an absolute government, the people are on his side; if he lives in a free country, he can find shelter behind the authority of the crown if necessary. The aristocracy supports him in some countries, the democracy in others. But in a nation like the United States, there is only one authority, one source of strength and success, with nothing else to turn to.
+In America the majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty
+of opinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever he
+pleases, but he will repent it if he ever step beyond them. Not that he
+is exposed to the terrors of an auto-da-fe, but he is tormented by the
+slights and persecutions of daily obloquy. His political career is
+closed forever, since he has offended the only authority which is able
+to promote his success. Every sort of compensation, even that of
+celebrity, is refused to him. Before he published his opinions he
+imagined that he held them in common with many others; but no sooner
+has he declared them openly than he is loudly censured by his
+overbearing opponents, whilst those who think without having the
+courage to speak, like him, abandon him in silence. He yields at
+length, oppressed by the daily efforts he has been making, and he
+subsides into silence, as if he was tormented by remorse for having
+spoken the truth.
+In America, the majority builds formidable barriers around the freedom of opinion. Within these barriers, an author is free to write what he likes, but he will regret it if he steps outside them. He is not threatened with the fires of an executioner, but he is tormented by the daily slights and rejection of public disgrace. His political career is closed forever because he has offended the only power that could help him succeed. He is denied every form of compensation, even fame. Before publishing, he thought many others shared his opinions; but as soon as he speaks openly, his loud opponents condemn him, while those who agree but lack his courage abandon him in silence. He finally gives in, worn down by the daily struggle, and falls silent as if haunted by guilt for having spoken truth.
+Fetters and headsmen were the coarse instruments which tyranny formerly
+employed; but the civilization of our age has refined the arts of
+despotism which seemed, however, to have been sufficiently perfected
+before. The excesses of monarchical power had devised a variety of
+physical means of oppression: the democratic republics of the present
+day have rendered it as entirely an affair of the mind as that will
+which it is intended to coerce. Under the absolute sway of an
+individual despot the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul,
+and the soul escaped the blows which were directed against it and rose
+superior to the attempt; but such is not the course adopted by tyranny
+in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is
+enslaved. The sovereign 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 retain your life, your property, and all that you possess;
+but if such be your determination, you are henceforth an alien among
+your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless
+to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow-citizens if you
+solicit their suffrages, and they will affect to scorn you if you
+solicit their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be
+deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow-creatures will shun you
+like an impure being, and those who are most persuaded of your
+innocence will abandon you too, lest they should be shunned in their
+turn. Go in peace! I have given you your life, but it is an existence
+in comparably worse than death.”
+Chains and executioners were the crude tools of past tyrannies, but modern civilization has refined the arts of despotism. Under the absolute rule of an individual despot, the body was attacked to subdue the soul, yet the soul escaped the blows. But in democratic republics, the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved.
+Monarchical institutions have thrown an odium upon despotism; let us
+beware lest democratic republics should restore oppression, and should
+render it less odious and less degrading in the eyes of the many, by
+making it still more onerous to the few.
+> **Quote:** "The sovereign 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 retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but if such be your determination, you are henceforth an alien among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow-citizens if you solicit their suffrages, and they will affect to scorn you if you solicit their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow-creatures will shun you like an impure being, and those who are most persuaded of your innocence will abandon you too, lest they should be shunned in their turn. Go in peace! I have given you your life, but it is an existence incomparably worse than death.”
+Works have been published in the proudest nations of the Old World
+expressly intended to censure the vices and deride the follies of the
+times; Labruyere inhabited the palace of Louis XIV when he composed his
+chapter upon the Great, and Moliere criticised the courtiers in the
+very pieces which were acted before the Court. But the ruling power in
+the United States is not to be made game of; the smallest reproach
+irritates its sensibility, and the slightest joke which has any
+foundation in truth renders it indignant; from the style of its
+language to the more solid virtues of its character, everything must be
+made the subject of encomium. No writer, whatever be his eminence, can
+escape from this tribute of adulation to his fellow-citizens. The
+majority lives in the perpetual practice of self-applause, and there
+are certain truths which the Americans can only learn from strangers or
+from experience.
+Monarchical institutions have made despotism hateful; let us be careful that democratic republics do not restore oppression and make it less repulsive by making it even more burdensome for the few.
+If great writers have not at present existed in America, the reason is
+very simply given in these facts; there can be no literary genius
+without freedom of opinion, and freedom of opinion does not exist in
+America. The Inquisition has never been able to prevent a vast number
+of anti-religious books from circulating in Spain. The empire of the
+majority succeeds much better in the United States, since it actually
+removes the wish of publishing them. Unbelievers are to be met with in
+America, but, to say the truth, there is no public organ of infidelity.
+Attempts have been made by some governments to protect the morality of
+nations by prohibiting licentious books. In the United States no one is
+punished for this sort of works, but no one is induced to write them;
+not because all the citizens are immaculate in their manners, but
+because the majority of the community is decent and orderly.
+Works have been published in the proudest nations of the Old World specifically intended to criticize the vices and mock the follies of the times; La Bruyère lived in the palace of Louis XIV when he composed his chapter on the Great, and Molière criticized courtiers in plays performed before the Court. But the ruling power in the United States is not to be trifled with; the smallest criticism stings its pride, and the slightest joke containing truth provokes its indignation. Everything must be made the subject of praise. No writer, regardless of fame, can escape this requirement to flatter their fellow citizens. The majority lives in perpetual self-congratulation, and there are truths that Americans can only learn from strangers or hard experience.
+In these cases the advantages derived from the exercise of this power
+are unquestionable, and I am simply discussing the nature of the power
+itself. This irresistible authority is a constant fact, and its
+judicious exercise is an accidental occurrence.
+If great writers have not yet appeared in America, the reason is simply this: there can be no literary genius without freedom of opinion, and freedom of opinion does not exist in America. The Inquisition was never able to prevent anti-religious books from circulating in Spain. The dominion of the majority succeeds much better in the United States, since it actually removes the desire to publish them. Unbelievers are found in America, but there is no public voice for infidelity. Some governments attempt to protect morality by prohibiting indecent books. In the United States, no one is punished for such works, but no one is inspired to write them—not because all citizens are perfect, but because the majority is decent and orderly.
+Effects Of The Tyranny Of The Majority Upon The National Character Of
+The Americans
+In these cases, the advantages derived from this power are unquestionable; I am simply discussing the nature of the power itself. This irresistible authority is a constant reality, while its wise exercise is merely accidental.
+Effects of the tyranny of the majority more sensibly felt hitherto in
+the manners than in the conduct of society—They check the development
+of leading characters—Democratic republics organized like the United
+States bring the practice of courting favor within the reach of the
+many—Proofs of this spirit in the United States—Why there is more
+patriotism in the people than in those who govern in its name.
+The effects of majority tyranny have been felt more in social customs than in formal conduct. They hinder the development of leading characters. I attribute the scarcity of distinguished political characters to the increasing activity of the majority's despotism. When the American Revolution broke out, great figures arose in large numbers, for public opinion then served to guide, rather than tyrannize, individual efforts. Those celebrated men attained a high degree of personal fame that was reflected back upon the nation, but which was by no means borrowed from it.
+The tendencies which I have just alluded to are as yet very slightly
+perceptible in political society, but they already begin to exercise an
+unfavorable influence upon the national character of the Americans. I
+am inclined to attribute the singular paucity of distinguished
+political characters to the ever-increasing activity of the despotism
+of the majority in the United States. When the American Revolution
+broke out they arose in great numbers, for public opinion then served,
+not to tyrannize over, but to direct the exertions of individuals.
+Those celebrated men took a full part in the general agitation of mind
+common at that period, and they attained a high degree of personal
+fame, which was reflected back upon the nation, but which was by no
+means borrowed from it.
+In absolute governments, the nobles closest to the throne flatter the sovereign's passions and submit to his whims. But the mass of the nation does not degrade itself; it often submits out of weakness, habit, or ignorance. Some nations sacrifice their own desires to those of the sovereign with pleasure and pride. These people are miserable, but not degraded. There is a great difference between doing what one does not approve and pretending to approve what one does; the former results from weakness, while the other befits the temper of a lackey.
+In absolute governments the great nobles who are nearest to the throne
+flatter the passions of the sovereign, and voluntarily truckle to his
+caprices. But the mass of the nation does not degrade itself by
+servitude: it often submits from weakness, from habit, or from
+ignorance, and sometimes from loyalty. Some nations have been known to
+sacrifice their own desires to those of the sovereign with pleasure and
+with pride, thus exhibiting a sort of independence in the very act of
+submission. These peoples are miserable, but they are not degraded.
+There is a great difference between doing what one does not approve and
+feigning to approve what one does; the one is the necessary case of a
+weak person, the other befits the temper of a lackey.
+In free countries, where everyone is called upon to offer an opinion on state affairs—and in democratic republics where public life is constantly mixed with domestic concerns—one finds more people who profit from its weaknesses and live off its passions than in absolute monarchies. This is not because men are naturally worse, but because temptation is stronger and easier to access. The result is a much more extensive debasement of character among the citizens.
+In free countries, where everyone is more or less called upon to give
+his opinion in the affairs of state; in democratic republics, where
+public life is incessantly commingled with domestic affairs, where the
+sovereign authority is accessible on every side, and where its
+attention can almost always be attracted by vociferation, more persons
+are to be met with who speculate upon its foibles and live at the cost
+of its passions than in absolute monarchies. Not because men are
+naturally worse in these States than elsewhere, but the temptation is
+stronger, and of easier access at the same time. The result is a far
+more extensive debasement of the characters of citizens.
+Democratic republics expand the practice of seeking favor with the masses and introduce it into a greater number of classes. In the massive crowd that fills the avenues to power in the United States, I found very few men who showed any of that manly candor and independent opinion which frequently distinguished Americans in former times. At first glance, it seems as if all American minds were formed from one model, so accurately do they agree in their way of judging. A stranger does occasionally meet Americans who dissent from these rigid formulas—men who lament the flaws in the laws and the volatility of democracy. Some even point out remedies. But no one is there to hear these things except you, a stranger and passing traveler. They are ready to share truths useless to you, but continue to use a different language in public.
+Democratic republics extend the practice of currying favor with the
+many, and they introduce it into a greater number of classes at once:
+this is one of the most serious reproaches that can be addressed to
+them. In democratic States organized on the principles of the American
+republics, this is more especially the case, where the authority of the
+majority is so absolute and so irresistible that a man must give up his
+rights as a citizen, and almost abjure his quality as a human being, if
+te intends to stray from the track which it lays down.
+If these lines are ever read in America, I am certain of two things: first, that everyone who reads them will raise their voice to condemn me; and second, that many of them will, in their hearts, find me innocent.
+In that immense crowd which throngs the avenues to power in the United
+States I found very few men who displayed any of that manly candor and
+that masculine independence of opinion which frequently distinguished
+the Americans in former times, and which constitutes the leading
+feature in distinguished characters, wheresoever they may be found. It
+seems, at first sight, as if all the minds of the Americans were formed
+upon one model, so accurately do they correspond in their manner of
+judging. A stranger does, indeed, sometimes meet with Americans who
+dissent from these rigorous formularies; with men who deplore the
+defects of the laws, the mutability and the ignorance of democracy; who
+even go so far as to observe the evil tendencies which impair the
+national character, and to point out such remedies as it might be
+possible to apply; but no one is there to hear these things besides
+yourself, and you, to whom these secret reflections are confided, are a
+stranger and a bird of passage. They are very ready to communicate
+truths which are useless to you, but they continue to hold a different
+language in public.
+I have heard much of patriotism in the United States; it is a virtue found among the people, but almost never among their leaders. Despotism degrades the oppressed much more than the oppressor. In absolute monarchies, the king often has great virtues, but courtiers are invariably subservient. American courtiers do not say "Sire" or "Your Majesty"—but that is a distinction without real difference. They are forever talking about the natural intelligence of the populace they serve. They do not debate which of their master's virtues is most worthy of admiration; instead, they assure him that he possesses all virtues under heaven without having earned them. They do not give him their daughters to be his concubines, but by sacrificing their own opinions, they prostitute themselves.
+If ever these lines are read in America, I am well assured of two
+things: in the first place, that all who peruse them will raise their
+voices to condemn me; and in the second place, that very many of them
+will acquit me at the bottom of their conscience.
+Moralists and philosophers in America are not required to hide their opinions under allegory; but before they venture to speak harsh truth, they say: "We know that the people we are addressing are too superior to human weakness to lose their temper; and we would not use this language if we were not speaking to men whose virtue and intelligence make them more worthy of freedom than anyone else." It would have been impossible for the flatterers of Louis XIV to be more skillful. I am convinced that in all governments, whatever their nature, servility will bow to force and flattery will cling to power. The only way to prevent men from degrading themselves is to give no one that unlimited authority which is the surest method of corrupting them.
+I have heard of patriotism in the United States, and it is a virtue
+which may be found among the people, but never among the leaders of the
+people. This may be explained by analogy; despotism debases the
+oppressed much more than the oppressor: in absolute monarchies the king
+has often great virtues, but the courtiers are invariably servile. It
+is true that the American courtiers do not say “Sire,” or “Your
+Majesty”—a distinction without a difference. They are forever talking
+of the natural intelligence of the populace they serve; they do not
+debate the question as to which of the virtues of their master is
+pre-eminently worthy of admiration, for they assure him that he
+possesses all the virtues under heaven without having acquired them, or
+without caring to acquire them; they do not give him their daughters
+and their wives to be raised at his pleasure to the rank of his
+concubines, but, by sacrificing their opinions, they prostitute
+themselves. Moralists and philosophers in America are not obliged to
+conceal their opinions under the veil of allegory; but, before they
+venture upon a harsh truth, they say, “We are aware that the people
+which we are addressing is too superior to all the weaknesses of human
+nature to lose the command of its temper for an instant; and we should
+not hold this language if we were not speaking to men whom their
+virtues and their intelligence render more worthy of freedom than all
+the rest of the world.” It would have been impossible for the
+sycophants of Louis XIV to flatter more dexterously. For my part, I am
+persuaded that in all governments, whatever their nature may be,
+servility will cower to force, and adulation will cling to power. The
+only means of preventing men from degrading themselves is to invest no
+one with that unlimited authority which is the surest method of
+debasing them.
+Democratic republics are likely to perish from a misuse of power, rather than from weakness. The governments of the American republics are more centralized and energetic than the monarchies of Europe.
+The Greatest Dangers Of The American Republics Proceed From The
+Unlimited Power Of The Majority
+Governments usually fall victim to either weakness or tyranny. Many observers who have seen chaos in democratic states have imagined their governments naturally weak. The truth is that once conflict begins between parties, the government loses control. But I do not think democratic power naturally lacks force; rather, it is almost always through the abuse of its force that a democratic government fails. Anarchy is almost always produced by its tyranny or mistakes, but not by its lack of strength.
+Democratic republics liable to perish from a misuse of their power, and
+not by impotence—The Governments of the American republics are more
+centralized and more energetic than those of the monarchies of
+Europe—Dangers resulting from this—Opinions of Hamilton and Jefferson
+upon this point.
+It is important not to confuse stability with force, or greatness with duration. In democratic republics, the power directing society is not stable, for it frequently changes hands. But whichever way it turns, its force is nearly irresistible. The governments of the American republics appear to me just as centralized as the absolute monarchies of Europe, and even more energetic. I am speaking here not of the Federal Government, but of the individual state governments, which the majority controls as it pleases. I do not believe they will perish from weakness.
+Governments usually fall a sacrifice to impotence or to tyranny. In the
+former case their power escapes from them; it is wrested from their
+grasp in the latter. Many observers, who have witnessed the anarchy of
+democratic States, have imagined that the government of those States
+was naturally weak and impotent. The truth is, that when once
+hostilities are begun between parties, the government loses its control
+over society. But I do not think that a democratic power is naturally
+without force or without resources: say, rather, that it is almost
+always by the abuse of its force and the misemployment of its resources
+that a democratic government fails. Anarchy is almost always produced
+by its tyranny or its mistakes, but not by its want of strength.
+If the free institutions of America are ever destroyed, that event may be attributed to the unlimited authority of the majority, which may at some future time drive minorities to desperation and force them to resort to physical strength. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been brought about by despotism.
+It is important not to confound stability with force, or the greatness
+of a thing with its duration. In democratic republics, the power which
+directs *e society is not stable; for it often changes hands and
+assumes a new direction. But whichever way it turns, its force is
+almost irresistible. The Governments of the American republics appear
+to me to be as much centralized as those of the absolute monarchies of
+Europe, and more energetic than they are. I do not, therefore, imagine
+that they will perish from weakness. *f
+Mr. Hamilton expresses the same opinion in the "Federalist," No. 51:
+[ This power may be centred in an assembly, in which case it will be
+strong without being stable; or it may be centred in an individual, in
+which case it will be less strong, but more stable.]
+> **Quote:** "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be, pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society, under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger: and as in the latter state even the stronger individuals are prompted by the uncertainty of their condition to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves, so in the former state will the more powerful factions be gradually induced by a like motive to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that, if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of right under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of the factious majorities, that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it."
+Jefferson also expressed himself this way in a letter to Madison on March 15, 1789:
+[ I presume that it is scarcely necessary to remind the reader here, as
+well as throughout the remainder of this chapter, that I am speaking,
+not of the Federal Government, but of the several governments of each
+State, which the majority controls at its pleasure.]
+> **Quote:** "The executive power in our Government is not the only, perhaps not even the principal, object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the Legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period."
+I prefer to cite the opinion of Jefferson on this subject above all others, because I consider him to be the most powerful advocate democracy has ever produced.
+If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may
+be attributed to the unlimited authority of the majority, which may at
+some future time urge the minorities to desperation, and oblige them to
+have recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but
+it will have been brought about by despotism.
+## Chapter XVI: Causes Mitigating Tyranny In The United States
+Mr. Hamilton expresses the same opinion in the “Federalist,” No. 51.
+“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society
+against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the
+society against the injustice of the other part. Justice is the end of
+government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever
+will be, pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the
+pursuit. In a society, under the forms of which the stronger faction
+can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said
+to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not
+secured against the violence of the stronger: and as in the latter
+state even the stronger individuals are prompted by the uncertainty of
+their condition to submit to a government which may protect the weak as
+well as themselves, so in the former state will the more powerful
+factions be gradually induced by a like motive to wish for a government
+which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more
+powerful. It can be little doubted that, if the State of Rhode Island
+was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity
+of right under the popular form of government within such narrow limits
+would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of the factious
+majorities, that some power altogether independent of the people would
+soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had
+proved the necessity of it.”
+Jefferson has also thus expressed himself in a letter to Madison: *g
+“The executive power in our Government is not the only, perhaps not
+even the principal, object of my solicitude. The tyranny of the
+Legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue
+to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power
+will come in its turn, but at a more distant period.” I am glad to cite
+the opinion of Jefferson upon this subject rather than that of another,
+because I consider him to be the most powerful advocate democracy has
+ever sent forth.
+[ March 15, 1789.]
+## Chapter XVI: Causes Mitigating Tyranny In The United States
 ### Chapter XVI: Causes Mitigating Tyranny In The United States—Part I
+The national majority does not manage every affair; it must use local officials to execute its decisions.
+The distinction between centralized government and centralized administration is crucial: the former exists in America, the latter is almost unknown. If the governing power combined command with execution habit, if it set general principles yet meddled in petty details, if it regulated great national interests yet interfered in private concerns—freedom would soon vanish from the New World.
+But the American majority, though often despotic in taste, lacks sophisticated tyrannical tools. Central government activity never extends beyond issues prominent enough to demand attention; secondary affairs remain unregulated. The majority grows more absolute but has not expanded central power, which stays confined to its sphere. Its despotism may be oppressive, but it cannot cover everything.
+The national majority does not pretend to conduct all business—Is
+obliged to employ the town and county magistrates to execute its
+supreme decisions.
+No matter how passionate the dominant party, it cannot force uniform compliance nationwide. When the central government issues a decree, it must entrust execution to agents it cannot constantly direct.
+I have already pointed out the distinction which is to be made between
+a centralized government and a centralized administration. The former
+exists in America, but the latter is nearly unknown there. If the
+directing power of the American communities had both these instruments
+of government at its disposal, and united the habit of executing its
+own commands to the right of commanding; if, after having established
+the general principles of government, it descended to the details of
+public business; and if, having regulated the great interests of the
+country, it could penetrate into the privacy of individual interests,
+freedom would soon be banished from the New World.
+> **Quote:** "The townships, municipal bodies, and counties may therefore be looked upon as concealed break-waters, which check or part the tide of popular excitement."
+But in the United States the majority, which so frequently displays the
+tastes and the propensities of a despot, is still destitute of the more
+perfect instruments of tyranny. In the American republics the activity
+of the central Government has never as yet been extended beyond a
+limited number of objects sufficiently prominent to call forth its
+attention. The secondary affairs of society have never been regulated
+by its authority, and nothing has hitherto betrayed its desire of
+interfering in them. The majority is become more and more absolute, but
+it has not increased the prerogatives of the central government; those
+great prerogatives have been confined to a certain sphere; and although
+the despotism of the majority may be galling upon one point, it cannot
+be said to extend to all. However the predominant party in the nation
+may be carried away by its passions, however ardent it may be in the
+pursuit of its projects, it cannot oblige all the citizens to comply
+with its desires in the same manner and at the same time throughout the
+country. When the central Government which represents that majority has
+issued a decree, it must entrust the execution of its will to agents,
+over whom it frequently has no control, and whom it cannot perpetually
+direct. The townships, municipal bodies, and counties may therefore be
+looked upon as concealed break-waters, which check or part the tide of
+popular excitement. If an oppressive law were passed, the liberties of
+the people would still be protected by the means by which that law
+would be put in execution: the majority cannot descend to the details
+and (as I will venture to style them) the puerilities of administrative
+tyranny. Nor does the people entertain that full consciousness of its
+authority which would prompt it to interfere in these matters; it knows
+the extent of its natural powers, but it is unacquainted with the
+increased resources which the art of government might furnish.
+Even an oppressive law would be mitigated in implementation. The majority cannot descend into the petty details—the *puerilities*, I might say—of administrative tyranny. The people lack awareness of the advanced resources government might provide.
+This point deserves attention, for if a democratic republic similar to
+that of the United States were ever founded in a country where the
+power of a single individual had previously subsisted, and the effects
+of a centralized administration had sunk deep into the habits and the
+laws of the people, I do not hesitate to assert, that in that country a
+more insufferable despotism would prevail than any which now exists in
+the monarchical States of Europe, or indeed than any which could be
+found on this side of the confines of Asia.
+This point is worth noting, for I do not hesitate to assert that if a similar republic were established where centralized administration was already embedded in habit and law, a more intolerable despotism would prevail than in any European monarchy.
+The Profession Of The Law In The United States Serves To Counterpoise
+The Democracy
+**The Legal Profession In The United States Acts As A Counterweight To Democracy**
+Utility of discriminating the natural propensities of the members of
+the legal profession—These men called upon to act a prominent part in
+future society—In what manner the peculiar pursuits of lawyers give an
+aristocratic turn to their ideas—Accidental causes which may check this
+tendency—Ease with which the aristocracy coalesces with legal men—Use
+of lawyers to a despot—The profession of the law constitutes the only
+aristocratic element with which the natural elements of democracy will
+combine—Peculiar causes which tend to give an aristocratic turn of mind
+to the English and American lawyers—The aristocracy of America is on
+the bench and at the bar—Influence of lawyers upon American
+society—Their peculiar magisterial habits affect the legislature, the
+administration, and even the people.
+Lawyers' natural tendencies give them an aristocratic character, though accidental causes may check this. They merge easily with aristocracy and prove useful to despots, constituting the only aristocratic element that naturally combines with democracy. Specific causes shape English and American lawyers particularly, and America's aristocracy is found on bench and bar. Their influence extends through society, their judicial habits affecting legislature, administration, and people.
+In visiting the Americans and in studying their laws we perceive that
+the authority they have entrusted to members of the legal profession,
+and the influence which these individuals exercise in the Government,
+is the most powerful existing security against the excesses of
+democracy. This effect seems to me to result from a general cause which
+it is useful to investigate, since it may produce analogous
+consequences elsewhere.
+In visiting the Americans, the authority and influence of lawyers in government seems to me the most powerful security against democratic excess. This effect results from a general cause worth investigating, as it may produce similar consequences elsewhere.
+The members of the legal profession have taken an important part in all
+the vicissitudes of political society in Europe during the last five
+hundred years. At one time they have been the instruments of those who
+were invested with political authority, and at another they have
+succeeded in converting political authorities into their instrument. In
+the Middle Ages they afforded a powerful support to the Crown, and
+since that period they have exerted themselves to the utmost to limit
+the royal prerogative. In England they have contracted a close alliance
+with the aristocracy; in France they have proved to be the most
+dangerous enemies of that class. It is my object to inquire whether,
+under all these circumstances, the members of the legal profession have
+been swayed by sudden and momentary impulses; or whether they have been
+impelled by principles which are inherent in their pursuits, and which
+will always recur in history. I am incited to this investigation by
+reflecting that this particular class of men will most likely play a
+prominent part in that order of things to which the events of our time
+are giving birth.
+For five hundred years, lawyers have played crucial roles in Europe's political shifts—sometimes tools of power, sometimes making power their tool. In the Middle Ages they supported the Crown; later they limited royal prerogative. In England they allied with aristocracy; in France they became its most dangerous enemies. Are these temporary impulses or inherent professional principles? This question matters because lawyers will shape the emerging social order.
+Men who have more especially devoted themselves to legal pursuits
+derive from 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 and the unreflecting passions of the multitude.
+Legal studies instill habits of order, formality, and respect for logical connection, making lawyers hostile to revolutionary spirit and crowd passions. Their specialized knowledge creates a privileged intellectual class. In practice, they master a necessary but obscure science, arbitrate between citizens, and develop contempt for mass judgment. Their similar studies and methods unite them naturally into a cohesive body.
+The special information which lawyers derive from their studies ensures
+them a separate station in society, and they constitute a sort of
+privileged body in the scale of intelligence. This notion of their
+superiority perpetually recurs to them in the practice of their
+profession: they are the masters of a science which is necessary, but
+which is not very generally known; they serve as arbiters between the
+citizens; and the habit of directing the blind passions of parties in
+litigation to their purpose inspires them with a certain contempt for
+the judgment of the multitude. To this it may be added that they
+naturally constitute a body, not by any previous understanding, or by
+an agreement which directs them to a common end; but the analogy of
+their studies and the uniformity of their proceedings connect their
+minds together, as much as a common interest could combine their
+endeavors.
+Consequently, lawyers share aristocratic tastes: love of order, distaste for crowd actions, hidden contempt for popular government. Yet like most men, they are governed by private interests.
+A portion of the tastes and of the habits of the aristocracy may
+consequently be discovered in the characters of men in the profession
+of the law. They participate in the same instinctive love of order and
+of formalities; and they entertain the same repugnance to the actions
+of the multitude, and the same secret contempt of the government of the
+people. I do not mean to say that the natural propensities of lawyers
+are sufficiently strong to sway them irresistibly; for they, like most
+other men, are governed by their private interests and the advantages
+of the moment.
+When barred from political rank, lawyers become revolutionaries. Did French lawyers help overthrow the monarchy in 1789 because of their legal training, or because they were excluded from legislation?
+In a state of society in which the members of the legal profession are
+prevented from holding that rank in the political world which they
+enjoy in private life, we may rest assured that they will be the
+foremost agents of revolution. But it must then be inquired whether the
+cause which induces them to innovate and to destroy is accidental, or
+whether it belongs to some lasting purpose which they entertain. It is
+true that lawyers mainly contributed to the overthrow of the French
+monarchy in 1789; but it remains to be seen whether they acted thus
+because they had studied the laws, or because they were prohibited from
+co-operating in the work of legislation.
+In all free governments, lawyers lead every party, just as aristocrats have led democratic upheavals. A privileged class cannot satisfy all its members' ambitions; those excluded often attack the privileges they cannot enjoy.
+Five hundred years ago the English nobles headed the people, and spoke
+in its name; at the present time the aristocracy supports the throne,
+and defends the royal prerogative. But aristocracy has, notwithstanding
+this, its peculiar instincts and propensities. We must be careful not
+to confound isolated members of a body with the body itself. In all
+free governments, of whatsoever form they may be, members of the legal
+profession will be found at the head of all parties. The same remark is
+also applicable to the aristocracy; for almost all the democratic
+convulsions which have agitated the world have been directed by nobles.
+Most lawyers are usually friends of order. When excluded by aristocracy, they become dangerous enemies who feel equal in intelligence. When included, they merge easily into a single order of family interests.
+A privileged body can never satisfy the ambition of all its members; it
+has always more talents and more passions to content and to employ than
+it can find places; so that a considerable number of individuals are
+usually to be met with who are inclined to attack those very privileges
+which they find it impossible to turn to their own account.
+A monarch can always make lawyers useful instruments of authority, as they have greater affinity with executive power than with the people—just as nobles have greater affinity with the monarch than with the people.
+I do not, then, assert that all the members of the legal profession are
+at all times the friends of order and the opponents of innovation, but
+merely that most of them usually are so. In a community in which
+lawyers are allowed to occupy, without opposition, that high station
+which naturally belongs to them, their general spirit will be eminently
+conservative and anti-democratic. When an aristocracy excludes the
+leaders of that profession from its ranks, it excites enemies which are
+the more formidable to its security as they are independent of the
+nobility by their industrious pursuits; and they feel themselves to be
+its equal in point of intelligence, although they enjoy less opulence
+and less power. But whenever an aristocracy consents to impart some of
+its privileges to these same individuals, the two classes coalesce very
+readily, and assume, as it were, the consistency of a single order of
+family interests.
+Lawyers value public order above all, and authority is its best guarantee. They value legality more than freedom; they fear arbitrary power more than tyranny, and are not dissatisfied if the legislature deprives men of independence through proper process.
+I am, in like manner, inclined to believe that a monarch will always be
+able to convert legal practitioners into the most serviceable
+instruments of his authority. There is a far greater affinity between
+this class of individuals and the executive power than there is between
+them and the people; just as there is a greater natural affinity
+between the nobles and the monarch than between the nobles and the
+people, although the higher orders of society have occasionally
+resisted the prerogative of the Crown in concert with the lower
+classes.
+A ruler who weakens judicial authority to resist democracy makes a grave mistake, losing substance for shadow. He would be wiser to bring lawyers into government, for even violent despotic power would take on an appearance of justice in their hands.
+Lawyers are attached to public order beyond every other consideration,
+and the best security of public order is authority. It must not be
+forgotten that, if they prize the free institutions of their country
+much, they nevertheless value the legality of those institutions far
+more: they are less afraid of tyranny than of arbitrary power; and
+provided that the legislature take upon itself to deprive men of their
+independence, they are not dissatisfied.
+Democratic government is favorable to lawyers' political power. When the wealthy and noble are excluded, lawyers naturally occupy the highest positions, as they are the only educated men outside the popular sphere whom the people will choose. If their tastes lead them to side with the aristocracy and the throne, their interests keep them naturally connected to the people. They appreciate democracy without sharing its weaknesses, deriving double authority—from the people and over them. The people do not mistrust them, as lawyers serve the popular cause without hidden agendas. Lawyers do not seek to overthrow democracy but to redirect it away from its natural tendencies.
+I am therefore convinced that the prince who, in presence of an
+encroaching democracy, should endeavor to impair the judicial authority
+in his dominions, and to diminish the political influence of lawyers,
+would commit a great mistake. He would let slip the substance of
+authority to grasp at the shadow. He would act more wisely in
+introducing men connected with the law into the government; and if he
+entrusted them with the conduct of a despotic power, bearing some marks
+of violence, that power would most likely assume the external features
+of justice and of legality in their hands.
+> **Quote:** "Lawyers belong to the people by birth and interest, to the aristocracy by habit and by taste, and they may be looked upon as the natural bond and connecting link of the two great classes of society."
+The government of democracy is favorable to the political power of
+lawyers; for when the wealthy, the noble, and the prince are excluded
+from the government, they are sure to occupy the highest stations, in
+their own right, as it were, since they are the only men of information
+and sagacity, beyond the sphere of the people, who can be the object of
+the popular choice. If, then, they are led by their tastes to combine
+with the aristocracy and to support the Crown, they are naturally
+brought into contact with the people by their interests. They like the
+government of democracy, without participating in its propensities and
+without imitating its weaknesses; whence they derive a twofold
+authority, from it and over it. The people in democratic states does
+not mistrust the members of the legal profession, because it is well
+known that they are interested in serving the popular cause; and it
+listens to them without irritation, because it does not attribute to
+them any sinister designs. The object of lawyers is not, indeed, to
+overthrow the institutions of democracy, but they constantly endeavor
+to give it an impulse which diverts it from its real tendency, by means
+which are foreign to its nature. Lawyers belong to the people by birth
+and interest, to the aristocracy by habit and by taste, and they may be
+looked upon as the natural bond and connecting link of the two great
+classes of society.
+> **Quote:** "The profession of the law is the only aristocratic element which can be amalgamated without violence with the natural elements of democracy, and which can be advantageously and permanently combined with them."
+The profession of the law is the only aristocratic element which can be
+amalgamated without violence with the natural elements of democracy,
+and which can be advantageously and permanently combined with them. I
+am not unacquainted with the defects which are inherent in the
+character of that body of men; but without this admixture of
+lawyer-like sobriety with the democratic principle, I question whether
+democratic institutions could long be maintained, and I cannot believe
+that a republic could subsist at the present time if the influence of
+lawyers in public business did not increase in proportion to the power
+of the people.
+I am not unaware of the flaws in this group, yet without this mix of professional restraint and democratic principles, I doubt democratic institutions could endure. I cannot believe a republic could survive today if lawyers' influence did not increase with the people's power.
+This aristocratic character, which I hold to be common to the legal
+profession, is much more distinctly marked in the United States and in
+England than in any other country. This proceeds not only from the
+legal studies of the English and American lawyers, but from the nature
+of the legislation, and the position which those persons occupy in the
+two countries. The English and the Americans have retained the law of
+precedents; that is to say, they continue to found their legal opinions
+and the decisions of their courts upon the opinions and the decisions
+of their forefathers. In the mind of an English or American lawyer a
+taste and a reverence for what is old is almost always united to a love
+of regular and lawful proceedings.
+This aristocratic character is more defined in the United States and England than elsewhere, stemming not just from legal studies but from the nature of precedent-based law. In these lawyers' minds, respect for tradition joins love of orderly procedure.
+This predisposition has another effect upon the character of the legal
+profession and upon the general course of society. The English and
+American lawyers investigate what has been done; the French advocate
+inquires what should have been done; the former produce precedents, the
+latter reasons. A French observer is surprised to hear how often an
+English or an American lawyer quotes the opinions of others, and how
+little he alludes to his own; whilst the reverse occurs in France.
+There the most trifling litigation is never conducted without the
+introduction of an entire system of ideas peculiar to the counsel
+employed; and the fundamental principles of law are discussed in order
+to obtain a perch of land by the decision of the court. This abnegation
+of his own opinion, and this implicit deference to the opinion of his
+forefathers, which are common to the English and American lawyer, this
+subjection of thought which he is obliged to profess, necessarily give
+him more timid habits and more sluggish inclinations in England and
+America than in France.
+English and American lawyers investigate what has been done; French lawyers ask what should have been. The former quote others' opinions, rarely mentioning their own; the latter introduce whole systems of ideas even in minor suits, debating fundamental principles to settle a small land dispute. This deference to predecessors makes Anglo-American lawyers more cautious and slower to act.
+The French codes are often difficult of comprehension, but they can be
+read by every one; nothing, on the other hand, can be more impenetrable
+to the uninitiated than a legislation founded upon precedents. The
+indispensable want of legal assistance which is felt in England and in
+the United States, and the high opinion which is generally entertained
+of the ability of the legal profession, tend to separate it more and
+more from the people, and to place it in a distinct class. The French
+lawyer is simply a man extensively acquainted with the statutes of his
+country; but the English or American lawyer resembles the hierophants
+of Egypt, for, like them, he is the sole interpreter of an occult
+science.
+French codes are difficult but readable; precedent systems are incomprehensible to outsiders. The necessity of legal assistance separates Anglo-American lawyers as a distinct class; like the hierophants of Egypt, they are the sole interpreters of an occult science.
+The station which lawyers occupy in England and America exercises no
+less an influence upon their habits and their opinions. The English
+aristocracy, which has taken care to attract to its sphere whatever is
+at all analogous to itself, has conferred a high degree of importance
+and of authority upon the members of the legal profession. In English
+society lawyers do not occupy the first rank, but they are contented
+with the station assigned to them; they constitute, as it were, the
+younger branch of the English aristocracy, and they are attached to
+their elder brothers, although they do not enjoy all their privileges.
+The English lawyers consequently mingle the taste and the ideas of the
+aristocratic circles in which they move with the aristocratic interests
+of their profession.
+The English aristocracy, ever seeking to attract those similar to itself, has given lawyers importance and authority. Though not holding the highest rank, they form the younger branch of aristocracy, combining its tastes with their professional interests.
+And indeed the lawyer-like character which I am endeavoring to depict
+is most distinctly to be met with in England: there laws are esteemed
+not so much because they are good as because they are old; and if it be
+necessary to modify them in any respect, or to adapt them the changes
+which time operates in society, recourse is had to the most
+inconceivable contrivances in order to uphold the traditionary fabric,
+and to maintain that nothing has been done which does not square with
+the intentions and complete the labors of former generations. The very
+individuals who conduct these changes disclaim all intention of
+innovation, and they had rather resort to absurd expedients than plead
+guilty to so great a crime. This spirit appertains more especially to
+the English lawyers; they seem indifferent to the real meaning of what
+they treat, and they direct all their attention to the letter, seeming
+inclined to infringe the rules of common sense and of humanity rather
+than to swerve one title from the law. The English legislation may be
+compared to the stock of an old tree, upon which lawyers have engrafted
+the most various shoots, with the hope that, although their fruits may
+differ, their foliage at least will be confounded with the venerable
+trunk which supports them all.
+This character appears most clearly in England, where laws are valued for age rather than goodness. Lawyers use elaborate fictions to uphold traditional frameworks, denying innovation even as they modify laws. They focus on the literal word over meaning, ready to violate common sense rather than deviate from text. English legislation resembles the trunk of an ancient tree, upon which lawyers have grafted various shoots; while the fruits differ, the foliage blends with the venerable trunk that supports them all.
+In America there are no nobles or men of letters, and the people is apt
+to mistrust the wealthy; lawyers consequently form the highest
+political class, and the most cultivated circle of society. They have
+therefore nothing to gain by innovation, which adds a conservative
+interest to their natural taste for public order. If I were asked where
+I place the American aristocracy, I should reply without hesitation
+that it is not composed of the rich, who are united together by no
+common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the bar.
+In America, lacking nobles or intellectuals and distrusting the wealthy, lawyers form the highest political class and most educated circle. With nothing to gain from radical change, they add conservative interest to their preference for order.
+The more we reflect upon all that occurs in the United States the more
+shall we be persuaded that the lawyers as a body form the most
+powerful, if not the only, counterpoise to the democratic element. In
+that country we perceive how eminently the legal profession is
+qualified by its powers, and even by its defects, to neutralize the
+vices which are inherent in popular government. When the American
+people is intoxicated by passion, or carried away by the impetuosity of
+its ideas, it is checked and stopped by the almost invisible influence
+of its legal counsellors, who secretly oppose their aristocratic
+propensities to its democratic instincts, their superstitious
+attachment to what is antique to its love of novelty, their narrow
+views to its immense designs, and their habitual procrastination to its
+ardent impatience.
+> **Quote:** "If I were asked where I place the American aristocracy, I should reply without hesitation that it is not composed of the rich, who are united together by no common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the bar."
+The courts of justice are the most visible organs by which the legal
+profession is enabled to control the democracy. The judge is a lawyer,
+who, independently of the taste for regularity and order which he has
+contracted in the study of legislation, derives an additional love of
+stability from his own inalienable functions. His legal attainments
+have already raised him to a distinguished rank amongst his
+fellow-citizens; his political power completes the distinction of his
+station, and gives him the inclinations natural to privileged classes.
+Reflection convinces us that lawyers form the most powerful counterweight to democracy in America. Their strengths and weaknesses uniquely neutralize flaws in popular government. When the people are impassioned, lawyers' nearly invisible influence checks them, countering democratic instincts with aristocratic tendencies, replacing novelty with tradition, grand designs with narrow views, and impatience with caution.
+Armed with the power of declaring the laws to be unconstitutional, *a
+the American magistrate perpetually interferes in political affairs. He
+cannot force the people to make laws, but at least he can oblige it not
+to disobey its own enactments; or to act inconsistently with its own
+principles. I am aware that a secret tendency to diminish the judicial
+power exists in the United States, and by most of the constitutions of
+the several States the Government can, upon the demand of the two
+houses of the legislature, remove the judges from their station. By
+some other constitutions the members of the tribunals are elected, and
+they are even subjected to frequent re-elections. I venture to predict
+that these innovations will sooner or later be attended with fatal
+consequences, and that it will be found out at some future period that
+the attack which is made upon the judicial power has affected the
+democratic republic itself.
+The courts are the most visible control mechanism. The judge, a lawyer with love of stability from his permanent position, gains inclinations of privileged classes. Armed with power to declare laws unconstitutional, he intervenes in political affairs, compelling the people not to ignore their own statutes. Though a trend exists—removing judges at legislative request in most states, or electing them with frequent re-election elsewhere—I venture to predict this will prove disastrous. It will be discovered that this attack on judicial power was actually an attack on the democratic republic itself.
+[ See chapter VI. on the “Judicial Power in the United States.”]
+This legal spirit extends beyond courts. As the only educated class the people trust, lawyers dominate legislative assemblies and administration, influencing law's creation and execution. Though they yield to overwhelming public opinion, their natural conservatism shows in how little Americans have changed their civil laws, despite frequent political innovations. In civil law, the majority defers to legal authority, and lawyers are reluctant to innovate.
+A Frenchman finds it interesting to hear Americans complain about lawyers' conservative tendencies.
+It must not, however, be supposed that the legal spirit of which I have
+been speaking has been confined, in the United States, to the courts of
+justice; it extends far beyond them. As the lawyers constitute the only
+enlightened class which the people does not mistrust, they are
+naturally called upon to occupy most of the public stations. They fill
+the legislative assemblies, and they conduct the administration; they
+consequently exercise a powerful influence upon the formation of the
+law, and upon its execution. The lawyers are, however, obliged to yield
+to the current of public opinion, which is too strong for them to
+resist it, but it is easy to find indications of what their conduct
+would be if they were free to act as they chose. The Americans, who
+have made such copious innovations in their political legislation, have
+introduced very sparing 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 is obliged to defer to the authority of the legal
+profession, and that the American lawyers are disinclined to innovate
+when they are left to their own choice.
+> **Quote:** "Scarcely any question arises in the United States which does not become, sooner or later, a subject of judicial debate"
+It is curious for a Frenchman, accustomed to a very different state of
+things, to hear the perpetual complaints which are made in the United
+States against the stationary propensities of legal men, and their
+prejudices in favor of existing institutions.
+All parties must borrow courtroom ideas and language for political debate. Since most public figures are or were lawyers, they bring professional customs into public affairs. The jury system spreads legal habits to all classes, making legal language the common tongue. This spirit filters from law schools and courts throughout society, until the entire population adopts judicial habits and tastes.
+The influence of the legal habits which are common in America extends
+beyond the limits I have just pointed out. Scarcely any question arises
+in the United States which does not become, sooner or later, a subject
+of judicial debate; hence all parties are obliged to borrow the ideas,
+and even the language, usual in judicial proceedings in their daily
+controversies. As most public men are, or have been, legal
+practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their
+profession into the affairs of the country. The jury extends this
+habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some
+measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in
+the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their
+walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest
+classes, so that the whole people contracts the habits and the tastes
+of the magistrate. The lawyers of the United States form a party which
+is but little feared and scarcely perceived, which has no badge
+peculiar to itself, which adapts itself with great flexibility to the
+exigencies of the time, and accommodates itself to all the movements of
+the social body; but this party extends over the whole community, and
+it penetrates into all classes of society; it acts upon the country
+imperceptibly, but it finally fashions it to suit its purposes.
+American lawyers form a little-noticed, unbadged party that adapts flexibly to the times. Yet it extends throughout the community, penetrating every class, acting imperceptibly to shape the country to 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 deserves comparison with other instruments of popular sovereignty. I address it not as a judicial institution but as a political one—not because its judicial utility is settled (that could fill a book), but because its political effects shape society's destiny.
+Trial by jury, which is one of the instruments of the sovereignty of
+the people, deserves to be compared with the other laws which establish
+that sovereignty—Composition of the jury in the United States—Effect of
+trial by jury upon the national character—It educates the people—It
+tends to establish the authority of the magistrates and to extend a
+knowledge of law among the people.
+The English adopted the jury when primitive; as they advanced, their attachment grew. They carried it worldwide—to colonies and republics alike. All Anglo-American legal experts defend it. Justice Story, in his *Commentaries on the Constitution*, called the civil jury "a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal cases, essential to political and civil liberty." I could point out that involving juries reduces judge numbers—a significant advantage; I would rather submit a case to ignorant jurors guided by a skillful judge than to a half-enlightened tribunal. The Tudors imprisoned jurors who refused to convict; Napoleon had them hand-picked. Rulers who govern by their own authority always seek to destroy or weaken the jury.
+Since I have been led by my subject to recur to the administration of
+justice in the United States, I will not pass over this point without
+adverting to the institution of the jury. Trial by jury may be
+considered in two separate points of view, as a judicial and as a
+political institution. If it entered into my present purpose to inquire
+how far trial by jury (more especially in civil cases) contributes to
+insure the best administration of justice, I admit that its utility
+might be contested. As the jury was first introduced at a time when
+society was in an uncivilized state, and when courts of justice were
+merely called upon to decide on the evidence of facts, it is not an
+easy task to adapt it to the wants of a highly civilized community when
+the mutual relations of men are multiplied to a surprising extent, and
+have assumed the enlightened and intellectual character of the age. *b
+The jury introduces a republican element into government regardless of whether it is aristocratic or democratic, since it places society's direction in citizens' hands rather than the government's. Force is only a temporary element of success; after force comes right. A government that could crush enemies only on a battlefield would soon be destroyed. The true enforcement of political laws is found in criminal legislation.
+[ The investigation of trial by jury as a judicial institution, and the
+appreciation of its effects in the United States, together with the
+advantages the Americans have derived from it, would suffice to form a
+book, and a book upon a very useful and curious subject. The State of
+Louisiana would in particular afford the curious phenomenon of a French
+and English legislation, as well as a French and English population,
+which are gradually combining with each other. See the “Digeste des
+Lois de la Louisiane,” in two volumes; and the “Traite sur les Regles
+des Actions civiles,” printed in French and English at New Orleans in
+.]
+> **Quote:** 'He who punishes infractions of the law is therefore the real master of society.'
+The jury raises the people to judicial authority, though it does not grant absolute control; even a predisposed people, through the jury's composition and divided responsibility, still protect innocence better than an absolute monarch's agents.
+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 few
+words. When the English adopted trial by jury they were a
+semi-barbarous people; they are become, in course of time, one of the
+most enlightened nations of the earth; and their attachment to this
+institution seems to have increased with their increasing cultivation.
+They soon spread beyond their insular boundaries to every corner of the
+habitable globe; some have formed colonies, others independent states;
+the mother-country has maintained its monarchical constitution; many of
+its offspring have founded powerful republics; but wherever the English
+have been they have boasted of the privilege of trial by jury. *c They
+have established it, or hastened to re-establish it, in all their
+settlements. A judicial institution which obtains the suffrages of a
+great people for so long a series of ages, which is zealously renewed
+at every epoch of civilization, in all the climates of the earth and
+under every form of human government, cannot be contrary to the spirit
+of justice. *d
+In England, the aristocracy makes the laws, applies them, and punishes violations; the jury system makes England truly an aristocratic republic. In America, the system extends to all citizens qualified to vote. The jury is as direct an expression of popular sovereignty as universal suffrage, both contributing to the supremacy of the majority. The list of eligible jurors must expand or contract with the list of voters.
+[ All the English and American jurists are unanimous upon this head.
+Mr. Story, judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, speaks, in
+his “Treatise on the Federal Constitution,” of the advantages of trial
+by jury in civil cases:—“The inestimable privilege of a trial by jury
+in civil cases—a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal cases,
+which is counted by all persons to be essential to political and civil
+liberty. . . .” (Story, book iii., chap. xxxviii.)]
+When limited to criminal cases, the jury remains occasional; daily life proceeds without it. But extend it to civil cases and its presence becomes constant; everyone participates as it affects all community interests, penetrating habits of life and shaping the mind's conception of justice. The civil jury saved English liberties under Henry VIII and Elizabeth. Its influence on national character is immense.
+The jury imbues all classes with a respect for the thing judged and the notion of right—without which love of independence becomes destructive passion. It trains men in fairness, judging neighbors as they would wish to be judged. It instills a sense of manly confidence, without which political virtue cannot exist, and teaches responsibility for one's actions. Each citizen becomes a temporary magistrate, feeling the duties owed to society and his role in government. By forcing attention beyond private interests, it rubs off that individual egotism which is the rust of society.
+[ If it were our province to point out the utility of the jury as a
+judicial institution in this place, much might be said, and the
+following arguments might be brought forward amongst others:—
+Most powerfully, it forms judgment and increases intelligence. The jury is a free, ever-open school where jurors exercise rights, converse with the educated, and learn the laws through lawyers, judges, and litigants. The practical intelligence and political common sense of Americans are mainly due to long use of the civil jury. I am certain it is highly beneficial to those who decide cases, even if not always to litigants—one of the most effective means for public education.
+By introducing the jury into the business of the courts you are enabled
+to diminish the number of judges, which is a very great advantage. When
+judges are very numerous, death is perpetually thinning the ranks of
+the judicial functionaries, and laying places vacant for newcomers. The
+ambition of the magistrates is therefore continually excited, and they
+are naturally made dependent upon the will of the majority, or the
+individual who fills up the vacant appointments; the officers of the
+court then rise like the officers of an army. This state of things is
+entirely contrary to the sound administration of justice, and to the
+intentions of the legislator. The office of a judge is made inalienable
+in order that he may remain independent: but of what advantage is it
+that his independence should be protected if he be tempted to sacrifice
+it of his own accord? When judges are very numerous many of them must
+necessarily be incapable of performing their important duties, for a
+great magistrate is a man of no common powers; and I am inclined to
+believe that a half-enlightened tribunal is the worst of all
+instruments for attaining those objects which it is the purpose of
+courts of justice to accomplish. For my own part, I had rather submit
+the decision of a case to ignorant jurors directed by a skilful judge
+than to judges a majority of whom are imperfectly acquainted with
+jurisprudence and with the laws.]
+In democracies, lawyers and judges constitute the only aristocratic body checking popular excesses. Its authority's richest source is the civil jury. In criminal cases, where society confronts an individual, jurors may distrust the judge and rely on common sense. But in civil suits, the judge appears as a disinterested mediator; his influence over their verdict is almost unlimited. Jurors look up to him with confidence and listen with respect, for their intelligence is under the control of his learning. He points their attention to the exact question of fact and puts the answer to the question of law into their mouths.
+I turn, however, from this part of the subject. To look upon the jury
+as a mere judicial institution is to confine our attention to a very
+narrow view of it; for however great its influence may be upon the
+decisions of the law courts, that influence is very subordinate to the
+powerful effects which it produces on the destinies of the community at
+large. The jury is above all a political institution, and it must be
+regarded in this light in order to be duly appreciated.
+If I am asked why I am unimpressed by arguments about juror ignorance in civil cases, I reply that whenever the question is not simple fact, the jury validates the judge's decision by society's authority, while he decides by reason and law. English and American judges transfer authority earned in civil cases to criminal trials, where French judges never possessed such influence. In some cases—frequently the most important—American judges decide alone, especially federal judges who decide almost all questions vital to the country. They then occupy the position French judges usually hold, but with far more power. Even then, they retain the jury's prestige; their judgment carries society's authority, and they continue influencing the thoughts of those who participated.
+By the jury I mean a certain number of citizens chosen
+indiscriminately, and invested with a temporary right of judging. Trial
+by jury, as applied to the repression of crime, appears to me to
+introduce an eminently republican element into the government upon the
+following grounds:—
+The jury, seemingly limiting judicial rights, actually consolidates judicial power. In no country are judges so powerful as where the people share their privileges.
+The institution of the jury may be aristocratic or democratic,
+according to the class of society from which the jurors are selected;
+but it always preserves its republican character, inasmuch as it places
+the real direction of society in the hands of the governed, or of a
+portion of the governed, instead of leaving it under the authority of
+the Government. Force is never more than a transient element of
+success; and after force comes the notion of right. A government which
+should only be able to crush its enemies upon a field of battle would
+very soon be destroyed. The true sanction of political laws is to be
+found in penal legislation, and if that sanction be wanting the law
+will sooner or later lose its cogency. He who punishes infractions of
+the law is therefore the real master of society. Now the institution of
+the jury raises the people itself, or at least a class of citizens, to
+the bench of judicial authority. The institution of the jury
+consequently invests the people, or that class of citizens, with the
+direction of society. *e
+> **Quote:** "The jury, which is the most energetic means of making the people rule, is also the most efficacious means of teaching it to rule well."
+[ An important remark must, however, be made. Trial by jury does
+unquestionably invest the people with a general control over the
+actions of citizens, but it does not furnish means of exercising this
+control in all cases, or with an absolute authority. When an absolute
+monarch has the right of trying offences by his representatives, the
+fate of the prisoner is, as it were, decided beforehand. But even if
+the people were predisposed to convict, the composition and the
+non-responsibility of the jury would still afford some chances
+favorable to the protection of innocence.]
+## Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic
+In England the jury is returned from the aristocratic portion of the
+nation; *f the aristocracy makes the laws, applies the laws, and
+punishes all infractions of the laws; everything is established upon a
+consistent footing, and England may with truth be said to constitute an
+aristocratic republic. In the United States the same system is applied
+to the whole people. Every American citizen is qualified to be an
+elector, 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 as
+extreme a consequence of the sovereignty of the people as universal
+suffrage. These institutions are two instruments of equal power, which
+contribute to the supremacy of the majority. All the sovereigns who
+have chosen to govern by their own authority, and to direct society
+instead of obeying its directions, have destroyed or enfeebled the
+institution of the jury. The monarchs of the House of Tudor sent to
+prison jurors who refused to convict, and Napoleon caused them to be
+returned by his agents.
+[ [This may be true to some extent of special juries, but not of common
+juries. The author seems not to have been aware that the qualifications
+of jurors in England vary exceedingly.]]
+[ See Appendix, Q.]
+However clear most of these truths may seem to be, they do not command
+universal assent, and in France, at least, the institution of trial by
+jury is still very imperfectly understood. If the question arises as to
+the proper qualification of jurors, it is confined to a discussion of
+the intelligence and knowledge of the citizens who may be returned, as
+if the jury was merely a judicial institution. This appears to me to be
+the least part of the subject. The jury is pre-eminently a political
+institution; it must be regarded as one form of the sovereignty of the
+people; when that sovereignty is repudiated, it must be rejected, or it
+must be adapted to the laws by which that sovereignty is established.
+The jury is that portion of the nation to which the execution of the
+laws is entrusted, as the Houses of Parliament constitute that part of
+the nation which makes the laws; and in order that society may be
+governed with consistency and uniformity, the list of citizens
+qualified to 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 the legislator, and all that remains is merely accessory.
+I am so entirely convinced that the jury is pre-eminently a political
+institution that I still consider it in this light when it is applied
+in civil causes. Laws are always unstable unless they are founded upon
+the manners of a nation; manners are the only durable and resisting
+power in a people. When the jury is reserved for criminal offences, the
+people only witnesses its occasional action in certain particular
+cases; the ordinary course of life goes on without its interference,
+and it is considered as an instrument, but not as the only instrument,
+of obtaining justice. This is true a fortiori when the jury is only
+applied to certain criminal causes.
+When, on the contrary, the influence of the jury is extended to civil
+causes, its application is constantly palpable; it affects all the
+interests of the community; everyone co-operates in its work: it thus
+penetrates into all the usages of life, it fashions the human mind to
+its peculiar forms, and is gradually associated with the idea of
+justice itself.
+The institution of the jury, if confined to criminal causes, is always
+in danger, but when once it is introduced into civil proceedings it
+defies the aggressions of time and of man. If it had been as easy to
+remove the jury from the manners as from the laws of England, it would
+have perished under Henry VIII, and Elizabeth, and the civil jury did
+in reality, at that period, save the liberties of the country. In
+whatever manner the jury be applied, it cannot fail to exercise a
+powerful influence upon the national character; but this influence is
+prodigiously increased when it is introduced into civil causes. The
+jury, and more especially the jury in civil cases, serves to
+communicate the spirit of the judges to the minds of all the citizens;
+and this spirit, with the habits which attend it, is the soundest
+preparation for free institutions. It imbues all classes with a respect
+for the thing judged, and with the notion of right. If these two
+elements be removed, the love of independence is reduced to a mere
+destructive passion. It teaches men to practice equity, every man
+learns to judge his neighbor as he would himself be judged; and this is
+especially true of the jury in civil causes, for, whilst the number of
+persons who have reason to apprehend a criminal prosecution is small,
+every one is liable to have a civil action brought against him. The
+jury teaches every man not to recoil before the responsibility of his
+own actions, and impresses him with that manly confidence without which
+political virtue cannot exist. It invests each citizen with a kind of
+magistracy, it makes them all feel the duties which they are bound to
+discharge towards society, and the part which they take in the
+Government. By obliging men to turn their attention to affairs which
+are not exclusively their own, it rubs off that individual egotism
+which is the rust of society.
+The jury contributes most powerfully to form the judgement and to
+increase the natural intelligence of a people, and this is, in my
+opinion, its greatest advantage. It may be regarded as a gratuitous
+public school ever open, in which every juror learns to exercise his
+rights, enters into daily communication with the most learned and
+enlightened members of the upper classes, and becomes practically
+acquainted with the laws of his country, which are brought within the
+reach of his capacity by the efforts of the bar, the advice of the
+judge, and even by the passions of the parties. I think that the
+practical intelligence and political good sense of the Americans are
+mainly attributable to the long use which they have made of the jury in
+civil causes. I do not know whether the jury is useful to those who are
+in litigation; but I am certain it is highly beneficial to those who
+decide the litigation; and I look upon it as one of the most
+efficacious means for the education of the people which society can
+employ.
+What I have hitherto said applies to all nations, but the remark I am
+now about to make is peculiar to the Americans and to democratic
+peoples. I have already observed that in democracies the members of the
+legal profession and the magistrates constitute the only aristocratic
+body which can check the irregularities of the people. This aristocracy
+is invested with no physical power, but it exercises its conservative
+influence upon the minds of men, and the most abundant source of its
+authority is the institution of the civil jury. In criminal causes,
+when society is armed against a single individual, the jury is apt to
+look upon the judge as the passive instrument of social power, and to
+mistrust his advice. Moreover, criminal causes are entirely founded
+upon the evidence of facts which common sense can readily appreciate;
+upon this ground the judge and the jury are equal. Such, however, is
+not the case in civil causes; then the judge appears as a disinterested
+arbiter between the conflicting passions of the parties. The jurors
+look up to him with confidence and listen to him with respect, for in
+this instance their intelligence is completely under the control of his
+learning. It is the judge who sums up the various arguments with which
+their memory has been wearied out, and who guides them through the
+devious course of the proceedings; he points their attention to the
+exact question of fact which they are called upon to solve, and he puts
+the answer to the question of law into their mouths. His influence upon
+their verdict is almost unlimited.
+If I am called upon to explain why I am but little moved by the
+arguments derived from the ignorance of jurors in civil causes, I
+reply, that in these proceedings, whenever the question to be solved is
+not a mere question of fact, the jury has only the semblance of a
+judicial body. The jury sanctions the decision of the judge, they by
+the authority of society which they represent, and he by that of reason
+and of law. *h
+[ See Appendix, R.]
+In England and in America the judges exercise an influence upon
+criminal trials which the French judges have never possessed. The
+reason of this difference may easily be discovered; the English and
+American magistrates establish their authority in civil causes, and
+only transfer it afterwards to tribunals of another kind, where that
+authority was not acquired. In some cases (and they are frequently the
+most important ones) the American judges have the right of deciding
+causes alone. *i Upon these occasions they are accidentally placed in
+the position which the French judges habitually occupy, but they are
+invested with far more power than the latter; they are still surrounded
+by the reminiscence of the jury, and their judgment has almost as much
+authority as the voice of the community at large, represented by that
+institution. Their influence extends beyond the limits of the courts;
+in the recreations of private life as well as in the turmoil of public
+business, abroad and in the legislative assemblies, the American judge
+is constantly surrounded by men who are accustomed to regard his
+intelligence as superior to their own, and after having exercised his
+power in the decision of causes, he continues to influence the habits
+of thought and the characters of the individuals who took a part in his
+judgment.
+[ The Federal judges decide upon their own authority almost all the
+questions most important to the country.]
+The jury, then, which seems to restrict the rights of magistracy, does
+in reality consolidate its power, and in no country are the judges so
+powerful as there, where the people partakes their privileges. It is
+more especially by means of the jury in civil causes that the American
+magistrates imbue all classes of society with the spirit of their
+profession. Thus the jury, which is the most energetic means of making
+the people rule, is also the most efficacious means of teaching it to
+rule well.
+## Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic
 ### Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic—Part I
+The democratic republic in the United States has been this book's central subject, though some contributing causes remain buried in earlier details. Before speaking of the future, I shall briefly summarize the reasons that best explain the present, selecting only the most prominent facts.
+Principal Causes Which Tend To Maintain The Democratic Republic In The
+United States
+All causes maintaining America's democratic republic reduce to three categories:
+A democratic republic subsists in the United States, and the principal
+object of this book has been to account for the fact of its existence.
+Several of the causes which contribute to maintain the institutions of
+America have been involuntarily passed by or only hinted at as I was
+borne along by my subject. Others I have been unable to discuss, and
+those on which I have dwelt most are, as it were, buried in the details
+of the former parts of this work. I think, therefore, that before I
+proceed to speak of the future, I cannot do better than collect within
+a small compass the reasons which best explain the present. In this
+retrospective chapter I shall be succinct, for I shall take care to
+remind the reader very summarily of what he already knows; and I shall
+only select the most prominent of those facts which I have not yet
+pointed out.
+I. The peculiar and accidental situation in which Providence has placed the Americans.
+All the causes which contribute to the maintenance of the democratic
+republic in the United States are reducible to three heads:—
+I. The peculiar and accidental situation in which Providence has placed
+the Americans.
 II. The laws.
 III. The manners and customs of the people.
+Accidental Or Providential Causes Which Contribute To The Maintenance
+Of The Democratic Republic In The United States The Union has no
+neighbors—No metropolis—The Americans have had the chances of birth in
+their favor—America an empty country—How this circumstance contributes
+powerfully to the maintenance of the democratic republic in America—How
+the American wilds are peopled—Avidity of the Anglo-Americans in taking
+possession of the solitudes of the New World—Influence of physical
+prosperity upon the political opinions of the Americans.
+**Accidental or Providential Causes**
+A thousand circumstances, independent of the will of man, concur to
+facilitate the maintenance of a democratic republic in the United
+States. Some of these peculiarities are known, the others may easily be
+pointed out; but I shall confine myself to the most prominent amongst
+them.
+Countless circumstances beyond human control facilitate America's democratic republic. I shall confine myself to the most prominent.
+The Americans have no neighbors, and consequently they have no great
+wars, or financial crises, or inroads, or conquest to dread; they
+require neither great taxes, nor great armies, nor great generals; and
+they have nothing to fear from a scourge which is more formidable to
+republics than all these evils combined, namely, military glory. It is
+impossible to deny the inconceivable influence which military glory
+exercises upon the spirit of a nation. General Jackson, whom the
+Americans have twice elected to the head of their Government, is a man
+of a violent temper and mediocre talents; no one circumstance in the
+whole course of his career ever proved that he is qualified to govern a
+free people, and indeed the majority of the enlightened classes of the
+Union has always been opposed to him. But he was raised to the
+Presidency, and has been maintained in that lofty station, solely by
+the recollection of a victory which he gained twenty years ago under
+the walls of New Orleans, a victory which was, however, a very ordinary
+achievement, and which could only be remembered in a country where
+battles are rare. Now the people which is thus carried away by the
+illusions of glory is unquestionably the most cold and calculating, the
+most unmilitary (if I may use the expression), and the most prosaic of
+all the peoples of the earth.
+The Americans have no neighbors, and consequently no great wars, invasions, or conquests to dread. They require neither high taxes nor massive armies, and face no plague more formidable to republics than all these combined: military glory. General Jackson, twice elected President despite violent temper and mediocre talents, rose solely on the memory of his ordinary victory at New Orleans twenty years prior. Though nothing in his career proved him qualified to govern a free people, he was maintained in that lofty station by a victory memorable only in a country where battles are rare. That a people could be so swayed by such illusions proves them among the most unmilitary on earth.
+America has no great capital *a city, whose influence is directly or
+indirectly felt over the whole extent of the country, which I hold to
+be one of the first causes of the maintenance of republican
+institutions in the United States. In cities men cannot be prevented
+from concerting together, and from awakening a mutual excitement which
+prompts sudden and passionate resolutions. Cities may be looked upon as
+large assemblies, of which all the inhabitants are members; their
+populace exercises a prodigious influence upon the magistrates, and
+frequently executes its own wishes without their intervention.
+America has no great capital city—one of the primary reasons for its republican stability. Cities breed sudden, passionate resolutions; their populace influences magistrates and acts without them. While America lacks a metropolis, it has large cities: New York had 202,000 inhabitants by 1830, Philadelphia 161,000. Their lower classes—freed Black people condemned by law and opinion to a hereditary state of misery and degradation, and European immigrants bearing our vices without counterbalancing interests—form a formidable populace. Recent riots in both cities threaten future security unless the government creates an armed force independent of urban populations. For now, these disturbances, unknown elsewhere, alarm no one because cities exert no influence over rural districts.
+[ The United States have no metropolis, but they already contain
+several very large cities. Philadelphia reckoned 161,000 inhabitants
+and New York 202,000 in the year 1830. The lower orders which inhabit
+these cities constitute a rabble even more formidable than the populace
+of European towns. They consist of freed blacks in the first place, who
+are condemned by the laws and by public opinion to a hereditary state
+of misery and degradation. They also contain a multitude of Europeans
+who have been driven to the shores of the New World by their
+misfortunes or their misconduct; and these men inoculate the United
+States with all our vices, without bringing with them any of those
+interests which counteract their baneful influence. As inhabitants of a
+country where they have no civil rights, they are ready to turn all the
+passions which agitate the community to their own advantage; thus,
+within the last few months serious riots have broken out in
+Philadelphia and in New York. Disturbances of this kind are unknown in
+the rest of the country, which is nowise alarmed by them, because the
+population of the cities has hitherto exercised neither power nor
+influence over the rural districts. Nevertheless, I look upon the size
+of certain American cities, and especially on the nature of their
+population, as a real danger which threatens the future security of the
+democratic republics of the New World; and I venture to predict that
+they will perish from this circumstance unless the government succeeds
+in creating an armed force, which, whilst it remains under the control
+of the majority of the nation, will be independent of the town
+population, and able to repress its excesses.
+The origin of American settlements is the first and most effective cause of their prosperity. The Americans had the luck of birth: their forefathers brought equality of conditions and customs essential to republican government.
+> **Quote:** "When I reflect upon the consequences of this primary circumstance, methinks I see the destiny of America embodied in the first Puritan who landed on those shores, just as the human race was represented by the first man."
+[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
+form part of New York city, has a population of 396,099, in addition to
+that of New York. The frequent disturbances in the great cities of
+America, and the excessive corruption of their local governments—over
+which there is no effectual control—are amongst the greatest evils and
+dangers of the country.]]
+The nature of the territory is the chief circumstance. Ancestors gave Americans love of equality; God gave them a boundless continent to preserve it. Prosperity favors democratic stability, which depends on the majority's character. In America, not only are the laws democratic, but nature herself favors the cause of the people.
+To subject the provinces to the metropolis is therefore not only to
+place the destiny of the empire in the hands of a portion of the
+community, which may be reprobated as unjust, but to place it in the
+hands of a populace acting under its own impulses, which must be
+avoided as dangerous. The preponderance of capital cities is therefore
+a serious blow upon the representative system, and it exposes modern
+republics to the same defect as the republics of antiquity, which all
+perished from not having been acquainted with that form of government.
+> **Quote:** "When the people rules, it must be rendered happy, or it will overturn the State, and misery is apt to stimulate it to those excesses to which ambition rouses kings."
+It would be easy for me to adduce a great number of secondary causes
+which have contributed to establish, and which concur to maintain, the
+democratic republic of the United States. But I discern two principal
+circumstances amongst these favorable elements, which I hasten to point
+out. I have already observed that the origin of the American
+settlements may be looked upon as the first and most efficacious cause
+to which the present prosperity of the United States may be attributed.
+The Americans had the chances of birth in their favor, and their
+forefathers imported that equality of conditions into the country
+whence the democratic republic has very naturally taken its rise. Nor
+was this all they did; for besides this republican condition of
+society, the early settler bequeathed to their descendants those
+customs, manners, and opinions which 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 who landed on those shores, just as the
+human race was represented by the first man.
+No parallel exists in human tradition. Ancient communities subjugated hostile nations; South American colonizers exterminated populations. North America held only wandering tribes—an empty continent awaiting inhabitants.
+The chief circumstance which has favored the establishment and the
+maintenance of a democratic republic in the United States is the nature
+of the territory which the American inhabit. Their ancestors gave them
+the love of equality and of freedom, but God himself gave them the
+means of remaining equal and free, by placing them upon a boundless
+continent, which is open to their exertions. General prosperity is
+favorable to the stability of all governments, but more particularly of
+a democratic constitution, which depends upon the dispositions of the
+majority, and more particularly of that portion of the community which
+is most exposed to feel the pressure of want. When the people rules, it
+must be rendered happy, or it will overturn the State, and misery is
+apt to stimulate it to 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 other country in the world, at any other period of
+history. In the United States not only is legislation democratic, but
+nature herself favors the cause of the people.
+The continent still offers primeval rivers and unbroken fields—not to isolated primitives, but to men armed with fifty centuries of knowledge. Thirteen million Europeans spread peacefully while a few thousand soldiers drive indigenous peoples before them, followed by pioneers who carve civilization from wilderness.
+In what part of human tradition can be found anything at all similar to
+that which is occurring under our eyes in North America? The celebrated
+communities of antiquity were all founded in the midst of hostile
+nations, which they were obliged to subjugate before they could
+flourish in their place. Even the moderns have found, in some parts of
+South America, vast regions inhabited by a people of inferior
+civilization, but which occupied and cultivated the soil. To found
+their new states it was necessary to extirpate or to subdue a numerous
+population, until civilization has been made to blush for their
+success. But North America was only inhabited by wandering tribes, who
+took no thought of the natural riches of the soil, and that vast
+country was still, properly speaking, an empty continent, a desert land
+awaiting its inhabitants.
+Contrary to common belief, Europeans rarely leave coastal cities for the wilderness—they lack capital and climate adaptation. It is Americans themselves who daily abandon their birthplaces for remote domains. This double emigration—Europeans to the coast, Americans to the interior—has brought 7.5 million immigrants in fifty years, all marching toward the same western horizon.
+Everything is extraordinary in America, the social condition of the
+inhabitants, as well as the laws; but the soil upon which these
+institutions are founded is more extraordinary than all the rest. When
+man was first placed upon the earth by the Creator, the earth was
+inexhaustible in its youth, but man was weak and ignorant; and when he
+had learned to explore the treasures which it contained, hosts of his
+fellow creatures covered its surface, and he was obliged to earn an
+asylum for repose and for freedom by the sword. At that same period
+North America was discovered, as if it had been kept in reserve by the
+Deity, and had just risen from beneath the waters of the deluge.
+Only the migrations before Rome's fall compare, but those brought destruction while these bring prosperity. Connecticut's population, at fifty-nine per square mile, grew just twenty-five percent in forty years while England's grew a third. The immigrant arrives in a half-empty land where labor is scarce; his son becomes a wealthy landowner in the West. Father accumulates capital, son invests it—neither knows poverty.
+That continent still presents, as it did in the primeval time, rivers
+which rise from never-failing sources, green and moist solitudes, and
+fields which the ploughshare of the husbandman has never turned. In
+this state it is offered to man, not in the barbarous and isolated
+condition of the early ages, but to a being who is already in
+possession of the most potent secrets of the natural world, who is
+united to his fellow-men, and instructed by the experience of fifty
+centuries. At this very time thirteen millions of civilized Europeans
+are peaceably spreading over those fertile plains, with whose resources
+and whose extent they are not yet themselves accurately acquainted.
+Three or four thousand soldiers drive the wandering races of the
+aborigines before them; these are followed by the pioneers, who pierce
+the woods, scare off the beasts of prey, explore the courses of the
+inland streams, and make ready the triumphal procession of civilization
+across the waste.
+Though American laws favor property distribution, geography prevents fragmentation. Massachusetts, though most crowded with eighty inhabitants per square mile (versus France's 162), rarely divides estates. The eldest son typically keeps the land while others seek fortune in the wilderness—circumstance has re-established primogeniture without complaint.
+The favorable influence of the temporal prosperity of America upon the
+institutions of that country has been so often described by others, and
+adverted to by myself, that I shall not enlarge upon it beyond the
+addition of a few facts. An erroneous notion is generally entertained
+that the deserts of America are peopled by European emigrants, who
+annually disembark upon the coasts of the New World, whilst the
+American population increases and multiplies upon the soil which its
+forefathers tilled. The European settler, however, usually arrives in
+the United States without friends, and sometimes without resources; in
+order to subsist he is obliged to work for hire, and he rarely proceeds
+beyond that belt of industrious population which adjoins the ocean. The
+desert cannot be explored without capital or credit; and the body must
+be accustomed to the rigors of a new climate before it can be exposed
+to the chances of forest life. It is the Americans themselves who daily
+quit the spots which gave them birth to acquire extensive domains in a
+remote country. Thus the European leaves his cottage for the
+trans-Atlantic shores; and the American, who is born on that very
+coast, plunges in his turn into the wilds of Central America. This
+double emigration is incessant; it begins in the remotest parts of
+Europe, it crosses the Atlantic Ocean, and it advances over the
+solitudes of the New World. Millions of men are marching at once
+towards the same horizon; their language, their religion, their manners
+differ, their object is the same. The gifts of fortune are promised in
+the West, and to the West they bend their course. *b
+In 1830, thirty-six Congressmen were born in Connecticut—one-eighth of the House though the state holds one-forty-third of the population. Connecticut itself sends only five delegates; the other thirty-one represent western states. Had they remained, they would have been obscure laborers rather than wealthy legislators.
+[ [The number of foreign immigrants into the United States in the last
+fifty years (from 1820 to 1871) is stated to be 7,556,007. Of these,
+,104,553 spoke English—that is, they came from Great Britain, Ireland,
+or the British colonies; 2,643,069 came from Germany or northern
+Europe; and about half a million from the south of Europe.]]
+> **Quote:** "It cannot be doubted," says Chancellor Kent in his “Treatise on American Law,” “that the division of landed estates must produce great evils when it is carried to such excess as that each parcel of land is insufficient to support a family; but these disadvantages have never been felt in the United States, and many generations must elapse before they can be felt. The extent of our inhabited territory, the abundance of adjacent land, and the continual stream of emigration flowing from the shores of the Atlantic towards the interior of the country, suffice as yet, and will long suffice, to prevent the parcelling out of estates."
+Americans rush west with an intensity surpassing love of life itself, braving Indigenous arrows and forest diseases. Ohio, founded less than fifty years ago, already sees its citizens moving to Illinois. A boundless continent drives them forward as if time were running out.
+No event can be compared with this continuous removal of the human
+race, except perhaps those irruptions which preceded the fall of the
+Roman Empire. Then, as well as now, generations of men were impelled
+forwards in the same direction to meet and struggle on the same spot;
+but the designs of Providence were not the same; then, every newcomer
+was the harbinger of destruction and of death; now, every adventurer
+brings with him the elements of prosperity and of life. The future
+still conceals from us the ulterior consequences of this emigration of
+the Americans towards the West; but we can readily apprehend its more
+immediate results. As a portion of the inhabitants annually leave the
+States in which they were born, the population of these States
+increases very slowly, although they have long been established: thus
+in Connecticut, which only contains fifty-nine inhabitants to the
+square mile, the population has not increased by more than one-quarter
+in forty years, whilst that of England has been augmented by one-third
+in the lapse of the same period. The European emigrant always lands,
+therefore, in a country which is but half full, and where hands are in
+request: he becomes a workman in easy circumstances; his son goes to
+seek his fortune in unpeopled regions, and he becomes a rich landowner.
+The former amasses the capital which the latter invests, and the
+stranger as well as the native is unacquainted with want.
+Migration began as necessity but became a gambling passion. Wilderness reappears behind human progress: abandoned log cabins in isolated spots, fields reclaimed by forest, animals returning—the fleeting trail erased.
+The laws of the United States are extremely favorable to the division
+of property; but a cause which is more powerful than the laws prevents
+property from being divided to excess. *c This is very perceptible in
+the States which are beginning to be thickly peopled; Massachusetts is
+the most populous part of the Union, but it contains only eighty
+inhabitants to the square mile, which is must less than in France,
+where 162 are reckoned to the same extent of country. But in
+Massachusetts estates are very rarely divided; the eldest son takes the
+land, and the others go to seek their fortune in the desert. The law
+has abolished the rights of primogeniture, but circumstances have
+concurred to re-establish it under a form of which none can complain,
+and by which no just rights are impaired.
+I recall a New York lake where an island's thick foliage hid its banks. In that solitude, broken only by bird calls, I found ruins: a European's cabin turned to a bower, its hearth buried in rubble. Nature had reclaimed it completely, and I wondered:
+[ In New England the estates are exceedingly small, but they are rarely
+subjected to further division.]
+> **Quote:** "Are ruins, then, already here?"
+Europe sees restlessness and love of independence as threats, but these ensure American stability. Without them, population would cluster and create unsatisfiable needs. Here, vices benefit society as much as virtues.
+A single fact will suffice to show the prodigious number of individuals
+who leave New England, in this manner, to settle themselves in the
+wilds. We were assured in 1830 that thirty-six of the members of
+Congress were born in the little State of Connecticut. The population
+of Connecticut, which constitutes only one forty-third part of that of
+the United States, thus furnished one-eighth of the whole body of
+representatives. The States of Connecticut, however, only sends five
+delegates to Congress; and the thirty-one others sit for the new
+Western States. If these thirty-one individuals had remained in
+Connecticut, it is probable that instead of becoming rich landowners
+they would have remained humble laborers, that they would have lived in
+obscurity without being able to rise into public life, and that, far
+from becoming useful members of the legislature, they might have been
+unruly citizens.
+> **Quote:** "The Americans frequently term what we should call cupidity a laudable industry; and they blame as faint-heartedness what we consider to be the virtue of moderate desires."
+These reflections do not escape the observation of the Americans any
+more than of ourselves. “It cannot be doubted,” says Chancellor Kent in
+his “Treatise on American Law,” “that the division of landed estates
+must produce great evils when it is carried to such excess as that each
+parcel of land is insufficient to support a family; but these
+disadvantages have never been felt in the United States, and many
+generations must elapse before they can be felt. The extent of our
+inhabited territory, the abundance of adjacent land, and the continual
+stream of emigration flowing from the shores of the Atlantic towards
+the interior of the country, suffice as yet, and will long suffice, to
+prevent the parcelling out of estates.”
+In France, love of birthplace and simple tastes guarantee peace, but in America these virtues threaten society. French Canadians, maintaining their customs, already run out of room. Their educated leaders now praise wealth over modest income, exciting passions rather than calming them. They are encouraged to exchange homely pleasures for the delights of prosperity, and, as I have observed:
+It is difficult to describe the rapacity with which the American rushes
+forward to secure the immense booty which fortune proffers to him. In
+the pursuit he fearlessly braves the arrow of the Indian and the
+distempers 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
+goaded onwards by a passion more intense than the love of life. Before
+him lies a boundless continent, and he urges onwards as if time
+pressed, and he was afraid of finding no room for his exertions. I have
+spoken of the emigration from the older States, but how shall I
+describe that which takes place from the more recent ones? Fifty years
+have scarcely elapsed since that of Ohio was founded; the greater part
+of its inhabitants were not born within its confines; its capital has
+only been built thirty years, and its territory is still covered by an
+immense extent of uncultivated fields; nevertheless the population of
+Ohio is already proceeding westward, and most of the settlers who
+descend to the fertile savannahs of Illinois are citizens of Ohio.
+These men left their first country to improve their condition; they
+quit their resting-place to ameliorate it still more; fortune awaits
+them everywhere, but happiness they cannot attain. The desire of
+prosperity is become an ardent and restless passion in their minds
+which grows by what it gains. They early broke the ties which bound
+them to their natal earth, and they have contracted no fresh ones on
+their way. Emigration was at first necessary to them as a means of
+subsistence; and it soon becomes a sort of game of chance, which they
+pursue for the emotions it excites as much as for the gain it procures.
+> **Quote:** ...to leave the patrimonial hearth and the turf beneath which his forefathers sleep; in short, to abandon the living and the dead in quest of fortune.
+Sometimes the progress of man is so rapid that the desert reappears
+behind him. The woods stoop to give him a passage, and spring up again
+when he has passed. It is not uncommon in crossing the new States of
+the West to meet with deserted dwellings in the midst of the wilds; the
+traveller frequently discovers the vestiges of a log house in the most
+solitary retreats, which bear witness to the power, and no less to the
+inconstancy of man. In these abandoned fields, and over these ruins of
+a day, the primeval forest soon scatters a fresh vegetation, the beasts
+resume the haunts which were once their own, and Nature covers the
+traces of man’s path with branches and with flowers, which obliterate
+his evanescent track.
+America's field for effort exceeds available labor. Knowledge spreads freely, new desires find easy satisfaction, passions discover legitimate outlets, and freedom rarely tempts abuse.
+I remember that, in crossing one of the woodland districts which still
+cover the State of New York, I reached the shores of a lake embosomed
+in forests coeval with the world. A small island, covered with woods
+whose thick foliage concealed its banks, rose from the centre of the
+waters. Upon the shores of the lake no object attested the presence of
+man except a column of smoke which might be seen on the horizon rising
+from the tops of the trees to the clouds, and seeming to hang from
+heaven rather than to be mounting to the sky. An Indian shallop was
+hauled up on the sand, which tempted me to visit the islet that had
+first attracted my attention, and in a few minutes I set foot upon its
+banks. The whole island formed one of those delicious solitudes of the
+New World which almost lead civilized man to regret the haunts of the
+savage. A luxuriant vegetation bore witness to the incomparable
+fruitfulness of the soil. The deep silence which is common to the wilds
+of North America was only broken by the hoarse cooing of the
+wood-pigeon, and the tapping of the woodpecker upon the bark of trees.
+I was far from supposing that this spot had ever been inhabited, so
+completely did Nature seem to be left to her own caprices; but when I
+reached the centre of the isle I thought that I discovered some traces
+of man. I then proceeded to examine the surrounding objects with care,
+and I soon perceived that a European had undoubtedly been led to seek a
+refuge in this retreat. Yet what changes had taken place in the scene
+of his labors! The logs which he had hastily hewn to build himself a
+shed had sprouted afresh; the very props were intertwined with living
+verdure, and his cabin was transformed into a bower. In the midst of
+these shrubs a few stones were to be seen, blackened with fire and
+sprinkled with thin ashes; here the hearth had no doubt been, and the
+chimney in falling had covered it with rubbish. I stood for some time
+in silent admiration of the exuberance of Nature and the littleness of
+man: and when I was obliged to leave that enchanting solitude, I
+exclaimed with melancholy, “Are ruins, then, already here?”
+American republics resemble joint ventures for exploring wilderness and trade. Their deepest passions are commercial; they bring business habits into politics. They love order and steady conduct, preferring practical sense over adventurous spirit, practice over theory.
+In Europe we are wont to look upon a restless disposition, an unbounded
+desire of riches, and an excessive love of independence, as
+propensities very formidable to society. Yet these are the very
+elements which ensure a long and peaceful duration to the republics of
+America. Without these unquiet passions the population would collect in
+certain spots, and would soon be subject to wants like those of the Old
+World, which it is difficult to satisfy; for such is the present good
+fortune of the New World, that the vices of its inhabitants are
+scarcely less favorable to society than their virtues. These
+circumstances exercise a great influence on the estimation in which
+human actions are held in the two hemispheres. The Americans frequently
+term what we should call cupidity a laudable industry; and they blame
+as faint-heartedness what we consider to be the virtue of moderate
+desires.
+In America, prosperity's influence on political opinions is unmistakable, especially among immigrants. I once met a French planter in Pennsylvania—once a radical demagogue—who now discussed property rights like an economist, quoting scripture to support his points on law, morality, and order.
+In France, simple tastes, orderly manners, domestic affections, and the
+attachments which men feel to the place of their birth, are looked upon
+as great guarantees of the tranquillity and happiness of the State. But
+in America nothing seems to be more prejudicial to society than these
+virtues. The French Canadians, who have faithfully preserved the
+traditions of their pristine manners, are already embarrassed for room
+upon their small territory; and this little community, which has so
+recently begun to exist, will shortly be a prey to the calamities
+incident to old nations. In Canada, the most enlightened, patriotic,
+and humane inhabitants make extraordinary efforts to render the people
+dissatisfied with those simple enjoyments which still content it.
+There, the seductions of wealth are vaunted with as much zeal as the
+charms of an honest but limited income in the Old World, and more
+exertions are made to excite the passions of the citizens there than to
+calm them elsewhere. If we listen to their eulogies, we shall hear that
+nothing is more praiseworthy than to exchange the pure and homely
+pleasures which even the poor man tastes in his own country for the
+dull delights of prosperity under a foreign sky; to leave the
+patrimonial hearth and the turf beneath which his forefathers sleep; in
+short, to abandon the living and the dead in quest of fortune.
+I marveled at human reason's weakness. Prosperity shapes opinions: the American always links order to prosperity, needing no unlearning, while the European must abandon early lessons.
+At the present time America presents a field for human effort far more
+extensive than any sum of labor which can be applied to work it. In
+America too much knowledge cannot be diffused; for all knowledge,
+whilst it may serve him who possesses it, turns also to the advantage
+of those who are without it. New wants are not to be feared, since they
+can be satisfied without difficulty; the growth of human passions need
+not be dreaded, since all passions may find an easy and a legitimate
+object; nor can men be put in possession of too much freedom, since
+they are scarcely ever tempted to misuse their liberties.
+The American republics of the present day are like companies of
+adventurers formed to explore in common the waste lands of the New
+World, and busied in a flourishing trade. The passions which agitate
+the Americans most deeply are not their political but their commercial
+passions; or, to speak more correctly, they introduce the habits they
+contract in business into their political life. They love order,
+without which affairs do not prosper; and they set an especial value
+upon a regular conduct, which is the foundation of a solid business;
+they prefer the good sense which amasses large fortunes to that
+enterprising spirit which frequently dissipates them; general ideas
+alarm their minds, which are accustomed to positive calculations, and
+they hold practice in more honor than theory.
+It is in America that one learns to understand the influence which
+physical prosperity exercises over political actions, and even over
+opinions which ought to acknowledge no sway but that of reason; and it
+is more especially amongst strangers that this truth is perceptible.
+Most of the European emigrants to the New World carry with them that
+wild love of independence and of change which our calamities are so apt
+to engender. I sometimes met with Europeans in the United States who
+had been obliged to leave their own country on account of their
+political opinions. They all astonished me by the language they held,
+but one of them surprised me more than all the rest. As I was crossing
+one of the most remote districts of Pennsylvania I was benighted, and
+obliged to beg for hospitality at the gate of a wealthy planter, who
+was a Frenchman by birth. He bade me sit down beside his fire, and we
+began to talk with that freedom which befits persons who meet in the
+backwoods, two thousand leagues from their native country. I was aware
+that my host had been a great leveller and an ardent demagogue forty
+years ago, and that his name was not unknown to fame. I was, therefore,
+not a little surprised to hear him discuss the rights of property as an
+economist or a landowner might have done: he spoke of the necessary
+gradations which fortune establishes among men, of obedience to
+established laws, of the influence of good morals in commonwealths, and
+of the support which religious opinions give to order and to freedom;
+he even went to far as to quote an evangelical authority in
+corroboration of one of his political tenets.
+I listened, and marvelled at the feebleness of human reason. A
+proposition is true or false, but no art can prove it to be one or the
+other, in the midst of the uncertainties of science and the conflicting
+lessons of experience, until a new incident disperses the clouds of
+doubt; I was poor, I become rich, and I am not to expect that
+prosperity will act upon my conduct, and leave my judgment free; my
+opinions change with my fortune, and the happy circumstances which I
+turn to my advantage furnish me with that decisive argument which was
+before wanting. The influence of prosperity acts still more freely upon
+the American than upon strangers. The American has always seen the
+connection of public order and public prosperity, intimately united as
+they are, go on before his eyes; he does not conceive that one can
+subsist without the other; he has therefore nothing to forget; nor has
+he, like so many Europeans, to unlearn the lessons of his early
+education.
 ### Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic—Part II
+Three circumstances contribute most powerfully to the maintenance of the democratic republic in the United States.
+Influence Of The Laws Upon The Maintenance Of The Democratic Republic
+In The United States
+The first is the federal form of government.
+Three principal causes of the maintenance of the democratic
+republic—Federal Constitutions—Municipal institutions—Judicial power.
+> **Quote:** "The first is that Federal form of Government which the Americans have adopted, and which enables the Union to combine the power of a great empire with the security of a small State."
+The principal aim of this book has been to make known the laws of the
+United States; if this purpose has been accomplished, the reader is
+already enabled to judge for himself which are the laws that really
+tend to maintain the democratic republic, and which endanger its
+existence. If I have not succeeded in explaining this in the whole
+course of my work, I cannot hope to do so within the limits of a single
+chapter. It is not my intention to retrace the path I have already
+pursued, and a very few lines will suffice to recapitulate what I have
+previously explained.
+The second consists of those municipal institutions which limit the despotism of the majority, while simultaneously giving the people a taste for freedom and the knowledge of how to be free.
+Three circumstances seem to me to contribute most powerfully to the
+maintenance of the democratic republic in the United States.
+The third is found in the structure of the judicial power. I have shown how the courts repress the excesses of democracy, checking and directing the impulses of the majority without halting its activity.
+The first is that Federal form of Government which the Americans have
+adopted, and which enables the Union to combine the power of a great
+empire with the security of a small State.
+I have previously remarked that manners—using the word in the sense the ancients gave to *mores*—may be considered a general cause of the republic's maintenance.
+The second consists in those municipal institutions which limit the
+despotism of the majority, and at the same time impart a taste for
+freedom and a knowledge of the art of being free to the people.
+> **Quote:** "I apply it not only to manners in their proper sense of what constitutes the character of social intercourse, but I extend it to the various notions and opinions current among men, and to the mass of those ideas which constitute their character of mind."
+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 the
+excesses of democracy, and how they check and direct the impulses of
+the majority without stopping its activity.
+Under this term I include the entire moral and intellectual condition of a people. I aim not to paint a complete picture, but simply to point out features favorable to political institutions.
+Influence Of Manners Upon The Maintenance Of The Democratic Republic In
+The United States
+America was peopled by men who, having shaken off the Pope's authority, brought a democratic and republican Christianity to the New World—a faith that powerfully contributed to establishing a democracy and republic. Politics and religion formed an alliance never dissolved.
+I have previously remarked that the manners of the people may be
+considered as one of the general causes to which the maintenance of a
+democratic republic in the United States is attributable. I here used
+the word manners with the meaning which the ancients attached to the
+word mores, for I apply it not only to manners in their proper sense of
+what constitutes the character of social intercourse, but I extend it
+to the various notions and opinions current among men, and to the mass
+of those ideas which constitute their character of mind. I comprise,
+therefore, under this term the whole moral and intellectual condition
+of a 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 the
+maintenance of political institutions.
+About fifty years ago, Ireland began sending Catholics to America; converts were also made. Now more than a million Catholics are found in the Union, largely through European immigration. They are fervent in their observances, yet constitute the most republican and democratic class. This seems surprising at first, but the causes are easily discovered.
+Religion Considered As A Political Institution, Which Powerfully
+Contributes To The Maintenance Of The Democratic Republic Amongst The
+Americans
+Catholicism has erroneously been seen as democracy's natural enemy. On the contrary, it is remarkably favorable to the equality of conditions. Catholicism is like an absolute monarchy: if the sovereign is removed, all other classes are more equal than they are even in republics.
+North America peopled by men who professed a democratic and republican
+Christianity—Arrival of the Catholics—For what reason the Catholics
+form the most democratic and the most republican class at the present
+time.
+> **Quote:** "In the Catholic Church, the religious community is composed of only two elements, the priest and the people. The priest alone rises above the rank of his flock, and all below him are equal."
+Every religion is to be found in juxtaposition to a political opinion
+which is connected with it by affinity. If the human mind be left to
+follow its own bent, it will regulate the temporal and spiritual
+institutions of society upon one uniform principle; and man will
+endeavor, if I may use the expression, to harmonize the state in which
+he lives upon earth with the state which he believes to await him in
+heaven. The greatest part of British America was peopled by men who,
+after having shaken off the authority of the Pope, acknowledged no
+other religious supremacy; they brought with them into the New World a
+form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it
+a democratic and republican religion. This sect contributed powerfully
+to the establishment of a democracy and a republic, and from the
+earliest settlement of the emigrants politics and religion contracted
+an alliance which has never been dissolved.
+On doctrinal points, Catholicism places all intellects on the same level, subjecting wise and ignorant, rich and needy, strong and weak to the same creed and observances. It dissolves social distinctions at the foot of the same altar, just as they are dissolved in God's sight. While it predisposes to obedience, it does not prepare men for inequality. Protestantism, conversely, tends to make men independent more than equal.
+About fifty years ago Ireland began to pour a Catholic population into
+the United States; on the other hand, the Catholics of America made
+proselytes, and at the present moment more than a million of Christians
+professing the truths of the Church of Rome are to be met with in the
+Union. *d The Catholics are faithful to the observances of their
+religion; they are fervent and zealous in the support and belief of
+their doctrines. Nevertheless they constitute the most republican and
+the most democratic class of citizens which exists in the United
+States; and although this fact may surprise the observer at first, the
+causes by which it is occasioned may easily be discovered upon
+reflection.
+When the priesthood is entirely separated from government, as in the United States, no class is more disposed than Catholics to transfer equality of conditions into politics. They are not forced by their tenets to adopt democratic principles, but neither are they opposed. Their social position as a poor minority obliges them: they cannot participate unless government is open to all, and their own rights require that all rights be respected.
+[ [It is difficult to ascertain with accuracy the amount of the Roman
+Catholic population of the United States, but in 1868 an able writer in
+the “Edinburgh Review” (vol. cxxvii. p. 521) affirmed that the whole
+Catholic population of the United States was then about 4,000,000,
+divided into 43 dioceses, with 3,795 churches, under the care of 45
+bishops and 2,317 clergymen. But this rapid increase is mainly
+supported by immigration from the Catholic countries of Europe.]]
+The American Catholic clergy never opposes this tendency, but justifies it. They divide the intellectual world: revealed religion demands total agreement, while political truths are left to free inquiry. Thus American Catholics are simultaneously the most faithful believers and most zealous citizens.
+No religious doctrine in the United States displays hostility toward democratic institutions. The clergy of all sects speak the same language, their opinions harmonize with the laws, and human intellect flows forward in a single current.
+I think that the Catholic religion has erroneously been looked upon as
+the natural enemy of democracy. Amongst the various sects of
+Christians, Catholicism seems to me, on the contrary, to be one of
+those which are most favorable to the equality of conditions. In the
+Catholic Church, the religious community is composed of only two
+elements, the priest and the people. The priest alone rises above the
+rank of his flock, and all below him are equal.
+In one of the Union's largest towns, I attended a meeting of two or three thousand people called to aid the Poles. A priest in ecclesiastical robes advanced to the platform; spectators rose with heads uncovered as he spoke:
+On doctrinal points the Catholic faith places all human capacities upon
+the same level; it subjects the wise and ignorant, the man of genius
+and the vulgar crowd, to the details of the same creed; it imposes the
+same observances upon the rich and needy, it inflicts the same
+austerities upon the strong and the weak, it listens to no compromise
+with mortal man, but, reducing all the human race to the same standard,
+it confounds all the distinctions of society at the foot of the same
+altar, even as they are confounded in the sight of God. If Catholicism
+predisposes the faithful to obedience, it certainly does not prepare
+them for inequality; but the contrary may be said of Protestantism,
+which generally tends to make men independent, more than to render them
+equal.
+"Almighty God! The God of Armies! You who strengthened our fathers' hearts and guided their arms when they fought for national independence; who made them triumph over hateful oppression and granted our people liberty and peace: Turn a favorable eye upon the other hemisphere. Look with pity upon that heroic nation now struggling as we once did, for the same rights we defended with our blood. You who created humanity in Your image, do not let tyranny mar Your work. Almighty God! Watch over the Poles' destiny, make them worthy to be free. May Your wisdom direct their councils, Your strength sustain their arms! Spread terror over their enemies, grant that the injustice witnessed for fifty years may not be fully realized in our time. Raise up allies to the sacred cause of right. Arouse the French nation from its apathy, that it may fight again for the liberties of the world.
+Catholicism is like an absolute monarchy; if the sovereign be removed,
+all the other classes of society are more equal than they are in
+republics. It has not unfrequently occurred that the Catholic priest
+has left the service of the altar to mix with the governing powers of
+society, and to take his place amongst the civil gradations of men.
+This religious influence has sometimes been used to secure the
+interests of that political state of things to which he belonged. At
+other times Catholics have taken the side of aristocracy from a spirit
+of religion.
+Lord, turn not Your face from us, grant that we may always be the most religious as well as the freest people on earth. Save the Poles, we beseech You, in the name of Your Son, Jesus Christ. Amen."
+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 men
+are more naturally disposed than the Catholics to transfuse the
+doctrine of the equality of conditions into the political world. If,
+then, the Catholic citizens of the United States are not forcibly led
+by the nature of their tenets to adopt democratic and republican
+principles, at least they are not necessarily opposed to them; and
+their social position, as well as their limited number, obliges them to
+adopt these opinions. Most of the Catholics are poor, and they have no
+chance of taking a part in the government unless it be open to all the
+citizens. They constitute a minority, and all rights must be respected
+in order to insure to them the free exercise of their own privileges.
+These two causes induce them, unconsciously, to adopt political
+doctrines, which they would perhaps support with less zeal if they were
+rich and preponderant.
+The meeting responded "Amen!" with deep devotion.
+The Catholic clergy of the United States has never attempted to oppose
+this political tendency, but it seeks rather to justify its results.
+The priests in America have divided the intellectual world into two
+parts: in the one they place the doctrines of revealed religion, which
+command their assent; in the other they leave those truths which they
+believe to have been freely left open to the researches of political
+inquiry. Thus the Catholics of the United States are at the same time
+the most faithful believers and the most zealous citizens.
+I have shown religion's direct influence on politics, but its indirect influence is even more significant. It never instructs Americans more effectively in the art of being free than when it says nothing of freedom.
+It may be asserted that in the United States no religious doctrine
+displays the slightest hostility to democratic and republican
+institutions. The clergy of all the different sects hold the same
+language, their opinions are consonant to the laws, and the human
+intellect flows onwards in one sole current.
+American denominations are countless, differing in worship but agreeing on duties humans owe one another. Each sect adores God uniquely, yet preaches the same moral law. While truth matters to individuals, society only needs citizens to profess a religion; specific doctrines are of little importance. Moreover, almost all denominations fall within the broad unity of Christianity, whose morality is everywhere the same.
+I happened to be staying in one of the largest towns in the Union, when
+I was invited to attend a public meeting which had been called for the
+purpose of assisting the Poles, and of sending them supplies of arms
+and money. I found two or three thousand persons collected in a vast
+hall which had been prepared to receive them. In a short time a priest
+in his ecclesiastical robes advanced to the front of the hustings: the
+spectators rose, and stood uncovered, whilst he spoke in the following
+terms:—
+Some Americans surely follow worship from habit rather than conviction; hypocrisy must be common where sovereign authority is religious. Yet nowhere does Christianity retain greater influence over men's souls. No greater proof exists of its utility and alignment with human nature than that this influence is most powerful in the most enlightened and free nation.
+“Almighty God! the God of Armies! Thou who didst strengthen the hearts
+and guide the arms of our fathers when they were fighting for the
+sacred rights of national independence; Thou who didst make them
+triumph over a hateful oppression, and hast granted to our people the
+benefits of liberty and peace; Turn, O Lord, a favorable eye upon the
+other hemisphere; pitifully look down upon that heroic nation which is
+even now struggling as we did in the former time, and for the same
+rights which we defended with our blood. Thou, who didst create Man in
+the likeness of the same image, let not tyranny mar Thy work, and
+establish inequality upon the earth. Almighty God! do Thou watch over
+the destiny of the Poles, and render them worthy to be free. May Thy
+wisdom direct their councils, and may Thy strength sustain their arms!
+Shed forth Thy terror over their enemies, scatter the powers which take
+counsel against them; and vouchsafe that the injustice which the world
+has witnessed for fifty years, be not consummated in our time. O Lord,
+who holdest alike the hearts of nations and of men in Thy powerful
+hand; raise up allies to the sacred cause of right; arouse the French
+nation from the apathy in which its rulers retain it, that it go forth
+again to fight for the liberties of the world.
+I have noted that American clergy—without exception, even those not supporting religious liberty—favor civil freedom, yet keep their distance from parties and public affairs. Religion exerts little influence on laws or public opinion's details, but it directs social customs, and by regulating domestic life, it ultimately regulates the state.
+“Lord, turn not Thou Thy face from us, and grant that we may always be
+the most religious as well as the freest people of the earth. Almighty
+God, hear our supplications this day. Save the Poles, we beseech Thee,
+in the name of Thy well-beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who died
+upon the cross for the salvation of men. Amen.”
+The great austerity of American social customs arises primarily from religious faith. Its influence over women's minds is supreme, and women are the protectors of morals. Nowhere is marriage so respected, domestic happiness so valued. In Europe, social disturbances arise from private life's irregularities; despising home's natural bonds develops a taste for excess and restlessness. While the European endeavors to forget domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs.
+The whole meeting responded “Amen!” with devotion.
+Religion's influence extends beyond customs to intelligence itself. Some Anglo-Americans profess Christianity from belief, others from fear of suspicion; thus it reigns by universal consent. Every moral principle is fixed and certain, while the political world is left to debate and experiment. The human mind never wanders boundless; its ambitions meet barriers it cannot cross. Before pursuing radical innovation, certain unchangeable principles are established, and bold designs are subjected to forms that slow or stop their completion.
+Indirect Influence Of Religious Opinions Upon Political Society In The
+United States
+The American imagination, even in its greatest flights, is cautious; its impulses checked, its works often unfinished. These habits of restraint recur in politics, favoring both peace and institutional durability. Nature makes Americans bold fortune-seekers; unconstrained, they would be the world's most daring innovators. But revolutionaries must publicly respect Christian morality and fairness, which does not easily permit violating opposing laws or overcoming followers' scruples. No one has dared propose that "everything is permissible" for society's interests—a godless slogan invented to cover future tyranny. While law permits Americans to do as they please, religion prevents them from conceiving or committing what is rash or unjust.
+Christian morality common to all sects—Influence of religion upon the
+manners of the Americans—Respect for the marriage tie—In what manner
+religion confines the imagination of the Americans within certain
+limits, and checks the passion of innovation—Opinion of the Americans
+on the political utility of religion—Their exertions to extend and
+secure its predominance.
+> **Quote:** "Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of free institutions."
+I have just shown what the direct influence of religion upon politics
+is in the United States, but its indirect influence appears to me to be
+still more considerable, and it never instructs the Americans more
+fully in the art of being free than when it says nothing of freedom.
+Americans themselves view religious belief from this same perspective. I do not know if all have sincere faith—who can search the human heart?—but I am certain they consider it indispensable to republican institutions. This opinion belongs to the whole nation and every rank.
+The sects which exist in the United States are innumerable. They all
+differ 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 to
+man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all the
+sects preach the same moral law in the name of God. If it be of the
+highest importance to man, as an individual, that his religion should
+be true, the case of society is not the same. Society has no future
+life to hope for or to fear; and provided the citizens profess a
+religion, the peculiar tenets of that religion are of very little
+importance to its interests. Moreover, almost all the sects of the
+United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and
+Christian morality is everywhere the same.
+If a political figure attacks a specific sect, its members might still support him. But if he attacks all religions, everyone abandons him.
+It may be believed without unfairness that a certain number of
+Americans pursue a peculiar form of worship, from habit more than from
+conviction. In the United States the sovereign authority is religious,
+and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in
+the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater
+influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no
+greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature,
+than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most
+enlightened and free nation of the earth.
+In Chester County, New York, a witness declared he did not believe in God or the soul's immortality. The judge refused his evidence, stating that this belief:
+I have remarked that the members of the American clergy in general,
+without even excepting those who do not admit religious liberty, are
+all in favor of civil freedom; but they do not support any particular
+political system. They keep aloof from parties and from public affairs.
+In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the
+laws and upon the details of public opinion, but it directs the manners
+of the community, and by regulating domestic life it regulates the
+State.
+> **Quote:** "...constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice, and that he knew of no cause in a Christian country where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief."
+I do not question that the great austerity of manners which is
+observable in the United States, arises, in the first instance, from
+religious faith. Religion is often unable to restrain man from the
+numberless temptations of fortune; nor can it check that passion for
+gain which every incident of his life contributes to arouse, but its
+influence over the mind of woman is supreme, and women are the
+protectors of morals. There is certainly no country in the world where
+the tie of marriage is so much respected as in America, or where
+conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated. In Europe
+almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of
+domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of
+home, is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and
+the evil of fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions
+which frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the
+obedience which the legislative powers of the State exact. But when the
+American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his
+family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace. There his
+pleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm; and
+as he finds that an orderly life is the surest path to happiness, he
+accustoms himself without difficulty to moderate his opinions as well
+as his tastes. Whilst the European endeavors to forget his domestic
+troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home
+that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public
+affairs.
+The New York *Spectator* (August 23, 1831) reported this without comment, noting the judge was unaware any person could disbelieve.
+In the United States the influence of religion is not confined to the
+manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people. Amongst the
+Anglo-Americans, there are some who profess the doctrines of
+Christianity from a sincere belief in them, and others who do the same
+because they are afraid to be suspected of unbelief. Christianity,
+therefore, reigns without any obstacle, by universal consent; the
+consequence is, as I have before observed, that every principle of the
+moral world is fixed and determinate, although the political world is
+abandoned to the debates and the experiments of men. Thus the human
+mind is never left to wander across a boundless field; and, whatever
+may be its pretensions, it is checked from time to time by barriers
+which it cannot surmount. Before it can perpetrate innovation, certain
+primal and immutable principles are laid down, and the boldest
+conceptions of human device are subjected to certain forms which retard
+and stop their completion.
+Americans combine Christianity and liberty so closely they cannot conceive of one without the other. This conviction does not stem from stale tradition.
+The imagination of the Americans, even in its greatest flights, is
+circumspect and undecided; its impulses are checked, and its works
+unfinished. These habits of restraint recur in political society, and
+are singularly favorable both to the tranquillity of the people and to
+the durability of the institutions it has established. Nature and
+circumstances concurred to make the inhabitants of the United States
+bold men, as is sufficiently attested by the enterprising spirit with
+which they seek for fortune. If the mind of the Americans were free
+from all trammels, they would very shortly become the most daring
+innovators and the most implacable disputants in the world. But the
+revolutionists of America are obliged to profess an ostensible respect
+for Christian morality and equity, which does not easily permit them to
+violate the laws that oppose their designs; nor would they find it easy
+to surmount the scruples of their partisans, even if they were able to
+get over their own. Hitherto no one in the United States has dared to
+advance the maxim, that everything is permissible with a view to the
+interests of society; an impious adage which seems to have been
+invented in an age of freedom to shelter all the tyrants of future
+ages. Thus whilst the law permits the Americans to do what they please,
+religion prevents them from conceiving, and forbids them to commit,
+what is rash or unjust.
+I have known societies formed to send ministers to the Western states, lest religion die out and make new states unfit for free institutions. Wealthy New Englanders leave home to lay foundations of Christianity and freedom on the Missouri or Illinois prairies. Religious zeal is constantly stimulated by patriotism. These men act not solely for eternity's promises; if you speak with them, you find politicians where you expected priests. They say: "All American republics are interconnected; if Western republics fall to anarchy or despotism, Atlantic institutions are endangered. It is therefore in our interest that new states be religious to maintain our liberties."
+Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society,
+but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political
+institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for
+freedom, it facilitates the use of free institutions. Indeed, it is in
+this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States
+themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all the
+Americans have a sincere faith in their religion, for who can search
+the human heart? but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable
+to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not
+peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the
+whole nation, and to every rank of society.
+Such are American opinions. If anyone says this religious spirit is America's chief flaw, and that freedom requires blind materialism, I reply they have never seen a religious or free nation.
+In the United States, if a political character attacks a sect, this may
+not prevent even the partisans of that very sect from supporting him;
+but if he attacks all the sects together, everyone abandons him, and he
+remains alone.
+There are Frenchmen who view republicanism as a temporary means to power—the mercenaries of liberty. But others see it as modern society's inevitable destination and sincerely want to prepare men for freedom. When these attack religion, they follow passion against interest.
+Whilst I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the
+assizes of the county of Chester (State of New York), declared that he
+did not believe in the existence of God, or in the immortality of the
+soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the
+witness had destroyed beforehand all the confidence of the Court in
+what he was about to say. *e The newspapers related the fact without
+any further comment.
+> **Quote:** "Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they set forth in glowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; and it is more needed in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie be not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people which is its own master, if it be not submissive to the Divinity?"
+[ The New York “Spectator” of August 23, 1831, relates the fact in the
+following terms:—“The Court of Common Pleas of Chester county (New
+York) a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in
+the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked that he had not
+before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in
+the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all
+testimony in a court of justice, and that he knew of no cause in a
+Christian country where a witness had been permitted to testify without
+such belief.”]
+The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so
+intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive
+the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not
+spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in
+the soul rather than to live.
+I have known of societies formed by the Americans to send out ministers
+of the Gospel into the new Western States to found schools and churches
+there, lest religion should be suffered to die away in those remote
+settlements, and the rising States be less fitted to enjoy free
+institutions than the people from which they emanated. I met with
+wealthy New Englanders who abandoned the country in which they were
+born in order to lay the foundations of Christianity and of freedom on
+the banks of the Missouri, or in the prairies of Illinois. Thus
+religious zeal is perpetually stimulated in the United States by the
+duties of patriotism. These men do not act from an exclusive
+consideration of the promises of a future life; eternity is only one
+motive of their devotion to the cause; and if you converse with these
+missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to find
+how much value they set upon the goods of this world, and that you meet
+with a politician where you expected to find a priest. They will tell
+you that “all the American republics are collectively involved with
+each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or
+to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now
+flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril.
+It is, therefore, our interest that the new States should be religious,
+in order to maintain our liberties.”
+Such are the opinions of the Americans, and if any hold that the
+religious spirit which I admire is the very thing most amiss in
+America, and that the only element wanting to the freedom and happiness
+of the human race is to believe in some blind cosmogony, or to assert
+with Cabanis the secretion of thought by the brain, I can only reply
+that those who hold this language have never been in America, and that
+they have never seen a religious or a free nation. When they return
+from their expedition, we shall hear what they have to say.
+There are persons in France who look upon republican institutions as a
+temporary means of power, of wealth, and distinction; men who are the
+condottieri of liberty, and who fight for their own advantage, whatever
+be the colors they wear: it is not to these that I address myself. But
+there are others who look forward to the republican form of government
+as a tranquil and lasting state, towards which modern society is daily
+impelled by the ideas and manners of the time, and who sincerely desire
+to prepare men to be free. When these men attack religious opinions,
+they obey the dictates of their passions to the prejudice of their
+interests. Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot.
+Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they set forth in
+glowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; and it is more
+needed in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible
+that society should escape destruction if the moral tie be not
+strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? and what
+can be done with a people which is its own master, if it be not
+submissive to the Divinity?
 ### Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic—Part III
+Religion’s power in America stems from the deliberate separation of Church and State, supported by law, public opinion, and clergy. To see why, we must examine humanity’s natural state regarding religion and the incidental causes that keep some nations from reaching it.
+Principal Causes Which Render Religion Powerful In America Care taken
+by the Americans to separate the Church from the State—The laws, public
+opinion, and even the exertions of the clergy concur to promote this
+end—Influence of religion upon the mind in the United States
+attributable to this cause—Reason of this—What is the natural state of
+men with regard to religion at the present time—What are the peculiar
+and incidental causes which prevent men, in certain countries, from
+arriving at this state.
+Eighteenth‑century philosophers argued that liberty and knowledge would inevitably erode religious zeal, but the facts contradict them. In Europe, unbelief aligns with ignorance and degradation, while in America—one of the freest and most enlightened nations—people practice their faith fervently.
+The philosophers of the eighteenth century explained the gradual decay
+of religious faith in a very simple manner. Religious zeal, said they,
+must necessarily fail, the more generally liberty is established and
+knowledge diffused. Unfortunately, facts are by no means in accordance
+with their theory. There are certain populations in Europe whose
+unbelief is only equalled by their ignorance and their debasement,
+whilst in America one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the
+world fulfils all the outward duties of religious fervor.
+The religious character of the United States struck me immediately, and the longer I stayed, the more I saw its political consequences.
+Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the
+country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I
+stayed there the more did I perceive the great political consequences
+resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In
+France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit
+of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in
+America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned
+in common over the same country. My desire to discover the causes of
+this phenomenon increased from day to day. In order to satisfy it I
+questioned the members of all the different sects; and I more
+especially sought the society of the clergy, who are the depositaries
+of the different persuasions, and who are more especially interested in
+their duration. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church I was more
+particularly brought into contact with several of its priests, with
+whom I became intimately acquainted. To each of these men I expressed
+my astonishment and I explained my doubts; I found that they differed
+upon matters of detail alone; and that they mainly attributed the
+peaceful dominion of religion in their country to the separation of
+Church and State. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in
+America I did not meet with a single individual, of the clergy or of
+the laity, who was not of the same opinion upon this point.
+> **Quote:** "In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country."
+This led me to examine more attentively than I had hitherto done, the
+station which the American clergy occupy in political society. I
+learned with surprise that they filled no public appointments; *f not
+one of them is to be met with in the administration, and they are not
+even represented in the legislative assemblies. In several States *g
+the law excludes them from political life, public opinion in all. And
+when I came to inquire into the prevailing spirit of the clergy I found
+that most of its members seemed to retire of their own accord from the
+exercise of power, and that they made it the pride of their profession
+to abstain from politics.
+To understand this, I spoke with clergy and laypeople of many denominations. All attributed religion’s peaceful influence to the separation of Church and State; During my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, among the clergy or the laity, who was not of this same opinion.
+[ Unless this term be applied to the functions which many of them fill
+in the schools. Almost all education is entrusted to the clergy.]
+I was surprised to find that American clergy hold no public office; many states bar them by law, and public opinion excludes them everywhere. The clergy themselves choose to stay out of politics, regarding it as a matter of pride. They condemned ambition and deceit, but taught that sincere political opinions are not sins. Their avoidance of political parties confirmed their view, and I then sought how this separation actually increased religion’s authority. The answer soon became clear.
+Man’s limited lifespan and imperfect worldly joys cannot satisfy his boundless desire to exist. He scorns life yet fears annihilation, and religion channels this conflict toward contemplation of a future state.
+[ See the Constitution of New York, art. 7, Section 4:— “And whereas
+the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the
+service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from
+the great duties of their functions: therefore no minister of the
+gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall at any time
+hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to,
+or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within
+this State.”
+> **Quote:** "Religion, then, is simply another form of hope; and it is no less natural to the human heart than hope itself."
+Faith is natural to man; unbelief is an accident. Religious institutions draw inexhaustible strength from this fundamental principle of human nature.
+See also the constitutions of North Carolina, art. 31; Virginia; South
+Carolina, art. I, Section 23; Kentucky, art. 2, Section 26; Tennessee,
+art. 8, Section I; Louisiana, art. 2, Section 22.]
+> **Quote:** "unbelief is an accident, and faith is the only permanent state of mankind."
+I heard them inveigh against ambition and deceit, under whatever
+political opinions these vices might chance to lurk; but I learned from
+their discourses that men are not guilty in the eye of God for any
+opinions concerning political government which they may profess with
+sincerity, any more than they are for their mistakes in building a
+house or in driving a furrow. I perceived that these ministers of the
+gospel eschewed all parties with the anxiety attendant upon personal
+interest. These facts convinced me that what I had been told was true;
+and it then became my object to investigate their causes, and to
+inquire how it happened that the real authority of religion was
+increased by a state of things which diminished its apparent force:
+these causes did not long escape my researches.
+When religion allies with a government, it gains artificial power but risks its true authority. Built on the universal longing for immortality, religion can reach all; tied to a specific state, it limits itself. Such an alliance increases its sway over a few while forfeiting universal hope.
+The short space of threescore years can never content the imagination
+of man; nor can the imperfect joys of this world satisfy his heart. Man
+alone, of all created beings, displays a natural contempt of existence,
+and yet a boundless desire to exist; he scorns life, but he dreads
+annihilation. These different feelings incessantly urge his soul to the
+contemplation of a future state, and religion directs his musings
+thither. Religion, then, is simply another form of hope; and it is no
+less natural to the human heart than hope itself. Men cannot abandon
+their religious faith without a kind of aberration of intellect, and a
+sort of violent distortion of their true natures; but they are
+invincibly brought back to more pious sentiments; for unbelief is an
+accident, and faith is the only permanent state of mankind. If we only
+consider religious institutions in a purely human point of view, they
+may be said to derive an inexhaustible element of strength from man
+himself, since they belong to one of the constituent principles of
+human nature.
+Religion that comforts suffering wins affection. But entangled with worldly passions, it must defend political allies and reject spiritual seekers who oppose those allies, inheriting the State’s hostility.
+I am aware that at certain times religion may strengthen this
+influence, which originates in itself, by the artificial power of the
+laws, and by the support of those temporal institutions which direct
+society. Religions, intimately united to the governments of the earth,
+have been known to exercise a sovereign authority derived from the
+twofold source of terror and of faith; but when a religion contracts an
+alliance of this nature, I do not hesitate to affirm that it commits
+the same error as a man who should sacrifice his future to his present
+welfare; and in obtaining a power to which it has no claim, it risks
+that authority which is rightfully its own. When a religion founds its
+empire upon the desire of immortality which lives in every human heart,
+it may aspire to universal dominion; but when it connects itself with a
+government, it must necessarily adopt maxims which are only applicable
+to certain nations. Thus, in forming an alliance with a political
+power, religion augments its authority over a few, and forfeits the
+hope of reigning over all.
+Political powers are transient, lasting only a generation or a moment. A law can alter what seems permanent, and with it everything changes. No government rests on an eternal part of the human heart.
+As long as a religion rests upon those sentiments which are the
+consolation 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 be constrained to defend allies whom its interests, and not the
+principle of love, have given to it; or to repel as antagonists men who
+are still attached to its own spirit, however opposed they may be to
+the powers to which it is allied. The Church cannot share the temporal
+power of the State without being the object of a portion of that
+animosity which the latter excites.
+Religion sustained by universal passions can defy time, but tied to worldly interests it becomes as fragile as the state. Its hope for immortality is compromised when bound to temporary authority. The alliance which religion contracts with political powers must needs be onerous to itself; since it does not require their assistance to live, and by giving them its assistance it may be exposed to decay.
+The political powers which seem to be most firmly established have
+frequently no better guarantee for their duration than the opinions of
+a 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 and
+determinate; and with the social condition everything else must change.
+The powers of society are more or less fugitive, like the years which
+we spend upon the earth; they succeed each other with rapidity, like
+the fleeting cares of life; and no government has ever yet been founded
+upon an invariable disposition of the human heart, or upon an
+imperishable interest.
+> **Quote:** "The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity: cut but the bonds which restrain it, and that which is alive will rise once more."
+As long as a religion is sustained by those feelings, propensities, and
+passions which are found to occur under the same forms, at all the
+different periods of history, it may defy the efforts of time; or at
+least it can only be destroyed by another religion. But when religion
+clings to the interests of the world, it becomes almost as fragile a
+thing as the powers of earth. It is the only one of them all which can
+hope for immortality; but if it be connected with their ephemeral
+authority, it shares their fortunes, and may fall with those transient
+passions which supported them for a day. The alliance which religion
+contracts with political powers must needs be onerous to itself; since
+it does not require their assistance to live, and by giving them its
+assistance it may be exposed to decay.
+The danger persists, though often hidden. In stable times the risk seems remote; in turbulent times it is obvious but often too late to act. Precautions must be taken before the danger appears.
+The danger which I have just pointed out always exists, but it is not
+always equally visible. In some ages governments seem to be
+imperishable; in others, the existence of society appears to be more
+precarious than the life of man. Some constitutions plunge the citizens
+into a lethargic somnolence, and others rouse them to feverish
+excitement. When governments appear to be so strong, and laws so
+stable, men do not perceive the dangers which may accrue from a union
+of Church and State. When governments display so much weakness, and
+laws so much inconstancy, the danger is self-evident, but it is no
+longer possible to avoid it; to be effectual, measures must be taken to
+discover its approach.
+As democracy advances, linking religion to politics grows more dangerous. Power will shift rapidly, and constant agitation will prevail, as change is inherent to democratic republics.
+In proportion as a nation assumes a democratic condition of society,
+and as communities display democratic propensities, it becomes more and
+more dangerous to connect religion with political institutions; for the
+time is coming when authority will be bandied from hand to hand, when
+political theories will succeed each other, and when men, laws, and
+constitutions will disappear, or be modified from day to day, and this,
+not for a season only, but unceasingly. Agitation and mutability are
+inherent in the nature of democratic republics, just as stagnation and
+inertness are the law of absolute monarchies.
+Americans change government officials constantly; had they not placed religion beyond politics, it could not survive the flux of opinion. The clergy saw this first: they would lose religious influence if they seized political power, so they chose to forgo state support rather than share its instability.
+If the Americans, who change the head of the Government once in four
+years, who elect new legislators every two years, and renew the
+provincial officers every twelvemonth; if the Americans, who have
+abandoned the political world to the attempts of innovators, had not
+placed religion beyond their reach, where could it abide in the ebb and
+flow of human opinions? where would that respect which belongs to it be
+paid, amidst the struggles of faction? and what would become of its
+immortality, in the midst of perpetual decay? The American clergy were
+the first to perceive this truth, and to act in conformity with it.
+They saw that they must renounce their religious influence, if they
+were to strive for political power; and they chose to give up the
+support of the State, rather than to share its vicissitudes.
+American religion is less powerful but more durable, relying on its own indestructible resources and controlling its own principles.
+In America, religion is perhaps less powerful than it has been at
+certain periods in the history of certain peoples; but its influence is
+more lasting. It restricts itself to its own resources, but of those
+none can deprive it: its circle is limited to certain principles, but
+those principles are entirely its own, and under its undisputed
+control.
+What is meant by the instruction of the American people—The human mind is more superficially instructed in the United States than in Europe—No one is completely uneducated—Reasons for this—The speed with which opinions spread even in the undeveloped Western States—Practical experience is more useful to Americans than book‑learning.
+On every side in Europe we hear voices complaining of the absence of
+religious faith, and inquiring the means of restoring to religion some
+remnant of its pristine authority. It seems to me that we must first
+attentively consider what ought to be the natural state of men with
+regard to religion at the present time; and when we know what we have
+to hope and to fear, we may discern the end to which our efforts ought
+to be directed.
+I have little to add about how American education and habits sustain their political institutions. The United States has produced few distinguished writers; it has no great historians and not a single eminent poet. Americans view literary pursuits with disapproval; some secondary European towns publish more literature annually than the whole Union. The American mind resists abstract ideas, and neither politics nor industry drives them to theoretical discoveries. Although new laws are constantly enacted, no great writer has yet expounded the general principles of American legislation. Americans have many lawyers and commentators, but few legal philosophers—though Kent, Story, and Wheaton are notable exceptions—and they offer examples rather than theoretical lessons. The same holds for technology: Americans adopt European inventions with insight, perfecting them for local needs, yet they do not study the science of manufacturing. They have excellent workmen but few inventors; even Fulton had to seek foreign patrons before serving his own country.
+The two great dangers which threaten the existence of religions are
+schism and indifference. In ages of fervent devotion, men sometimes
+abandon their religion, but they only shake it off in order to adopt
+another. Their faith changes the objects to which it is directed, but
+it suffers no decline. The old religion then excites enthusiastic
+attachment or bitter enmity in either party; some leave it with anger,
+others cling to it with increased devotedness, and although persuasions
+differ, irreligion is unknown. Such, however, is not the case when a
+religious belief is secretly undermined by doctrines which may be
+termed negative, since they deny the truth of one religion without
+affirming that of any other. Prodigious revolutions then take place in
+the human mind, without the apparent co-operation of the passions of
+man, and almost without his knowledge. Men lose the objects of their
+fondest hopes, as if through forgetfulness. They are carried away by an
+imperceptible current which they have not the courage to stem, but
+which they follow with regret, since it bears them from a faith they
+love, to a scepticism that plunges them into despair.
+To judge American education, one must look at both extremes. The highly learned are few, but the ignorant are rarer still; thus Americans appear as the most enlightened people. In New England, every citizen receives the fundamentals of knowledge—religious doctrines, national history, the Constitution. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, ignorance is extremely rare.
+In ages which answer to this description, men desert their religious
+opinions from lukewarmness rather than from dislike; they do not reject
+them, but the sentiments by which they were once fostered disappear.
+But if the unbeliever does not admit religion to be true, he still
+considers it useful. Regarding religious institutions in a human point
+of view, he acknowledges their influence upon manners and legislation.
+He admits that they may serve to make men live in peace with one
+another, and to prepare them gently for the hour of death. He regrets
+the faith which he has lost; and as he is deprived of a treasure which
+he has learned to estimate at its full value, he scruples to take it
+from those who still possess it.
+Comparing the Greek and Roman republics—manuscript libraries and uneducated masses—to the American states, with their countless newspapers and enlightened citizens, I am tempted to burn my books, in order to apply none but novel ideas to so novel a condition of society.
+On the other hand, those who continue to believe are not afraid openly
+to avow their faith. They look upon those who do not share their
+persuasion as more worthy of pity than of opposition; and they are
+aware that to acquire the esteem of the unbelieving, they are not
+obliged to follow their example. They are hostile to no one in the
+world; and as they do not consider the society in which they live as an
+arena in which religion is bound to face its thousand deadly foes, they
+love their contemporaries, whilst they condemn their weaknesses and
+lament their errors.
+However, this description cannot be applied haphazardly to the whole Union. Education declines as we move west or south; near the Gulf of Mexico, some individuals lack basic schooling, and historical statistics show that while illiteracy is negligible in the North, it has been a serious challenge in the South, affecting millions of white and Black residents. Yet no district is wholly ignorant. The reason is simple: Europeans began in primitive darkness and advanced unevenly, while Americans were civilized from the start and only needed to avoid forgetting.
+As those who do not believe, conceal their incredulity; and as those
+who believe, display their faith, public opinion pronounces itself in
+favor of religion: love, support, and honor are bestowed upon it, and
+it is only by searching the human soul that we can detect the wounds
+which it has received. The mass of mankind, who are never without the
+feeling of religion, do not perceive anything at variance with the
+established faith. The instinctive desire of a future life brings the
+crowd about the altar, and opens the hearts of men to the precepts and
+consolations of religion.
+> **Quote:** "In the United States society has no infancy, but it is born in man’s estate."
+But this picture is not applicable to us: for there are men amongst us
+who have ceased to believe in Christianity, without adopting any other
+religion; others who are in the perplexities of doubt, and who already
+affect not to believe; and others, again, who are afraid to avow that
+Christian faith which they still cherish in secret.
+Americans never use the word 'peasant' because they have no idea of the class it denotes. They are unacquainted with the rusticity of the villager—the coarse habits and simple graces of an early stage of civilization. On the frontier, bold adventurers settle—escaping poverty, building log cabins that appear miserable. Yet the pioneer is no rustic: he is the product of eighteen centuries of culture, speaking the language of cities, knowing history, curious about the future, and ready to debate.
+Amidst these lukewarm partisans and ardent antagonists a small number
+of believers exist, who are ready to brave all obstacles and to scorn
+all dangers in defence of their faith. They have done violence to human
+weakness, in order to rise superior to public opinion. Excited by the
+effort they have made, they scarcely knew where to stop; and as they
+know that the first use which the French made of independence was to
+attack religion, they look upon their contemporaries with dread, and
+they recoil in alarm from the liberty which their fellow-citizens are
+seeking to obtain. As unbelief appears to them to be a novelty, they
+comprise all that is new in one indiscriminate animosity. They are at
+war with their age and country, and they look upon every opinion which
+is put forth there as the necessary enemy of the faith.
+> **Quote:** "He is, in short, a highly civilized being, who consents, for a time, to inhabit the backwoods, and who penetrates into the wilds of the New World with the Bible, an axe, and a file of newspapers."
+Such is not the natural state of men with regard to religion at the
+present day; and some extraordinary or incidental cause must be at work
+in France to prevent the human mind from following its original
+propensities and to drive it beyond the limits at which it ought
+naturally to stop. I am intimately convinced that this extraordinary
+and incidental cause is the close connection of politics and religion.
+The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political
+opponents, rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the
+Christian religion as the opinion of a party, much more than as an
+error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the
+representatives of the Divinity than because they are the allies of
+authority.
+Public opinion spreads with incredible speed even in the wilderness. Even in the most enlightened parts of France, intellectual exchange is less active. I once traveled the frontier in a mail cart through vast forests, guided by fir‑branch torches. At isolated huts serving as post offices, the mail dropped bundles of letters for nearby settlers. Already in the 1830s—before the railroad grew from 51 miles in 1831 to 60,000 by 1872—frontier residents in Michigan and Florida contributed more postal revenue per capita than some of France’s most enlightened manufacturing departments.
+In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers of the
+earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buried
+under their ruins. The living body of religion has been bound down to
+the dead corpse of superannuated polity: cut but the bonds which
+restrain it, and that which is alive will rise once more. I know not
+what could restore the Christian Church of Europe to the energy of its
+earlier days; that power belongs to God alone; but it may be the effect
+of human policy to leave the faith in the full exercise of the strength
+which it still retains.
+Education undoubtedly supports the democratic republic, provided that the instruction which awakens the understanding is not separated from the moral education which amends the heart. But I do not exaggerate this benefit; nor do I believe, as many Europeans do, that literacy alone creates citizens. True knowledge comes from experience. Without self‑government, book‑learning would be useless.
+How The Instruction, The Habits, And The Practical Experience Of The
+Americans Promote The Success Of Their Democratic Institutions
+Having spent much time among Americans, I admire their practical sense. Ask about Europe and they may betray ignorance; ask about their own country and their intelligence clears. They know their rights, the customs of politics, the mechanics of law—all learned not from books but from participation.
+What is to be understood by the instruction of the American people—The
+human mind more superficially instructed in the United States than in
+Europe—No one completely uninstructed—Reason of this—Rapidity with
+which opinions are diffused even in the uncultivated States of the
+West—Practical experience more serviceable to the Americans than
+book-learning.
+> **Quote:** "The American learns to know the laws by participating in the act of legislation; and he takes a lesson in the forms of government from governing."
+I have but little to add to what I have already said concerning the
+influence which the instruction and the habits of the Americans
+exercise upon the maintenance of their political institutions.
+The great work of society unfolds before his eyes, and in his own hands.
+America has hitherto produced very few writers of distinction; it
+possesses no great historians, and not a single eminent poet. The
+inhabitants of that country look upon what are properly styled literary
+pursuits with a kind of disapprobation; and there are towns of very
+second-rate importance in Europe in which more literary works are
+annually published than in the twenty-four States of the Union put
+together. The spirit of the Americans is averse to general ideas; and
+it does not seek theoretical discoveries. Neither politics nor
+manufactures direct them to these occupations; and although new laws
+are perpetually enacted in the United States, no great writers have
+hitherto inquired into the general principles of their legislation. The
+Americans have lawyers and commentators, but no jurists; *h and they
+furnish examples rather than lessons to the world. The same observation
+applies to the mechanical arts. In America, the inventions of Europe
+are adopted with sagacity; they are perfected, and adapted with
+admirable skill to the wants of the country. Manufactures exist, but
+the science of manufacture is not cultivated; and they have good
+workmen, but very few inventors. Fulton was obliged to proffer his
+services to foreign nations for a long time before he was able to
+devote them to his own country.
+In the United States, politics is the goal of education; in Europe, education prepares people for private life. Because European citizens rarely engage in public affairs, the difference shapes even the surface details of life.
+[ [This cannot be said with truth of the country of Kent, Story, and
+Wheaton.]]
+Europeans import private habits into public affairs; Americans import public habits into private life. The jury appears in schoolboys’ games, and parliamentary forms are observed at dinner.
+The observer who is desirous of forming an opinion on the state of
+instruction amongst the Anglo-Americans must consider the same object
+from 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 the
+ignorant, the American people will appear to be the most enlightened
+community in the world. The whole population, as I observed in another
+place, is situated between these two extremes. In New England, every
+citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is
+moreover taught the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the
+history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution.
+In the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts, it is extremely rare to
+find a man imperfectly acquainted with all these things, and a person
+wholly 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, with the innumerable journals and the enlightened people of
+the latter; when I remember all the attempts which are made to judge
+the modern republics by the assistance of those of antiquity, and to
+infer what will happen in our time from what took place two thousand
+years ago, I am tempted to burn my books, in order to apply none but
+novel ideas to so novel a condition of society.
+What I have said of New England must not, however, be applied
+indistinctly to the whole Union; as we advance towards the West or the
+South, the instruction of the people diminishes. In the States which
+are adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico, a certain number of individuals may
+be found, as in our own countries, who are devoid of the rudiments of
+instruction. But there is not a single district in the United States
+sunk in complete ignorance; and for a very simple reason: the peoples
+of Europe started from the darkness of a barbarous condition, to
+advance toward the light of civilization; their progress has been
+unequal; some of them have improved apace, whilst others have loitered
+in their course, and some have stopped, and are still sleeping upon the
+way. *i
+[ [In the Northern States the number of persons destitute of
+instruction is inconsiderable, the largest number being 241,152 in the
+State of New York (according to Spaulding’s “Handbook of American
+Statistics” for 1874); but in the South no less than 1,516,339 whites
+and 2,671,396 colored persons are returned as “illiterate.”]]
+Such has not been the case in the United States. The Anglo-Americans
+settled in a state of civilization, upon that territory which their
+descendants occupy; they had not to begin to learn, and it was
+sufficient for them not to forget. Now the children of these same
+Americans are the persons who, year by year, transport their dwellings
+into the wilds; and with their dwellings their acquired information and
+their esteem for knowledge. Education has taught them the utility of
+instruction, and has enabled them to transmit that instruction to their
+posterity. In the United States society has no infancy, but it is born
+in man’s estate.
+The Americans never use the word “peasant,” because they have no idea
+of the peculiar class which that term denotes; the ignorance of more
+remote ages, the simplicity of rural life, and the rusticity of the
+villager have not been preserved amongst them; and they are alike
+unacquainted with the virtues, the vices, the coarse habits, and the
+simple graces of an early stage of civilization. At the extreme borders
+of the Confederate States, upon the confines of society and of the
+wilderness, a population of bold adventurers have taken up their abode,
+who pierce the solitudes of the American woods, and seek a country
+there, in order to escape that poverty which awaited them in their
+native provinces. As soon as the pioneer arrives upon the spot which is
+to serve him for a retreat, he fells a few trees and builds a loghouse.
+Nothing can offer a more miserable aspect than these isolated
+dwellings. The traveller who approaches one of them towards nightfall,
+sees the flicker of the hearth-flame through the chinks in the walls;
+and at night, if the wind rises, he hears the roof of boughs shake to
+and fro in the midst of the great forest trees. Who would not suppose
+that this poor hut is the asylum of rudeness and ignorance? Yet no sort
+of comparison can be drawn between the pioneer and the dwelling which
+shelters him. Everything about him is primitive and unformed, but he is
+himself the result of the labor 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 inhabit the backwoods, and who penetrates
+into the wilds of the New World with the Bible, an axe, and a file of
+newspapers.
+It is difficult to imagine the incredible rapidity with which public
+opinion circulates in the midst of these deserts. *j I do not think
+that so much intellectual intercourse takes place in the most
+enlightened and populous districts of France. *k It cannot be doubted
+that, in the United States, the instruction of the people powerfully
+contributes to the support of a democratic republic; and such must
+always be the case, I believe, where instruction which awakens the
+understanding is not separated from moral education which amends the
+heart. But I by no means exaggerate this benefit, and I am still
+further from thinking, as so many people do think in Europe, that men
+can be instantaneously made citizens by teaching them to read and
+write. True information is mainly derived from experience; and if the
+Americans had not been gradually accustomed to govern themselves, their
+book-learning would not assist them much at the present day.
+[ I travelled along a portion of the frontier of the United States in a
+sort of cart which was termed the mail. We passed, day and night, with
+great rapidity along the roads which were scarcely marked out, through
+immense forests; when the gloom of the woods became impenetrable the
+coachman lighted branches of fir, and we journeyed along by the light
+they cast. From time to time we came to a hut in the midst of the
+forest, which was a post-office. The mail dropped an enormous bundle of
+letters at the door of this isolated dwelling, and we pursued our way
+at full gallop, leaving the inhabitants of the neighboring log houses
+to send for their share of the treasure.
+[When the author visited America the locomotive and the railroad were
+scarcely invented, and not yet introduced in the United States. It is
+superfluous to point out the immense effect of those inventions in
+extending civilization and developing the resources of that vast
+continent. In 1831 there were 51 miles of railway in the United States;
+in 1872 there were 60,000 miles of railway.]]
+[ In 1832 each inhabitant of Michigan paid a sum equivalent to 1 fr. 22
+cent. (French money) to the post-office revenue, and each inhabitant of
+the Floridas paid 1 fr. 5 cent. (See “National Calendar,” 1833, p.
+.) In the same year each inhabitant of the Departement du Nord paid
+fr. 4 cent. to the revenue of the French post-office. (See the
+“Compte rendu de l’administration des Finances,” 1833, p. 623.) Now the
+State of Michigan only contained at that time 7 inhabitants per square
+league and Florida only 5: the public instruction and the commercial
+activity of these districts is inferior to that of most of the States
+in the Union, whilst the Departement du Nord, which contains 3,400
+inhabitants per square league, is one of the most enlightened and
+manufacturing parts of France.]
+I have lived a great deal with the people in the United States, and I
+cannot express how much I admire their experience and their good sense.
+An American should never be allowed to speak of Europe; for he will
+then probably display a vast deal of presumption and very foolish
+pride. He will take up with those crude and vague notions which are so
+useful to the ignorant all over the world. But if you question him
+respecting his own country, the cloud which dimmed his intelligence
+will immediately disperse; his language will become as clear and as
+precise as his thoughts. He will inform you what his rights are, and by
+what means he exercises them; he will be able to point out the customs
+which obtain in the political world. You will find that he is well
+acquainted with the rules of the administration, and that he is
+familiar with the mechanism of the laws. The citizen of the United
+States does not acquire his practical science and his positive notions
+from books; the instruction he has acquired may have prepared him for
+receiving those ideas, but it did not furnish them. The American learns
+to know the laws by participating in the act of legislation; and he
+takes a lesson in the forms of government from governing. The great
+work of society is ever going on beneath his eyes, and, as it were,
+under his hands.
+In the United States politics are the end and aim of education; in
+Europe its principal object is to fit men for private life. The
+interference of the citizens in public affairs is too rare an
+occurrence for it to be anticipated beforehand. Upon casting a glance
+over society in the two hemispheres, these differences are indicated
+even by its external aspect.
+In Europe we frequently introduce the ideas and the habits of private
+life into public affairs; and as we pass at once from the domestic
+circle to the government of the State, we may frequently be heard to
+discuss the great interests of society in the same manner in which we
+converse with our friends. The Americans, on the other hand, transfuse
+the habits of public life into their manners in private; and in their
+country the jury is introduced into the games of schoolboys, and
+parliamentary forms are observed in the order of a feast.
 ### Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic—Part IV
+**Laws Contribute More to the Preservation of the Democratic Republic in the United States Than Physical Circumstances, and Manners Contribute More Than Laws**
+The Laws Contribute More To The Maintenance Of The Democratic Republic
+In The United States Than The Physical Circumstances Of The Country,
+And The Manners More Than The Laws
+All American nations share a democratic social state, yet democratic institutions survive only among the Anglo-Americans. Spanish-Americans, though equally favored by physical circumstances, cannot maintain a democratic republic. Mexico, having adopted the United States Constitution, faces the same predicament. Even within the Union, the Anglo-Americans of the West show less capacity for stability than those of the East.
+All the nations of America have a democratic state of society—Yet
+democratic institutions only subsist amongst the Anglo-Americans—The
+Spaniards of South America, equally favored by physical causes as the
+Anglo-Americans, unable to maintain a democratic republic—Mexico, which
+has adopted the Constitution of the United States, in the same
+predicament—The Anglo-Americans of the West less able to maintain it
+than those of the East—Reason of these different results.
+I have noted that the preservation of democratic institutions in the United States can be attributed to physical circumstances, laws, and manners. By "manners," I refer to the collective moral and intellectual characteristics of a society. Most Europeans, knowing only the first cause, tend to give it a dominant importance it does not possess.
+I have remarked that the maintenance of democratic institutions in the
+United States is attributable to the circumstances, the laws, and the
+manners of that country. *l Most Europeans are only acquainted with the
+first of these three causes, and they are apt to give it a
+preponderating importance which it does not really possess.
+It is true that Anglo-Saxons settled the New World in a state of social equality. Neither nobles nor lower classes were found among them, and professional or birth prejudices were unknown. Because the social condition was democratic, the rule of democracy was established without difficulty. But this circumstance is not unique; almost all transatlantic colonies were founded by people who were equal or became so. Europeans created no functioning aristocracy anywhere in the New World. Democratic institutions prosper nowhere but in the United States.
+[ I remind the reader of the general signification which I give to the
+word “manners,” namely, the moral and intellectual characteristics of
+social man taken collectively.]
+The American Union has no enemies; it stands in the wilderness like an island. But South American nations were no less isolated, yet they have not been relieved of maintaining standing armies. They war with one another when they have no foreign enemies. Until recently, the Anglo-American democracy was the only one able to maintain itself in peace—a distinction that changed after the Civil War.
+The Union offers limitless territory and inexhaustible resources. The pursuit of wealth replaces political ambition, and prosperity cools factionalism. But where can we find more fertile plains, mightier rivers, or richer unexplored lands than South America? Yet South America cannot sustain democratic institutions. If welfare depended solely on remote location and unbounded territory, Spanish-Americans would have no reason to complain. Their situation should envy European nations. Instead, no nations are more miserable.
+It is true that the Anglo-Saxons settled in the New World in a state of
+social equality; the low-born and the noble were not to be found
+amongst them; and professional prejudices were always as entirely
+unknown as the prejudices of birth. Thus, as the condition of society
+was democratic, the empire of democracy was established without
+difficulty. But this circumstance is by no means peculiar to the United
+States; almost all the trans-Atlantic colonies were founded by men
+equal amongst themselves, or who became so by inhabiting them. In no
+one part of the New World have Europeans been able to create an
+aristocracy. Nevertheless, democratic institutions prosper nowhere but
+in the United States.
+Thus physical causes cannot produce North America's results, nor raise South America above European states where conditions often work oppositely. Physical circumstances do not affect national destiny as much as supposed.
+The American Union has no enemies to contend with; it stands in the
+wilds like an island in the ocean. But the Spaniards of South America
+were no less isolated by nature; yet their position has not relieved
+them from the charge of standing armies. They make war upon each other
+when they have no foreign enemies to oppose; and the Anglo-American
+democracy is the only one which has hitherto been able to maintain
+itself in peace. *m
+I met New Englanders ready to leave comfortable lives for the wilderness. Not far away, in Canada, I found French populations crowded into narrow territory, the same wilderness at hand. While the American emigrant could purchase vast estates with brief labor, the Canadian paid French prices for land. Nature offers the New World's solitude to all Europeans, but they do not always know how to use her gifts. Other American peoples share physical conditions with Anglo-Americans, but lack their laws and manners; consequently they are impoverished. The laws and manners of Anglo-Americans are the effective causes of their greatness and the true subjects of my inquiry.
+[ [A remark which, since the great Civil War of 1861-65, ceases to be
+applicable.]]
+I am far from suggesting American laws are perfect; I do not believe they suit all democratic peoples, and some seem dangerous even within the United States. Nevertheless, American legislation as a whole is remarkably suited to the character of the people and the nature of the country. American laws are therefore good and deserve credit for much of democratic government's success. Yet I do not believe they are the primary cause. If laws influence American social happiness more than geography does, their effect is still secondary to that produced by the manners of the people.
+The federal laws are undoubtedly the most important part of United States legislation. Mexico, situated as fortunately as the Anglo-American Union, adopted these same laws yet cannot adapt to democratic government. Some other cause must be at work, independent of physical circumstances and specific laws, that allows democracy to rule in the United States.
+The territory of the Union presents a boundless field to human
+activity, and inexhaustible materials for industry and labor. The
+passion of wealth takes the place of ambition, and the warmth of
+faction is mitigated by a sense of prosperity. But in what portion of
+the globe shall we meet with more fertile plains, with mightier rivers,
+or with more unexplored and inexhaustible riches than in South America?
+An even more striking proof: almost all Union inhabitants share common ancestry, language, religion, climate, and laws. Why then do such characteristic differences exist? Why does republican government display such vigor, regularity, and mature deliberation in the Eastern states, while in the West society seems ruled by chance, with business conducted through irregularity and feverish excitement suggesting instability?
+Nevertheless, South America has been unable to maintain democratic
+institutions. If the welfare of nations depended on their being placed
+in a remote position, with an unbounded space of habitable territory
+before them, the Spaniards of South America would have no reason to
+complain of their fate. And although they might enjoy less prosperity
+than the inhabitants of the United States, their lot might still be
+such as to excite the envy of some nations in Europe. There are,
+however, no nations upon the face of the earth more miserable than
+those of South America.
+Arguments based on geography or legislation do not apply here. We must look to another cause—what could it be except the manners of the people?
+Thus, not only are physical causes inadequate to produce results
+analogous to those which occur in North America, but they are unable to
+raise the population of South America above the level of European
+States, where they act in a contrary direction. Physical causes do not,
+therefore, affect the destiny of nations so much as has been supposed.
+In the East, Anglo-Americans have been accustomed to democratic government longest, adopting habits and ideas most favorable to its survival. Democracy has permeated their customs, opinions, and social interactions; it is found in daily life's details as much as in the laws. In the East, practical education is most advanced, and religion most thoroughly combines with liberty. These habits, opinions, and convictions are precisely what I define as manners.
+I have met with men in New England who were on the point of leaving a
+country, where they might have remained in easy circumstances, to go to
+seek their fortune in the wilds. Not far from that district I found a
+French population in Canada, which was closely crowded on a narrow
+territory, although the same wilds were at hand; and whilst the
+emigrant from the United States purchased an extensive estate with the
+earnings of a short term of labor, the Canadian paid as much for land
+as he would have done in France. Nature offers the solitudes of the New
+World to Europeans; but they are not always acquainted with the means
+of turning her gifts to account. Other peoples of America have the same
+physical conditions of prosperity as the Anglo-Americans, but without
+their laws and their manners; and these peoples are wretched. The laws
+and manners of the Anglo-Americans are therefore that efficient cause
+of their greatness which is the object of my inquiry.
+In the West, many advantages are still missing. Many Americans of the West were born in the woods, and they mix the ideas and customs of savage life with the civilization of their parents. Their passions are more intense, religious morality carries less authority, and convictions are less stable. Citizens exert little control over one another because they hardly know each other. The Western nations display the inexperience and raw habits of a people in its infancy; though made of old elements, their assembly is recent.
+I am far from supposing that the American laws are preeminently good in
+themselves; I do not hold them to be applicable to all democratic
+peoples; and several of them seem to be dangerous, even in the United
+States. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the American
+legislation, taken collectively, is extremely well adapted to the
+genius of the people and the nature of the country which it is intended
+to govern. The American laws are therefore good, and to them must be
+attributed a large portion of the success which attends the government
+of democracy in America: but I do not believe them to be the principal
+cause of that success; and if they seem to me to have more influence
+upon the social happiness of the Americans than the nature of the
+country, on the other hand there is reason to believe that their effect
+is still inferior to that produced by the manners of the people.
+The manners of the people in the United States are the real reason they are the only American nation capable of supporting democratic government. The influence of manners creates the varying degrees of order and prosperity across Anglo-American democracies. In Europe, the effect of geographical position on democratic institutions is greatly exaggerated. Too much importance is attributed to legislation and too little to manners. These three causes—circumstances, laws, and manners—all serve American democracy; but if I were to rank them, physical circumstances are less effective than laws, and laws far less important than manners.
+The Federal laws undoubtedly constitute the most important part of the
+legislation of the United States. Mexico, which is not less fortunately
+situated than the Anglo-American Union, has adopted the same laws, but
+is unable to accustom itself to the government of democracy. Some other
+cause is therefore at work, independently of those physical
+circumstances and peculiar laws which enable the democracy to rule in
+the United States.
+> **Quote:** "I am convinced that the most advantageous situation and the best possible laws cannot maintain a constitution in spite of the manners of a country; whilst the latter may turn the most unfavorable positions and the worst laws to some advantage."
+Another still more striking proof may be adduced. Almost all the
+inhabitants of the territory of the Union are the descendants of a
+common stock; they speak the same language, they worship God in the
+same manner, they are affected by the same physical causes, and they
+obey the same laws. Whence, then, do their characteristic differences
+arise? Why, in the Eastern States of the Union, does the republican
+government display 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 ruled by the powers of chance? There, public business is
+conducted with an irregularity and a passionate and feverish
+excitement, which does not announce a long or sure duration.
+> **Quote:** "The importance of manners is a common truth to which study and experience incessantly direct our attention. It may be regarded as a central point in the range of human observation, and the common termination of all inquiry."
+I am no longer comparing the Anglo-American States to foreign nations;
+but I am contrasting them with each other, and endeavoring to discover
+why they are so unlike. The arguments which are derived from the nature
+of 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 there be except the manners of the people?
+I insist so strongly on this point because if I have failed to make the reader feel the vital influence I attribute to practical experience, habits, and opinions—in short, to manners—on the maintenance of American institutions, then I have failed in the primary objective of my work.
+It is in the Eastern States that the Anglo-Americans have been longest
+accustomed to the government of democracy, and that they have adopted
+the 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 the
+details of daily life equally as in the laws. In the Eastern States the
+instruction and practical education of the people have been most
+perfected, and religion has been most thoroughly amalgamated with
+liberty. Now these habits, opinions, customs, and convictions are
+precisely the constituent elements of that which I have denominated
+manners.
+**Whether Laws and Manners Are Sufficient to Maintain Democratic Institutions in Other Countries Besides America**
+In the Western States, on the contrary, a portion of the same
+advantages is still wanting. Many of the Americans of the West were
+born in the woods, and they mix the ideas and the customs of savage
+life with the civilization of their parents. Their passions are more
+intense; their religious morality less authoritative; and their
+convictions less secure. The inhabitants exercise no sort of control
+over their fellow-citizens, for they are scarcely acquainted with each
+other. The nations of the West display, to a certain extent, the
+inexperience and the rude habits of a people in its infancy; for
+although they are composed of old elements, their assemblage is of
+recent date.
+If Anglo-Americans moved to Europe, they would be forced to modify their laws. We must distinguish between democratic institutions in general and specific American institutions. One can imagine democratic laws better than, or at least different from, those adopted in America. The American example only proves it is possible to regulate a democracy with the help of manners and legislation.
+The manners of the Americans of the United States are, then, the real
+cause which renders that people the only one of the American nations
+that is able to support a democratic government; and it is the
+influence of manners which produces the different degrees of order and
+of prosperity that may be distinguished in the several Anglo-American
+democracies. Thus the effect which the geographical position of a
+country may have upon the duration of democratic institutions is
+exaggerated in Europe. Too much importance is attributed to
+legislation, too little to manners. These three great causes serve, no
+doubt, to regulate and direct the American democracy; but if they were
+to be classed in their proper order, I should say that the physical
+circumstances are less efficient than the laws, and the laws very
+subordinate to the manners of the people. I am convinced that the most
+advantageous situation and the best possible laws cannot maintain a
+constitution in spite of the manners of a country; whilst the latter
+may turn the most unfavorable positions and the worst laws to some
+advantage. The importance of manners is a common truth to which study
+and experience incessantly direct our attention. It may be regarded as
+a central point in the range of human observation, and the common
+termination of all inquiry. So seriously do I insist upon this head,
+that if I have hitherto failed in making the reader feel the important
+influence which I attribute to the practical experience, the habits,
+the opinions, in short, to the manners of the Americans, upon the
+maintenance of their institutions, I have failed in the principal
+object of my work.
+I have argued that the success of democratic institutions in the United States is tied more closely to laws and manners than to the nature of the country. But would these same causes produce the same results elsewhere? If geography is no substitute for laws and manners, can laws and manners substitute for geography? We lack necessary data for a complete answer. While other New World peoples can be compared to Anglo-Americans because they share the same physical circumstances, no nations outside America have adopted the same laws and manners without also possessing America's physical advantages. Therefore no perfect standard of comparison exists, and we can only offer an informed opinion.
+Whether Laws And Manners Are Sufficient To Maintain Democratic
+Institutions In Other Countries Besides America
+We must distinguish between the specific institutions of the United States and democratic institutions in general. Considering Europe—its powerful nations, crowded cities, massive armies, and complex politics—I cannot imagine that even the Anglo-Americans, if moved to our hemisphere with their current ideas and manners, could survive without significantly altering their laws.
+The Anglo-Americans, if transported into Europe, would be obliged to
+modify their laws—Distinction to be made between democratic
+institutions and American institutions—Democratic laws may be conceived
+better than, or at least different from, those which the American
+democracy has adopted—The example of America only proves that it is
+possible to regulate democracy by the assistance of manners and
+legislation.
+However, one can imagine a democratic nation organized differently. It is possible to conceive a government based on the majority's will in which that majority vests an individual or family with executive power to ensure order. A democratic society could exist where national power is more centralized than in the United States; where the people exert less direct influence on public affairs, yet every citizen still possesses rights and participates within his own sphere. My observations lead me to believe such democratic institutions, if introduced prudently and allowed to merge with the habits and opinions of the people, could survive in countries other than America.
+I have asserted that the success of democratic institutions in the
+United States is more intimately connected with the laws themselves,
+and the manners of the people, than with the nature of the country. But
+does it follow that the same causes would of themselves produce the
+same results, if they were put into operation elsewhere; and if the
+country is no adequate substitute for laws and manners, can laws and
+manners in their turn prove a substitute for the country? It will
+readily be understood that the necessary elements of a reply to this
+question are wanting: other peoples are to be found in the New World
+besides the Anglo-Americans, and as these people are affected by the
+same physical circumstances as the latter, they may fairly be compared
+together. But there are no nations out of America which have adopted
+the same laws and manners, being destitute of the physical advantages
+peculiar to the Anglo-Americans. No standard of comparison therefore
+exists, and we can only hazard an opinion upon this subject.
+If American laws were the only possible democratic laws, or the most perfect ones imaginable, their success would prove nothing about democracy's viability in less favored countries. But since American laws appear defective in several ways, and since I can imagine others of the same nature, the natural advantages of that country do not prove democratic institutions cannot succeed elsewhere under better laws.
+It appears to me, in the first place, that a careful distinction must
+be made between the institutions of the United States and democratic
+institutions in general. When I reflect upon the state of Europe, its
+mighty nations, its populous cities, its formidable armies, and the
+complex nature of its politics, I cannot suppose that even the
+Anglo-Americans, if they were transported to our hemisphere, with their
+ideas, their religion, and their manners, could exist without
+considerably altering their laws. But a democratic nation may be
+imagined, organized differently from the American people. It is not
+impossible to conceive a government really established upon the will of
+the majority; but in which the majority, repressing its natural
+propensity to equality, should consent, with a view to the order and
+the stability of the State, to invest a family or an individual with
+all the prerogatives of the executive. A democratic society might
+exist, in which the forces of the nation would be more centralized than
+they are in the United States; the people would exercise a less direct
+and less irresistible influence upon public affairs, and yet every
+citizen invested with certain rights would participate, within his
+sphere, in the conduct of the government. The observations I made
+amongst the Anglo-Americans induce me to believe that democratic
+institutions of this kind, prudently introduced into society, so as
+gradually to mix with the habits and to be interfused with the opinions
+of the people, might subsist in other countries besides America. If the
+laws of the United States were the only imaginable democratic laws, or
+the most perfect which it is possible to conceive, I should admit that
+the success of those institutions affords no proof of the success of
+democratic institutions in general, in a country less favored by
+natural circumstances. But as the laws of America appear to me to be
+defective in several respects, and as I can readily imagine others of
+the same general nature, the peculiar advantages of that country do not
+prove that democratic institutions cannot succeed in a nation less
+favored by circumstances, if ruled by better laws.
+If human nature were different in America, or if social conditions created habits and opinions that could not exist in the Old World, then American democracy would tell us nothing about other democracies' future. But if Americans share the same basic tendencies as all democratic nations, and if their legislators had relied solely on geography to keep those tendencies in check, then the prosperity of the United States would be attributable exclusively to physical causes. This would offer no encouragement to other nations who might wish to follow their example without possessing their natural advantages. However, neither assumption is supported by facts.
+If human nature were different in America from what it is elsewhere; or
+if the social condition of the Americans engendered habits and opinions
+amongst them different from those which originate in the same social
+condition in the Old World, the American democracies would afford no
+means of predicting what may occur in other democracies. If the
+Americans displayed the same propensities as all other democratic
+nations, and if their legislators had relied upon the nature of the
+country and the favor of circumstances to restrain those propensities
+within due limits, the prosperity of the United States would be
+exclusively attributable to physical causes, and it would afford no
+encouragement to a people inclined to imitate their example, without
+sharing their natural advantages. But neither of these suppositions is
+borne out by facts.
+In America, one encounters the same passions found in Europe; some inherent to human nature, others arising from the democratic state of society. In the United States, I observed the restlessness natural when social ranks are nearly equal and advancement chances are the same for everyone. I found democratic envy expressed in a thousand forms. I noticed that the people frequently displayed a perfect blend of ignorance and arrogance in their affairs; from this I inferred that in America, men are prone to the same failings as we are. But examining society more closely, I discovered that Americans made great efforts to counteract these imperfections and correct democracy's natural defects. Their municipal laws seemed a means of confining ambition to a narrow sphere, turning passions that might have devastated the state toward township welfare. American legislators succeeded in pitting the concept of rights against envy; the stability of religion against political fluctuations; the practical experience of the people against their theoretical ignorance; and their firsthand business knowledge against the impatience of their desires.
+In America the same passions are to be met with as in Europe; some
+originating in human nature, others in the democratic condition of
+society. Thus in the United States I found that restlessness of heart
+which is natural to men, when all ranks are nearly equal and the
+chances of elevation are the same to all. I found the democratic
+feeling of envy expressed under a thousand different forms. I remarked
+that the people frequently displayed, in the conduct of affairs, a
+consummate mixture of ignorance and presumption; and I inferred that in
+America, men are liable to the same failings and the same absurdities
+as amongst ourselves. But upon examining the state of society more
+attentively, I speedily discovered that the Americans had made great
+and successful efforts to counteract these imperfections of human
+nature, and to correct the natural defects of democracy. Their divers
+municipal laws appeared to me to be a means of restraining the ambition
+of the citizens within a narrow sphere, and of turning those same
+passions which might have worked havoc in the State, to the good of the
+township or the parish. The American legislators have succeeded to a
+certain extent in opposing the notion of rights to the feelings of
+envy; the permanence of the religious world to the continual shifting
+of politics; the experience of the people to its theoretical ignorance;
+and its practical knowledge of business to the impatience of its
+desires.
+Americans, then, have not relied on their country's nature to offset dangers originating in their Constitution and political laws. To evils common to all democratic peoples, they applied remedies no one else had considered, and although first to attempt this experiment, they have succeeded.
+The Americans, then, have not relied upon the nature of their country
+to counterpoise those dangers which originate in their Constitution and
+in their political laws. To evils which are common to all democratic
+peoples they have applied remedies which none but themselves had ever
+thought of before; and although they were the first to make the
+experiment, they have succeeded in it.
+The social customs and laws of the Americans are not the only ones that might suit a democratic people, but the Americans have shown it would be wrong to despair of regulating democracy with the help of customs and laws. If other nations adopt this general idea from the Americans, without necessarily imitating their specific application; if they attempt to prepare for the social condition that seems Providence's will for this age—and thus escape the despotism or anarchy that threatens them—what reason is there to believe their efforts would not be successful?
+The manners and laws of the Americans are not the only ones which may
+suit a democratic people; but the Americans have shown that it would be
+wrong to despair of regulating democracy by the aid of manners and of
+laws. If other nations should borrow this general and pregnant idea
+from the Americans, without however intending to imitate them in the
+peculiar application which they have made of it; if they should attempt
+to fit themselves for that social condition, which it seems to be the
+will of Providence to impose upon the generations of this age, and so
+to escape from the despotism or the anarchy which threatens them; what
+reason is there to suppose that their efforts would not be crowned with
+success? The organization and the establishment of democracy in
+Christendom is the great political problem of the time. The Americans,
+unquestionably, have not resolved this problem, but they furnish useful
+data to those who undertake the task.
+> **Quote:** "The organization and the establishment of democracy in Christendom is the great political problem of the time."
+Importance Of What Precedes With Respect To The State Of Europe
+The Americans have not solved this problem, but they provide useful data to those who take on the task.
+It may readily be discovered with what intention I undertook the
+foregoing inquiries. The question here discussed is interesting not
+only to the United States, but to the whole world; it concerns, not a
+nation, but all mankind. If those nations whose social condition is
+democratic could 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; for democracy is rapidly acquiring a more extended sway, and the
+wilds are gradually peopled with men. If it were true that laws and
+manners are insufficient to maintain democratic institutions, what
+refuge would remain open to the nations, except the despotism of a
+single individual? I am aware that there are many worthy persons at the
+present time who are not alarmed at this latter alternative, and who
+are so tired of liberty as to be glad of repose, far from those storms
+by which it is attended. But these individuals are ill acquainted with
+the haven towards which they are bound. They are so deluded by their
+recollections, as to judge the tendency of absolute power by what it
+was formerly, and not by what it might become at the present time.
+The intention behind my research is clear. This question concerns not just one nation but all humanity. If democratic nations could remain free only while living in the wilderness, we would have to despair for humanity's future; for democracy is rapidly expanding while the wilderness is being settled. If laws and customs were insufficient to maintain democratic institutions, what refuge would remain except the despotism of a single individual? I know many honorable people today are not alarmed by this alternative; they are so exhausted by liberty's struggle that they would welcome peace far from its storms. But these individuals do not understand the harbor toward which they are headed. They are so misled by memory that they judge absolute power by what it used to be, rather than by what it might become.
+If absolute power were re-established amongst the democratic nations of
+Europe, I am persuaded that it would assume a new form, and appear
+under features unknown to our forefathers. There was a time in Europe
+when the laws and the consent of the people had invested princes with
+almost unlimited authority; but they scarcely ever availed themselves
+of it. I do not speak of the prerogatives of the nobility, of the
+authority of supreme courts of justice, of corporations and their
+chartered rights, or of provincial privileges, which served to break
+the blows of the sovereign authority, and to maintain a spirit of
+resistance in the nation. Independently of these political
+institutions—which, however opposed they might be to personal liberty,
+served to keep alive the love of freedom in the mind of the public, and
+which may be esteemed to have been useful in this respect—the manners
+and opinions of the nation confined the royal authority within barriers
+which were not less powerful, although they were less conspicuous.
+Religion, the affections of the people, the benevolence of the prince,
+the sense of honor, family pride, provincial prejudices, custom, and
+public opinion limited the power of kings, and restrained their
+authority within an invisible circle. The constitution of nations was
+despotic at that time, but their manners were free. Princes had the
+right, but they had neither the means nor the desire, of doing whatever
+they pleased.
+If absolute power were re-established among Europe's democratic nations, it would take a new form with features unknown to our ancestors. There was a time when law and the people's consent gave princes almost unlimited authority, but they rarely used it. I do not speak of the nobility's prerogatives, the authority of courts, the power of corporations, or provincial privileges—all of which softened sovereign authority and maintained a spirit of resistance. Independent of these political institutions, customs and opinions confined royal authority within barriers no less powerful for being less obvious. Religion, the affections of the people, the benevolence of the prince, the sense of honor, family pride, provincial prejudices, custom, and public opinion limited the power of kings, and restrained their authority within an invisible circle. The constitution of nations was despotic, but their social customs were free. Princes had the right, but they had neither the means nor the desire to do whatever they pleased.
+But what now remains of those barriers which formerly arrested the
+aggressions of tyranny? Since religion has lost its empire over the
+souls of men, the most prominent boundary which divided good from evil
+is overthrown; the very elements of the moral world are indeterminate;
+the princes and the peoples of the earth are guided by chance, and none
+can define the natural limits of despotism and the bounds of license.
+Long revolutions have forever destroyed the respect which surrounded
+the rulers of the State; and since they have been relieved from the
+burden of public esteem, princes may henceforward surrender themselves
+without fear to the seductions of arbitrary power.
+But what remains of those barriers that formerly stopped tyranny? Since religion has lost its influence over souls, the most prominent boundary dividing good from evil has been torn down; the moral world's foundations are now uncertain. The rulers and peoples of the earth are guided by chance, and no one can define despotism's natural limits or license's boundaries. Long revolutions have destroyed the respect that once surrounded state leaders; relieved of public esteem's burden, rulers may now surrender themselves without fear to arbitrary power's temptations.
+When kings find that the hearts of their subjects are turned towards
+them, they are clement, because they are conscious of their strength,
+and they are chary of the affection of their people, because the
+affection of their people is the bulwark of the throne. A mutual
+interchange of good-will then takes place between the prince and the
+people, which resembles the gracious intercourse of domestic society.
+The subjects may murmur at the sovereign’s decree, but they are grieved
+to displease him; and the sovereign chastises his subjects with the
+light hand of parental affection.
+When kings feel their subjects' hearts are with them, they are merciful because they are confident in their strength; they maintain the people's affection because it safeguards the throne. A mutual exchange of goodwill occurs between ruler and people, resembling gracious family interactions. Subjects may grumble at decrees but are pained to displease the sovereign; the sovereign punishes with parental affection's gentle hand.
+But when once the spell of royalty is broken in the tumult of
+revolution; when successive monarchs have crossed the throne, so as
+alternately to display to the people the weakness of their right and
+the harshness of their power, the sovereign is no longer regarded by
+any as the Father of the State, and he is feared by all as its master.
+If he be weak, he is despised; if he be strong, he is detested. He
+himself is full of animosity and alarm; he finds that he is as a
+stranger in his own country, and he treats his subjects like conquered
+enemies.
+But once royalty's spell is broken in revolution's chaos; when successive monarchs have shown only their right's weakness and their power's harshness, the sovereign is no longer seen as Father of the State but feared by all as its master. If weak, he is despised; if strong, detested. He himself is filled with resentment and alarm; he feels a stranger in his own country and treats his subjects like conquered enemies.
+When the provinces and the towns formed so many different nations in
+the midst of their common country, each of them had a will of its own,
+which was opposed to the general spirit of subjection; but now that all
+the parts of the same empire, after having lost their immunities, their
+customs, their prejudices, their traditions, and their names, are
+subjected and accustomed to the same laws, it is not more difficult to
+oppress them collectively than it was formerly to oppress them singly.
+When provinces and towns formed distinct communities, each had a will opposing general subjection. But now that all empire parts have lost their immunities, customs, prejudices, traditions, even their names, and are accustomed to the same laws, it is no more difficult to oppress them all at once than formerly to oppress them individually. While nobles held power, aristocratic honor gave extraordinary strength to personal opposition. They provided examples of men who, despite lacking political power, held high opinions of their personal worth and dared challenge public authority single-handedly. But today, when all ranks blend, when the individual disappears into the crowd and is easily lost in general obscurity; when monarchy's honor has lost influence without being replaced by public virtue, and when nothing enables a man to rise above himself—who can say where power's demands and weakness's submissiveness will stop?
+Whilst the nobles enjoyed their power, and indeed long after that power
+was lost, the honor of aristocracy conferred an extraordinary degree of
+force upon their personal opposition. They afford instances of men who,
+notwithstanding their weakness, still entertained a high opinion of
+their personal value, and dared to cope single-handed with the efforts
+of the public authority. But at the present day, when all ranks are
+more and more confounded, when the individual disappears in the throng,
+and is easily lost in the midst of a common obscurity, when the honor
+of monarchy has almost lost its empire without being succeeded by
+public virtue, and when nothing can enable man to rise above himself,
+who shall say at what point the exigencies of power and the servility
+of weakness will stop?
+As long as family loyalty lived, oppression's opponent was never alone; he could find supporters, hereditary friends, relatives. If this support lacked, he was sustained by ancestors' memory and concern for descendants. But when family estates are divided and a few years erase lineage distinctions, where is family loyalty found? What force can country customs have that have changed and constantly change; where every tyrannical act has precedent and every crime an example; where nothing is so old that age saves it from destruction, and nothing so unprecedented that novelty prevents it? What resistance can flexible social customs offer that have already yielded many times? What strength can public opinion retain when no twenty people share a common bond; when not a man, family, corporation, class, or free institution can represent or exert that opinion; and when every citizen—equally weak, poor, and dependent—has only personal helplessness to oppose government's organized force?
+As long as family feeling was kept alive, the antagonist of oppression
+was never alone; he looked about him, and found his clients, his
+hereditary friends, and his kinsfolk. If this support was wanting, he
+was sustained by his ancestors and animated by his posterity. But when
+patrimonial estates are divided, and when a few years suffice to
+confound the distinctions of a race, where can family feeling be found?
+What force can there be in the customs of a country which has changed
+and is still perpetually changing its aspect; in which every act of
+tyranny has a precedent, and every crime an example; in which there is
+nothing so old that its antiquity can save it from destruction, and
+nothing so unparalleled that its novelty can prevent it from being
+done? What resistance can be offered by manners of so pliant a make
+that they have already often yielded? What strength can even public
+opinion have retained, when no twenty persons are connected by a common
+tie; when not a man, nor a family, nor chartered corporation, nor
+class, nor free institution, has the power of representing or exerting
+that opinion; and when every citizen—being equally weak, equally poor,
+and equally dependent—has only his personal impotence to oppose to the
+organized force of the government?
+France's history offers nothing comparable to the condition into which the country might be thrown. It may be more accurately compared to ancient times, those hideous eras of Roman oppression when customs were corrupted, traditions erased, habits destroyed, opinions shaken. In those times, freedom, driven from laws, found no refuge; nothing protected citizens, and citizens no longer protected themselves. Human nature was princes' plaything; they exhausted Heaven's mercy before exhausting subjects' patience. Those hoping to revive Henry IV or Louis XIV's monarchy appear mentally blind. Considering several European nations' current state—the condition toward which all others move—I am led to believe:
+The annals of France furnish nothing analogous to the condition in
+which that country might then be thrown. But it may more aptly be
+assimilated to the times of old, and to those hideous eras of Roman
+oppression, when the manners of the people were corrupted, their
+traditions obliterated, their habits destroyed, their opinions shaken,
+and freedom, expelled from the laws, could find no refuge in the land;
+when nothing protected the citizens, and the citizens no longer
+protected themselves; when human nature was the sport of man, and
+princes wearied out the clemency of Heaven before they exhausted the
+patience of their subjects. Those who hope to revive the monarchy of
+Henry IV or of Louis XIV, appear to me to be afflicted with mental
+blindness; and when I consider the present condition of several
+European nations—a condition to which all the others tend—I am led to
+believe that they will soon be left with no other alternative than
+democratic liberty, or the tyranny of the Caesars. *n
+> **Quote:** "They will soon be left with no other alternative than democratic liberty, or the tyranny of the Caesars."
+[ [This prediction of the return of France to imperial despotism, and
+of the true character of that despotic power, was written in 1832, and
+realized to the letter in 1852.]]
+[[This prediction of France's return to imperial despotism, and of the true character of that despotic power, was written in 1832 and realized to the letter in 1852.]]
+Indeed, consider whether men are to be entirely empowered or entirely enslaved; whether their rights are made equal or taken away completely. If society's leaders were forced either to gradually raise the masses to their own level or sink all citizens below humanity's level, would not many doubts be resolved, consciences healed, and the community prepared to make great sacrifices without much difficulty? In that case, democratic customs and institutions' gradual growth should be seen not as the best but as the only means of preserving freedom. Even without liking democratic government, it might be adopted as the most practical and fairest remedy for society's current ills.
+And indeed it is deserving of consideration, whether men are to be
+entirely emancipated or entirely enslaved; whether their rights are to
+be made equal, or wholly taken away from them. If the rulers of society
+were reduced either gradually to raise the crowd to their own level, or
+to sink the citizens below that of humanity, would not the doubts of
+many be resolved, the consciences of many be healed, and the community
+prepared to make great sacrifices with little difficulty? In that case,
+the gradual growth of democratic manners and institutions should be
+regarded, not as the best, but as the only means of preserving freedom;
+and without liking the government of democracy, it might be adopted as
+the most applicable and the fairest remedy for the present ills of
+society.
+It is difficult to involve a people in government, but even more difficult to provide the experience and sentiments needed to govern well. I admit democracy's whims are constant, its methods crude, its laws imperfect. But if soon no middle ground will exist between democracy's rule and an individual's absolute power, should we not lean toward the former rather than voluntarily submit to the latter?
+It is difficult to associate a people in the work of government; but it
+is still more difficult to supply it with experience, and to inspire it
+with the feelings which it requires in order to govern well. I grant
+that the caprices of democracy are perpetual; its instruments are rude;
+its laws imperfect. But if it were true that soon no just medium would
+exist between the empire of democracy and the dominion of a single arm,
+should we not rather incline towards the former than submit voluntarily
+to the latter? And if complete equality be our fate, is it not better
+to be levelled by free institutions than by despotic power?
+> **Quote:** "If complete equality be our fate, is it not better to be levelled by free institutions than by despotic power?"
+Those who, after having read this book, should imagine that my
+intention in writing it has been to propose the laws and manners of the
+Anglo-Americans for the imitation of all democratic peoples, would
+commit a very great mistake; they must have paid more attention to the
+form than to the substance of my ideas. My aim has been to show, by the
+example of America, that laws, and especially manners, may exist which
+will allow a democratic people to remain free. But I am very far from
+thinking that we ought to follow the example of the American democracy,
+and copy the means which it has employed to attain its ends; for I am
+well aware of the influence which the nature of a country and its
+political precedents exercise upon a constitution; and I should regard
+it as a great misfortune for mankind if liberty were to exist all over
+the world under the same forms.
+Anyone who, after reading this book, imagines my intention has been to propose Anglo-American laws and customs as a model for all democratic peoples to imitate, would make a great mistake; they would attend more to form than to my ideas' substance. My aim has been to show, through America's example, that laws—and especially customs—can allow a democratic people to remain free. I am far from thinking we ought to follow the American democracy's example and copy the exact means it used to achieve its ends. I know well a country's nature and political history influence its constitution, and I would consider it a great misfortune for humanity if liberty existed throughout the world in the same form.
+But I am of opinion that if we do not succeed in gradually introducing
+democratic institutions into France, and if we despair of imparting to
+the citizens those ideas and sentiments which first prepare them for
+freedom, and afterwards allow them to enjoy it, there will be no
+independence at all, either for the middling classes or the nobility,
+for the poor or for the rich, but an equal tyranny over all; and I
+foresee that if the peaceable empire of the majority be not founded
+amongst us in time, we shall sooner or later arrive at the unlimited
+authority of a single despot.
+If we do not succeed in gradually introducing democratic institutions into France, and if we despair of giving citizens those ideas and sentiments which first prepare them for freedom and then allow them to enjoy it, there will be no independence at all—not for middle class or nobility, not for poor or rich—but only equal tyranny over everyone.
+> **Quote:** "I foresee that if the peaceable empire of the majority be not founded amongst us in time, we shall sooner or later arrive at the unlimited authority of a single despot."
 ## Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races In The United States
+### Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races In The United States—Part I
+The Present And Probable Future Condition Of The Three Races Which
+Inhabit The Territory Of The United States
+### Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races In The United States—Part I
+The principal part of the task which I had imposed upon myself is now
+performed. I have shown, as far as I was able, the laws and the manners
+of the American democracy. Here I might stop; but the reader would
+perhaps feel that I had not satisfied his expectations.
+I have completed my primary task of describing the laws and customs of American democracy. Here I might stop, but the reader would perhaps feel that I had not satisfied his expectations if I failed to address what I have only mentioned in passing: the place of Indians and Negroes within this democratic population, and the future of the Union itself.
+The absolute supremacy of democracy is not all that we meet with in
+America; the inhabitants of the New World may be considered from more
+than one point of view. In the course of this work my subject has often
+led me to speak of the Indians and the Negroes; but I have never been
+able to stop in order to show what place these two races occupy in the
+midst of the democratic people whom I was engaged in describing. I have
+mentioned in what spirit, and according to what laws, the
+Anglo-American Union was formed; but I could only glance at the dangers
+which menace that confederation, whilst it was equally impossible for
+me to give a detailed account of its chances of duration, independently
+of its laws and manners. When speaking of the united republican States,
+I hazarded no conjectures upon the permanence of republican forms in
+the New World, and when making frequent allusion to the commercial
+activity which reigns in the Union, I was unable to inquire into the
+future condition of the Americans as a commercial people.
+The territory claimed by the American Union stretches from Atlantic to Pacific, from the tropics to the ice. Its inhabitants are not, as in Europe, branches of one stock. Three naturally distinct—and almost hostile—races are visible, separated by insurmountable barriers of education, law, origin, and physical characteristics. Fortune has brought them together, but they do not merge; each fulfills its destiny separately.
+These topics are collaterally connected with my subject without forming
+a part of it; they are American without being democratic; and to
+portray democracy has been my principal aim. It was therefore necessary
+to postpone these questions, which I now take up as the proper
+termination of my work.
+The white or European is the man pre-eminent; superior in intelligence, power, and enjoyment. In subordinate grades are the Negro and the Indian, who share nothing but their misfortunes. Both occupy an inferior position; both suffer tyranny, though differently inflicted.
+The territory now occupied or claimed by the American Union spreads
+from the shores of the Atlantic to those of the Pacific Ocean. On the
+east and west its limits are those of the continent itself. On the
+south it advances nearly to the tropic, and it extends upwards to the
+icy regions of the North. The human beings who are scattered over this
+space do not form, as in Europe, so many branches of the same stock.
+Three races, naturally distinct, and, I might almost say, hostile to
+each other, are discoverable amongst them at the first glance. Almost
+insurmountable barriers had been raised between them by education and
+by law, as well as by their origin and outward characteristics; but
+fortune has brought them together on the same soil, where, although
+they are mixed, they do not amalgamate, and each race fulfils its
+destiny apart.
+The European is to other races what man is to animals: he makes them serve his ends, and when he cannot subdue them, he destroys them. Oppression stripped the African of nearly all human privileges. The Negro has lost memory of his homeland; his ancestors' language is never heard, their religion and customs forgotten. He remains halfway between two communities: sold by one, repulsed by the other; finding not a spot in the universe to call by the name of country, except the faint image of a home which the shelter of his master’s roof affords.
+Amongst these widely differing families of men, the first which
+attracts attention, the superior in intelligence, in power and in
+enjoyment, is the white or European, the man pre-eminent; and in
+subordinate grades, the negro and the Indian. These two unhappy races
+have nothing in common; neither birth, nor features, nor language, nor
+habits. Their only resemblance lies in their misfortunes. Both of them
+occupy an inferior rank in the country they inhabit; both suffer from
+tyranny; and if their wrongs are not the same, they originate, at any
+rate, with the same authors.
+He has no family; a woman is merely the temporary companion of his pleasures, and his children are equal to him from birth. Violence made him a slave, and habit gives him the thoughts and desires of a slave. He admires his tyrants more than he hates them; his intellect degrades with his spirit. He enters slavery at birth, indeed may be purchased in the womb. Lacking needs and enjoyments, he learns he is another's property, that his life's care is not his responsibility. Should he become free, independence often proves a heavier burden than slavery. He has learned to submit to everything except reason, yet is too unfamiliar with reason's guidance to obey it. Unfamiliar desires beset him, but he lacks knowledge and energy to resist them.
+If we reasoned from what passes in the world, we should almost say that
+the European is to the other races of mankind, what man is to the lower
+animals;—he makes them subservient to his use; and when he cannot
+subdue, he destroys them. Oppression has, at one stroke, deprived the
+descendants 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; he
+abjured their religion and forgot their customs when he ceased to
+belong to Africa, without acquiring any claim to European privileges.
+But he remains half way between the two communities; sold by the one,
+repulsed by the other; finding not a spot in the universe to call by
+the name of country, except the faint image of a home which the shelter
+of his master’s roof affords.
+> **Quote:** "In short, he sinks to such a depth of wretchedness, that while servitude brutalizes, liberty destroys him."
+The negro has no family; woman is merely the temporary companion of his
+pleasures, and his children are upon an equality with himself from the
+moment of their birth. Am I to call it a proof of God’s mercy or a
+visitation of his wrath, that man in certain states appears to be
+insensible to his extreme wretchedness, and almost affects, with a
+depraved taste, the cause of his misfortunes? The negro, who is plunged
+in this abyss of evils, scarcely feels his own calamitous situation.
+Violence made him a slave, and the habit of servitude gives him the
+thoughts and desires of a slave; he admires his tyrants more than he
+hates them, and finds his joy and his pride in the servile imitation of
+those who oppress him: his understanding is degraded to the level of
+his soul.
+Oppression has been no less fatal to the Indian, but differently. Before whites arrived, North American inhabitants lived quietly in forests. Europeans scattered the tribes and condemned them to a wandering life of unspeakable suffering.
+The negro enters upon slavery as soon as he is born: nay, he may have
+been purchased in the womb, and have begun his slavery before he began
+his existence. Equally devoid of wants and of enjoyment, and useless to
+himself, he learns, with his first notions of existence, that he is the
+property of another, who has an interest in preserving his life, and
+that the care of it does not devolve upon himself; even the power of
+thought appears to him a useless gift of Providence, and he quietly
+enjoys 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 everything
+except reason, he is too much unacquainted with her dictates to obey
+them. A thousand new desires beset him, and he is destitute of the
+knowledge and energy necessary to resist them: these are masters which
+it is necessary to contend with, and he has learnt only to submit and
+obey. In short, he sinks to such a depth of wretchedness, that while
+servitude brutalizes, liberty destroys him.
+Tribal nations are controlled only by public opinion and custom. When Indians lost attachment to their land; when families scattered, traditions obscured, and memories broken; when habits changed and needs increased beyond measure, European tyranny left them more disordered and less civilized than before. Their condition grew steadily worse; they became more barbaric as they became more miserable. Yet Europeans never made them submit to civilized society's rules.
+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 the
+New World, the inhabitants of North America lived quietly in their
+woods, enduring the vicissitudes and practising the virtues and vices
+common to savage nations. The Europeans, having dispersed the Indian
+tribes and driven them into the deserts, condemned them to a wandering
+life full of inexpressible sufferings.
+The Negro's fate is at the extreme limit of servitude, the Indian's at the furthest edge of liberty. The savage is his own master as soon as he can act; parental authority is barely known. He has never bent his will to another, nor learned the difference between voluntary obedience and shameful subjection. The concept of law is unknown. To be free means to escape all society's shackles. He delights in this untamed independence and would rather perish than sacrifice it, so civilization has little power over him.
+Savage nations are only controlled by opinion and by custom. When the
+North American Indians had lost the sentiment of attachment to their
+country; when their families were dispersed, their traditions obscured,
+and the chain of their recollections broken; when all their habits were
+changed, and their wants increased beyond measure, European tyranny
+rendered them more disorderly and less civilized than they were before.
+The moral and physical condition of these tribes continually grew
+worse, and they became more barbarous as they became more wretched.
+Nevertheless, the Europeans have not been able to metamorphose the
+character of the Indians; and though they have had power to destroy
+them, they have never been able to make them submit to the rules of
+civilized society.
+The Negro makes fruitless efforts to integrate among those who reject him; he adopts his oppressors' tastes and opinions. Having been told his race is naturally inferior, he is ashamed of his own nature and would rid himself of his identity if he could.
+The lot of the negro is placed on the extreme limit of servitude, while
+that of the Indian lies on the uttermost verge of liberty; and slavery
+does not produce more fatal effects upon the first, than independence
+upon the second. The negro has lost all property in his own person, and
+he 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; parental
+authority is scarcely known to him; he has never bent his will to that
+of any of his kind, nor learned the difference between voluntary
+obedience and a shameful subjection; and the very name of law is
+unknown to him. To be free, with him, signifies to escape from all the
+shackles of society. As he delights in this barbarous independence, and
+would rather perish than sacrifice the least part of it, civilization
+has little power over him.
+The Indian's imagination is filled with his origin's supposed nobility. Far from adapting to our habits, he loves his wild life as his race's defining mark and rejects civilization—perhaps less from hatred than from fear of resembling Europeans. For two hundred years, wandering tribes have had daily white contact without adopting a single custom. Europeans have only made them more reckless, not more European.
+The negro makes a thousand fruitless efforts to insinuate himself
+amongst men who repulse him; he conforms to the tastes of his
+oppressors, adopts their opinions, and hopes by imitating them to form
+a part of their community. Having been told from infancy that his race
+is naturally inferior to that of the whites, he assents to the
+proposition and is ashamed of his own nature. In each of his features
+he discovers a trace of slavery, and, if it were in his power, he would
+willingly rid himself of everything that makes him what he is.
+In summer 1831, near Green Bay, I met an American officer, Major H., who told me of a young Indian educated at a New England college. When war broke out in 1810, he returned to lead his tribe's warriors. After a battle, he sat by the Major's fire, recounted his exploits, then opened his coat and said, "You must not betray me—see here!" Between his body and shirt lay a bloody English scalp, still dripping.
+The Indian, on the contrary, has his imagination inflated with the
+pretended nobility of his origin, and lives and dies in the midst of
+these 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 he
+repels every advance to civilization, less perhaps from the hatred
+which he entertains for it, than from a dread of resembling the
+Europeans. *a While he has nothing to oppose to our perfection in the
+arts but the resources of the desert, to our tactics nothing but
+undisciplined courage; whilst our well-digested plans are met by the
+spontaneous instincts of savage life, who can wonder if he fails in
+this unequal contest?
+> **Quote:** "The servility of the one dooms him to slavery, the pride of the other to death."
+[ The native of North America retains his opinions and the most
+insignificant of his habits with a degree of tenacity which has no
+parallel in history. For more than two hundred years the wandering
+tribes of North America have had daily intercourse with the whites, and
+they have never derived from them either a custom or an idea. Yet the
+Europeans have exercised a powerful influence over the savages: they
+have made them more licentious, but not more European. In the summer of
+I happened to be beyond Lake Michigan, at a place called Green
+Bay, which serves as the extreme frontier between the United States and
+the Indians on the north-western side. Here I became acquainted with an
+American officer, Major H., who, after talking to me at length on the
+inflexibility of the Indian character, related the following fact:—“I
+formerly knew a young Indian,” said he, “who had been educated at a
+college in New England, where he had greatly distinguished himself, and
+had acquired the external appearance of a member of civilized society.
+When the war broke out between ourselves and the English in 1810, I saw
+this young man again; he was serving in our army, at the head of the
+warriors of his tribe, for the Indians were admitted amongst the ranks
+of the Americans, upon condition that they would abstain from their
+horrible custom of scalping their victims. On the evening of the battle
+of . . ., C. came and sat himself down by the fire of our bivouac. I
+asked him what had been his fortune that day: he related his exploits;
+and growing warm and animated by the recollection of them, he concluded
+by suddenly opening the breast of his coat, saying, ‘You must not
+betray me—see here!’ And I actually beheld,” said the Major, “between
+his body and his shirt, the skin and hair of an English head, still
+dripping with gore.”]
+I remember traveling through Alabama's forests and stopping by a spring near a pioneer's log house. An Indian woman appeared, followed by a Negro woman holding a white girl of five or six. The Indian wore metal rings in her nostrils and ears; her hair, adorned with glass beads, fell loosely. She was unmarried, still wearing the shell necklace a bride sets aside. The Negro was clad in squalid European garments.
+They all three seated themselves upon the banks of the fountain; the young Indian took the child in her arms with maternal affection, while the Negro endeavored by various little artifices to attract the attention of the young Creole. The child displayed a sense of superiority strange in one so young, receiving attentions with condescension. The Negro sat before her mistress, torn between affection and servile fear. Even in tenderness, the Indian displayed an almost fierce freedom and pride.
+The negro, who earnestly desires to mingle his race with that of the
+European, cannot effect if; while the Indian, who might succeed to a
+certain extent, disdains to make the attempt. The servility of the one
+dooms him to slavery, the pride of the other to death.
+I approached silently, but my curiosity displeased the Indian. She rose, pushed the child roughly away, gave me an angry look, and vanished. I had often seen these three races together, but this scene was uniquely touching. Affection united oppressors and oppressed, yet the natural effort to bring them together only made the distance created by prejudice and law more striking.
+I remember that while I was travelling through the forests which still
+cover the State of Alabama, I arrived one day at the log house of a
+pioneer. 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, which
+was not far off, in the woods. While I was in this place (which was in
+the neighborhood of the Creek territory), an Indian woman appeared,
+followed by a negress, and holding by the hand a little white girl of
+five 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; rings of
+metal were hanging from her nostrils and ears; her hair, which was
+adorned with glass beads, fell loosely upon her shoulders; and I saw
+that she was not married, for she still wore that necklace of shells
+which the bride always deposits on the nuptial couch. The negress was
+clad in squalid European garments. They all three came and seated
+themselves upon the banks of the fountain; and the young Indian, taking
+the child in her arms, lavished upon her such fond caresses as mothers
+give; while the negress endeavored by various little artifices to
+attract the attention of the young Creole.
+The Present and Probable Future Condition of the Indian Tribes Inhabiting the Territory Possessed by the Union
+The child displayed in her slightest gestures a consciousness of
+superiority which formed a strange contrast with her infantine
+weakness; as if she received the attentions of her companions with a
+sort of condescension. The negress was seated on the ground before her
+mistress, watching her smallest desires, and apparently divided between
+strong affection for the child and servile fear; whilst the savage
+displayed, in the midst of her tenderness, an air of freedom and of
+pride which was almost ferocious. I had approached the group, and I
+contemplated them in silence; but my curiosity was probably displeasing
+to the Indian woman, for she suddenly rose, pushed the child roughly
+from her, and giving me an angry look plunged into the thicket. I had
+often chanced to see individuals met together in the same place, who
+belonged to the three races of men which people North America. I had
+perceived from many different results the preponderance of the whites.
+But in the picture which I have just been describing there was
+something peculiarly touching; a bond of affection here united the
+oppressors with the oppressed, and the effort of nature to bring them
+together rendered still more striking the immense distance placed
+between them by prejudice and by law.
+The gradual disappearance of the native tribes—The manner in which it takes place—The miseries accompanying forced migrations—The savages had only two escapes: war or civilization—They can no longer wage war—Why they refused civilization when able, and cannot now that they desire it—The Creeks and Cherokees—State and federal policy.
+The Present And Probable Future Condition Of The Indian Tribes Which
+Inhabit The Territory Possessed By The Union
+The Narragansetts, Mohicans, Pequots of New England—gone except in memory. The Lenapes who welcomed William Penn—disappeared. I myself met the last Iroquois, begging for alms. Once covering the coast, these tribes now require traveling three hundred miles inland to find traces.
+Gradual disappearance of the native tribes—Manner in which it takes
+place—Miseries accompanying the forced migrations of the Indians—The
+savages of North America had only two ways of escaping destruction; war
+or civilization—They are no longer able to make war—Reasons why they
+refused to become civilized when it was in their power, and why they
+cannot become so now that they desire it—Instance of the Creeks and
+Cherokees—Policy of the particular States towards these Indians—Policy
+of the Federal Government.
+These tribes are being destroyed as they retreat, and a vast population takes their place.
+None of the Indian tribes which formerly inhabited the territory of New
+England—the Naragansetts, the Mohicans, the Pecots—have any existence
+but in the recollection of man. The Lenapes, who received William Penn,
+a hundred and fifty years ago, upon the banks of the Delaware, have
+disappeared; and I myself met with the last of the Iroquois, who were
+begging alms. The nations I have mentioned formerly covered the country
+to the sea-coast; but a traveller at the present day must penetrate
+more than a hundred leagues into the interior of the continent to find
+an Indian. Not only have these wild tribes receded, but they are
+destroyed; *b and as they give way or perish, an immense and increasing
+people fills their place. There is no instance upon record of so
+prodigious a growth, or so rapid a destruction: the manner in which the
+latter change takes place is not difficult to describe.
+> **Quote:** "There is no instance upon record of so prodigious a growth, or so rapid a destruction."
+[ In the thirteen original States there are only 6,273 Indians
+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.]]
+The mechanism is clear. In the thirteen original States, the Indian population had dwindled to fewer than seven thousand by 1829, and has since plummeted toward extinction.
+When Indians were the wilderness's sole inhabitants, their needs were few. They manufactured weapons, drank from brooks, wore animal skins. Europeans introduced firearms, alcohol, and iron; taught them to trade furs for manufactured fabrics. Having acquired new tastes without skills to satisfy them, they relied on European industry. Hunting became necessary not just for survival, but to obtain trade goods. As needs increased, resources diminished.
+When the Indians were the sole inhabitants of the wilds from whence
+they have since been expelled, their wants were few. Their arms were of
+their own manufacture, their only drink was the water of the brook, and
+their clothes consisted of the skins of animals, whose flesh furnished
+them with food.
+By 1829, government reports noted Indians could no longer provide for themselves without civilized goods. While remote tribes beyond the Mississippi still follow the buffalo, those herds constantly retreat. Smaller game now requires guns and traps. Among Northwestern tribes, feeding a family is exhausting. A hunter may spend days without success while his family starves. Indians will not live as Europeans, yet can no longer survive without them, nor live as their ancestors did. When the American government banned all trade with a Lake Superior tribe, they surrendered criminals immediately.
+The Europeans introduced amongst the savages of North America
+fire-arms, ardent spirits, and iron: they taught them to exchange for
+manufactured stuffs, the rough garments which had previously satisfied
+their untutored simplicity. Having acquired new tastes, without the
+arts by which they could be gratified, the Indians were obliged to have
+recourse to the workmanship of the whites; but in return for their
+productions the savage had nothing to offer except the rich furs which
+still abounded in his woods. Hence the chase became necessary, not
+merely to provide for his subsistence, but in order to procure the only
+objects of barter which he could furnish to Europe. *c Whilst the wants
+of the natives were thus increasing, their resources continued to
+diminish.
+From the moment European settlement nears Indian territory, wildlife takes alarm. Nomadic hunters never disturbed game, but the steady noise of European labor sends animals fleeing west. The buffalo that once approached the Alleghanies are now rare even on the plains to the Rockies. White settlement's influence is felt hundreds of miles ahead of the frontier. Tribes suffer displacement long before meeting those responsible.
+[ Messrs. Clarke and Cass, in their Report to Congress on February 4,
+, p. 23, expressed themselves thus:—“The time when the Indians
+generally could supply themselves with food and clothing, without any
+of the articles of civilized life, has long since passed away. The more
+remote tribes, beyond the Mississippi, who live where immense herds of
+buffalo are yet to be found and who follow those animals in their
+periodical migrations, could more easily than any others recur to the
+habits of their ancestors, and live without the white man or any of his
+manufactures. But the buffalo is constantly receding. The smaller
+animals, the bear, the deer, the beaver, the otter, the muskrat, etc.,
+principally minister to the comfort and support of the Indians; and
+these cannot be taken without guns, ammunition, and traps. Among the
+Northwestern Indians particularly, the labor of supplying a family with
+food is excessive. Day after day is spent by the hunter without
+success, and during this interval his family must subsist upon bark or
+roots, or perish. Want and misery are around them and among them. Many
+die every winter from actual starvation.”
+Adventurers soon penetrate deserted lands, building homes fifty or sixty miles beyond the furthest settlements. A hunting nation's territory is poorly defined—tribal common property, not individual. A few European families soon drive away remaining animals. Indians who lived in abundance now struggle to survive and find trade furs.
+To drive away game is to deprive them of existence as surely as making a farmer's fields barren. Like famished wolves, they prowl abandoned woods. Instinctive love of country attaches them even when it yields only misery. At length they submit and depart, following elk and buffalo toward a new home.
+The Indians will not live as Europeans live, and yet they can neither
+subsist without them, nor exactly after the fashion of their fathers.
+This is demonstrated by a fact which I likewise give upon official
+authority. Some Indians of a tribe on the banks of Lake Superior had
+killed a European; the American government interdicted all traffic with
+the tribe to which the guilty parties belonged, until they were
+delivered up to justice. This measure had the desired effect.]
+> **Quote:** "Properly speaking, therefore, it is not the Europeans who drive away the native inhabitants of America; it is famine which compels them to recede; a happy distinction which had escaped the casuists of former times, and for which we are indebted to modern discovery!"
+From the moment when a European settlement is formed in the
+neighborhood of the territory occupied by the Indians, the beasts of
+chase take the alarm. *d Thousands of savages, wandering in the forests
+and destitute of any fixed dwelling, did not disturb them; but as soon
+as the continuous sounds of European labor are heard in their
+neighborhood, they begin to flee away, and retire to the West, where
+their instinct teaches them that they will find deserts of immeasurable
+extent. “The buffalo is constantly receding,” say Messrs. Clarke and
+Cass in their Report of the year 1829; “a few years since they
+approached the base of the Alleghany; and a few years hence they may
+even be rare upon the immense plains which extend to the base of the
+Rocky Mountains.” I have been assured that this effect of the approach
+of the whites is often felt at two hundred leagues’ distance from their
+frontier. Their influence is thus exerted over tribes whose name is
+unknown to them; and who suffer the evils of usurpation long before
+they are acquainted with the authors of their distress. *e
+The suffering of these migrations is unimaginable. Undertaken by a diminished people, they move to lands inhabited by hostile tribes. Hunger follows, war awaits, misery surrounds. To escape, they separate, individuals surviving in solitary secrecy like outcasts. Social bonds dissolve. They lose country, scatter families, watch languages perish and origins disappear. Their nation ceases to exist, surviving only in historians' records.
+[ “Five years ago,” (says Volney in his “Tableau des Etats-Unis,” p.
+)   “in going from Vincennes to Kaskaskia, a territory which now forms
+part of the State of Illinois, but which at the time I mention was
+completely wild (1797), you could not cross a prairie without seeing
+herds of from four to five hundred buffaloes. There are now none
+remaining; they swam across the Mississippi to escape from the hunters,
+and more particularly from the bells of the American cows.”]
+I witnessed several instances of this misery. In late 1831, on the Mississippi's left bank at Memphis, a large Choctaw band arrived, leaving their homeland for a promised refuge on the river's right bank. It was midwinter, unusually cold; snow was frozen hard, the river filled with ice. They brought families—wounded, sick, newborn, elderly. No tents or wagons, only weapons and some food. I watched them cross the mighty river, a solemn sight.
+> **Quote:** "No cry, no sob was heard amongst the assembled crowd; all were silent. Their calamities were of ancient date, and they knew them to be irremediable."
+[ The truth of what I here advance may be easily proved by consulting
+the tabular statement of Indian tribes inhabiting the United States and
+their territories. (Legislative Documents, 20th Congress, No. 117, pp.
+-105.) It is there shown that the tribes in the centre of America are
+rapidly decreasing, although the Europeans are still at a considerable
+distance from them.]
+When all had boarded, their dogs remained on the bank. Realizing their masters were leaving, they set up a dismal howl and plunged into the icy waters to swim after the boat.
+Today, displacement is handled in regular, ostensibly legal fashion. When Europeans near a tribe's territory, the government sends envoys. They assemble Indians on a plain, eat and drink with them, then address them: "What are you doing in your ancestors' land? Soon you'll dig their bones to survive. How is this land better? Beyond those mountains lie vast countries full of game; sell us your lands and live happily in those solitudes." They display firearms, woolens, brandy, beads, mirrors. If Indians hesitate, it is hinted they cannot refuse, and the government will soon stop protecting their rights. Half-convinced, half-compelled, they move to new deserts where whites won't leave them in peace ten years. Thus Americans obtain entire provinces cheaply—territories Europe's wealthiest sovereigns could not afford.
+Bold adventurers soon penetrate into the country the Indians have
+deserted, and when they have advanced about fifteen or twenty leagues
+from the extreme frontiers of the whites, they begin to build
+habitations for civilized beings in the midst of the wilderness. This
+is done without difficulty, as the territory of a hunting-nation is
+ill-defined; it is the common property of the tribe, and belongs to no
+one in particular, so that individual interests are not concerned in
+the protection of any part of it.
+By 1830, the United States had acquired 230 million acres through such treaties. Tens of millions were sold for small annual payments or a few thousand dollars. Though the government often swore solemn oaths to respect reserved hunting grounds, these were inevitably invaded. This practice proves more convenient—and more consistent with justice's appearance—than the sword. It is expediency's substitute for open warfare, achieving the same result: property possession based on presumed natural superiority of civilized communities. These causes first diminish the land's value to Indians, then dispose them to sell, ensuring the process never slows American expansion and prosperity.
+A few European families, settled in different situations at a
+considerable distance from each other, soon drive away the wild animals
+which remain between their places of abode. The Indians, who had
+previously lived in a sort of abundance, then find it difficult to
+subsist, and still more difficult to procure the articles of barter
+which 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
+with barrenness; and they are reduced, like famished wolves, to prowl
+through the forsaken woods in quest of prey. Their instinctive love of
+their country attaches them to the soil which gave them birth, *f even
+after it has ceased to yield anything but misery and death. At length
+they are compelled to acquiesce, and to depart: they follow the traces
+of the elk, the buffalo, and the beaver, and are guided by these wild
+animals in the choice of their future country. Properly speaking,
+therefore, it is not the Europeans who drive away the native
+inhabitants of America; it is famine which compels them to recede; a
+happy distinction which had escaped the casuists of former times, and
+for which we are indebted to modern discovery!
+[ “The Indians,” say Messrs. Clarke and Cass in their Report to
+Congress, p. 15, “are attached to their country by the same feelings
+which bind us to ours; and, besides, there are certain superstitious
+notions connected with the alienation of what the Great Spirit gave to
+their ancestors, which operate strongly upon the tribes who have made
+few or no cessions, but which are gradually weakened as our intercourse
+with them is extended. ‘We will not sell the spot which contains the
+bones of our fathers,’ is almost always the first answer to a
+proposition for a sale.”]
+It is impossible to conceive the extent of the sufferings which attend
+these forced emigrations. They are undertaken by a people already
+exhausted and reduced; and the countries to which the newcomers betake
+themselves are inhabited by other tribes which receive them with
+jealous hostility. Hunger is in the rear; war awaits them, and misery
+besets them on all sides. In the hope of escaping from such a host of
+enemies, they separate, and each individual endeavors to procure the
+means of supporting his existence in solitude and secrecy, living in
+the immensity of the desert like an outcast in civilized society. The
+social tie, which distress had long since weakened, is then dissolved;
+they have lost their country, and their people soon desert them: their
+very families 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 the antiquaries of America and a few of the learned of Europe.
+I should be sorry to have my reader suppose that I am coloring the
+picture too highly; I saw with my own eyes several of the cases of
+misery which I have been describing; and I was the witness of
+sufferings which I have not the power to portray.
+At the end of the year 1831, whilst I was on the left bank of the
+Mississippi at a place named by Europeans, Memphis, there arrived a
+numerous band of Choctaws (or Chactas, as they are called by the French
+in Louisiana). These savages had left their country, and were
+endeavoring to gain the right bank of the Mississippi, where they hoped
+to find an asylum which had been promised them by the American
+government. It was then the middle of winter, and the cold was
+unusually severe; the snow had frozen hard upon the ground, and the
+river was drifting huge masses of ice. The Indians had their families
+with them; and they brought in their train the wounded and sick, with
+children newly born, and old men upon the verge of death. They
+possessed neither tents nor wagons, but only their arms and some
+provisions. I saw them embark to pass the mighty river, and never will
+that solemn spectacle fade from my remembrance. No cry, no sob was
+heard amongst the assembled crowd; all were silent. Their calamities
+were of ancient date, and they knew them to be irremediable. The
+Indians had all stepped into the bark which was to carry them across,
+but their dogs remained upon the bank. As soon as these animals
+perceived that their masters were finally leaving the shore, they set
+up a dismal howl, and, plunging all together into the icy waters of the
+Mississippi, they swam after the boat.
+The ejectment of the Indians very often takes place at the present day,
+in a regular, and, as it were, a legal manner. When the European
+population begins to approach the limit of the desert inhabited by a
+savage tribe, the government of the United States usually dispatches
+envoys to them, who assemble the Indians in a large plain, and having
+first 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 must
+dig up their bones in order to live. In what respect is the country you
+inhabit 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
+lake which bounds your territory on the west, there lie vast countries
+where beasts 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, and looking-glasses. *g If, when they have beheld all these
+riches, they still hesitate, it is insinuated that they have not the
+means of refusing their required consent, and that the government
+itself will not long have the power of protecting them in their rights.
+What are they to do? Half convinced, and half compelled, they go to
+inhabit new deserts, where the importunate whites will not let them
+remain ten years in tranquillity. In this manner do the Americans
+obtain, at a very low price, whole provinces, which the richest
+sovereigns of Europe could not purchase. *h
+[ See, in the Legislative Documents of Congress (Doc. 117), the
+narrative of what takes place on these occasions. This curious passage
+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
+almost naked. Large quantities of goods are taken there by the traders,
+and are seen and examined by the Indians. The women and children become
+importunate to have their wants supplied, and their influence is soon
+exerted to induce a sale. Their improvidence is habitual and
+unconquerable. The gratification of his immediate wants and desires is
+the ruling passion of an Indian. The expectation of future advantages
+seldom produces much effect. The experience of the past is lost, and
+the prospects of the future disregarded. It would be utterly hopeless
+to demand a cession of land, unless the means were at hand of
+gratifying their immediate wants; and when their condition and
+circumstances are fairly considered, it ought not to surprise us that
+they are so anxious to relieve themselves.”]
+[ On May 19, 1830, Mr. Edward Everett affirmed before the House of
+Representatives, that the Americans had already acquired by treaty, 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
+the Quapaws yielded up 29,000,000 acres for $4,000. They reserved
+for themselves a territory of 1,000,000 acres for a hunting-ground. A
+solemn oath was taken that it should be respected: but before long it
+was invaded like the rest. Mr. Bell, in his Report of the Committee on
+Indian Affairs, February 24, 1830, has these words:—“To pay an Indian
+tribe what their ancient hunting-grounds are worth to them, after the
+game is fled or destroyed, as a mode of appropriating wild lands
+claimed by Indians, has been found more convenient, and certainly it is
+more agreeable to the forms of justice, as well as more merciful, than
+to assert the possession of them by the sword. Thus the practice of
+buying Indian titles is but the substitute which humanity and
+expediency have imposed, in place of the sword, in arriving at the
+actual enjoyment of property claimed by the right of discovery, and
+sanctioned by the natural superiority allowed to the claims of
+civilized communities over those of savage tribes. Up to the present
+time so invariable has been the operation of certain causes, first in
+diminishing the value of forest lands to the Indians, and secondly in
+disposing them to sell readily, that the plan of buying their right of
+occupancy has never threatened to retard, in any perceptible degree,
+the prosperity of any of the States.” (Legislative Documents, 21st
+Congress, No. 227, p. 6.)]
 ### Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part II
+These are grave evils, and they appear incurable.
+These are great evils; and it must be added that they appear to me to
+be irremediable. I believe that the Indian nations of North America are
+doomed to perish; and that whenever the Europeans shall be established
+on 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 become
+their equals.
+> **Quote:** "I believe that the Indian nations of North America are doomed to perish; and that whenever the Europeans shall be established on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, that race of men will be no more."
+[ This seems, indeed, to be the opinion of almost all American
+statesmen. “Judging of the future by the past,” says Mr. Cass, “we
+cannot err in anticipating a progressive diminution of their numbers,
+and their eventual extinction, unless our border should become
+stationary, and they be removed beyond it, or unless some radical
+change should take place in the principles of our intercourse with
+them, which it is easier to hope for than to expect.”]
+The Indians faced only two alternatives: war or civilization—either destroy the Europeans or become their equals. This is the consensus among American statesmen. As Lewis Cass noted, judging the future by the past, we can anticipate a steady decline in their numbers and eventual extinction, unless the American border stops moving or a radical change occurs in our interaction with them—an outcome easier to hope for than expect.
+When the colonies were first settled, the Indians might have united to rid themselves of the small groups of strangers landing on their continent. They attempted this several times, such as the 1675 Wampanoag uprising under Metacom or the 1622 war in Virginia. Today, however, the resource disparity is too great for such an undertaking to even be considered.
+At the first settlement of the colonies they might have found it
+possible, by uniting their forces, to deliver themselves from the small
+bodies of strangers who landed on their continent. *j They several
+times attempted to do it, and were on the point of succeeding; but the
+disproportion of their resources, at the present day, when compared
+with those of the whites, is too great to allow such an enterprise to
+be thought of. Nevertheless, there do arise from time to time among the
+Indians men of penetration, who foresee the final destiny which awaits
+the native population, and who exert themselves to unite all the tribes
+in common hostility to the Europeans; but their efforts are unavailing.
+Those tribes which are in the neighborhood of the whites, are too much
+weakened to offer an effectual resistance; whilst the others, giving
+way to that childish carelessness of the morrow which characterizes
+savage life, wait for the near approach of danger before they prepare
+to meet it; some are unable, the others are unwilling, to exert
+themselves.
+Men of insight occasionally arise among the Indians who foresee their people's fate and strive to unite the tribes against the Europeans, but their efforts are futile. Tribes near white settlements are too weakened to resist, while others, yielding to their way of life's careless disregard for the future, wait until danger is imminent before preparing. Some are unable to act; others are unwilling to exert themselves.
+[ Amongst other warlike enterprises, there was one of the Wampanaogs,
+and other confederate tribes, under Metacom in 1675, against the
+colonists of New England; the English were also engaged in war in
+Virginia in 1622.]
+The Indians will never adapt to civilization, or by the time they try, it will be too late. Civilization results from a long social process passed down through generations. Of all nations, those living by hunting find it most difficult to submit. Pastoral tribes follow regular migration patterns and return to old territories; the hunter's dwelling moves wherever his prey goes.
+Several attempts by Jesuits in Canada and Puritans in New England to spread knowledge among the Indians without restricting their wandering achieved no lasting success.
+It is easy to foresee that the Indians will never conform to
+civilization; or that it will be too late, whenever they may be
+inclined to make the experiment.
+> **Quote:** "Civilization began in the cabin, but it soon retired to expire in the woods."
+Civilization is the result of a long social process which takes place
+in the same spot, and is handed down from one generation to another,
+each one profiting by the experience of the last. Of all nations, those
+submit to civilization with the most difficulty which habitually live
+by the chase. Pastoral tribes, indeed, often change their place of
+abode; but they follow a regular order in their migrations, and often
+return again to their old stations, whilst the dwelling of the hunter
+varies with that of the animals he pursues.
+The great error of these reformers was failing to understand that civilizing a people first requires settling them. This cannot be done without encouraging agriculture. But not only do Indians lack this prerequisite, they would find it extremely difficult to acquire. Men who have surrendered to the restless life of the hunter feel an insurmountable disgust for farming's constant labor. We see this in our own society, but it is far more evident among peoples whose love for the hunt is core to their national character.
+Several attempts have been made to diffuse knowledge amongst the
+Indians, without controlling their wandering propensities; by the
+Jesuits in Canada, and by the Puritans in New England; *k but none of
+these endeavors were crowned by any lasting success. Civilization began
+in the cabin, but it soon retired to expire in the woods. The great
+error of these legislators of the Indians was their not understanding
+that, in order to succeed in civilizing a people, it is first necessary
+to fix it; which cannot be done without inducing it to cultivate the
+soil; the Indians ought in the first place to have been accustomed to
+agriculture. But not only are they destitute of this indispensable
+preliminary to civilization, they would even have great difficulty in
+acquiring it. Men who have once abandoned themselves to the restless
+and adventurous life of the hunter, feel an insurmountable disgust for
+the constant and regular labor which tillage requires. We see this
+proved in the bosom of our own society; but it is far more visible
+among peoples whose partiality for the chase is a part of their
+national character.
+Beyond this difficulty, another applies specifically to the Indians: they view labor not merely as evil, but as disgrace. Their pride prevents them from becoming civilized as much as their laziness. As Volney observed, old warriors protested seeing their countrymen using a hoe, claiming the tribes owed their decline to such innovations and needed only to return to original habits to recover power and glory.
+[ See the “Histoire de la Nouvelle France,” by Charlevoix, and the work
+entitled “Lettres edifiantes.”]
+No Indian is so miserable that he does not maintain, in his bark hut, a high opinion of his personal worth. He considers industry degrading; he compares the farmer to the ox pulling the plow, and in our crafts sees only slave labor. This is not because he lacks admiration for white power and intellect; while our results surprise him, he scorns our means. Even as he acknowledges our dominance, he believes in his own superiority.
+> **Quote:** "War and hunting are the only pursuits which appear to him worthy to be the occupations of a man."
+Independently of this general difficulty, there is another, which
+applies peculiarly to the Indians; they consider labor not merely as an
+evil, but as a disgrace; so that their pride prevents them from
+becoming civilized, as much as their indolence. *l
+In his woods' dreary solitude, the Indian cherishes the same ideas as a medieval noble in his castle; he would only need 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 among the Europeans who inhabit its coasts, that the ancient prejudices of Europe still exist.
+[ “In all the tribes,” says Volney, in his “Tableau des Etats-Unis,” p.
+, “there still exists a generation of old warriors, who cannot
+forbear, when they see their countrymen using the hoe, from exclaiming
+against the degradation of ancient manners, and asserting that the
+savages owe their decline to these innovations; adding, that they have
+only to return to their primitive habits in order to recover their
+power and their glory.”]
+When I see the resemblance between our German ancestors' institutions and those of North America's wandering tribes—between Tacitus's descriptions and what I have witnessed—I cannot help but think the same causes produce the same results in both hemispheres. Amidst human affairs' apparent diversity, a few primary facts exist from which all others derive. In what we call German institutions, I see only barbarian habits; in feudal principles, I see the opinions of savages.
+However strongly Indian vices and prejudices oppose their becoming civilized farmers, necessity sometimes forces change. Several Southern nations—the Cherokees and Creeks—were surrounded by Europeans arriving from Atlantic shores and the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. Not driven from place to place like Northern tribes, they were gradually enclosed within narrow limits, like game in a thicket before hunters move in.
+There is no Indian so wretched as not to retain under his hut of bark a
+lofty idea of his personal worth; he considers the cares of industry
+and labor as degrading occupations; he compares the husbandman to the
+ox which traces the furrow; and even in our most ingenious handicraft,
+he can see nothing but the labor of slaves. Not that he is devoid of
+admiration for the power and intellectual greatness of the whites; but
+although the result of our efforts surprises him, he contemns the means
+by which we obtain it; and while he acknowledges our ascendancy, he
+still believes in his superiority. War and hunting are the only
+pursuits which appear to him worthy to be the occupations of a man. *m
+The Indian, 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 he only requires to become a conqueror to complete the resemblance;
+thus, however strange it may seem, it is in the forests of the New
+World, and not amongst the Europeans who people its coasts, that the
+ancient prejudices of Europe are still in existence.
+Forced to live by white labor, they took up agriculture and sacrificed only what survival required. These nations, numbering around 75,000 in 1830 in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi, are now being absorbed into those states. While documents suggest over 300,000 Indians remain in U.S. territory, the population in established states has dwindled significantly.
+[ The following description occurs in an official document: “Until a
+young man has been engaged with an enemy, and has performed some acts
+of valor, he gains no consideration, but is regarded nearly as a woman.
+In their great war-dances all the warriors in succession strike the
+post, as it is called, and recount their exploits. On these occasions
+their auditory consists of the kinsmen, friends, and comrades of the
+narrator. The profound impression which his discourse produces on them
+is manifested by the silent attention it receives, and by the loud
+shouts which hail its termination. The young man who finds himself at
+such a meeting without anything to recount is very unhappy; and
+instances have sometimes occurred of young warriors, whose passions had
+been thus inflamed, quitting the war-dance suddenly, and going off
+alone to seek for trophies which they might exhibit, and adventures
+which they might be allowed to relate.”]
+The Cherokees went further: they created written language, established permanent government, and started a newspaper before all even had clothes.
+European habits spread faster among those Indians through mixed-race populations. Inheriting intelligence from their fathers while retaining mothers' customs, those of mixed blood form the natural link between civilization and tribal life. Wherever this population grew, the traditional state modified and manners changed.
+More than once, in the course of this work, I have endeavored to
+explain the prodigious influence which the social condition appears to
+exercise upon the laws and the manners of men; and I beg to add a few
+words on the same subject.
+Unfortunately, this mixed race was less numerous and influential in North America than elsewhere. The continent was settled by French and English. The French quickly connected with native daughters, but there was an unfortunate affinity between the Indian character and their own. Instead of bringing civilized habits to tribes, the French became passionately fond of wild freedom. They became the wilderness's most dangerous inhabitants, winning Indian friendship by exaggerating both vices and virtues. As the governor of Canada wrote to Louis XIV in 1685, those brought into contact with the French did not become French; instead, the French who lived among them were 'changed into savages, affecting to dress and live like them.' The Englishman, by contrast, stubbornly attached himself to forefathers' customs, staying exactly as in European cities. He allowed no communication with despised tribes and carefully avoided racial union. Thus, while the French exercised no stabilizing influence, the English remained entirely alien.
+When I perceive the resemblance which exists between the political
+institutions of our ancestors, the Germans, and of the wandering tribes
+of North America; between the customs described by Tacitus, and those
+of which I have sometimes been a witness, I cannot help thinking that
+the same cause has brought about the same results in both hemispheres;
+and that in the midst of the apparent diversity of human affairs, a
+certain number of primary facts may be discovered, from which all the
+others are derived. In what we usually call the German institutions,
+then, I am inclined only to perceive barbarian habits; and the opinions
+of savages in what we style feudal principles.
+The Cherokees' success proves Indians capable of civilization, but not that they will succeed. The difficulty stems from a general cause almost impossible to escape. Barbarous nations typically raise themselves to civilization gradually and through their own efforts. When a conquered nation is sophisticated and conquerors semi-barbaric—as when Northern tribes invaded Rome or Mongols invaded China—the barbarian's power maintains his stature among civilized men until he becomes their rival. The former admires knowledge; the latter envies power. Eventually, barbarians welcome civilized men into palaces, and civilized men open schools to barbarians. But when the side holding physical force also possesses intellectual superiority, the conquered rarely becomes civilized; it retreats or is destroyed. Savages seek knowledge through war, but do not accept it when brought to them.
+However strongly the vices and prejudices of the North American Indians
+may be opposed to their becoming agricultural and civilized, necessity
+sometimes obliges them to it. Several of the Southern nations, and
+amongst others the Cherokees and the Creeks, *n were surrounded by
+Europeans, who had landed on the shores of the Atlantic; and who,
+either descending the Ohio or proceeding up the Mississippi, arrived
+simultaneously upon their borders. These tribes have not been driven
+from place to place, like their Northern brethren; but they have been
+gradually enclosed within narrow limits, like the game within the
+thicket, before the huntsmen plunge into the interior. The Indians who
+were thus placed between civilization and death, found themselves
+obliged to live by ignominious labor like the whites. They took to
+agriculture, and without entirely forsaking their old habits or
+manners, sacrificed only as much as was necessary to their existence.
+If Indian tribes in the continent's heart could muster energy to civilize themselves, they might succeed. Already superior to primitive surrounding nations, they would gradually gain strength. When Europeans reached their borders, they might claim land rights and integrate with conquerors. But it is the Indians' misfortune to contact a civilized people who are also—the most greedy nation on earth—while they remain semi-barbaric. They find despots in teachers and receive knowledge from oppression's hand. Living in forest freedom, the North American Indian was poor but inferior to no one. Yet when he attempts to climb white society's ladder, he occupies its lowest rank, entering knowledge and wealth as ignorant and poor. After a restless life of hardships and proud emotions, he is forced to submit to a tedious, obscure, degraded existence, earning food through hard, undignified toil. In his eyes, these are civilization's only results, and he is not even guaranteed to achieve them.
+[ These nations are now swallowed up in the States of Georgia,
+Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. There were formerly in the South
+four great nations (remnants of which still exist), the Choctaws, the
+Chickasaws, the Creeks, and the Cherokees. The remnants of these four
+nations amounted, in 1830, to about 75,000 individuals. It is computed
+that there are now remaining in the territory occupied or claimed by
+the Anglo-American Union about 300,000 Indians. (See Proceedings of the
+Indian Board in the City of New York.) The official documents supplied
+to Congress make the number amount to 313,130. The reader who is
+curious to know the names and numerical strength of all the tribes
+which inhabit the Anglo-American territory should consult the documents
+I refer to. (Legislative Documents, 20th Congress, No. 117, pp.
+-105.) [In the Census of 1870 it is stated that the Indian population
+of the United States is only 25,731, of whom 7,241 are in California.]]
+[There is an irresistible charm in the hunter's adventurous life that captures the human heart regardless of reason. This appears in Tanner's memoirs. Kidnapped at six by Indians, this European remained with them thirty years. Nothing is more horrific than the miseries he describes: tribes without leaders, families without nations, individuals isolated—remains of powerful tribes wandering through Canada's ice, snow, and desolate wilderness. Hunger and cold pursue them; lives remain in constant jeopardy. Social norms lose influence; traditions have no power; they become increasingly barbaric. Tanner shared these hardships. Aware of his European roots, free to return to white society, he stayed thirty years. When he finally returned, he stated the harsh existence had a secret charm he could not define. He returned repeatedly; when he finally settled among whites, several children refused to join his peaceful life. I saw Tanner myself at Lake Superior; he seemed more savage than civilized. His book lacks style or organization but provides, even unintentionally, a vivid picture of the prejudices, passions, vices, and extreme poverty in which he lived.]
+When Indians imitate European neighbors and farm the land, they face formidable competition. The white man is skilled in agriculture; the Indian is a struggling beginner. The former harvests abundant crops with ease; the latter faces a thousand obstacles.
+The Cherokees went further; they created a written language;
+established a permanent form of government; and as everything proceeds
+rapidly in the New World, before they had all of them clothes, they set
+up a newspaper. *o
+The European lives among a population whose needs he understands and shares. The Indian is isolated among a hostile people whose customs, language, and laws he barely understands, but without whose help he cannot survive. He obtains life's comforts only by trading for European products, as his own people's help is insufficient. When the Indian wants to sell his produce, he cannot always find a buyer, whereas the European easily finds a market. The Indian produces at high cost what the European sells cheaply. Thus, no sooner has the Indian escaped barbaric evils than he suffers civilized societies' greater miseries; he finds it nearly as difficult to survive in our abundance as in his wilderness's depths.
+[ I brought back with me to France one or two copies of this singular
+publication.]
+He has not yet lost nomadic habits; ancestral traditions and passion for the hunt remain alive. The wild pleasures that once energized him haunt his imagination; former hardships seem less severe, dangers less terrifying. He contrasts independence among equals with servile position in civilized society. Meanwhile, the wilderness remains close by; a few hours' march brings him back. Whites offer substantial sums for land he has begun to clear. This money might provide a peaceful life in more remote regions. So he abandons the plow, takes up traditional weapons, and returns to the wilderness forever. The Creeks' and Cherokees' condition provides enough evidence of this tragic situation.
+[The destructive influence of highly civilized nations on less advanced ones is demonstrated by Europeans themselves. A century ago, the French founded Vincennes on the Wabash River in the wilderness's heart. They lived prosperously until American settlers arrived, who first ruined original inhabitants through competition, then bought their land cheaply. When Volney passed through Vincennes, French residents had dropped to one hundred, most preparing to move to Louisiana or Canada. These French settlers were idle and uneducated; they had adopted many savage habits. The Americans, perhaps their moral inferiors, were immensely superior in intelligence: hardworking, well-informed, wealthy, and accustomed to self-government.
+The growth of European habits has been remarkably accelerated among
+these Indians by the mixed race which has sprung up. *p Deriving
+intelligence from their father’s side, without entirely losing the
+savage customs of the mother, the half-blood forms the natural link
+between civilization and barbarism. Wherever this race has multiplied
+the savage state has become modified, and a great change has taken
+place in the manners of the people. *q
+In Canada, where the intellectual gap between races is less obvious, the English control commerce and manufacturing. They expand in all directions, confining the French within barely adequate boundaries. Similarly, in Louisiana, almost all commercial and industrial activity concentrates in Anglo-American hands. Texas is even more striking: part of Mexico on the U.S. border, it has seen Anglo-Americans move in, buy land, produce goods, and displace the original population. If Mexico does not halt this shift, Texas will soon stop belonging to that government.
+[ See in the Report of the Committee on Indian Affairs, 21st Congress,
+No. 227, p. 23, the reasons for the multiplication of Indians of mixed
+blood among the Cherokees. The principal cause dates from the War of
+Independence. Many Anglo-Americans of Georgia, having taken the side of
+England, were obliged to retreat among the Indians, where they
+married.]
+If these minor European civilization differences produce such massive results, one can imagine consequences from collisions between the most advanced European civilization and Indian tribes.]
+In what little they have accomplished, Indians have shown as much natural talent as Europeans in major projects; but nations, like individuals, require time to learn. While Indians worked toward civilization, Europeans surrounded them and pushed them into smaller areas. The two races gradually met and now stand directly alongside one another. The Indian is superior to his barbaric ancestors but far below his white neighbor. With resources and accumulated knowledge, Europeans quickly took most advantages the natives might have gained from land ownership. They settled, bought land cheaply or took it by force, and the Indians were ruined by competition they lacked means to resist. They became isolated in their own country, functioning as unwelcome outsiders in a dominant population. *t
+[ Unhappily the mixed race has been less numerous and less influential
+in North America than in any other country. The American continent was
+peopled by two great nations of Europe, the French and the English. The
+former were not slow in connecting themselves with the daughters of the
+natives, but there was an unfortunate affinity between the Indian
+character and their own: instead of giving the tastes and habits of
+civilized life to the savages, the French too often grew passionately
+fond of the state of wild freedom they found them in. They became the
+most dangerous of the inhabitants of the desert, and won the friendship
+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 we
+ought to draw them nearer to us. But there is every reason to suppose
+we have been mistaken. Those which have been brought into contact with
+us have not become French, and the French who have lived among them are
+changed into savages, affecting to dress and live like them.” (“History
+of New France,” by Charlevoix, vol. ii., p. 345.) The Englishman, on
+the contrary, continuing obstinately attached to the customs and the
+most insignificant habits of his forefathers, has remained in the midst
+of the 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 the French exercised no salutary influence over the Indians, the
+English have always remained alien from them.]
+[See Legislative Documents (21st Congress, No. 89) for examples of white abuses on Indian territory: taking lands until forced out by federal troops, stealing cattle, burning houses, cutting crops, committing violence. These documents show natives' claims are constantly protected by the federal government against force's abuse. The Union maintains a representative agent among the Indians, and the Cherokee agent's report is almost always in favor of Indians. "The intrusion of whites onto Cherokee lands," he says, "would ruin poor, helpless, inoffensive inhabitants." He notes Georgia's attempt to draw a boundary line limiting Cherokee territory was invalid, as whites drew it based entirely on one-sided evidence of their own rights.]
+The success of the Cherokees proves that the Indians are capable of
+civilization, but it does not prove that they will succeed in it. This
+difficulty which the Indians find in submitting to civilization
+proceeds from the influence of a general cause, which it is almost
+impossible for them to escape. An attentive survey of history
+demonstrates that, in general, barbarous nations have raised themselves
+to civilization by degrees, and by their own efforts. Whenever they
+derive knowledge from a foreign people, they stood towards it in the
+relation of conquerors, and not of a conquered nation. When the
+conquered nation is enlightened, and the conquerors are half savage, as
+in the case of the invasion of Rome by the Northern nations or that of
+China by the Mongols, the power which victory bestows upon the
+barbarian is sufficient to keep up his importance among civilized men,
+and permit him to rank as their equal, until he becomes their rival:
+the one has might on his side, the other has intelligence; the former
+admires the knowledge and the arts of the conquered, the latter envies
+the power of the conquerors. The barbarians at length admit civilized
+man into their palaces, and he in turn opens his schools to the
+barbarians. But when the side on which the physical force lies, also
+possesses an intellectual preponderance, the conquered party seldom
+become civilized; it retreats, or is destroyed. It may therefore be
+said, in a general way, that savages go forth in arms to seek
+knowledge, but that they do not receive it when it comes to them.
+Washington told Congress,
+If the Indian tribes which now inhabit the heart of the continent could
+summon up energy enough to attempt to civilize themselves, they might
+possibly succeed. Superior already to the barbarous nations which
+surround them, they would gradually gain strength and experience, and
+when the Europeans should appear upon their borders, they would be in a
+state, if not to maintain their independence, at least to assert their
+right to the soil, and to incorporate themselves with the conquerors.
+But it is the misfortune of Indians to be brought into contact with a
+civilized people, which is also (it must be owned) the most avaricious
+nation on the globe, whilst they are still semi-barbarian: to find
+despots in their instructors, and to receive knowledge from the hand of
+oppression. Living in the freedom of the woods, the North American
+Indian was destitute, but he had no feeling of inferiority towards
+anyone; as soon, however, as he desires to penetrate into the social
+scale of the whites, he takes the lowest rank in society, for he
+enters, ignorant and poor, within the pale of science and wealth. After
+having led a life of agitation, beset with evils and dangers, but at
+the same time filled with proud emotions, *r he is obliged to submit to
+a wearisome, obscure, and degraded state; and to gain the bread which
+nourishes him by hard and ignoble labor; such are in his eyes the only
+results of which civilization can boast: and even this much he is not
+sure to obtain.
+> **Quote:** "We are more enlightened and more powerful than the Indian nations, we are therefore bound in honor to treat them with kindness and even with generosity."
+[ There is in the adventurous life of the hunter a certain irresistible
+charm, which seizes the heart of man and carries him away in spite of
+reason and experience. This is plainly shown by the memoirs of Tanner.
+Tanner is a European who was carried away at the age of six by the
+Indians, and has remained thirty years with them in the woods. Nothing
+can be conceived more appalling that the miseries which he describes.
+He tells us of tribes without a chief, families without a nation to
+call their own, men in a state of isolation, wrecks of powerful tribes
+wandering at random amid the ice and snow and desolate solitudes of
+Canada. Hunger and cold pursue them; every day their life is in
+jeopardy. Amongst these men, manners have lost their empire, traditions
+are without power. They become more and more savage. Tanner shared in
+all these miseries; he was aware of his European origin; he was not
+kept away from the whites by force; on the contrary, he came every year
+to trade with them, entered their dwellings, and witnessed their
+enjoyments; he knew that whenever he chose to return to civilized life
+he was perfectly able to do so—and he remained thirty years in the
+deserts. When he came into civilized society he declared that the rude
+existence which he described, had a secret charm for him which he was
+unable to define: he returned to it again and again: at length he
+abandoned it with poignant regret; and when he was at length fixed
+among the whites, several of his children refused to share his tranquil
+and easy 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. His book is written without either taste or order; but he gives,
+even unconsciously, a lively picture of the prejudices, the passions,
+the vices, and, above all, of the destitution in which he lived.]
+But this virtuous policy has not been followed. Settlers' greed is usually supported by government tyranny. Although Cherokees and Creeks live on pre-European settlement land, and although Americans frequently made treaties with them as foreign nations, surrounding States refuse to recognize them as independent peoples. Attempts have been made to subject these "children of the woods" to Anglo-American magistrates, laws, and customs. *u Poverty had driven these unfortunate Indians toward civilization, but oppression now drives them back; many abandon land they had begun to farm and return to nomadic life.
+When the Indians undertake to imitate their European neighbors, and to
+till the earth like the settlers, they are immediately exposed to a
+very formidable competition. The white man is skilled in the craft of
+agriculture; the Indian is a rough beginner in an art with which he is
+unacquainted. The former reaps abundant crops without difficulty, the
+latter meets with a thousand obstacles in raising the fruits of the
+earth.
+The European is placed amongst a population whose wants he knows and
+partakes. The savage is isolated in the midst of a hostile people, with
+whose manners, language, and laws he is imperfectly acquainted, but
+without whose assistance he cannot live. He can only procure the
+materials of comfort by bartering his commodities against the goods of
+the European, for the assistance of his countrymen is wholly
+insufficient to supply his wants. When the Indian wishes to sell the
+produce of his labor, he cannot always meet with a purchaser, whilst
+the European readily finds a market; and the former can only produce at
+a considerable cost that which the latter vends at a very low rate.
+Thus the Indian has no sooner escaped those evils to which barbarous
+nations are exposed, than he is subjected to the still greater miseries
+of civilized communities; and he finds is scarcely less difficult to
+live in 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 of
+his fathers and his passion for the chase are still alive within him.
+The wild enjoyments which formerly animated him in the woods, painfully
+excite his troubled imagination; and his former privations appear to be
+less keen, his former perils less appalling. He contrasts the
+independence which he possessed amongst his equals with the servile
+position which he occupies in civilized society. On the other hand, the
+solitudes which were so long his free home are still at hand; a few
+hours’ march will bring him back to them once more. The whites offer
+him a sum, which seems to him to be considerable, for the ground which
+he has begun to clear. This money of the Europeans may possibly furnish
+him with the means of a happy and peaceful subsistence in remoter
+regions; and he quits the plough, resumes his native arms, and returns
+to the wilderness forever. *s The condition of the Creeks and
+Cherokees, to which I have already alluded, sufficiently corroborates
+the truth of this deplorable picture.
+[ The destructive influence of highly civilized nations upon others
+which are less so, has been exemplified by the Europeans themselves.
+About a century ago the French founded the town of Vincennes up on the
+Wabash, in the middle of the desert; and they lived there in great
+plenty until the arrival of the American settlers, who first ruined the
+previous inhabitants by their competition, and afterwards purchased
+their lands at a very low rate. At the time when M. de Volney, from
+whom I borrow these details, passed through Vincennes, the number of
+the French was reduced to a hundred individuals, most of whom were
+about to pass over to Louisiana or to Canada. These French settlers
+were worthy people, but idle and uninstructed: they had contracted many
+of the habits of savages. The Americans, who were perhaps their
+inferiors, in a moral point of view, were immeasurably superior to them
+in intelligence: they were industrious, well informed, rich, and
+accustomed to govern their own community.
+I myself saw in Canada, where the intellectual difference between the
+two races is less striking, that the English are the masters of
+commerce and manufacture in the Canadian country, that they spread on
+all sides, and confine the French within limits which scarcely suffice
+to contain them. In like manner, in Louisiana, almost all activity in
+commerce and manufacture centres in the hands of the Anglo-Americans.
+But the case of Texas is still more striking: the State of Texas is a
+part of Mexico, and lies upon the frontier between that country and the
+United States. In the course of the last few years the Anglo-Americans
+have penetrated into this province, which is still thinly peopled; they
+purchase land, they produce the commodities of the country, and
+supplant the original population. It may easily be foreseen that if
+Mexico takes no steps to check this change, the province of Texas will
+very shortly cease to belong to that government.
+If the different degrees—comparatively so slight—which exist in
+European civilization produce results of such magnitude, the
+consequences which must ensue from the collision of the most perfect
+European civilization with Indian savages may readily be conceived.]
+The Indians, in the little which they have done, have unquestionably
+displayed as much natural genius as the peoples of Europe in their most
+important designs; but nations as well as men require time to learn,
+whatever may be their intelligence and their zeal. Whilst the savages
+were engaged in the work of civilization, the Europeans continued to
+surround them on every side, and to confine them within narrower
+limits; the two races gradually met, and they are now in immediate
+juxtaposition to each other. The Indian is already superior to his
+barbarous parent, but he is still very far below his white neighbor.
+With their resources and acquired knowledge, the Europeans soon
+appropriated to themselves most of the advantages which the natives
+might have derived from the possession of the soil; they have settled
+in the country, they have purchased land at a very low rate or have
+occupied it by force, and the Indians have been ruined by a competition
+which they had not the means of resisting. They were isolated in their
+own country, and their race only constituted a colony of troublesome
+aliens in the midst of a numerous and domineering people. *t
+[ See in the Legislative Documents (21st Congress, No. 89) instances of
+excesses of every kind committed by the whites upon the territory of
+the Indians, either in taking possession of a part of their lands,
+until compelled to retire by the troops of Congress, or carrying off
+their cattle, burning their houses, cutting down their corn, and doing
+violence to their persons. It appears, nevertheless, from all these
+documents that the claims of the natives are constantly protected by
+the government from the abuse of force. The Union has a representative
+agent continually employed to reside among the Indians; and the report
+of the Cherokee agent, which is among the documents I have referred to,
+is almost always favorable to the Indians. “The intrusion of whites,”
+he says, “upon the lands of the Cherokees would cause ruin to the poor,
+helpless, and inoffensive inhabitants.” And he further remarks upon the
+attempt of the State of Georgia to establish a division line for the
+purpose of limiting the boundaries of the Cherokees, that the line
+drawn having been made by the whites, and entirely upon ex parte
+evidence of their several rights, was of no validity whatever.]
+Washington said in one of his messages to Congress, “We are more
+enlightened and more powerful than the Indian nations, we are therefore
+bound in honor to treat them with kindness and even with generosity.”
+But this virtuous and high-minded policy has not been followed. The
+rapacity of the settlers is usually backed by the tyranny of the
+government. Although the Cherokees and the Creeks are established upon
+the territory which they inhabited before the settlement of the
+Europeans, and although the Americans have frequently treated with them
+as with foreign nations, the surrounding States have not consented to
+acknowledge them as independent peoples, and attempts have been made to
+subject these children of the woods to Anglo-American magistrates,
+laws, and customs. *u Destitution had driven these unfortunate Indians
+to civilization, and oppression now drives them back to their former
+condition: many of them abandon the soil which they had begun to clear,
+and return to their savage course of life.
+[ In 1829 the State of Alabama divided the Creek territory into
+counties, and subjected the Indian population to the power of European
+magistrates.
+In 1830 the State of Mississippi assimilated the Choctaws and
+Chickasaws to the white population, and declared that any of them that
+should take the title of chief would be punished by a fine of $1,000
+and a year’s imprisonment. When these laws were enforced upon the
+Choctaws, who inhabited that district, the tribe assembled, their chief
+communicated to them the intentions of the whites, and read to them
+some of the laws to which it was intended that they should submit; and
+they unanimously declared that it was better at once to retreat again
+into the wilds.]
+[In 1829, Alabama divided Creek territory into counties and placed Indians under European magistrates' authority. In 1830, Mississippi placed Choctaws and Chickasaws under the same laws as whites, declaring any taking the title "chief" would be punished with $1,000 fine and one year prison. When these laws applied to district Choctaws, the tribe met; their chief explained white intentions and read some laws they must follow. They unanimously declared it better to retreat into the wilderness immediately.]
+Examining tyrannical measures by Southern legislatures, governors' conduct, and courts' rulings reveals that total Native American expulsion is the ultimate policy goal. Americans in that part of the Union view indigenous people with resentment. They know these tribes have not yet lost ancestral traditions, and before civilization can permanently root them, states intend to force them out by driving them to despair. This occurs even though Georgians, so troubled by Native American proximity, live in territory containing only seven inhabitants per square mile—whereas France has 162 people in the same space.
+The Creeks and Cherokees, oppressed by individual states, appealed to the federal government. The central government is not indifferent to their misfortunes and sincerely wishes to save native population remnants and maintain them in free possession of territory the Union pledged to respect. However, states offer such formidable resistance that the government feels forced to consent to destroying a few tribes to avoid endangering American Union stability.
+But the federal government, unable to protect Native Americans, wishes at least to soften their hardships. Proposals have been made to transport them to more remote regions at public expense.
+### - [Introductory Chapter](#introductory-chapter)
+- [Democracy in America - Volume I](#democracy-in-america---volume-i)
+  - [License](#license)
+  - [Preface (Modern Edition)](#preface-modern-edition)
+  - [Introductory Chapter](#introductory-chapter)
+  - [Chapter I: Exterior Form Of North America](#chapter-i-exterior-form-of-north-america)
+  - [Chapter II: Origin Of The Anglo-Americans](#chapter-ii-origin-of-the-anglo-americans)
+    - [Chapter II: Origin Of The Anglo-Americans—Part I](#chapter-ii-origin-of-the-anglo-americanspart-i)
+    - [Chapter II: Origin Of The Anglo-Americans—Part II](#chapter-ii-origin-of-the-anglo-americanspart-ii)
+  - [Chapter III: Social Conditions Of The Anglo-Americans](#chapter-iii-social-conditions-of-the-anglo-americans)
+  - [Chapter IV: The Principle Of The Sovereignty Of The People In America](#chapter-iv-the-principle-of-the-sovereignty-of-the-people-in-america)
+  - [Chapter V: Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States](#chapter-v-necessity-of-examining-the-condition-of-the-states)
+    - [Chapter V: Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States—Part I](#chapter-v-necessity-of-examining-the-condition-of-the-statespart-i)
+    - [Chapter V: Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States—Part II](#chapter-v-necessity-of-examining-the-condition-of-the-statespart-ii)
+    - [Chapter V: Necessity Of Examining The Condition Of The States—Part III](#chapter-v-necessity-of-examining-the-condition-of-the-statespart-iii)
+  - [Chapter VI: Judicial Power In The United States](#chapter-vi-judicial-power-in-the-united-states)
+  - [Chapter VII: Political Jurisdiction In The United States](#chapter-vii-political-jurisdiction-in-the-united-states)
+  - [Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution](#chapter-viii-the-federal-constitution)
+    - [Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part I](#chapter-viii-the-federal-constitutionpart-i)
+    - [Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part II](#chapter-viii-the-federal-constitutionpart-ii)
+    - [Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part III](#chapter-viii-the-federal-constitutionpart-iii)
+    - [Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part IV](#chapter-viii-the-federal-constitutionpart-iv)
+    - [Chapter VIII: The Federal Constitution—Part V](#chapter-viii-the-federal-constitutionpart-v)
+  - [Chapter IX: Why The People May Strictly Be Said To Govern In The United States](#chapter-ix-why-the-people-may-strictly-be-said-to-govern-in-the-united-states)
+  - [Chapter X: Parties In The United States](#chapter-x-parties-in-the-united-states)
+  - [Chapter XI: Liberty Of The Press In The United States](#chapter-xi-liberty-of-the-press-in-the-united-states)
+  - [Chapter XII: Political Associations In The United States](#chapter-xii-political-associations-in-the-united-states)
+  - [Chapter XIII: Government Of The Democracy In America](#chapter-xiii-government-of-the-democracy-in-america)
+    - [Chapter XIII: Government Of The Democracy In America—Part I](#chapter-xiii-government-of-the-democracy-in-americapart-i)
+    - [Chapter XIII: Government Of The Democracy In America—Part II](#chapter-xiii-government-of-the-democracy-in-americapart-ii)
+    - [Chapter XIII: Government Of The Democracy In America—Part III](#chapter-xiii-government-of-the-democracy-in-americapart-iii)
+  - [Chapter XIV: Advantages American Society Derive From Democracy](#chapter-xiv-advantages-american-society-derive-from-democracy)
+    - [Chapter XIV: Advantages American Society Derive From Democracy—Part I](#chapter-xiv-advantages-american-society-derive-from-democracypart-i)
+    - [Chapter XIV: Advantages American Society Derive From Democracy—Part II](#chapter-xiv-advantages-american-society-derive-from-democracypart-ii)
+  - [Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of Majority, And Its Consequences](#chapter-xv-unlimited-power-of-majority-and-its-consequences)
+    - [Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of Majority, And Its Consequences—Part I](#chapter-xv-unlimited-power-of-majority-and-its-consequencespart-i)
+    - [Chapter XV: Unlimited Power Of Majority, And Its Consequences—Part II](#chapter-xv-unlimited-power-of-majority-and-its-consequencespart-ii)
+  - [Chapter XVI: Causes Mitigating Tyranny In The United States](#chapter-xvi-causes-mitigating-tyranny-in-the-united-states)
+    - [Chapter XVI: Causes Mitigating Tyranny In The United States—Part I](#chapter-xvi-causes-mitigating-tyranny-in-the-united-statespart-i)
+    - [Chapter XVI: Causes Mitigating Tyranny In The United States—Part II](#chapter-xvi-causes-mitigating-tyranny-in-the-united-statespart-ii)
+  - [Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic](#chapter-xvii-principal-causes-maintaining-the-democratic-republic)
+    - [Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic—Part I](#chapter-xvii-principal-causes-maintaining-the-democratic-republicpart-i)
+    - [Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic—Part II](#chapter-xvii-principal-causes-maintaining-the-democratic-republicpart-ii)
+    - [Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic—Part III](#chapter-xvii-principal-causes-maintaining-the-democratic-republicpart-iii)
+    - [Chapter XVII: Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic—Part IV](#chapter-xvii-principal-causes-maintaining-the-democratic-republicpart-iv)
+  - [Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races In The United States](#chapter-xviii-future-condition-of-three-races-in-the-united-states)
+    - [Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races In The United States—Part I](#chapter-xviii-future-condition-of-three-races-in-the-united-statespart-i)
+    - [Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part II](#chapter-xviii-future-condition-of-three-racespart-ii)
+    - [- Introductory Chapter](#--introductory-chapter)
+    - [Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part IV](#chapter-xviii-future-condition-of-three-racespart-iv)
+    - [Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part V](#chapter-xviii-future-condition-of-three-racespart-v)
+    - [Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part VI](#chapter-xviii-future-condition-of-three-racespart-vi)
+    - [Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part VII](#chapter-xviii-future-condition-of-three-racespart-vii)
+    - [Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part VIII](#chapter-xviii-future-condition-of-three-racespart-viii)
+    - [Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part IX](#chapter-xviii-future-condition-of-three-racespart-ix)
+    - [Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part X](#chapter-xviii-future-condition-of-three-racespart-x)
+Between the thirty-third and thirty-seventh north latitude lies vast Arkansas, named after its primary river. Bounded by Mexico and the Mississippi, with numerous streams crossing it, the climate is mild and soil productive, yet only a few nomadic tribes inhabit it. The Union government intends to transport broken Southern indigenous population remnants to the portion nearest Mexico, far from American settlements.
+By end of 1831, 10,000 Native Americans had traveled to Arkansas River banks, with fresh groups constantly following. However, Congress cannot inspire unanimous decisions among those it seeks to protect. Some are willing to leave oppression's seat, but the most educated refuse to abandon new homes and growing crops. They believe interrupted civilization work will never resume. They fear recently adopted domestic habits may be lost forever in primitive wilderness where nothing prepares for farming people's survival. They know entry into those wilds will be opposed by hostile tribes, and they have lost ancestors' raw energy without gaining civilization's resources to resist attacks.
+If we consider the tyrannical measures which have been adopted by the
+legislatures of the Southern States, the conduct of their Governors,
+and the decrees of their courts of justice, we shall be convinced that
+the entire expulsion of the Indians is the final result to which the
+efforts of their policy are directed. The Americans of that part of the
+Union look with jealousy upon the aborigines, *v they are aware that
+these tribes have not yet lost the traditions of savage life, and
+before civilization has permanently fixed them to the soil, it is
+intended to force them to recede by reducing them to despair. The
+Creeks and Cherokees, oppressed by the several States, have appealed to
+the central government, which is by no means insensible to their
+misfortunes, and is sincerely desirous of saving the remnant of the
+natives, and of maintaining them in the free possession of that
+territory, which the Union is pledged to respect. *w But the several
+States oppose so formidable a resistance to the execution of this
+design, that the government is obliged to consent to the extirpation of
+a few barbarous tribes in order not to endanger the safety of the
+American Union.
+Furthermore, Native Americans easily see the proposed settlement is merely temporary. Who can assure them they will finally live in peace? The United States pledges itself to honor this obligation; yet the territory they currently occupy was formerly secured by the most solemn American honor oaths. In 1790 and 1791 treaties, the United States formally guaranteed Creek and Cherokee nations all their lands and even promised to withdraw protection from white settlers trying to move onto their territory. The American government does not technically rob them of lands, but it permits constant incursions. In a few years, the same white population now surrounding them will follow them into Arkansas' solitudes. They will then face the same evils without the same solutions; and as they finally run out of land, their only remaining refuge will be the grave.
+[ The Georgians, who are so much annoyed by the proximity of the
+Indians, inhabit a territory which does not at present contain more
+than seven inhabitants to the square mile. In France there are one
+hundred and sixty-two inhabitants to the same extent of country.]
+The Union treats Native Americans with less greed and severity than individual states, but both governments lack good faith. States extend what they call law's benefits to tribes, believing tribes will flee rather than submit; and the central government, promising permanent sanctuary to these unhappy people, is well aware it cannot guarantee it. As the President wrote to the Creek Indians in March 1829, promising lands beyond the Mississippi free from trouble "as long as grass grows or water runs," the government knew it could not afford protection then that it claimed it would provide in future.
+Thus, state tyranny forces indigenous people to retire, while Union promises and resources make retreat easier; these measures lead to precisely the same end.
+[ In 1818 Congress appointed commissioners to visit the Arkansas
+Territory, accompanied by a deputation of Creeks, Choctaws, and
+Chickasaws. This expedition was commanded by Messrs. Kennerly, M’Coy,
+Wash Hood, and John Bell. See the different reports of the
+commissioners, and their journal, in the Documents of Congress, No. 87,
+House of Representatives.]
+> **Quote:** "By the will of our Father in Heaven, the Governor of the whole world, the red man of America has become small, and the white man great and renowned. When the ancestors of the people of these United States first came to the shores of America they found the red man strong: though he was ignorant and savage, yet he received them kindly, and gave them dry land to rest their weary feet. They met in peace, and shook hands in token of friendship. Whatever the white man wanted and asked of the Indian, the latter willingly gave. At that time the Indian was the lord, and the white man the suppliant. But now the scene has changed. The strength of the red man has become weakness. As his neighbors increased in numbers his power became less and less, and now, of the many and powerful tribes who once covered these United States, only a few are to be seen—a few whom a sweeping pestilence has left. The northern tribes, who were once so numerous and powerful, are now nearly extinct. Thus it has happened to the red man of America. Shall we, who are remnants, share the same fate?"
+> **Quote:** "The land on which we stand we have received as an inheritance from our fathers, who possessed it from time immemorial, as a gift from our common Father in Heaven. They bequeathed it to us as their children, and we have sacredly kept it, as containing the remains of our beloved men. This right of inheritance we have never ceded nor ever forfeited. Permit us to ask what better right can the people have to a country than the right of inheritance and immemorial peaceable possession? We know it is said of late by the State of Georgia and by the Executive of the United States, that we have forfeited this right; but we think this is said gratuitously. At what time have we made the forfeit? What great crime have we committed, whereby we must forever be divested of our country and rights? Was it when we were hostile to the United States, and took part with the King of Great Britain, during the struggle for independence? If so, why was not this forfeiture declared in the first treaty of peace between the United States and our beloved men? Why was not such an article as the following inserted in the treaty:—‘The United States give peace to the Cherokees, but, for the part they took in the late war, declare them to be but tenants at will, to be removed when the convenience of the States, within whose chartered limits they live, shall require it’? That was the proper time to assume such a possession. But it was not thought of, nor would our forefathers have agreed to any treaty whose tendency was to deprive them of their rights and their country."
+But the federal government, which is not able to protect the Indians,
+would fain mitigate the hardships of their lot; and, with this
+intention, proposals have been made to transport them into more remote
+regions at the public cost.
+Such is the language of Native Americans: their assertions are true, their fears inevitable. From whichever side we consider North America's indigenous people fate, their calamities appear irremediable. If they remain primitive, they are forced to retreat; if they adopt civilized customs, contact with a more advanced society leads to oppression and poverty. They perish if they continue wandering, and perish still if they try to settle. European assistance is necessary to teach them, but Europeans' arrival corrupts them and drives them back into wild existence. They refuse to change habits while alone in wilderness, and it is too late to change them once forced to submit.
+Between the thirty-third and thirty-seventh degrees of north latitude,
+a vast tract of country lies, which has taken the name of Arkansas,
+from the principal river that waters its extent. It is bounded on the
+one side by the confines of Mexico, on the other by the Mississippi.
+Numberless streams cross it in every direction; the climate is mild,
+and the soil productive, but it is only inhabited by a few wandering
+hordes of savages. The government of the Union wishes to transport the
+broken remnants of the indigenous population of the South to the
+portion of this country which is nearest to Mexico, and at a great
+distance from the American settlements.
+The Spaniards hunted Indians with bloodhounds like wild animals; they plundered the New World with no more restraint than a storm-taken city. But destruction eventually ended, and frenzy stopped; massacre survivors merged with conquerors, adopting their religion and customs. This outcome, however, was not due to Spanish virtue. Had Indian tribes not been farmers when Europeans arrived, they would have been destroyed in South America as in the North.
+We were assured, towards the end of the year 1831, that 10,000 Indians
+had already gone down to the shores of the Arkansas; and fresh
+detachments were constantly following them; but Congress has been
+unable to excite a unanimous determination in those whom it is disposed
+to protect. Some, indeed, are willing to quit the seat of oppression,
+but the most enlightened members of the community refuse to abandon
+their recent dwellings and their springing crops; they are of opinion
+that the work of civilization, once interrupted, will never be resumed;
+they fear that those domestic habits which have been so recently
+contracted, may be irrevocably lost in the midst of a country which is
+still barbarous, and where nothing is prepared for the subsistence of
+an agricultural people; they know that their entrance into those wilds
+will be opposed by 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 is proposed to them is merely a temporary expedient.
+Who can assure them that they will at length be allowed to dwell in
+peace in their new retreat? The United States pledge themselves to the
+observance of the obligation; but the territory which they at present
+occupy was formerly secured to them by the most solemn oaths of
+Anglo-American faith. *x The American government does not indeed rob
+them of their lands, but it allows perpetual incursions to be made on
+them. In a few years the same white population which now flocks around
+them, will track them to the solitudes of the Arkansas; they will then
+be exposed to the same evils without the same remedies, and as the
+limits of the earth will at last fail them, their only refuge is the
+grave.
+On the other hand, American conduct toward indigenous people is marked by peculiar obsession with legal formalities. While Indians remain in their original state, Americans do not interfere; they treat them as independent nations and do not take hunting grounds without purchase treaties.
+[ The fifth article of the treaty made with the Creeks in August, 1790,
+is in the following words:—“The United States solemnly guarantee to the
+Creek nation all their land within the limits of the United States.”
+> **Quote:** "If an Indian nation happens to be so encroached upon as to be unable to subsist upon its territory, they afford it brotherly assistance in transporting it to a grave sufficiently remote from the land of its fathers."
+The Spaniards could not wipe out the Indian race despite unprecedented atrocities that leave permanent shame, nor did they fully strip them of rights. However, Americans of the United States have achieved both goals with remarkable ease—peacefully, legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, and without violating a single major moral principle in the world's eyes.
+The seventh article of the treaty concluded in 1791 with the Cherokees
+says:—“The United States solemnly guarantee to the Cherokee nation all
+their lands not hereby ceded.” The following article declared that if
+any citizen of the United States or other settler not of the Indian
+race should establish himself upon the territory of the Cherokees, the
+United States would withdraw their protection from that individual, and
+give him up to be punished as the Cherokee nation should think fit.]
+> **Quote:** "It is impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of humanity."
+The Union treats the Indians with less cupidity and rigor than the
+policy of the several States, but the two governments are alike
+destitute of good faith. The States extend what they are pleased to
+term the benefits of their laws to the Indians, with a belief that the
+tribes will recede rather than submit; and the central government,
+which promises a permanent refuge to these unhappy beings is well aware
+of its inability to secure it to them. *y
+Reports from the Committee on Indian Affairs in 1830 logically established that the fundamental principle—Indians had no sovereignty or land rights based on ancient possession—had never been abandoned by government. Reading such reports, one is struck by how easily authors dismiss arguments based on reason and natural rights, labeling them merely abstract or theoretical. The more I observe the difference between civilized and uncivilized people regarding justice, the more I see the former disputes the justice of rights that the latter simply violates.
+[ This does not prevent them from promising in the most solemn manner
+to do so. See the letter of the President addressed to the Creek
+Indians, March 23, 1829 (Proceedings of the Indian Board, in the city
+of New York, p. 5): “Beyond the great river Mississippi, where a part
+of your nation has gone, your father has provided a country large
+enough for all of you, and he advises you to remove to it. There your
+white brothers will not trouble you; they will have no claim to the
+land, and you can live upon it, you and all your children, as long as
+the grass grows, or the water runs, in peace and plenty. It will be
+yours forever.”
+[I have left this chapter entirely unchanged, as it has always seemed to me to be one of the most eloquent and moving parts of this book. However, it is no longer a prediction; the destruction of the Indian race in the United States is now complete. By 1870, only 25,731 Indians remained in the entire territory of the Union, and the vast majority of these were in California, Michigan, Wisconsin, Dakota, New Mexico, and Nevada. In New England, Pennsylvania, and New York, the race is extinct, and M. de Tocqueville’s predictions have been fulfilled. —Translator’s Note.]
+**Situation Of The Black Population In The United States, And Dangers With Which Its Presence Threatens The Whites**
+The Secretary of War, in a letter written to the Cherokees, April 18,
+, (see the same work, p. 6), declares to them that they cannot
+expect to retain possession of the lands at that time occupied by them,
+but gives them the most positive assurance of uninterrupted peace if
+they would remove beyond the Mississippi: as if the power which could
+not grant them protection then, would be able to afford it them
+hereafter!]
+Why it is more difficult to abolish slavery and erase all traces of it today than it was in ancient times—In the United States, the prejudices of Whites against Blacks seem to increase as slavery is abolished—The situation of Black people in the Northern and Southern States—Why the Americans are abolishing slavery—Servitude, which degrades the slave, also impoverives the master—The contrast between the left and right banks of the Ohio River and what causes it—The Black race and slavery are both moving toward the South—An explanation for this—The difficulties of abolishing slavery in the South—Future dangers—General anxiety—The foundation of a Black colony in Africa—Why White Southerners increase the hardships of slavery even while they are distressed by its existence.
+Thus the tyranny of the States obliges the savages to retire, the
+Union, by its promises and resources, facilitates their retreat; and
+these measures tend to precisely the same end. *z “By the will of our
+Father in Heaven, the Governor of the whole world,” said the Cherokees
+in their petition to Congress, *a “the red man of America has become
+small, and the white man great and renowned. When the ancestors of the
+people of these United States first came to the shores of America they
+found the red man strong: though he was ignorant and savage, yet he
+received them kindly, and gave them dry land to rest their weary feet.
+They met in peace, and shook hands in token of friendship. Whatever the
+white man wanted and asked of the Indian, the latter willingly gave. At
+that time the Indian was the lord, and the white man the suppliant. But
+now the scene has changed. The strength of the red man has become
+weakness. As his neighbors increased in numbers his power became less
+and less, and now, of the many and powerful tribes who once covered
+these United States, only a few are to be seen—a few whom a sweeping
+pestilence has left. The northern tribes, who were once so numerous and
+powerful, are now nearly extinct. Thus it has happened to the red man
+of America. Shall we, who are remnants, share the same fate?”
+The Indians will perish in the same isolation in which they have lived, but the Black population's fate is, in many ways, intertwined with Europeans. These two races are linked without merging; they can neither fully separate nor truly unite. The most terrifying threat to the Union's future comes from the Black population's presence on its soil. In analyzing current troubles or future dangers in the United States, the observer is always led back to this primary fact.
+[ To obtain a correct idea of the policy pursued by the several States
+and the Union with respect to the Indians, it is necessary to consult,
+st, “The Laws of the Colonial and State Governments relating to the
+Indian Inhabitants.” (See the Legislative Documents, 21st Congress, No.
+.) 2d, The Laws of the Union on the same subject, and especially
+that of March 30, 1802. (See Story’s “Laws of the United States.”) 3d,
+The Report of Mr. Cass, Secretary of War, relative to Indian Affairs,
+November 29, 1823.]
+The lasting evils humanity suffers are usually produced by intense or growing human effort. But one disaster slipped into the world unnoticed, at first barely distinguishable from power's usual abuses. It started with an individual history has forgotten; it was carried like a cursed seed to soil where it took root, grew effortlessly, and spread naturally alongside the society it infected. This disaster is slavery. Christianity once suppressed slavery, but sixteenth-century Christians brought it back—as an exception restricted to a single race. The wound thus inflicted, though less widespread than in the past, became much harder to heal.
+We must distinguish between slavery itself and its consequences. Slavery's immediate evils were much the same in ancient times as today, but long-term results differed. In antiquity, the slave belonged to his master's race and was often better educated; indeed, some famous ancient authors like Aesop and Terence were slaves. Slaves weren't always taken from "primitive" nations; war's accidents often reduced highly civilized people to servitude. Freedom was their only difference; once freed, they easily absorbed into society. The ancients had a simple escape: emancipation. Once practiced widely, the problem was solved. This isn't to say servitude's traces didn't linger. There is natural prejudice making people look down on former inferiors long after they become equals. Real inequality created by law is always followed by imaginary inequality rooted in social customs. But in ancient times, this secondary effect was temporary because the freedman looked exactly like those born free, making distinction impossible.
+[ December 18, 1829.]
+The ancients' greatest difficulty was changing law; ours is changing social customs. Our real obstacles begin where theirs ended. Today, the temporary legal fact of slavery is fatally tied to the permanent physical fact of color. Slavery's legacy dishonors the race, and the race's distinctiveness keeps slavery's memory alive. No African came to the New World voluntarily; therefore, every Black person here is either slave or freedman. The Black man passes down the eternal mark of his hardship to all descendants. Although the law may abolish slavery, God alone can obliterate the traces of its existence.
+The modern slave differs from his master not only in status but origin. You can free a Black man, but you cannot stop him being seen as European outsider. Furthermore, we struggle recognizing shared human traits in one slavery has so degraded. To our eyes, his features seem alien, intellect weak, tastes crude; we are almost tempted to see him as something between human and animal. For Whites to abandon belief in former slaves' moral and intellectual inferiority, Black people would have to change; but as long as that belief exists, such change is impossible. Thus, even after abolishing slavery, modern society must fight three prejudices far harder to defeat than the institution itself: the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of race, and the prejudice of color.
+“The land on which we stand we have received as an inheritance from our
+fathers, who possessed it from time immemorial, as a gift from our
+common Father in Heaven. They bequeathed it to us as their children,
+and we have sacredly kept it, as containing the remains of our beloved
+men. This right of inheritance we have never ceded nor ever forfeited.
+Permit us to ask what better right can the people have to a country
+than the right of inheritance and immemorial peaceable possession? We
+know it is said of late by the State of Georgia and by the Executive of
+the United States, that we have forfeited this right; but we think this
+is said gratuitously. At what time have we made the forfeit? What great
+crime have we committed, whereby we must forever be divested of our
+country and rights? Was it when we were hostile to the United States,
+and took part with the King of Great Britain, during the struggle for
+independence? If so, why was not this forfeiture declared in the first
+treaty of peace between the United States and our beloved men? Why was
+not such an article as the following inserted in the treaty:—‘The
+United States give peace to the Cherokees, but, for the part they took
+in the late war, declare them to be but tenants at will, to be removed
+when the convenience of the States, within whose chartered limits they
+live, shall require it’? That was the proper time to assume such a
+possession. But it was not thought of, nor would our forefathers have
+agreed to any treaty whose tendency was to deprive them of their rights
+and their country.”
+For those of us born among people like ourselves by nature and equal by law, it is hard to imagine the deep divide between Black and European people in America. We can glimpse it through history. France once had many legal ranks created by legislation. Nothing is more artificial than purely legal inferiority, nothing more against human instinct than permanent divisions between similar people. Yet these divisions lasted centuries, and their ghosts still linger. If it is so hard to uproot law-based inequality, how can we destroy distinctions seeming based on nature's unchangeable laws? When I see how hard aristocracy merges with the general public and how carefully they guard boundaries, I despair of seeing an aristocracy vanish based on visible, permanent traits. Those hoping Europeans and Black people will truly mix seem deluded. Neither logic nor history supports that hope. So far, whenever Whites have held power, they have kept Black people subordinate; wherever Black people have been stronger, they have destroyed Whites. This is the only "repayment" ever occurring between the races.
+Such is the language of the Indians: their assertions are true, their
+forebodings inevitable. From whichever side we consider the destinies
+of the aborigines of North America, their calamities appear to be
+irremediable: if they continue barbarous, they are forced to retire; if
+they attempt to civilize their manners, the contact of a more civilized
+community subjects them to oppression and destitution. They perish if
+they continue to wander from waste to waste, and if they attempt to
+settle they still must perish; the assistance of Europeans is necessary
+to instruct them, but the approach of Europeans corrupts and repels
+them into savage life; they refuse to change their habits as long as
+their solitudes are their own, and it is too late to change them when
+they are constrained to submit.
+I see that in some U.S. parts today, legal barriers between races are falling, but social barriers are not. Slavery is retreating, but its created prejudice remains fixed. Anyone who lived in the United States knows that where Black people are no longer slaves, they have not moved closer to Whites. On the contrary, racial prejudice seems stronger in abolitionist states than in slave states, and nowhere is it as intolerant as in states where slavery never existed.
+The Spaniards pursued the Indians with bloodhounds, like wild beasts;
+they sacked the New World with no more temper or compassion than a city
+taken by storm; but destruction must cease, and frenzy be stayed; the
+remnant of the Indian population which had escaped the massacre mixed
+with its conquerors, and adopted in the end their religion and their
+manners. *b The conduct of the Americans of the United States towards
+the aborigines is characterized, on the other hand, by a singular
+attachment to the formalities of law. Provided that the Indians retain
+their barbarous condition, the Americans take no part in their affairs;
+they treat them as independent nations, and do not possess themselves
+of their hunting grounds without a treaty of purchase; and if an Indian
+nation happens to be so encroached upon as to be unable to subsist upon
+its territory, they afford it brotherly assistance in transporting it
+to a grave sufficiently remote from the land of its fathers.
+In the North, interracial marriages are legal, but public opinion would brand any man marrying a Black woman a social outcast, and such unions are almost non-existent. Black people have voting rights in nearly all abolitionist states, but if they try to vote, they risk their lives. If oppressed, they can go to court but find only White judges. They can legally serve on juries, but prejudice keeps them out. Their children do not attend European children's schools. In theaters, no money can buy a Black person a seat beside former masters. In hospitals, they are kept in separate wards. While allowed to worship the same God, they must do so at different altars, in their own churches, with their own ministers. Heaven's gates are not closed to them, but inferiority continues right up to the next world's edge. When a Black person dies, their bones are cast aside, and status distinction remains even in death's equality. The Black man is free but cannot share rights, pleasures, work, sorrows, or even the grave of one declared equal; he cannot meet the White man on equal terms in life or death.
+[ The honor of this result is, however, by no means due to the
+Spaniards. If the Indian tribes had not been tillers of the ground at
+the time of the arrival of the Europeans, they would unquestionably
+have been destroyed in South as well as in North America.]
+In the South, where slavery still exists, races are less strictly separated. They sometimes work and play together; Whites interact with them to a point. Although laws are harsher, people's actual habits are more tolerant and compassionate. In the South, a master isn't afraid to treat his slave as human because he can return him to dirt at any moment. In the North, the White man no longer sees a clear legal line separating him from the "lower" race, so he avoids the Black man even more intensely, fearing they might one day be seen as the same.
+In the South, nature sometimes creates temporary racial equality. In the North, pride suppresses even strongest human passions. A Northern man might engage in casual relations with a Black woman if law didn't say she could potentially be his legal wife; because she *can* be his wife, he recoils in horror. Thus, in the United States, prejudice against Black people seems to grow as they are freed. Inequality is upheld by social habits even as erased from laws.
+The Spaniards were unable to exterminate the Indian race by those
+unparalleled atrocities which brand them with indelible shame, nor did
+they even succeed in wholly depriving it of its rights; but the
+Americans of the United States have accomplished this twofold purpose
+with singular felicity; tranquilly, legally, philanthropically, without
+shedding blood, and without violating a single great principle of
+morality in the eyes of the world. *c It is impossible to destroy men
+with more respect for the laws of humanity.
+If the situation is as I've described, why did the North abolish slavery while the South maintains and worsens it? The answer is simple: abolition moves in the United States were not made for Black people's benefit but for Whites'.
+[ See, amongst other documents, the report made by Mr. Bell in the name
+of the Committee on Indian Affairs, February 24, 1830, in which is most
+logically established and most learnedly proved, that “the fundamental
+principle that the Indians had no right by virtue of their ancient
+possession either of will or sovereignty, has never been abandoned
+either expressly or by implication.” In perusing this report, which is
+evidently drawn up by an experienced hand, one is astonished at the
+facility with which the author gets rid of all arguments founded upon
+reason and natural right, which he designates as abstract and
+theoretical principles. The more I contemplate the difference between
+civilized and uncivilized man with regard to the principles of justice,
+the more I observe that the former contests the justice of those rights
+which the latter simply violates.]
+The first Black people came to Virginia around 1621. In America, as elsewhere, slavery started in the South and spread. Historical records show slavery existed in the North, but its benefits were questioned early. In 1740, New York's Legislature tried encouraging slave importation to prevent smuggling, yet in New England, even though slaves arrived as early as 1630, local laws and customs opposed the institution from the start, eventually ending it through public opinion and legislation.
+Less than a century after colonies were founded, planters noticed a striking fact: provinces with fewer slaves grew faster in population, wealth, and prosperity than those with the most slaves. In the former, residents worked land themselves or hired help. In the latter, they had labor they didn't pay for. Despite work and expense versus ease and savings, free labor proved more advantageous. This was hard to explain at first, since settlers came from the same European stock, had same culture and laws, and were very similar. As Anglo-Americans moved west into wilderness, facing new climates and challenges, the same result appeared at every turn. Southern people moved north and northerners moved south, yet colonies without slaves consistently became wealthier and more populous than those where slavery thrived. The more progress was made, the clearer it became that slavery, while cruel to the slave, is actually harmful to the master.
+[I leave this chapter wholly unchanged, for it has always appeared to
+me to be one of the most eloquent and touching parts of this book. But
+it has ceased to be prophetic; the destruction of the Indian race in
+the United States is already consummated. In 1870 there remained but
+,731 Indians in the whole territory of the Union, and of these by far
+the largest part exist in California, Michigan, Wisconsin, Dakota, and
+New Mexico and Nevada. In New England, Pennsylvania, and New York the
+race is extinct; and the predictions of M. de Tocqueville are
+fulfilled. —Translator’s Note.]
+Situation Of The Black Population In The United States, And Dangers
+With Which Its Presence Threatens The Whites
+Why it is more difficult to abolish slavery, and to efface all vestiges
+of it amongst the moderns than it was amongst the ancients—In the
+United States the prejudices of the Whites against the Blacks seem to
+increase in proportion as slavery is abolished—Situation of the Negroes
+in the Northern and Southern States—Why the Americans abolish
+slavery—Servitude, which debases the slave, impoverishes the
+master—Contrast between the left and the right bank of the Ohio—To what
+attributable—The Black race, as well as slavery, recedes towards the
+South—Explanation of this fact—Difficulties attendant upon the
+abolition of slavery in the South—Dangers to come—General
+anxiety—Foundation of a Black colony in Africa—Why the Americans of the
+South increase the hardships of slavery, whilst they are distressed at
+its continuance.
+The Indians will perish in the same isolated condition in which they
+have lived; but the destiny of the negroes is in some measure
+interwoven with that of the Europeans. These two races are attached to
+each other without intermingling, and they are alike unable entirely to
+separate or to combine. The most formidable of all the ills which
+threaten the future existence of the Union arises from the presence of
+a black population upon its territory; and in contemplating the cause
+of the present 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 produced
+by the vehement or the increasing efforts of men; but there is one
+calamity which penetrated furtively into the world, and which was at
+first scarcely distinguishable amidst the ordinary abuses of power; it
+originated with an individual whose name history has not preserved; it
+was wafted like some accursed germ upon a portion of the soil, but it
+afterwards nurtured itself, grew without effort, and spreads naturally
+with the society to which it belongs. I need scarcely add that this
+calamity is slavery. Christianity suppressed slavery, but the
+Christians of the sixteenth century re-established it—as an exception,
+indeed, to their social system, and restricted to one of the races of
+mankind; but the wound thus inflicted upon humanity, though less
+extensive, was at the same time rendered far more difficult of cure.
+It is important to make an accurate distinction between slavery itself
+and its consequences. The immediate evils which are produced by slavery
+were very nearly the same in antiquity as they are amongst the moderns;
+but the consequences of these evils were different. The slave, amongst
+the ancients, belonged to the same race as his master, and he was often
+the superior of the two in education *d and instruction. Freedom was
+the only distinction between them; and when freedom was conferred they
+were easily confounded together. The ancients, then, had a very simple
+means of avoiding slavery and its evil consequences, which was that of
+affranchisement; and they succeeded as soon as they adopted this
+measure generally. Not but, in ancient States, the vestiges of
+servitude subsisted for some time after servitude itself was abolished.
+There is a natural prejudice which prompts men to despise whomsoever
+has been their inferior long after he is become their equal; and the
+real inequality which is produced by fortune or by law is always
+succeeded by an imaginary inequality which is implanted in the manners
+of the people. Nevertheless, this secondary consequence of slavery was
+limited to a certain term amongst the ancients, for the freedman bore
+so entire a resemblance to those born free, that it soon became
+impossible to distinguish him from amongst them.
+[ It is well known that several of the most distinguished authors of
+antiquity, and amongst them Aesop and Terence, were, or had been
+slaves. Slaves were not always taken from barbarous nations, and the
+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 as
+we are concerned, the real obstacles begin where those of the ancients
+left off. This arises from the circumstance that, amongst the moderns,
+the abstract and transient fact of slavery is fatally united to the
+physical and permanent fact of color. The tradition of slavery
+dishonors the race, and the peculiarity of the race perpetuates the
+tradition of slavery. No African has ever voluntarily emigrated to the
+shores of the New World; whence it must be inferred, that all the
+blacks who are now to be found in that hemisphere are either slaves or
+freedmen. Thus the negro transmits the eternal mark of his ignominy to
+all his descendants; and although the law may abolish slavery, God
+alone can obliterate the traces 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 him
+otherwise than an alien to the European. Nor is this all; we scarcely
+acknowledge the common features of mankind in this child of debasement
+whom slavery has brought amongst us. His physiognomy is to our eyes
+hideous, his understanding weak, his tastes low; and we are almost
+inclined to look upon him as a being intermediate between man and the
+brutes. *e The moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have
+three prejudices to contend against, which are less easy to attack and
+far less easy to conquer than the mere fact of servitude: the prejudice
+of the master, the prejudice of the race, and the prejudice of color.
+[ To induce the whites to abandon the opinion they have conceived of
+the moral and intellectual inferiority of their former slaves, the
+negroes must change; but as long as this opinion subsists, to change is
+impossible.]
+It is difficult for us, who have had the good fortune to be born
+amongst men like ourselves by nature, and equal to ourselves by law, to
+conceive the irreconcilable differences which separate the negro from
+the European in America. But we may derive some faint notion of them
+from analogy. France was formerly a country in which numerous
+distinctions of rank existed, that had been created by the legislation.
+Nothing can be more fictitious than a purely legal inferiority; nothing
+more contrary to the instinct of mankind than these permanent divisions
+which had been established between beings evidently similar.
+Nevertheless these divisions subsisted for ages; they still subsist in
+many places; and on all sides they have left imaginary vestiges, which
+time alone can efface. If it be so difficult to root out an inequality
+which solely originates in the law, how are those distinctions to be
+destroyed which seem to be based upon the immutable laws of Nature
+herself? When I remember the extreme difficulty with which aristocratic
+bodies, of whatever nature they may be, are commingled with the mass of
+the people; and the exceeding care which they take to preserve the
+ideal boundaries of their caste inviolate, I despair of seeing an
+aristocracy disappear which is founded upon visible and indelible
+signs. Those who hope that the Europeans will ever mix with the
+negroes, appear to me to delude themselves; and I am not led to any
+such conclusion by my own reason, or by the evidence of facts.
+Hitherto, wherever the whites have been the most powerful, they have
+maintained the blacks in a subordinate or a servile position; wherever
+the negroes have been strongest they have destroyed the whites; such
+has been the only retribution which has ever taken place between the
+two races.
+I see that in a certain portion of the territory of the United States
+at the present day, the legal barrier which separated the two races is
+tending to fall away, but not that which exists in the manners of the
+country; slavery recedes, but the prejudice to which it has given birth
+remains stationary. Whosoever has inhabited the United States must have
+perceived that in those parts of the Union in which the negroes are no
+longer slaves, they have in no wise drawn nearer to the whites. On the
+contrary, the prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the
+States which have abolished slavery, than in those where it still
+exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those States where
+servitude has never been known.
+It is true, that in the North of the Union, marriages may be legally
+contracted between negroes and whites; but public opinion would
+stigmatize a man who should connect himself with a negress as infamous,
+and it would be difficult to meet with a single instance of such a
+union. The electoral franchise has been conferred upon the negroes in
+almost all the States in which slavery has been abolished; but if they
+come forward to vote, their lives are in danger. If oppressed, they may
+bring an action at law, but they will find none but whites amongst
+their judges; and although they may legally serve as jurors, prejudice
+repulses them from that office. The same schools do not receive the
+child of the black and of the European. In the theatres, gold cannot
+procure a seat for the servile race beside their former masters; in the
+hospitals they lie apart; and although they are allowed to invoke the
+same Divinity as the whites, it must be at a different altar, and in
+their own churches, with their own clergy. The gates of Heaven are not
+closed against these unhappy beings; but their inferiority is continued
+to the very confines of the other world; when the negro is defunct, his
+bones are cast aside, and the distinction of condition prevails even in
+the equality of death. The negro is free, but he can share neither the
+rights, nor the pleasures, nor the labor, nor the afflictions, nor the
+tomb of him whose equal he has been declared to be; and he cannot meet
+him upon fair terms in life or in death.
+In the South, where slavery still exists, the negroes are less
+carefully kept apart; they sometimes share the labor and the
+recreations of the whites; the whites consent to intermix with them to
+a certain extent, and although the legislation treats them more
+harshly, the habits of the people are more tolerant and compassionate.
+In the South the master is not afraid to raise his slave to his own
+standing, because he knows that he can in a moment reduce him to the
+dust at pleasure. In the North the white no longer distinctly perceives
+the barrier which separates him from the degraded race, and he shuns
+the negro with the more pertinacity, since he fears lest they should
+some day be confounded together.
+Amongst the Americans of the South, nature sometimes reasserts her
+rights, and restores a transient equality between the blacks and the
+whites; but in the North pride restrains the most imperious of human
+passions. The American of the Northern States would perhaps allow the
+negress to share his licentious pleasures, if the laws of his country
+did not declare that she may aspire to be the legitimate partner of his
+bed; but he recoils with horror from her who might become his wife.
+Thus it is, in the United States, that the prejudice which repels the
+negroes seems to increase in proportion as they are emancipated, and
+inequality is sanctioned by the manners whilst it is effaced from the
+laws of the country. But if the relative position of the two races
+which inhabit the United States is such as I have described, it may be
+asked why the Americans have abolished slavery in the North of the
+Union, why they maintain it in the South, and why they aggravate its
+hardships there? The answer is easily given. It is not for the good of
+the negroes, but for that of the whites, that measures are taken to
+abolish slavery in the United States.
+The first negroes were imported into Virginia about the year 1621. *f
+In America, therefore, as well as in the rest of the globe, slavery
+originated in the South. Thence it spread from one settlement to
+another; but the number of slaves diminished towards the Northern
+States, and the negro population was always very limited in New
+England. *g
+[ See Beverley’s “History of Virginia.” See also in Jefferson’s
+“Memoirs” some curious details concerning the introduction of negroes
+into Virginia, and the first Act which prohibited the importation of
+them in 1778.]
+[ The number of slaves was less considerable in the North, but the
+advantages resulting from slavery were not more contested there than in
+the South. In 1740, the Legislature of the State of New York declared
+that the direct importation of slaves ought to be encouraged as much as
+possible, and smuggling severely punished in order not to discourage
+the fair trader. (Kent’s “Commentaries,” vol. ii. p. 206.) Curious
+researches, by Belknap, upon slavery in New England, are to be found in
+the “Historical Collection of Massachusetts,” vol. iv. p. 193. It
+appears that negroes were introduced there in 1630, but that the
+legislation and manners of the people were opposed to slavery from the
+first; 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 extraordinary
+fact, that the provinces which were comparatively destitute of slaves,
+increased in population, in wealth, and in prosperity more rapidly than
+those 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 for
+which they paid no wages; yet although labor and expenses were on the
+one side, and ease with economy on the other, the former were in
+possession of the most advantageous system. This consequence seemed to
+be the more difficult to explain, since the settlers, who all belonged
+to 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, spreading
+beyond the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean, penetrated farther and farther
+into the solitudes of the West; they met with a new soil and an
+unwonted climate; the obstacles which opposed them were of the most
+various character; their races intermingled, the inhabitants of the
+South went up towards the North, those of the North descended to the
+South; but in the midst of all these causes, the same result occurred
+at every step, and in general, the colonies in which there were no
+slaves became more populous and more rich than those in which slavery
+flourished. The more progress was made, the more was it shown that
+slavery, which is so cruel to the slave, is prejudicial to the master.
 ### Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part IV
+But this truth was most clearly demonstrated when civilization reached the banks of the Ohio. The stream that the Indians named the Ohio, or "Beautiful River," waters one of the most magnificent valleys on earth. Undulating lands extend along both shores, offering inexhaustible treasures to the farmer, with healthy air and a mild climate. Each bank forms the border of a vast state: Kentucky on the left, Ohio on the right. These two states differ in only one respect: Kentucky permits slavery; Ohio prohibits it, even restricting free Black people from entering or owning property.
+But this truth was most satisfactorily demonstrated when civilization
+reached the banks of the Ohio. The stream which the Indians had
+distinguished by the name of Ohio, or Beautiful River, waters one of
+the most magnificent valleys that has ever been made the abode of man.
+Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil
+affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air
+is wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme
+frontier of a vast State: That which follows the numerous windings of
+the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky, that upon the right bears
+the name of the river. These two States only differ in a single
+respect; Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the State of Ohio has
+prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders. *h
+> **Quote:** "The traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a brief inspection of the surrounding objects will convince him as to which of the two is most favorable to mankind."
+[ Not only is slavery prohibited in Ohio, but no free negroes are
+allowed to enter the territory of that State, or to hold property in
+it. See the Statutes of Ohio.]
+On the left bank, population is sparse; groups of slaves loiter in half-empty fields as the primeval forest recurs at every turn. Society seems asleep, man idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life. On the right bank, a busy hum signals industry. Fields bear abundant harvests, elegant houses reflect worker taste and activity, and man enjoys the wealth labor provides. Ohio's ambition extends beyond individuals: a canal connects Lake Erie to the Ohio River, allowing Mississippi Valley goods to reach New Orleans via fifteen hundred miles of waterways from New York.
+Kentucky was founded in 1775, Ohio twelve years later—yet twelve years in America matter more than half a century in Europe. By the 1830 census, Ohio held 937,679 residents to Kentucky's 688,844, a difference of over 250,000. These opposite consequences of slavery and freedom explain much between ancient and modern civilizations.
+Thus the traveller who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot
+where that river falls into the Mississippi, may be said to sail
+between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of the
+surrounding objects will convince him as to which of the two is most
+favorable to mankind. Upon the left bank of the stream the population
+is rare; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in
+the half-desert fields; the primaeval forest recurs at every turn;
+society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a
+scene of activity and of life. From the right bank, on the contrary, a
+confused hum is heard which proclaims the presence of industry; the
+fields are covered with abundant harvests, the elegance of the
+dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborer, and man
+appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is
+the reward of labor. *i
+> **Quote:** "Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, upon the right bank it is identified with that of prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honored."
+[ The activity of Ohio is not confined to individuals, but the
+undertakings of the State are surprisingly great; a canal has been
+established between Lake Erie and the Ohio, by means of which the
+valley of the Mississippi communicates with the river of the North, and
+the European commodities which arrive at New York may be forwarded by
+water to New Orleans across five hundred leagues of continent.]
+In Kentucky, no white laborers can be found—they fear being viewed as slaves. In Ohio, no one is idle; whites apply energy and intelligence to every work. Thus, Kentucky's rich soil is farmed by the uneducated and unmotivated, while the enlightened either do nothing or move to Ohio where work doesn't diminish social standing.
+Kentucky planters pay no wages to slaves but derive little profit. Free workers, though paid, work faster—and rapidity is a great element of economy.
+The State of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the State of Ohio only
+twelve years later; but twelve years are more in America than half a
+century in Europe, and, at the present day, the population of Ohio
+exceeds that of Kentucky by two hundred and fifty thousand souls. *j
+These opposite consequences of slavery and freedom may readily be
+understood, and they suffice to explain many of the differences which
+we remark between the civilization of antiquity and that of our own
+time.
+> **Quote:** "The free workman is paid, but he does his work quicker than the slave, and rapidity of execution is one of the great elements of economy."
+[ The exact numbers given by the census of 1830 were: Kentucky,
+,-844; Ohio, 937,679. [In 1890 the population of Ohio was 3,672,316,
+that of Kentucky, 1,858,635.]]
+The white worker sells services purchased only when needed; the slave claims no pay but requires constant maintenance—in youth and age, in productivity and idleness. Both systems require payment: the free worker in money, the slave in education, food, care, and clothing. The master's gradual, unnoticed payments to maintain slaves ultimately cost more than a free worker's lump-sum wage, and yield less productive labor.
+Another factor makes free labor more efficient in America. Sugar cane grows profitably only near the Gulf of Mexico. In Louisiana, sugar cultivation is extremely profitable and laborers earn more there than anywhere else. Since production cost and product value are linked, slave prices are very high in Louisiana. As part of the Union, Louisiana draws slaves from across the country, raising slave prices in every market. In less productive states, this makes slave labor disproportionately expensive, giving free labor greater advantage.
+Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of
+slavery, upon the right bank it is identified with that of prosperity
+and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is
+honored; on the former territory no white laborers can be found, for
+they would be afraid of assimilating themselves to the negroes; on the
+latter no one is idle, for the white population extends its activity
+and its intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men whose
+task it is to cultivate the rich soil of Kentucky are ignorant and
+lukewarm; whilst those who are active and enlightened either do nothing
+or pass over into the State of Ohio, where they may work without
+dishonor.
+Slavery's influence extends to the master's character. On both banks of the Ohio, inhabitants are enterprising, but this vigor is applied differently. The Ohioan, forced to support himself, views material prosperity as life's main goal. With endless resources and opportunities, his drive for gain exceeds normal limits. He becomes sailor, pioneer, craftsman, or laborer with equal ease, enduring hardships with steady resolve.
+It is true that in Kentucky the planters are not obliged to pay wages
+to the slaves whom they employ; but they derive small profits from
+their labor, whilst the wages paid to free workmen would be returned
+with interest in the value of their services. The free workman is paid,
+but he does his work quicker than the slave, and rapidity of execution
+is one of the great elements of economy. The white sells his services,
+but they are only purchased at the times at which they may be useful;
+the black can claim no remuneration for his toil, but the expense of
+his maintenance is perpetual; he must be supported in his old age as
+well as in the prime of manhood, in his profitless infancy as well as
+in the productive years of youth. Payment must equally be made in order
+to obtain the services of either class of men: the free workman
+receives his wages in money, the slave in education, in food, in care,
+and in clothing. The money which a master spends in the maintenance of
+his slaves goes gradually and in detail, so that it is scarcely
+perceived; the salary of the free workman is paid in a round sum, which
+appears only to enrich the individual who receives it, but in the end
+the slave has cost more than the free servant, and his labor is less
+productive. *k
+> **Quote:** ...the resources of his intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a species of heroism.
+[ Independently of these causes, which, wherever free workmen abound,
+render their labor more productive and more economical than that of
+slaves, another cause may be pointed out which is peculiar to the
+United States: the sugar-cane has hitherto been cultivated with success
+only upon the banks of the Mississippi, near the mouth of that river in
+the Gulf of Mexico. In Louisiana the cultivation of the sugar-cane is
+exceedingly lucrative, and nowhere does a laborer earn so much by his
+work, and, as there is always a certain relation between the cost of
+production and the value of the produce, the price of slaves is very
+high in Louisiana. But Louisiana is one of the confederated States, and
+slaves may be carried thither from all parts of the Union; the price
+given for slaves in New Orleans consequently raises the value of slaves
+in all the other markets. The consequence of this is, that in the
+countries where the land is less productive, the cost of slave labor is
+still very considerable, which gives an additional advantage to the
+competition of free labor.]
+The Kentuckian scorns not only labor but all ventures it supports. Living in idle independence, he develops the tastes of leisure. Money loses value; he desires pleasure and excitement more than wealth. The energy his neighbor spends on profit, he spends on hunting and military drills. He delights in violent exercise, is skilled with weapons, and risks his life in duels from youth. Slavery not only prevents whites from becoming wealthy but even from wanting to be.
+These causes, operating for two hundred years in British North American colonies, created a striking difference in commercial capacity between North and South. Today, the Northern states dominate shipping, manufacturing, railroads, and canals. This difference appears even among Southern states: almost all commercial operators or those making slave labor profitable in the Deep South are Northern migrants. They discover resources locals missed and, while morally disapproving, make the system more profitable than its founders could.
+The influence of slavery extends still further; it affects the
+character of the master, and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas
+and his tastes. Upon both banks of the Ohio, the character of the
+inhabitants is enterprising and energetic; but this vigor is very
+differently exercised in the two States. The white inhabitant of Ohio,
+who is obliged to subsist by his own exertions, regards temporal
+prosperity as the principal aim of his existence; and as the country
+which he occupies presents inexhaustible resources to his industry and
+ever-varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses the
+ordinary limits of human cupidity: he is tormented by the desire of
+wealth, and he boldly enters upon every path which fortune opens to
+him; he becomes a sailor, a pioneer, an artisan, or a laborer with the
+same indifference, and he supports, with equal constancy, the fatigues
+and the dangers incidental to these various professions; the resources
+of his intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of
+gain amounts to a species of heroism.
+If I continued this comparison, I could prove that almost all character differences between Southern and Northern Americans root in slavery. But my intention is not to list all servitude's consequences, only its effects on prosperity.
+But the Kentuckian scorns not only labor, but all the undertakings
+which labor promotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes
+are those 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
+energy which his neighbor devotes to gain, turns with him to a
+passionate love of field sports and military exercises; he delights in
+violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, and is
+accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat.
+Thus slavery not only prevents the whites from becoming opulent, but
+even from desiring to become so.
+The influence of slavery on wealth production was poorly understood in antiquity because slavery existed throughout civilization; only barbarians lacked it. Christianity originally abolished slavery by defending slave rights; today it can be attacked in the master's interest. Here, financial interest aligns with morality.
+As the same causes have been continually producing opposite effects for
+the last two centuries in the British colonies of North America, they
+have established a very striking difference between the commercial
+capacity of the inhabitants of the South and those of the North. At the
+present day it is only the Northern States which are in possession of
+shipping, manufactures, railroads, and canals. This difference is
+perceptible not only in comparing the North with the South, but in
+comparing the several Southern States. Almost all the individuals who
+carry on commercial operations, or who endeavor to turn slave labor to
+account in the most Southern districts of the Union, have emigrated
+from the North. The natives of the Northern States are constantly
+spreading over that portion of the American territory where they have
+less to fear from competition; they discover resources there which
+escaped the notice of the inhabitants; and, as they comply with a
+system which they do not approve, they succeed in turning it to better
+advantage than those who first founded and who still maintain it.
+As these truths clarified in America, slavery retreated with experience. Servitude began in the South and spread north, but now reverses. Freedom, starting in the North, moves steadily south. Among large states, Pennsylvania marks slavery's northern limit, but the system fails even there. Maryland, just south of Pennsylvania, prepares for abolition; Virginia debates slavery's usefulness and dangers. A specific reason aids this shift. The region's former wealth came mainly from tobacco, a crop grown by slaves. Recently, tobacco prices dropped while slave values stayed high, altering the cost-profit balance. Consequently, Marylanders and Virginians are more willing than thirty years ago to abandon slave tobacco farming, or both slavery and tobacco together.
+Were I inclined to continue this parallel, I could easily prove that
+almost all the differences which may be remarked between the characters
+of the Americans in the Southern and in the Northern States have
+originated in slavery; but this would divert me from my subject, and my
+present intention is not to point out all the consequences of
+servitude, but those effects which it has produced upon the prosperity
+of the countries which have admitted it.
+No great institutional change occurs without inheritance law as a cause. When primogeniture existed in the South, each family had one wealthy heir who was neither forced nor encouraged to work. Surrounded by legally excluded relatives living the same idle life, these families resembled wealthy European families where younger sons remain idle without being rich. The entire Southern white race formed an aristocratic body led by privileged individuals with permanent wealth and inherited leisure. They upheld prejudices against labor and the honor of inactivity. This aristocracy included many poor, but none who would work; they preferred poverty to labor. Consequently, no competition existed against Black laborers—regardless of their work quality, they were necessary because no one else would do the job.
+The influence of slavery upon the production of wealth must have been
+very imperfectly known in antiquity, as slavery then obtained
+throughout the civilized world; and the nations which were unacquainted
+with it were barbarous. And indeed Christianity only abolished slavery
+by advocating the claims of the slave; at the present time it may be
+attacked in the name of the master, and, upon this point, interest is
+reconciled with morality.
+When primogeniture was abolished, fortunes shrank and families were forced to work for survival. Many vanished; all learned to expect self-provision. Wealthy individuals still exist but no longer form a solid hereditary class influencing all society. The prejudice against labor was abandoned; as needy men grew, they earned living through work without shame. Thus, estate division created a free laborer class. When competition began between free and slave labor, slave inferiority became obvious, and slavery was attacked at its core: the master's financial interest.
+As these truths became apparent in the United States, slavery receded
+before the progress of experience. Servitude had begun in the South,
+and had thence spread towards the North; but it now retires again.
+Freedom, which started from the North, now descends uninterruptedly
+towards the South. Amongst the great States, Pennsylvania now
+constitutes the extreme limit of slavery to the North: but even within
+those limits the slave system is shaken: Maryland, which is immediately
+below Pennsylvania, is preparing for its abolition; and Virginia, which
+comes next to Maryland, is already discussing its utility and its
+dangers. *l
+As slavery retreats, the Black population returns toward its tropical origins. Though strange at first, this is easily explained: when Americans abolish slavery, they don't necessarily free slaves. New York illustrates this. In 1788, New York prohibited slave sales within its borders—an indirect ban on importation. From then on, the Black population could grow only by natural increase. Eight years later, a decisive step followed: all children born to enslaved parents after July 4, 1799, would be free. No further enslaved population increase could occur, though slavery still existed.
+[ A peculiar reason contributes to detach the two last-mentioned States
+from the cause of slavery. The former wealth of this part of the Union
+was principally derived from the cultivation of tobacco. This
+cultivation is specially carried on by slaves; but within the last few
+years the market-price of tobacco has diminished, whilst the value of
+the slaves remains the same. Thus the ratio between the cost of
+production and the value of the produce is changed. The natives of
+Maryland and Virginia are therefore more disposed than they were thirty
+years ago, to give up slave labor in the cultivation of tobacco, or to
+give up slavery and tobacco at the same time.]
+Once a Northern state prohibited slave importation, no more were brought from Southern markets. Since in-state sales were also forbidden, owners could only unload financially burdensome slaves by transporting them South. When Northern states freed enslaved people's children, those individuals lost market value—their future offspring were no longer salable. Consequently, owners had strong incentive to transport them South. Thus, laws preventing Southern slaves from entering Northern states also drive Northern slaves toward the South.
+> **Quote:** "Thus the abolition of slavery does not set the slave free, but it merely transfers him from one master to another, and from the North to the South."
+No great change takes place in human institutions without involving
+amongst its causes the law of inheritance. When the law of
+primogeniture obtained in the South, each family was represented by a
+wealthy individual, who was neither compelled nor induced to labor; and
+he was surrounded, as by parasitic plants, by the other members of his
+family who were then excluded by law from sharing the common
+inheritance, and who led the same kind of life as himself. The very
+same thing then occurred in all the families of the South as still
+happens in the wealthy families of some countries in Europe, namely,
+that the younger sons remain in the same state of idleness as their
+elder brother, without being as rich as he is. This identical result
+seems to be produced in Europe and in America by wholly analogous
+causes. In the South of the United States the whole race of whites
+formed an aristocratic body, which was headed by a certain number of
+privileged individuals, whose wealth was permanent, and whose leisure
+was hereditary. These leaders of the American nobility kept alive the
+traditional prejudices of the white race in the body of which they were
+the representatives, and maintained the honor of inactive life. This
+aristocracy contained many who were poor, but none who would work; its
+members preferred want to labor, consequently no competition was set on
+foot against negro laborers and slaves, and, whatever opinion might be
+entertained as to the utility of their efforts, it was indispensable to
+employ them, since there was no one else to work.
+The emancipated Black population and those born after abolition don't move South. Instead, their situation resembles that of Native Americans: partially civilized, deprived of rights among a wealthier, more knowledgeable population. They face tyrannical laws and public intolerance. States that abolish slavery usually make their territory unattractive to Black people; as states compete in this regard, these individuals choose the least evil. They are more pitiable than Indians, haunted by slavery's memory and owning no land. Many die in misery; others gather in cities, performing the lowest jobs and living wretched, precarious existences. Mortality rates reveal the stark difference: in Philadelphia between 1820 and 1831 (as recorded in Emerson’s *Medical Statistics*), the Black death rate was double that of whites—far higher than among the enslaved.
+No sooner was the law of primogeniture abolished than fortunes began to
+diminish, and all the families of the country were simultaneously
+reduced to a state in which labor became necessary to procure the means
+of subsistence: several of them have since entirely disappeared, and
+all of them learned to look forward to the time at which it would be
+necessary for everyone to provide for his own wants. Wealthy
+individuals are still to be met with, but they no longer constitute a
+compact and hereditary body, nor have they been able to adopt a line of
+conduct in which they could persevere, and which they could infuse into
+all ranks of society. The prejudice which stigmatized labor was in the
+first place abandoned by common consent; the number of needy men was
+increased, and the needy were allowed to gain a laborious subsistence
+without blushing for their exertions. Thus one of the most immediate
+consequences of the partible 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 and the slave, the inferiority of the latter
+became manifest, and slavery was attacked in its fundamental principle,
+which is the interest of the master.
+Even if the Black population grew as rapidly as during slavery, it would soon be overwhelmed. Since abolition, the white population has grown twice as fast, causing Black people to be lost among a foreign people.
+As slavery recedes, the black population follows its retrograde course,
+and returns with it towards those tropical regions from which it
+originally came. However singular this fact may at first appear to be,
+it may readily be explained. Although the Americans abolish the
+principle of slavery, they do not set their slaves free. To illustrate
+this remark, I will quote the example of the State of New York. In
+, 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 to the ratio of the natural increase of population. But eight
+years later a more decisive measure was taken, and it was enacted that
+all children born of slave parents after July 4, 1799, should be free.
+No increase could then take place, and although slaves still existed,
+slavery might be said to be abolished.
+A district cultivated by slaves is generally more sparsely populated than one cultivated by free labor. America is still new, and states are rarely half-populated when they abolish slavery. As soon as slavery ends, the need for free labor brings enterprising adventurers from across the country to profit from new industrial resources. The land is soon divided among white settler families. Additionally, European immigration flows exclusively to free states.
+From the time at which a Northern State prohibited the importation of
+slaves, no slaves were brought from the South to be sold in its
+markets. On the 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 a burdensome possession) otherwise than by transporting him to
+the South. But when a Northern State declared that the son of the slave
+should be born free, the slave lost a large portion of his market
+value, since his posterity was no longer included in the bargain, and
+the owner had then a strong interest in transporting him to the South.
+Thus the same law prevents the slaves of the South from coming to the
+Northern States, and drives those of the North to the South.
+> **Quote:** "For what would be the fate of a poor emigrant who crosses the Atlantic in search of ease and happiness if he were to land in a country where labor is stigmatized as degrading?"
+The want of free hands is felt in a State in proportion as the number
+of slaves decreases. But in proportion as labor is performed by free
+hands, slave labor becomes less productive; and the slave is then a
+useless or onerous possession, whom it is important to export to those
+Southern States where the same competition is not to be feared. Thus
+the abolition of slavery does not set the slave free, but it merely
+transfers him from one master to another, and from the North to the
+South.
+Thus, the white population grows through natural increase and massive immigration, while the Black population receives no immigrants and declines. The previous ratio between races soon reverses. Black people become a small remnant—a poor, wandering group lost among a vast population that possesses the land. Their presence is marked only by the injustice and hardships they suffer.
+The emancipated negroes, and those born after the abolition of slavery,
+do not, indeed, migrate from the North to the South; but their
+situation with regard to the Europeans is not unlike that of the
+aborigines of America; they remain half civilized, and deprived of
+their rights in the midst of a population which is far superior to them
+in wealth and in knowledge; where they are exposed to the tyranny of
+the laws *m and the intolerance of the people. On some accounts they
+are still more to be pitied than the Indians, since they are haunted by
+the reminiscence of slavery, and they cannot claim possession of a
+single portion of the soil: many of them perish miserably, *n and the
+rest congregate in the great towns, where they perform the meanest
+offices, and lead a wretched and precarious existence.
+In several Western states, the Black race never appeared; in all Northern states, it rapidly declines. Thus, the great question of its future is confined to a narrow geographic circle where the problem becomes less daunting, though no easier to solve.
+[ The States in which slavery is abolished usually do what they can to
+render their territory disagreeable to the negroes as a place of
+residence; and as a kind of emulation exists between the different
+States in this respect, the unhappy blacks can only choose the least of
+the evils which beset them.]
+The further south one travels, the more difficult profitable abolition becomes, due to several physical causes.
+First: climate. As Europeans approach the tropics, physical labor grows more difficult. Many Americans claim certain latitudes would kill whites doing work Blacks endure, especially in rice fields—unhealthy in any climate, doubly dangerous under tropical sun. Europeans could survive on other crops. I do not believe this opinion, which so conveniently supports Southern laziness, is fully confirmed by experience. The Southern United States is no hotter than southern Italy or Spain; Europeans work there, so why not here? If slavery was abolished in Italy and Spain without destroying the ruling class, why not in the Union? I cannot believe nature has forbidden Europeans in Georgia or Florida from farming under pain of death. However, their labor would be more tiring and less productive than New Englanders'. As the free workman loses competitive advantage over the enslaved worker in the South, incentives to abolish slavery diminish. While experiments like Spain's transport of Azorean peasants to a district of Louisiana called Attakapas show Europeans can farm without slaves, their productivity often barely meets basic needs.
+[ There is a very great difference between the mortality of the blacks
+and of the whites in the States in which slavery is abolished; from
+to 1831 only one out of forty-two individuals of the white
+population died in Philadelphia; but one negro out of twenty-one
+individuals of the black population died in the same space of time. The
+mortality is by no means so great amongst the negroes who are still
+slaves. (See Emerson’s “Medical Statistics,” p. 28.)]
+All European plants grow in the North, but the South has specialized crops. Slave labor is expensive for grain: free-state farmers keep few permanent workers, hiring extra hands only for seed-time and harvest. The slave-state farmer is obliged to maintain a large number of slaves year-round for services only required for a few weeks; unlike free laborers, slaves cannot wait to be hired or subsist on their own in the meantime. Slavery is less suited to grain-growing than to other crops. Tobacco, cotton, and especially sugar cane require constant attention; women and children can perform these tasks, unlike wheat farming. Thus, slavery is naturally compatible with countries producing these goods. Tobacco, cotton, and sugar—grown exclusively in the South and the primary source of Southern wealth—make abolition difficult: Southerners would have to change their entire farming system to compete with the experienced North, or continue production without slaves while competing against slaveholding Southern states.
+But a more compelling motive remains: the South might abolish slavery, but how would it remove the Black population? In the North, law drives out both institution and individuals simultaneously—a dual result impossible in the South.
+But even if the number of negroes continued to increase as rapidly as
+when they were still in a state of slavery, as the number of whites
+augments with twofold rapidity since the abolition of slavery, the
+blacks would soon be, as it were, lost in the midst of a strange
+population.
+The arguments showing slavery's entrenchment in the South also explain the greater enslaved population there. The first Africans arrived in Southern settlements, and the greatest numbers were always imported there. Moving south, the prejudice honoring idleness strengthens. In states nearest the tropics, not a single white laborer exists; consequently, Black people are far more numerous in the South. This imbalance increases daily as abolition in one part of the Union transfers enslaved people to another. Thus, the Southern Black population grows through natural birth rates and forced Northern migration.
+A district which is cultivated by slaves is in general more scantily
+peopled than a district cultivated by free labor: moreover, America is
+still a new country, and a State is therefore not half peopled at the
+time when it abolishes slavery. No sooner is an end put to slavery than
+the want of free labor is felt, and a crowd of enterprising adventurers
+immediately arrive from all parts of the country, who hasten to profit
+by the fresh resources which are then opened to industry. The soil is
+soon divided amongst them, and a family of white settlers takes
+possession of each tract of country. Besides which, European emigration
+is exclusively directed to the free States; for what would be the fate
+of a poor emigrant who crosses the Atlantic in search of ease and
+happiness if he were to land in a country where labor is stigmatized as
+degrading?
+In 1830, Black-to-white ratios were: one in 300 in Maine, one in 100 in Massachusetts, two in 100 in New York, three in 100 in Pennsylvania. In contrast: thirty-four percent in Maryland, forty-two percent in Virginia, fifty-five percent in South Carolina. Data show that in the five original Southern slave states—Maryland, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia—the Black population grew 112 percent over forty years while the white population grew only 80 percent. At that time, free states held roughly 6.5 million whites and 120,000 Black people; slave states held nearly 4 million whites and 2.2 million Black people.
+Thus the white population grows by its natural increase, and at the
+same time by the immense influx of emigrants; whilst the black
+population receives no emigrants, and is upon its decline. The
+proportion which existed between the two races is soon inverted. The
+negroes constitute a scanty remnant, a poor tribe of vagrants, which is
+lost in the midst of an immense people in full possession of the land;
+and the presence of the blacks is only marked by the injustice and the
+hardships of which they are the unhappy victims.
+Clearly, the southernmost states cannot abolish slavery without facing immense dangers the North never feared. Northern states managed transition by keeping the current generation enslaved while freeing descendants. This introduced Black people to society gradually: the potentially abusive remained in servitude while the next generation learned freedom's responsibilities before becoming masters. This method is difficult in the South. Declaring all children born after a certain date free introduces liberty's idea into slavery's heart. The enslaved generation, seeing their children freed, would face such unequal fate that surprise would turn to impatience and anger. Slavery would lose its moral weight from time and habit, becoming mere flagrant abuse of power. Northern states feared nothing from this contrast because their Black population was small and the white population massive. But showing this faint dawn of freedom to two million men in the South would make oppressors tremble. After liberating slaves' children, the Southern white population would soon be forced to extend that benefit to the entire Black population.
+In several of the Western States the negro race never made its
+appearance, and in all the Northern States it is rapidly declining.
+Thus the great question of its future condition is confined within a
+narrow circle, where it becomes less formidable, though not more easy
+of solution.
+The more we descend towards the South, the more difficult does it
+become to abolish slavery with advantage: and this arises from several
+physical causes which it is important to point out.
+The first of these causes is the climate; it is well known that in
+proportion as Europeans approach the tropics they suffer more from
+labor. Many of the Americans even assert that within a certain latitude
+the 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 to the
+indolence of the inhabitants of southern regions, is confirmed by
+experience. The southern parts of the Union are not hotter than the
+South of Italy and of Spain; *p and it may be asked why the European
+cannot work as well there as in the two latter countries. If slavery
+has been abolished in Italy and in Spain without causing the
+destruction of the masters, why should not the same thing take place in
+the Union? I cannot believe that nature has prohibited the Europeans in
+Georgia and the Floridas, under pain of death, from raising the means
+of subsistence from the soil, but their labor would unquestionably be
+more irksome and less productive to them than to the inhabitants of New
+England. As the free workman thus loses a portion of his superiority
+over the slave in the Southern States, there are fewer inducements to
+abolish slavery.
+[ This is true of the spots in which rice is cultivated; rice-grounds,
+which are unwholesome in all countries, are particularly dangerous in
+those regions which are exposed to the beams of a tropical sun.
+Europeans would not find it easy to cultivate the soil in that part of
+the New World if it must be necessarily be made to produce rice; but
+may they not subsist without rice-grounds?]
+[ These States are nearer to the equator than Italy and Spain, but the
+temperature of the continent of America is very much lower than that of
+Europe.
+The Spanish Government formerly caused a certain number of peasants
+from the Acores to be transported into a district of Louisiana called
+Attakapas, by way of experiment. These settlers still cultivate the
+soil without the assistance of slaves, but their industry is so languid
+as scarcely to supply their most necessary wants.]
+All the plants of Europe grow in the northern parts of the Union; the
+South has special productions of its own. It has been observed that
+slave labor is a very expensive method of cultivating corn. The farmer
+of corn land in a country where slavery is unknown habitually retains a
+small number of laborers in his service, and at seed-time and harvest
+he hires several additional hands, who only live at his cost for a
+short period. But the agriculturist in a slave State is obliged to keep
+a large number of slaves the whole year round, in order to sow his
+fields and to gather in his crops, although their services are only
+required for a few weeks; but slaves are unable to wait till they are
+hired, and to subsist by their own labor in the mean time like free
+laborers; in order to have their services they must be bought. Slavery,
+independently of its general disadvantages, is therefore still more
+inapplicable to countries in which corn is cultivated than to those
+which produce crops of a different kind. The cultivation of tobacco, of
+cotton, and especially of the sugar-cane, demands, on the other hand,
+unremitting attention: and women and children are employed in it, whose
+services are of but little use in the cultivation of wheat. Thus
+slavery is naturally more 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 those States. If slavery were abolished, the
+inhabitants of the South would be constrained to adopt one of two
+alternatives: they must either change their system of cultivation, and
+then they would come into competition with 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 the South, which might
+still retain their slaves. Thus, peculiar reasons for maintaining
+slavery exist in the South which do not operate in the North.
+But there is yet another motive which is more cogent than all the
+others: the South might indeed, rigorously speaking, abolish slavery;
+but how should it rid its territory of the black population? Slaves and
+slavery are driven from the North by the same law, but this twofold
+result cannot be hoped for in the South.
+The arguments which I have adduced to show that slavery is more natural
+and more advantageous in the South than in the North, sufficiently
+prove that 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 been imported. As we advance towards the South, the prejudice
+which sanctions idleness increases in power. In the States nearest to
+the tropics there is not a single white laborer; the negroes are
+consequently much more numerous in the South than in the North. And, as
+I have already observed, this disproportion increases daily, since the
+negroes are transferred to one part of the Union as soon as slavery is
+abolished in the other. Thus the black population augments in the
+South, not only by its natural fecundity, but by the compulsory
+emigration of the negroes from the North; and the African race has
+causes of increase in the South very analogous to those which so
+powerfully accelerate the growth of the European race in the North.
+In the State of Maine there is one negro in 300 inhabitants; in
+Massachusetts, one in 100; in New York, two in 100; in Pennsylvania,
+three in the same number; in Maryland, thirty-four; in Virginia,
+forty-two; and lastly, in South Carolina *q fifty-five per cent. Such
+was the proportion of the black population to the whites in the year
+. But this proportion is perpetually changing, as it constantly
+decreases in the North and augments in the South.
+[ We find it asserted in an American work, entitled “Letters on the
+Colonization Society,” by Mr. Carey, 1833, “That for the last forty
+years the black race has increased more rapidly than the white race in
+the State of South Carolina; and that if we take the average population
+of the five States of the South into which slaves were first
+introduced, viz., Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina,
+and Georgia, we shall find that from 1790 to 1830 the whites have
+augmented in the proportion of 80 to 100, and the blacks in that of 112
+to 100.”
+In the United States, in 1830, the population of the two races stood as
+follows:—
+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 United
+States contained a population of 54,983,890 whites, and 7,638,360
+negroes.]]
+It is evident that the most Southern States of the Union cannot abolish
+slavery without incurring very great dangers, which the North had no
+reason to apprehend when it emancipated its black population. We have
+already shown the system by which the Northern States secure the
+transition from slavery to freedom, by keeping the present generation
+in chains, and setting their descendants free; by this means the
+negroes are gradually introduced into society; and whilst the men who
+might abuse their freedom are kept in a state of servitude, those who
+are emancipated may learn the art of being free before they become
+their own masters. But it would be difficult to apply this method in
+the South. To declare that all the negroes born after a certain period
+shall be free, is to introduce the principle and the notion of liberty
+into the heart of slavery; the blacks whom the law thus maintains in a
+state of slavery from which their children are delivered, are
+astonished at so unequal a fate, and their astonishment is only the
+prelude to their impatience and irritation. Thenceforward slavery
+loses, in their eyes, that kind of moral power which it derived from
+time and habit; it is reduced to a mere palpable abuse of force. The
+Northern States had nothing to fear from the contrast, because in them
+the blacks were few in number, and the white population was very
+considerable. But if this faint dawn of freedom were to show two
+millions of men their true position, the oppressors would have reason
+to tremble. After having affranchised the children of their slaves the
+Europeans of the Southern States would very shortly be obliged to
+extend the same benefit to the whole black population.
 ### Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part V
+In the North, emancipation creates a double migration: slaves move south while whites and European immigrants fill the void. This cannot happen in the South. The slave population is too vast to remove, and Europeans and Northern Anglo-Americans fear a region where labor lacks dignity and where Blacks equal or outnumber whites. Thus, unlike the North, the South cannot gradually abolish slavery. It would be left with a massive free Black population alongside an equal white population.
+In the North, as I have already remarked, a twofold migration ensues
+upon the abolition of slavery, or even precedes that event when
+circumstances have rendered it probable; the slaves quit the country to
+be transported southwards; and the whites of the Northern States, as
+well as the emigrants from Europe, hasten to fill up their place. But
+these two causes cannot operate in the same manner in the Southern
+States. On the one hand, the mass of slaves is too great for any
+expectation of their ever being removed from the country to be
+entertained; and on the other hand, the Europeans and Anglo-Americans
+of the North are afraid to come to inhabit a country in which labor has
+not yet been reinstated in its rightful honors. Besides, they very
+justly look upon the States in which the proportion of the negroes
+equals or exceeds that of the whites, as exposed to very great dangers;
+and they refrain from turning their activity in that direction.
+The same advantages that maintain slavery—white monopoly on land, labor, wealth, knowledge, and arms—would become alarming dangers if Blacks were freed and forced to provide for themselves. A free Black population would inevitably acquire education, recognize its misfortunes, and seek remedies. Northern freedmen feel these indignities, but their numbers are small. In the South, they would be numerous and strong.
+Thus the inhabitants of the South would not be able, like their
+Northern countrymen, to initiate the slaves gradually into a state of
+freedom by abolishing slavery; they have no means of perceptibly
+diminishing the black population, and they would remain unsupported to
+repress its excesses. So that in the course of a few years, a great
+people of free negroes would exist in the heart of a white nation of
+equal size.
+> **Quote:** "Men are much more forcibly struck by those inequalities which exist within the circle of the same class, than with those which may be remarked between different classes. It is more easy for them to admit slavery, than to allow several millions of citizens to exist under a load of eternal infamy and hereditary wretchedness."
+The same abuses of power which still maintain slavery, would then
+become the source of the most alarming perils which the white
+population of the South might have to apprehend. At the present time
+the descendants of the Europeans are the sole owners of the land; the
+absolute masters of all labor; and the only persons who are possessed
+of wealth, knowledge, and arms. The black is destitute of all these
+advantages, but he subsists without them because he is a slave. If he
+were free, and obliged to provide for his own subsistence, would it be
+possible for him to remain without these things and to support life? Or
+would not the very instruments of the present superiority of the white,
+whilst slavery exists, expose him to a thousand dangers if it were
+abolished?
+Once whites and emancipated Blacks share the same territory as distinct communities, only two futures are possible: complete separation or complete merging. I have expressed my conviction about the latter.
+As long as the negro remains a slave, he may be kept in a condition not
+very far removed from that of the brutes; but, with his liberty, he
+cannot but acquire a degree of instruction which will enable him to
+appreciate his misfortunes, and to discern a remedy for them. Moreover,
+there exists a singular principle of relative justice which is very
+firmly implanted in the human heart. Men are much more forcibly struck
+by those inequalities which exist within the circle of the same class,
+than with those which may be remarked between different classes. It is
+more easy for them to admit slavery, than to allow several millions of
+citizens to exist under a load of eternal infamy and hereditary
+wretchedness. In the North the population of freed negroes feels these
+hardships and resents these indignities; but its numbers and its powers
+are small, whilst in the South it would be numerous and strong.
+> **Quote:** "I do not imagine that the white and black races will ever live in any country upon an equal footing. But I believe the difficulty to be still greater in the United States than elsewhere."
+As soon as it is admitted that the whites and the emancipated blacks
+are placed upon the same territory in the situation of two alien
+communities, it will readily be understood that there are but two
+alternatives for the future; the negroes and the whites must either
+wholly part or wholly mingle. I have already expressed the conviction
+which I entertain as to the latter event. *r I do not imagine that the
+white and black races will ever live in any country upon an equal
+footing. But I believe the difficulty to be still greater in the United
+States than elsewhere. An isolated individual may surmount the
+prejudices of religion, of his country, or of his race, and if this
+individual is a king he may effect surprising changes in society; but a
+whole people cannot rise, as it were, above itself. A despot who should
+subject the Americans and their former slaves to the same yoke, might
+perhaps succeed in commingling their races; but as long as the American
+democracy remains at the head of affairs, no one will undertake so
+difficult a task; and it may be foreseen that the freer the white
+population of the United States becomes, the more isolated will it
+remain. *s
+An isolated individual may overcome prejudice; a king might force surprising changes. But a people cannot rise above itself. A despot might succeed in mixing the races, but American democracy will not attempt it. The freer the white population becomes, the more isolated it will remain. Jefferson agrees:
+[ This opinion is sanctioned by authorities infinitely weightier than
+anything that I can say: thus, for instance, it is stated in the
+“Memoirs of Jefferson” (as collected by M. Conseil), “Nothing is more
+clearly written in the book of destiny than the emancipation of the
+blacks; and it is equally certain that the two races will never live in
+a state of equal freedom under the same government, so insurmountable
+are the barriers which nature, habit, and opinions have established
+between them.”]
+> **Quote:** "Nothing is more clearly written in the book of destiny than the emancipation of the blacks; and it is equally certain that the two races will never live in a state of equal freedom under the same government, so insurmountable are the barriers which nature, habit, and opinions have established between them."
+If West Indian planters governed themselves, they would never have passed the Slave Emancipation Bill.
+[ If the British West India planters had governed themselves, they
+would assuredly not have passed the Slave Emancipation Bill which the
+mother-country has recently imposed upon them.]
+Mixed-race people might bridge the gap between whites and Blacks, but the English mix least of all Europeans. Though more common in the South than the North, they remain rare and powerless, typically siding with whites in racial conflicts—like servants adopting aristocratic arrogance.
+White American pride in race and self is magnified by democratic liberty. If whites and Blacks do not mingle in the North, how could they in the South? Can one imagine a Southerner, caught between the superior white and the Black, ever preferring the latter? Two passions keep them distant: fear of being equated with former slaves, and dread of falling below white neighbors.
+I have previously observed that the mixed race is the true bond of
+union between the Europeans and the Indians; just so the mulattoes are
+the true means of transition between the white and the negro; so that
+wherever mulattoes abound, the intermixture of the two races is not
+impossible. In some parts of America, the European and the negro races
+are so crossed by one another, that it is rare to meet with a man who
+is entirely 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 been absorbed in a third race, which is connected with both
+without being identical with either.
+I predict abolition would increase Southern white hostility toward Blacks, just as it did in the North, where whites avoided freedmen more as legal barriers fell. In the South, where the danger is real, fear would be no less. If the Black population concentrates in the Deep South, growing faster than whites, and if integration remains impossible, must they not eventually come to open conflict? What the outcome might be, we can only guess. In the West Indies, whites seem destined to be defeated; on the continent, the Black population is destined for the same fate, trapped between ocean and an overwhelming white mass stretching from Canada to Virginia and from the Missouri to the Atlantic. If whites remain united, Blacks cannot escape destruction—by poverty or war.
+Of all the Europeans the English are those who have mixed least with
+the negroes. More mulattoes are to be seen in the South of the Union
+than in the North, but still they are infinitely more scarce than in
+any other European colony: mulattoes are by no means numerous in the
+United States; they have no force peculiar to themselves, and when
+quarrels originating in differences of color take place, they generally
+side with the whites; just as the lackeys of the great, in Europe,
+assume the contemptuous airs of nobility to the lower orders.
+But if the Union dissolves when racial struggle begins, Southern whites cannot rely on Northern help. The North knows the danger will never reach them; racial sympathy alone will not suffice. Even alone, Southern whites would hold immense superiority in knowledge and arms, while Blacks would have numbers and desperate energy. Southern whites might share the fate of the Moors in Spain—forced after centuries to abandon the land to the Black population, for whom Providence seems to have intended it.
+The pride of origin, which is natural to the English, is singularly
+augmented by the personal pride which democratic liberty fosters
+amongst the Americans: the white citizen of the United States is proud
+of his race, and proud of himself. But if the whites and the negroes do
+not intermingle 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
+Southern States, placed, as he must forever be, between the white man
+with all his physical and moral superiority and the negro, will ever
+think of preferring the latter? The Americans of the Southern States
+have two powerful passions which will always keep them aloof; the first
+is the fear of being assimilated to the negroes, their former slaves;
+and the second the dread of sinking below the whites, their neighbors.
+The inevitable danger of conflict haunts the American imagination. Northerners discuss it constantly but cannot devise solutions. Southerners remain silent, hiding their fears even from themselves—a silence more alarming than Northern noise.
+If I were called upon to predict what will probably occur at some
+future time, I should say, that the abolition of slavery in the South
+will, in the common course of things, increase the repugnance of the
+white population for the men of color. I found this opinion upon the
+analogous observation which I already had occasion to make in the
+North. I there remarked that the white inhabitants of the North avoid
+the negroes with increasing care, in proportion as the legal barriers
+of separation are removed by the legislature; and why should not the
+same result take place in the South? In the North, the whites are
+deterred from intermingling with the blacks by the fear of an imaginary
+danger; in the South, where the danger would be real, I cannot imagine
+that the fear would be less general.
+This anxiety birthed the Society for the Colonization of the Blacks. In 1820, it founded Liberia in Africa at seven degrees north latitude. Today, 2,500 people have transplanted American democratic institutions: representative government, Black jurors, magistrates, priests, churches, newspapers. In a singular reversal, whites are prohibited from living there—a rule intended to prevent the settlers from being overwhelmed by a more powerful race before they could become fully civilized, much like the fate of the Indians in North America.
+If, on the one hand, it be admitted (and the fact is unquestionable)
+that the colored population perpetually accumulates in the extreme
+South, and that it increases more rapidly than that of the whites; and
+if, on the other hand, it be allowed that it is impossible to foresee a
+time at which the whites and the blacks will be so intermingled as to
+derive the same benefits from society; must it not be inferred that the
+blacks and the whites will, sooner or later, come to open strife in the
+Southern States of the Union? But if it be asked what the issue of the
+struggle is likely to be, it will readily be understood that we are
+here left to form a very vague surmise of the truth. The human mind may
+succeed in tracing a wide circle, as it were, which includes the course
+of future events; but within that circle a thousand various chances and
+circumstances may direct it in as many different ways; and in every
+picture of the future there is a dim spot, which the eye of the
+understanding cannot penetrate. It appears, however, to be extremely
+probable that in the West Indian Islands the white race is destined to
+be subdued, and the black population to share the same fate upon the
+continent.
+[See also the 1833 Philadelphia pamphlet by Mr. Carey, titled "Letters on the Colonization Society, and on its Probable Results," which has been mentioned previously.]
+In the West India Islands the white planters are surrounded by an
+immense black population; on the continent, the blacks are placed
+between the ocean and an innumerable people, which already extends over
+them in a dense mass, from the icy confines of Canada to the frontiers
+of Virginia, and from the banks of the Missouri to the shores of the
+Atlantic. If the white citizens of North America remain united, it
+cannot be supposed that the negroes will escape the destruction with
+which they are menaced; they must be subdued by want or by the sword.
+But the black population which is accumulated along the coast of the
+Gulf of Mexico, has a chance of success if the American Union is
+dissolved when the struggle between the two races begins. If the
+federal tie were broken, the citizens of the South would be wrong to
+rely upon any lasting succor from their Northern countrymen. The latter
+are well aware that the danger can never reach them; and unless they
+are constrained to march to the assistance of the South by a positive
+obligation, it may be foreseen that the sympathy of color will be
+insufficient to stimulate their exertions.
+Two centuries after Europeans tore Blacks from Africa, their descendants now work to return them. Africans learned civilization through bondage and free political institutions through slavery. European inventions may finally penetrate Africa through Africans themselves. The idea is noble, but it solves nothing in the New World.
+Yet, at whatever period the strife may break out, the whites of the
+South, even if they are abandoned to their own resources, will enter
+the lists with an immense superiority of knowledge and of the means of
+warfare; but the blacks will have numerical strength and the energy of
+despair upon their side, and these are powerful resources to men who
+have taken up arms. The fate of the white population of the Southern
+States will, perhaps, be similar to that of the Moors in Spain. After
+having occupied the land for centuries, it will perhaps be forced to
+retire to the country whence its ancestors came, and to abandon to the
+negroes the possession of a territory, which Providence seems to have
+more peculiarly destined for them, since they can subsist and labor in
+it more easily that the whites.
+In twelve years, the Society has transported 2,500 Black people while approximately 700,000 were born in the United States. Even with federal subsidies and state vessels, the project cannot outpace natural increase. The government cannot remove as many as are born; it cannot even halt the problem's growth.
+The danger of a conflict between the white and the black inhabitants of
+the Southern States of the Union—a danger which, however remote it may
+be, 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 they
+vainly endeavor to devise some means of obviating the misfortunes which
+they foresee. In the Southern States the subject is not discussed: the
+planter does not allude to the future in conversing with strangers; the
+citizen does not communicate his apprehensions to his friends; he seeks
+to conceal them from himself; but there is something more alarming in
+the tacit forebodings of the South, than in the clamorous fears of the
+Northern States.
+> **Quote:** "The negro race will never leave those shores of the American continent, to which it was brought by the passions and the vices of Europeans; and it will not disappear from the New World as long as it continues to exist. The inhabitants of the United States may retard the calamities which they apprehend, but they cannot now destroy their efficient cause."
+This all-pervading disquietude has given birth to an undertaking which
+is but little known, but which may have the effect of changing the fate
+of a portion of the human race. From apprehension of the dangers which
+I have just been describing, a certain number of American citizens have
+formed 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
+from the oppression to which they are subject. *t In 1820, the society
+to which I allude formed a settlement in Africa, upon the seventh
+degree of north latitude, which bears the name of Liberia. The most
+recent intelligence informs us that 2,500 negroes are collected there;
+they have introduced the democratic institutions of America into the
+country of their forefathers; and Liberia has a representative system
+of government, negro jurymen, negro magistrates, and negro priests;
+churches have been built, newspapers established, and, by a singular
+change in the vicissitudes of the world, white men are prohibited from
+sojourning within the settlement. *u
+Further difficulties abound. Buying every slave would send prices soaring; Northern states would never fund such a costly, benefitless project. Seizing slaves by force would trigger insurmountable resistance. Both are impossible. By 1830, there were 2,010,327 slaves and 319,439 free Blacks—2,329,766 total, about one-fifth of the population.
+[ This society assumed the name of “The Society for the Colonization of
+the Blacks.” See its annual reports; and more particularly the
+fifteenth. See also the pamphlet, to which allusion has already been
+made, entitled “Letters on the Colonization Society, and on its
+probable Results,” by Mr. Carey, Philadelphia, 1833.]
+I do not see abolition as preventing racial struggle. Blacks may long endure slavery without rebellion, but once free, they will resent being denied full civil rights. Because they cannot become equals, they will become enemies. In the North, emancipation worked because freedmen were too few to threaten anyone. The South faces life and death where the North faced commerce. God forbid I should justify slavery—an execrable principle—but nations that once adopted it are not all equally able to abandon it.
+I see only two alternatives for Southern whites: emancipate and fully integrate, or remain isolated and keep Blacks enslaved as long as possible. Middle measures would lead quickly to horrific civil war and perhaps racial destruction. This is how Southerners view it, and they act accordingly. Though many agree slavery hurts their economic interests, they believe their lives depend on it. The more slavery's usefulness is questioned, the more firmly it is entrenched in law.
+[ This last regulation was laid down by the founders of the settlement;
+they apprehended that a state of things might arise in Africa similar
+to that which exists on the frontiers of the United States, and that if
+the negroes, like the Indians, were brought into collision with a
+people more enlightened than themselves, they would be destroyed before
+they could be civilized.]
+While physical conditions have improved, Southerners have sought "intellectual securities" for their power, using despotism against the mind itself. Their legislation reveals a desperate twisting of human law:
+> **Quote:** "The ancients kept the bodies of their slaves in bondage, but they placed no restraint upon the mind and no check upon education; and they acted consistently with their established principle, since a natural termination of slavery then existed, and one day or other the slave might be set free, and become the equal of his master. But the Americans of the South, who do not admit that the negroes can ever be commingled with themselves, have forbidden them to be taught to read or to write, under severe penalties; and as they will not raise them to their own level, they sink them as nearly as possible to that of the brutes."
+This is indeed a strange caprice of fortune. Two hundred years have now
+elapsed since the inhabitants of Europe undertook to tear the negro
+from his family and his home, in order to transport him to the shores
+of North America; at the present day, the European settlers are engaged
+in sending back the descendants of those very negroes to the Continent
+from which they were originally taken; and the barbarous Africans have
+been brought into contact with civilization in the midst of bondage,
+and have become acquainted with free political institutions in slavery.
+Up to the present time Africa has been closed against the arts and
+sciences of the whites; but the inventions of Europe will perhaps
+penetrate into those regions, now that they are introduced by Africans
+themselves. The settlement 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.
+The hope of liberty once cheered slaves through hardship, but Southerners know emancipation is dangerous when assimilation is impossible. A freedman left in poverty and disgrace becomes a future revolutionary. Even free Blacks create unrest among the enslaved. Consequently, the South has made manumission nearly impossible—not by outright ban, but by insurmountable legal hurdles.
+In twelve years the Colonization Society has transported 2,500 negroes
+to Africa; in the same space of time about 700,000 blacks were born in
+the United States. If the colony of Liberia were so situated as to be
+able to receive thousands of new inhabitants every year, and if the
+negroes were in a state to be sent thither with advantage; if the Union
+were to supply the society with annual subsidies, *v and to transport
+the negroes to Africa in the vessels of the State, it would still be
+unable to counterpoise the natural increase of population amongst the
+blacks; and as it could not remove as many men in a year as are born
+upon its territory within the same space of time, it would fail in
+suspending the growth of the evil which is daily increasing in the
+States. *w The negro race will never leave those shores of the American
+continent, to which it was brought by the passions and the vices of
+Europeans; and it will not disappear from the New World as long as it
+continues to exist. The inhabitants of the United States may retard the
+calamities which they apprehend, but they cannot now destroy their
+efficient cause.
+I met an elderly Southerner who had children with a Black woman; all were his slaves. He longed to free them in his will but could not clear the legal obstacles before death. He died haunted by visions of his sons dragged through markets, driven to frenzy by this horror. He showed me the terrible price nature exacts from those who break her laws.
+[ Nor would these be the only difficulties attendant upon the
+undertaking; if the Union undertook to buy up the negroes now in
+America, in order to transport them to Africa, the price of slaves,
+increasing with their scarcity, would soon become enormous; and the
+States of the North would never consent to expend such great sums for a
+purpose which would procure such small advantages to themselves. If the
+Union took possession of the slaves in the Southern States by force, or
+at a rate determined by law, an insurmountable resistance would arise
+in that part of the country. Both alternatives are equally impossible.]
+These evils are inevitable results of modern slavery's principle. When Europeans chose slaves from a supposedly inferior race they refused to socialize with, they must have believed slavery eternal. There is no stable middle ground between servitude and equality. In their dealings with Blacks, Europeans were driven by interest, pride, or compassion: they first violated all human rights, then told the enslaved those rights were sacred. They pretended to offer society's place but drove back any Black who tried to enter. Involuntarily and carelessly, they moved toward freedom rather than slavery, lacking courage to be entirely unjust or entirely just.
+If Southerners cannot integrate with Blacks, can they free them safely? If they must keep them enslaved to protect their families, can they be blamed for using effective means? The South's events seem both the most horrific and most natural outcomes of slavery.
+[ In 1830 there were in the United States 2,010,327 slaves and 319,439
+free blacks, in all 2,329,766 negroes: which formed about one-fifth of
+the total population of the United States at that time.]
+> **Quote:** "When I see the order of nature overthrown, and when I hear the cry of humanity in its vain struggle against the laws, my indignation does not light upon the men of our own time who are the instruments of these outrages; but I reserve my execration for those who, after a thousand years of freedom, brought back slavery into the world once more."
+Southerners will not maintain slavery forever. Attacked by Christianity as unjust and economics as harmful, standing in stark contrast to democratic liberty and modern knowledge, it cannot survive. It will end by the master's choice or the slave's will. In either case, great disasters will follow. If liberty is denied, Blacks will seize it; if granted, they will likely misuse it.
+I am obliged to confess that I do not regard the abolition of slavery
+as a means of warding off the struggle of the two races in the United
+States. The negroes may long remain slaves without complaining; but if
+they are once raised to the level of free men, they will soon revolt at
+being deprived of all their civil rights; and as they cannot become the
+equals of the whites, they will speedily declare themselves as enemies.
+In the North everything contributed to facilitate the emancipation of
+the slaves; and slavery was abolished, without placing the free negroes
+in a position which could become formidable, since their number was too
+small for them ever to claim the exercise of their rights. But such is
+not the case in the South. The question of slavery was a question of
+commerce and manufacture for the slave-owners in the North; for those
+of the South, it is a question of life and death. God forbid that I
+should seek to justify the principle of negro slavery, as has been done
+by some American writers! But I only observe that all the countries
+which formerly adopted that execrable principle are not equally able to
+abandon it at the present time.
+[Note: This analysis was written before the Civil War. While the war resulted in the abolition of slavery and the elevation of Black people to the status of citizens—even giving them significant political power in states like South Carolina, where they held a numerical majority in 1870—emancipation did not solve the fundamental problem. The challenge of how two different and historically hostile races can live together in peace as equals remains as difficult as ever. In this regard, the author's observations about racial tension and social integration remain deeply relevant.]
+When I contemplate the condition of the South, I can only discover two
+alternatives which may be adopted by the white inhabitants of those
+States; viz., either to emancipate the negroes, and to intermingle with
+them; or, remaining isolated from them, to keep them in a state of
+slavery as long as possible. All intermediate measures seem to me
+likely to terminate, and that shortly, in the most horrible of civil
+wars, and perhaps in the extirpation of one or other of the two races.
+Such is the view which the Americans of the South take of the question,
+and they act consistently with it. As they are determined not to mingle
+with the negroes, they refuse to emancipate them.
+Not that the inhabitants of the South regard slavery as necessary to
+the wealth of the planter, for on this point many of them agree with
+their Northern countrymen in freely admitting that slavery is
+prejudicial to their interest; but they are convinced that, however
+prejudicial it may be, they hold their lives upon no other tenure. The
+instruction which is now diffused in the South has convinced the
+inhabitants that slavery is injurious to the slave-owner, but it has
+also shown them, more clearly than before, that no means exist of
+getting rid of its bad consequences. Hence arises a singular contrast;
+the more the utility of slavery is contested, the more firmly is it
+established in the laws; and whilst the principle of servitude is
+gradually abolished in the North, that self-same principle gives rise
+to more and more rigorous consequences in the South.
+The legislation of the Southern States with regard to slaves, presents
+at the present day such unparalleled atrocities as suffice to show how
+radically the laws of humanity have been perverted, and to betray the
+desperate position of the community in which that legislation has been
+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 which
+the ancients maintained slavery were fetters and death; the Americans
+of the South of the Union have discovered more intellectual securities
+for the duration of their power. They have employed their despotism and
+their violence against the human mind. In antiquity, precautions were
+taken to prevent the slave from breaking his chains; at the present day
+measures are adopted to deprive him even of the desire of freedom. The
+ancients kept the bodies of their slaves in bondage, but they placed no
+restraint upon the mind and no check upon education; and they acted
+consistently with their established principle, since a natural
+termination of slavery then existed, and one day or other the slave
+might be set free, and become the equal of his master. But the
+Americans of the South, who do not admit that the negroes can ever be
+commingled with themselves, have forbidden them to be taught to read or
+to write, under severe penalties; and as they will not raise them to
+their own level, they sink them as nearly as possible to that of the
+brutes.
+The hope of liberty had always been allowed to the slave to cheer the
+hardships of his condition. But the Americans of the South are well
+aware that emancipation cannot but be dangerous, when the freed man can
+never be assimilated to his former master. To give a man his freedom,
+and to leave him in wretchedness and ignominy, is nothing less than to
+prepare a future chief for a revolt of the slaves. Moreover, it has
+long been remarked that the presence of a free negro vaguely agitates
+the minds of his less fortunate brethren, and conveys to them a dim
+notion of their rights. The Americans of the South have consequently
+taken measures to prevent slave-owners from emancipating their slaves
+in most cases; not indeed by a positive prohibition, but by subjecting
+that step to various forms which it is difficult to comply with. I
+happened to meet with an old man, in the South of the Union, who had
+lived in illicit intercourse with one of his negresses, and had had
+several children by her, who were born the slaves of their father. He
+had indeed frequently thought of bequeathing to them at least their
+liberty; but years had elapsed without his being able to surmount the
+legal obstacles to their emancipation, and in the mean while his old
+age was come, and he was about to die. He pictured to himself his sons
+dragged from market to market, and passing from the authority of a
+parent to the rod of the stranger, until these horrid anticipations
+worked his expiring imagination into frenzy. When I saw him he was a
+prey to all the anguish of despair, and he made me feel how awful is
+the retribution of nature upon those who have broken her laws.
+These evils are unquestionably great; but they are the necessary and
+foreseen consequence of the very principle of modern slavery. When the
+Europeans chose their slaves from a race differing from their own,
+which many of them considered as inferior to the other races of
+mankind, and which they all repelled with horror from any notion of
+intimate connection, they must have believed that slavery would last
+forever; since there is no intermediate state which can be durable
+between the excessive inequality produced by servitude and the complete
+equality which originates in independence. The Europeans did
+imperfectly feel this truth, but without acknowledging it even to
+themselves. Whenever they have had to do with negroes, their conduct
+has either been dictated by their interest and their pride, or by their
+compassion. They first violated every right of humanity by their
+treatment of the negro and they afterwards informed him that those
+rights were precious and inviolable. They affected to open their ranks
+to the slaves, but the negroes who attempted to penetrate into the
+community were driven back with scorn; and they have incautiously and
+involuntarily been led to admit of freedom instead of slavery, without
+having the courage to be wholly iniquitous, or wholly just.
+If it be impossible to anticipate a period at which the Americans of
+the South will mingle their blood with that of the negroes, can they
+allow their slaves to become free without compromising their own
+security? And if they are obliged to keep that race in bondage in order
+to save their own families, may they not be excused for availing
+themselves of the means best adapted to that end? The events which are
+taking place in the Southern States of the Union appear to me to be at
+once the most horrible and the most natural results of slavery. When I
+see the order of nature overthrown, and when I hear the cry of humanity
+in its vain struggle against the laws, my indignation does not light
+upon the men of our own time who are the instruments of these outrages;
+but I reserve my execration for those who, after a thousand years of
+freedom, brought back slavery into the world once more.
+Whatever may be the efforts of the Americans of the South to maintain
+slavery, they will not always succeed. Slavery, which is now confined
+to a single tract of the civilized earth, which is attacked by
+Christianity as unjust, and by political economy as prejudicial; and
+which is now contrasted with democratic liberties and the information
+of our age, cannot survive. By the choice of the master, or by the will
+of the slave, it will cease; and in either case great calamities may be
+expected 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
+[ [This chapter is no longer applicable to the condition of the negro
+race in the United States, since the abolition of slavery was the
+result, though not the object, of the great Civil War, and the negroes
+have been raised to the condition not only of freedmen, but of
+citizens; and in some States they exercise a preponderating political
+power by reason of their numerical majority. Thus, in South Carolina
+there were in 1870, 289,667 whites and 415,814 blacks. But the
+emancipation of the slaves has not solved the problem, how two races so
+different and so hostile are to live together in peace in one country
+on equal terms. That problem is as difficult, perhaps more difficult
+than ever; and to this difficulty the author’s remarks are still
+perfectly applicable.]]
 ### Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part VI
+[Translator’s Note: This chapter addresses the constitutional and social issues raised by Southern secession, though the author’s predictions proved flawed. He argued that:
+What Are The Chances In Favor Of The Duration Of The American Union,
+And What Dangers Threaten It *y
+> “The legislators of the Constitution of 1789 were not appointed to constitute the government of a single people, but to regulate the association of several States; that the Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States, and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people.”
+[ [This chapter is one of the most curious and interesting portions of
+the work, because it embraces almost all the constitutional and social
+questions which were raised by the great secession of the South and
+decided by the results of the Civil War. But it must be confessed that
+the sagacity of the author is sometimes at fault in these speculations,
+and did not save him from considerable errors, which the course of
+events has since made apparent. He held that “the legislators of the
+Constitution of 1789 were not appointed to constitute the government of
+a single people, but to regulate the association of several States;
+that the Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States, and
+in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have
+they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people.” Whence
+he inferred that “if one of the States chose to withdraw its name from
+the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so;
+and that the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its
+claims directly, either by force or by right.” This is the Southern
+theory of the Constitution, and the whole case of the South in favor of
+secession. To many Europeans, and to some American (Northern) jurists,
+this view appeared to be sound; but it was vigorously resisted by the
+North, and crushed by force of arms.
+From this he inferred:
+> “If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so; and that the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right.”
+The author of this book was mistaken in supposing that the “Union was a
+vast body which presents no definite object to patriotic feeling.” When
+the day of trial came, millions of men were ready to lay down their
+lives for it. He was also mistaken in supposing that the Federal
+Executive is so weak that it requires the free consent of the governed
+to enable it to subsist, and that it would be defeated in a struggle to
+maintain the Union against one or more separate States. In 1861 nine
+States, with a population of 8,753,000, seceded, and maintained for
+four years a resolute but unequal contest for independence, but they
+were defeated.
+This Southern theory of secession was ultimately crushed by military force. Tocqueville also misjudged that the “Union was a vast body which presents no definite object to patriotic feeling,” when in fact millions sacrificed their lives for it; that the Federal Executive was too weak to survive without constant consent, when it defeated secession; and that shared interests would preserve the Union, overlooking how slavery would tear it apart. When he visited in 1831, slavery was accepted by all parties—the consensus when the Constitution was adopted. Yet within thirty years, the North rejected this “peculiar institution,” leading to the 13th Amendment:
+Lastly, the author was mistaken in supposing that a community of
+interests would always prevail between North and South sufficiently
+powerful to bind them together. He overlooked the influence which the
+question of slavery must have on the Union the moment that the majority
+of the people of the North declared against it. In 1831, when the
+author visited America, the anti-slavery agitation had scarcely begun;
+and the fact of Southern slavery was accepted by men of all parties,
+even in the States where there were no slaves: and that was
+unquestionably the view taken by all the States and by all American
+statesmen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, in 1789. But
+in the course of thirty years a great change took place, and the North
+refused to perpetuate what had become the “peculiar institution” of the
+South, especially as it gave the South a species of aristocratic
+preponderance. The result was the ratification, in December, 1865, of
+the celebrated 13th article or amendment of the Constitution, which
+declared that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude—except as a
+punishment for crime—shall exist within the United States.” To which
+was soon afterwards added the 15th article, “The right of citizens to
+vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any
+State, on account of race, color, or previous servitude.” The
+emancipation of several millions of negro slaves without compensation,
+and the transfer to them of political preponderance in the States in
+which they outnumber the white population, were acts of the North
+totally opposed to the interests of the South, and which could only
+have been carried into effect by conquest.—Translator’s Note.]]
+> “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude—except as a punishment for crime—shall exist within the United States.”
+Reason for which the preponderating force lies in the States rather
+than in the Union—The Union will only last as long as all the States
+choose to belong to it—Causes which tend to keep them united—Utility of
+the Union to resist foreign enemies, and to prevent the existence of
+foreigners in America—No natural barriers between the several States—No
+conflicting interests to divide them—Reciprocal interests of the
+Northern, Southern, and Western States—Intellectual ties of
+union—Uniformity of opinions—Dangers of the Union resulting from the
+different characters and the passions of its citizens—Character of the
+citizens in the South and in the North—The rapid growth of the Union
+one of its greatest dangers—Progress of the population to the
+Northwest—Power gravitates in the same direction—Passions originating
+from sudden turns of fortune—Whether the existing Government of the
+Union tends to gain strength, or to lose it—Various signs of its
+decrease—Internal improvements—Waste lands—Indians—The Bank—The
+Tariff—General Jackson.
+And the 15th Amendment:
+The maintenance of the existing institutions of the several States
+depends in some measure upon the maintenance of the Union itself. It is
+therefore important in the first instance to inquire into the probable
+fate of the Union. One point may indeed be assumed at once: if the
+present confederation were dissolved, it appears to me to be
+incontestable that the States of which it is now composed would not
+return to their original isolated condition, but that several unions
+would then be formed in the place of one. It is not my intention to
+inquire into the principles upon which these new unions would probably
+be established, but merely to show what the causes are which may effect
+the dismemberment of the existing confederation.
+> “The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous servitude.”
+With this object I shall be obliged to retrace some of the steps which
+I have already taken, and to revert to topics which I have before
+discussed. I am aware that the reader may accuse me of repetition, but
+the importance of the matter which still remains to be treated is my
+excuse; I had rather say too much, than say too little to be thoroughly
+understood, and I prefer injuring the author to slighting the subject.
+The uncompensated emancipation and enfranchisement of millions, imposed by conquest, fundamentally opposed Southern interests.—Translator’s Note.]
+The legislators who formed the Constitution of 1789 endeavored to
+confer a distinct and preponderating authority upon the federal power.
+But they were confined by the conditions of the task which they had
+undertaken to perform. They were not appointed to constitute the
+government of a single people, but to regulate the association of
+several States; and, whatever their inclinations might be, they could
+not but divide the exercise of sovereignty in the end.
+Reasons why the dominant power resides in the States rather than the Union—The Union will last only as long as all States choose to remain—Factors that encourage unity—The Union’s utility in resisting foreign enemies and preventing foreign influence in America—The absence of natural barriers between states—No conflicting interests to divide them—The mutual interests of the Northern, Southern, and Western States—Intellectual ties and consistency of opinion—Dangers to the Union arising from the different temperaments and passions of its citizens—The character of citizens in the North and South—The rapid growth of the Union as a primary danger—The population shift toward the Northwest—The migration of power in that same direction—Passions triggered by sudden changes in fortune—Whether the federal government is gaining or losing strength—Signs of its decline: internal improvements, public lands, Indians, the Bank, the Tariff, and General Jackson.
+In order to understand the consequences of this division, it is
+necessary to make a short distinction between the affairs of the
+Government. There are some objects which are national by their very
+nature, that is to say, which affect the nation as a body, and can only
+be intrusted to the man or the assembly of men who most completely
+represent the entire nation. Amongst these may be reckoned war and
+diplomacy. There are other objects which are provincial by their very
+nature, that is to say, which only affect certain localities, and which
+can only be properly treated in that locality. Such, for instance, is
+the budget of a municipality. Lastly, there are certain objects of a
+mixed nature, which are national inasmuch as they affect all the
+citizens who compose the nation, and which are provincial inasmuch as
+it is not necessary that the nation itself should provide for them all.
+Such are the rights which regulate the civil and political condition of
+the citizens. No society can exist without civil and political rights.
+These rights therefore interest all the citizens alike; but it is not
+always necessary to the existence and the prosperity of the nation that
+these rights should be uniform, nor, consequently, that they should be
+regulated by the central authority.
+The preservation of the individual states' current institutions depends, to a degree, on the survival of the Union itself; we must therefore first examine the likely future of the Union. One point can be assumed immediately: if the current confederation dissolved, the states would not return to their original isolation but would likely form several smaller unions. I do not intend to examine the principles upon which these might be built, but merely to show what causes could lead to the dissolution of the existing confederation, though this requires revisiting topics already discussed. I would rather say too much than too little to be thoroughly understood, preferring to injure the author rather than slight the subject.
+There are, then, two distinct categories of objects which are submitted
+to the direction of the sovereign power; and these categories occur in
+all well-constituted communities, whatever the basis of the political
+constitution may otherwise be. Between these two extremes the objects
+which I have termed mixed may be considered to lie. As these objects
+are neither exclusively national nor entirely provincial, they may be
+obtained by a national or by a provincial government, according to the
+agreement of the contracting parties, without in any way impairing the
+contract of association.
+The legislators who drafted the Constitution of 1789 attempted to grant distinct authority to federal power, but they were limited by their task: they were not creating a government for a single people but regulating an association of several States, and therefore had to divide sovereignty.
+The sovereign power is usually formed by the union of separate
+individuals, who compose a people; and individual powers or collective
+forces, each representing a very small portion of the sovereign
+authority, are the sole elements which are subjected to the general
+Government of their choice. In this case the general Government is more
+naturally called upon to regulate, not only those affairs which are of
+essential national importance, but those which are of a more local
+interest; and the local governments are reduced to that small share of
+sovereign authority which is indispensable to their prosperity.
+To understand this division, we must distinguish between governmental responsibilities. Some matters are national by nature—those affecting the whole nation, like war and diplomacy. Others are local—those affecting specific areas, like a municipal budget. Finally, there are mixed matters—national in affecting all citizens, yet local in not requiring central management, such as the civil and political status of citizens. Mixed matters may be handled by either national or local government, depending on agreement, without undermining the social contract.
+But sometimes the sovereign authority is composed of preorganized
+political bodies, by virtue of circumstances anterior to their union;
+and in this case the provincial governments assume the control, not
+only of those affairs which more peculiarly belong to their province,
+but of all, or of a part of the mixed affairs to which allusion has
+been made. For the confederate nations which were independent sovereign
+States before their union, and which still represent a very
+considerable share of the sovereign power, have only consented to cede
+to the general Government the exercise of those rights which are
+indispensable to the Union.
+Sovereign power is usually formed by individuals comprising a people; here, the general government naturally regulates both national and local affairs, while local governments receive only a small share of authority. Sometimes, however, sovereign authority is composed of pre-existing political bodies. In these confederations, local governments control not only their specific affairs but some or all mixed matters, having been independent states before uniting. They surrender only those rights essential for the Union's existence.
+When the national Government, independently of the prerogatives
+inherent in its nature, is invested with the right of regulating the
+affairs which relate partly to the general and partly to the local
+interests, it possesses a preponderating influence. Not only are its
+own rights extensive, but all the rights which it does not possess
+exist by its sufferance, and it may be apprehended that the provincial
+governments may be deprived of their natural and necessary prerogatives
+by its influence.
+> “Independent nations have therefore a natural tendency to centralization, and confederations to dismemberment.”
+When, on the other hand, the provincial governments are invested with
+the power of regulating those same affairs of mixed interest, an
+opposite tendency prevails in society. The preponderating force resides
+in the province, not in the nation; and it may be apprehended that the
+national Government may in the end be stripped of the privileges which
+are necessary to its existence.
+When the national government regulates mixed interests in addition to its inherent powers, it gains dominant influence: its own powers are extensive, and any powers it lacks exist only by permission, risking the loss of local governments' natural rights. When local governments regulate mixed interests, the opposite occurs: dominant force resides locally, risking the national government’s essential powers.
+Independent nations have therefore a natural tendency to
+centralization, and confederations to dismemberment.
+We now apply these principles to the American Union. The individual States naturally held the right to regulate all exclusively local affairs, and retained the rights to determine citizens' civil and political standing, regulate community relationships, and administer justice—matters general in nature but not strictly national. The Union government is empowered to act for the whole nation where the country must appear as a single, undivided power, in foreign relations and common defense—exclusively national matters.
+It now only remains for us to apply these general principles to the
+American Union. The several States were necessarily possessed of the
+right of regulating all exclusively provincial affairs. Moreover these
+same States retained the rights of determining the civil and political
+competency of the citizens, or regulating the reciprocal relations of
+the members of the community, and of dispensing justice; rights which
+are of a general nature, but which do not necessarily appertain to the
+national Government. We have shown that the Government of the Union is
+invested with the power of acting in the name of the whole nation in
+those cases in which the nation has to appear as a single and undivided
+power; as, for instance, in foreign relations, and in offering a common
+resistance to a common enemy; in short, in conducting those affairs
+which I have styled exclusively national.
+In this division, the Union’s share appears larger at first glance but is actually smaller. The Union’s projects are vaster but felt less often; the states’ work is smaller but constant, keeping their authority alive in people’s minds. The Union oversees general interests that have debatable impact on individual happiness, while local interests have immediate effect. The Union ensures independence and grandeur, which have little direct impact on citizens; the States maintain liberty, regulate rights, protect property, and secure every person’s life and future prosperity.
+In this division of the rights of sovereignty, the share of the Union
+seems at first sight to be more considerable than that of the States;
+but a more attentive investigation shows it to be less so. The
+undertakings of the Government of the Union are more vast, but their
+influence is more rarely felt. Those of the provincial governments are
+comparatively small, but they are incessant, and they serve to keep
+alive the authority which they represent. The Government of the Union
+watches the general interests of the country; but the general interests
+of a people have a very questionable influence upon individual
+happiness, whilst provincial interests produce a most immediate effect
+upon the welfare of the inhabitants. The Union secures the independence
+and the greatness of the nation, which do not immediately affect
+private citizens; but the several States maintain the liberty, regulate
+the rights, protect the fortune, and secure the life and the whole
+future prosperity of every citizen.
+The federal government is distant, while state governments are within reach, ready to respond to the smallest request. The central government attracts the ambitions of a few exceptional men; state governments are supported by secondary figures who exercise direct influence over the people because they operate locally. Americans therefore have more to hope for and fear from the States than from the Union; following the natural tendency of the human mind, they are more loyal to the former. Their habits and feelings align with their interests.
+The Federal Government is very far removed from its subjects, whilst
+the provincial governments are within the reach of them all, and are
+ready to attend to the smallest appeal. The central Government has upon
+its side the passions of a few superior men who aspire to conduct it;
+but upon the side of the provincial governments are the interests of
+all those second-rate individuals who can only hope to obtain power
+within their own State, and who nevertheless exercise the largest share
+of authority over the people because they are placed nearest to its
+level. The Americans have therefore much more to hope and to fear from
+the States than from the Union; and, in conformity with the natural
+tendency of the human mind, they are more likely to attach themselves
+to the former than to the latter. In this respect their habits and
+feelings harmonize with their interests.
+When a unified nation adopts a confederate system, traditions and customs clash with new laws for a long time, giving the central government more influence than the law allows. When several confederate states unite into one nation, the same causes work in reverse. If France became a confederate republic like the United States, its government would initially show more energy than the American Union. Conversely, if the Union became a monarchy like France, the American government would take a long time to acquire the power that currently rules France. When the national identity of Anglo-Americans began, their local identities were long-established. Solid relationships existed between townships and citizens of the same States; they were used to handling certain matters together and seeing others as strictly their own business.
+When a compact nation divides its sovereignty, and adopts a confederate
+form of government, the traditions, the customs, and the manners of the
+people are for a long time at variance with their legislation; and the
+former tend to give a degree of influence to the central government
+which the latter forbids. When a number of confederate states unite to
+form a single nation, the same causes operate in an opposite direction.
+I have no doubt that if France were to become a confederate republic
+like that of the United States, the government would at first display
+more energy than that of the Union; and if the Union were to alter its
+constitution to a monarchy like that of France, I think that the
+American Government would be a long time in acquiring the force which
+now rules the latter nation. When the national existence of the
+Anglo-Americans began, their provincial existence was already of long
+standing; necessary relations were established between the townships
+and the individual citizens of the same States; and they were
+accustomed to consider some objects as common to them all, and to
+conduct other affairs as exclusively relating to their own special
+interests.
+> “The Union is a vast body which presents no definite object to patriotic feeling.”
+The Union is a vast body which presents no definite object to patriotic
+feeling. The forms and limits of the State are distinct and
+circumscribed; since it represents a certain number of objects which
+are familiar to the citizens and beloved by all. It is identified with
+the very soil, with the right of property and the domestic affections,
+with the recollections of the past, the labors of the present, and the
+hopes of the future. Patriotism, then, which is frequently a mere
+extension of individual egotism, is still directed to the State, and is
+not excited by the Union. Thus the tendency of the interests, the
+habits, and the feelings of the people is to centre political activity
+in the States, in preference to the Union.
+The State’s form and boundaries are clear and well-defined; it represents specific things familiar and cherished by citizens—tied to the land, property, family, memories, work, and hopes. Patriotism, often simply an extension of individual self-interest, remains directed toward the State and is not easily stirred by the Union. The people’s interests, habits, and feelings focus political activity on the States.
+It is easy to estimate the different forces of the two governments, by
+remarking the manner in which they fulfil their respective functions.
+Whenever the government of a State has occasion to address an
+individual or an assembly of individuals, its language is clear and
+imperative; and such is also the tone of the Federal Government in its
+intercourse with individuals, but no sooner has it anything to do with
+a State than it begins to parley, to explain its motives and to justify
+its conduct, to argue, to advise, and, in short, anything but to
+command. If doubts are raised as to the limits of the constitutional
+powers of each government, the provincial government prefers its claim
+with boldness, and takes prompt and energetic steps to support it. In
+the mean while the Government of the Union reasons; it appeals to the
+interests, to the good 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 provincial government which is armed with the
+authority of the nation, and that Congress represents a single State.
+> **Quote:** Patriotism, then, which is frequently a mere extension of individual egotism, is still directed to the State, and is not excited by the Union.
+The Federal Government is, therefore, notwithstanding the precautions
+of those who founded it, naturally so weak that it more peculiarly
+requires the free consent of the governed to enable it to subsist. It
+is easy to perceive that its object is to enable the States to realize
+with facility their determination of remaining united; and, as long as
+this preliminary condition exists, its authority is great, temperate,
+and effective. The Constitution fits the Government to control
+individuals, and easily to surmount such obstacles as they may be
+inclined to offer; but it was by no means established with a view to
+the possible separation of one or more of the States from the Union.
+One can judge the relative strength of the two governments by observing their tone. Whenever a State government addresses an individual, its tone is clear and authoritative; the federal government speaks similarly to individuals but negotiates when dealing with States—
+If the sovereignty of the Union were to engage in a struggle with that
+of the States at the present day, its defeat may be confidently
+predicted; and it is not probable that such a struggle would be
+seriously undertaken. As often as a steady resistance is offered to the
+Federal Government it will be found to yield. Experience has hitherto
+shown that whenever a State has demanded anything with perseverance and
+resolution, it has invariably succeeded; and that if a separate
+government has distinctly refused to act, it was left to do as it
+thought fit. *z
+> **Quote:** ...no sooner has it anything to do with a State than it begins to parley, to explain its motives and to justify its conduct, to argue, to advise, and, in short, anything but to command.
+[ 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 so many
+inanimate bodies to living men.”]
+If doubts arise regarding constitutional limits, the State government asserts its claim boldly and takes prompt, energetic steps, while the Federal Government reasons, appeals to national interests, delays, negotiates, and does not act until pushed to the absolute limit.
+> “At first sight it might readily be imagined that it is the provincial government which is armed with the authority of the nation, and that Congress represents a single State.”
+But even if the Government of the Union had any strength inherent in
+itself, the physical situation of the country would render the exercise
+of that strength very difficult. *a The United States cover an immense
+territory; they are separated from each other by great distances; and
+the population is disseminated over the surface of a country which is
+still half a wilderness. If the Union were to undertake to enforce the
+allegiance of the confederate States by military means, it would be in
+a position very analogous to that of England at the time of the War of
+Independence.
+Despite the founders’ precautions, the Federal Government is naturally so weak that it uniquely requires the free consent of the governed to survive. Its purpose is to help the states easily fulfill their desire to remain united; as long as this condition exists, its authority is great, balanced, and effective. The Constitution enables the Government to control individuals but was not established to handle the potential separation of states.
+[ The profound peace of the Union affords no pretext for a standing
+army; and without a standing army a government is not prepared to
+profit by a favorable opportunity to conquer resistance, and take the
+sovereign power by surprise. [This note, and the paragraph in the text
+which precedes, have been shown by the results of the Civil War to be a
+misconception of the writer.]]
+> “If the sovereignty of the Union were to engage in a struggle with that of the States at the present day, its defeat may be confidently predicted.”
+It is unlikely such a struggle would be seriously attempted. Whenever steady resistance is offered, the Federal Government yields. Experience shows that when a state has made a demand with perseverance and resolution, it has succeeded; if a state government has flatly refused to act, it has been left to do as it pleases. During the War of 1812, as Thomas Jefferson wrote to General Lafayette, four Eastern states were attached to the Union only like “inanimate bodies to living men.”
+However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the
+consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the
+foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary
+agreement of the States; and, in uniting together, they have not
+forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the
+condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to
+withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove
+its right of doing so; and the Federal Government would have no means
+of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In
+order to enable the Federal Government easily to conquer the resistance
+which may be offered to it by any one of its subjects, it would be
+necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in
+the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the
+history of confederations.
+Even if the Union possessed inherent strength, the physical geography would make exercising it difficult. The United States covers an immense territory; states are separated by great distances, and the population is scattered across a landscape still half wilderness. If the Union attempted to enforce allegiance by military force, it would find itself in a position similar to England during the War of Independence. Furthermore, the Union’s deep peace provides no excuse for a standing army; without such a force, a government cannot crush resistance or seize power by surprise.
+If it be supposed that amongst the States which are united by the
+federal tie there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal
+advantages of union, or whose prosperity depends on the duration of
+that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to
+support the central Government in enforcing the obedience of the
+others. But the Government would then be exerting a force not derived
+from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form
+confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union;
+and in the case just alluded to, the Federal Government would derive
+its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits amongst the
+States.
+No government can easily escape the consequences of its constitutional principles. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; in joining, they did not surrender their separate identities nor become a single people. If one state chose to withdraw, it would be difficult to disprove its right, and the Federal Government would have no means to maintain its claims by force or law. For the Federal Government to overcome resistance, other states would need a specific interest in the Union’s continued existence—a common occurrence in other confederations.
+If one of the confederate States have acquired a preponderance
+sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the
+central authority, it will consider the other States as subject
+provinces, and it will cause its own supremacy to be respected under
+the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may
+then be done in the name of the Federal Government, but in reality that
+Government will have ceased to exist. *b In both these cases, the power
+which acts in the name of the confederation becomes stronger the more
+it abandons the natural state and the acknowledged principles of
+confederations.
+If certain states enjoyed the primary benefits of the union, they would support forcing others to obey. But that would be a force contrary to the confederation’s nature, drawing power from unequal benefits. If one state acquired enough dominance to control the central authority, it would treat others as subject provinces under the borrowed name of Union sovereignty.
+[ Thus the province of Holland in the republic of the Low Countries,
+and the Emperor in the Germanic Confederation, have sometimes put
+themselves in the place of the union, and have employed the federal
+authority to their own advantage.]
+> **Quote:** Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal Government, but in reality that Government will have ceased to exist.
+In both cases—as in Holland within the Dutch Republic or the Emperor in the Germanic Confederation—the power acting in the confederation’s name becomes stronger only by abandoning such unions’ natural state and principles.
+In America the existing Union is advantageous to all the States, but it
+is not indispensable to any one of them. Several of them might break
+the federal tie without compromising the welfare of the others,
+although their own prosperity would be lessened. As the existence and
+the happiness of none of the States are wholly dependent on the present
+Constitution, they would none of them be disposed to make great
+personal sacrifices to maintain it. On the other hand, there is no
+State which seems hitherto to have its ambition much interested in the
+maintenance of the existing Union. They certainly do not all exercise
+the same influence in the federal councils, but no one of them can hope
+to domineer over the rest, or to treat them as its inferiors or as its
+subjects.
+In America, the Union is beneficial to all states but indispensable to none. Several could break the federal tie without endangering the others, though their own prosperity would suffer. Since no state’s existence and happiness depend entirely on the Constitution, none would sacrifice greatly to maintain it. Conversely, no state has an ambition served by maintaining the Union. While states do not exert equal influence in federal councils, none can dominate the rest or treat them as subjects.
+It appears to me unquestionable that if any portion of the Union
+seriously desired to separate itself from the other States, they would
+not be able, nor indeed would they attempt, to prevent it; and that the
+present Union will only last as long as the States which compose it
+choose to continue members of the confederation. If this point be
+admitted, the question becomes less difficult; and our object is, not
+to inquire whether the States of the existing Union are capable of
+separating, but whether they will choose to remain united.
+It seems certain that if any part of the Union seriously desired separation, the others would be neither able nor willing to prevent it.
+Amongst the various reasons which tend to render the existing Union
+useful to the Americans, two principal causes are peculiarly evident to
+the observer. Although the Americans are, as it were, alone upon their
+continent, their commerce makes them the neighbors of all the nations
+with which they trade. Notwithstanding their apparent isolation, the
+Americans require a certain degree of strength, which they cannot
+retain otherwise than by remaining united to each other. If the States
+were to split, they would not only diminish the strength which they are
+now able to display towards foreign nations, but they would soon create
+foreign powers upon their own territory. A system of inland
+custom-houses would then be established; the valleys would be divided
+by imaginary boundary lines; the courses of the rivers would be
+confined by territorial distinctions; and a multitude of hindrances
+would prevent the Americans from exploring the whole of that vast
+continent which Providence has allotted to them for a dominion. At
+present they have no invasion to fear, and consequently no standing
+armies to maintain, no taxes to levy. If the Union were dissolved, all
+these burdensome measures might ere long be required. The Americans are
+then very powerfully interested in the maintenance of their Union. On
+the other hand, it is almost impossible to discover any sort of
+material interest which might at present tempt a portion of the Union
+to separate from the other States.
+> “The present Union will only last as long as the States which compose it choose to continue members of the confederation.”
+When we cast our eyes upon the map of the United States, we perceive
+the chain of the Alleghany Mountains, running from the northeast to the
+southwest, and crossing nearly one thousand miles of country; and we
+are led to imagine that the design of Providence was to raise between
+the valley of the Mississippi and the coast of the Atlantic Ocean one
+of those natural barriers which break the mutual intercourse of men,
+and form the necessary limits of different States. But the average
+height of the Alleghanies does not exceed 2,500 feet; their greatest
+elevation is not above 4,000 feet; their rounded summits, and the
+spacious valleys which they conceal within their passes, are of easy
+access from several sides. Besides which, the principal rivers which
+fall into the Atlantic Ocean—the Hudson, the Susquehanna, and the
+Potomac—take their rise beyond the Alleghanies, in an open district,
+which borders upon the valley of the Mississippi. These streams quit
+this tract of country, make their way through the barrier which would
+seem to turn them westward, and as they wind through the mountains they
+open an easy and natural passage to man. No natural barrier exists in
+the regions which are now inhabited by the Anglo-Americans; the
+Alleghanies are so far from serving as a boundary to separate nations,
+that they do not even serve as a frontier to the States. New York,
+Pennsylvania, and Virginia comprise them within their borders, and they
+extend as much to the west as to the east of the line. The territory
+now occupied by the twenty-four States of the Union, and the three
+great districts which have not yet acquired the rank of States,
+although they already contain inhabitants, covers a surface of
+,002,600 square miles, *c which is about equal to five times the
+extent of France. Within these limits the qualities of the soil, the
+temperature, and the produce of the country, are extremely various. The
+vast extent of territory occupied by the Anglo-American republics has
+given rise to doubts as to the maintenance of their Union. Here a
+distinction must be made; contrary interests sometimes arise in the
+different provinces of a vast empire, which often terminate in open
+dissensions; and the extent of the country is then most prejudicial to
+the power of the State. But if the inhabitants of these vast regions
+are not divided by contrary interests, the extent of the territory may
+be favorable to their prosperity; for the unity of the government
+promotes the interchange of the different productions of the soil, and
+increases their value by facilitating their consumption.
+Accepting this, we ask not whether states can separate, but whether they will choose to remain united. Among the reasons the Union is useful, two main causes are clear. Although Americans are effectively alone on their continent, their commerce makes them neighbors to every trading nation, requiring strength only maintainable through union. If the states split, they would weaken against foreign nations and create foreign powers on their own territory. An internal system of customs houses would divide valleys by imaginary boundaries; rivers would be restricted by territorial disputes; countless obstacles would prevent Americans from exploring the continent Providence granted them. Currently they fear no invasion and need no standing armies or heavy taxes. If the Union dissolved, these burdens would become necessary. Conversely, it is almost impossible to find any material interest that would tempt one part of the Union to separate.
+[ See “Darby’s View of the United States,” p. 435. [In 1890 the number
+of States and Territories had increased to 51, the population to
+,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 is
+,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 area
+of the Philippine Islands is about 120,000 square miles, that of Hawaii
+is 6,740 square miles, and the area of Porto Rico is about 3,600 square
+miles.]]
+The Allegheny Mountains run about a thousand miles from northeast to southwest, but their average height is only 2,500 feet, highest peaks 4,000 feet. Their rounded summits and wide valleys are easily accessible. Major Atlantic rivers—the Hudson, Susquehanna, and Potomac—originate beyond the Alleghenies, cutting through the barrier and creating natural passages.
+No natural barrier exists in regions inhabited by Anglo-Americans. The Alleghenies are so far from separating nations that they do not even serve as state frontiers. New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia include these mountains within their borders, extending as far west as east. The territory of the twenty-four states and three large districts covers 1,002,600 square miles—about five times the size of France. Within these limits, soil, climate, and products are extremely diverse, raising doubts about the Union’s maintenance. Yet while conflicting interests in a large empire often lead to open conflict, if inhabitants are not divided, the territory’s extent favors prosperity. A unified government promotes exchange of different local products, increasing their value.
+It is indeed easy to discover different interests in the different
+parts of the Union, but I am unacquainted with any which are hostile to
+each other. The Southern States are almost exclusively agricultural.
+The Northern States are more peculiarly commercial and manufacturing.
+The States of the West are at the same time agricultural and
+manufacturing. In the South the crops consist of tobacco, of rice, of
+cotton, and of sugar; in the North and the West, of wheat and maize.
+These are different sources of wealth; but union is the means by which
+these sources are opened to all, and rendered equally advantageous to
+the several districts.
+Different interests exist in different parts of the Union, but none are truly hostile. The South is almost exclusively agricultural. The North focuses on commerce and manufacturing. The West is both agricultural and industrial. The South grows tobacco, rice, cotton, and sugar; the North and West grow wheat and corn. These are different wealth sources, but the Union opens them to everyone, making them equally advantageous.
+The North, which ships the produce of the Anglo-Americans to all parts
+of the world, and brings back the produce of the globe to the Union, is
+evidently interested in maintaining the confederation in its present
+condition, in order that the number of American producers and consumers
+may remain as large as possible. The North is the most natural agent of
+communication between the South and the West of the Union on the one
+hand, and the rest of the world upon the other; the North is therefore
+interested in the union and prosperity of the South and the West, in
+order that they may continue to furnish raw materials for its
+manufactures, and cargoes for its shipping.
+The North, shipping American goods worldwide and bringing global products home, clearly benefits from the confederation. It wants as many American producers and consumers as possible, serving as the natural link between the South, West, and the world. The North needs their prosperity to supply raw materials for its factories and cargo for its ships.
+The South and the West, on their side, are still more directly
+interested in the preservation of the Union, and the prosperity of the
+North. The produce of the South is, for the most part, exported beyond
+seas; the South and the West consequently stand in need of the
+commercial resources of the North. They are likewise interested in the
+maintenance of a powerful fleet by the Union, to protect them
+efficaciously. The South and the West have no vessels, but they cannot
+refuse a willing subsidy to defray the expenses of the navy; for if the
+fleets of Europe were to blockade the ports of the South and the delta
+of the Mississippi, what would become of the rice of the Carolinas, the
+tobacco of Virginia, and the sugar and cotton which grow in the valley
+of the Mississippi? Every portion of the federal budget does therefore
+contribute to the maintenance of material interests which are common to
+all the confederate States.
+The South and West have even more direct interest in preserving the Union and the North’s prosperity. Southern products are mostly exported overseas, so they rely on Northern commercial resources. They also benefit from the Union’s navy, which provides effective protection. Although they own few ships, they should fund the navy; if European fleets blockaded Southern ports or the Mississippi’s mouth, what would become of Carolina rice, Virginia tobacco, or Mississippi Valley sugar and cotton? Every part of the federal budget supports material interests common to all.
+Independently of this commercial utility, the South and the West of the
+Union derive great political advantages from their connection with the
+North. The South contains an enormous slave population; a population
+which is already alarming, and still more formidable for the future.
+The States of the West lie in the remotest parts of a single valley;
+and all the rivers which intersect their territory rise in the Rocky
+Mountains or in the Alleghanies, and fall into the Mississippi, which
+bears them onwards to the Gulf of Mexico. The Western States are
+consequently entirely cut off, by their position, from the traditions
+of Europe and the civilization of the Old World. The inhabitants of the
+South, then, are induced to support the Union in order to avail
+themselves of its protection against the blacks; and the inhabitants of
+the West in order not 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 desire the maintenance of the Union, in order to
+remain, as it now is, the connecting link between that vast body and
+the other parts of the world.
+Beyond commercial utility, the South and West gain great political advantages. The South has a massive slave population—already alarming and more threatening for the future. The Western states lie in a valley whose rivers flow only to the Gulf of Mexico, cutting them off from European traditions. Southerners support the Union for protection against the black population; Westerners support it to ensure communication with the world and avoid being trapped in central America’s wilderness. The North desires the Union to remain the essential link between this vast territory and the globe.
+The temporal interests of all the several parts of the Union are, then,
+intimately connected; and the same assertion holds true respecting
+those opinions and sentiments which may be termed the immaterial
+interests of men.
+The material interests of every part of the Union are intimately connected; the same can be said for the opinions and sentiments that constitute men’s intellectual and emotional interests.
 ### Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part VII
+Americans profess great attachment to their country, but I place little reliance on this transactional patriotism rooted in self-interest, which shifting interests might erase. I also discount their daily expressions of commitment to their ancestral federal system. Government influences citizens less through rational consent than through an instinctive, almost involuntary agreement born of shared feelings and opinions. I will never accept that men form a social body simply because they obey the same leader and the same laws.
+The inhabitants of the United States talk a great deal of their
+attachment to their country; but I confess that I do not rely upon that
+calculating patriotism which is founded upon interest, and which a
+change in the interests at stake may obliterate. Nor do I attach much
+importance to the language of the Americans, when they manifest, in
+their daily conversations, the intention of maintaining the federal
+system adopted by their forefathers. A government retains its sway over
+a great number of citizens, far less by the voluntary and rational
+consent of the multitude, than by that instinctive, and to a certain
+extent involuntary agreement, which results from similarity of feelings
+and resemblances of opinion. I will never admit that men constitute a
+social body, simply because they obey the same head and the same laws.
+Society can only exist when a great number of men consider a great
+number of things in the same point of view; when they hold the same
+opinions upon many subjects, and when the same occurrences suggest the
+same thoughts and impressions to their minds.
+> **Quote:** "Society can only exist when a great number of men consider a great number of things in the same point of view; when they hold the same opinions upon many subjects, and when the same occurrences suggest the same thoughts and impressions to their minds."
+The observer who examines the present condition of the United States
+upon this principle, will readily discover, that although the citizens
+are divided into twenty-four distinct sovereignties, they nevertheless
+constitute a single people; and he may perhaps be led to think that the
+state of the Anglo-American Union is more truly a state of society than
+that of certain nations of Europe which live under the same legislation
+and the same prince.
+An observer applying this principle will discover that although Americans are divided into twenty-four distinct sovereignties, they constitute a single people—perhaps more truly a society than certain European nations under one monarch. Though belonging to various religious sects, they view religion the same way. They differ on specific governmental measures and forms, but unanimously embrace the general principles governing human society: that the people are the source of all power, and they share identical notions of liberty, equality, press freedom, association rights, trial by jury, and official accountability.
+Although the Anglo-Americans have several religious sects, they all
+regard religion in the same manner. They are not always agreed upon the
+measures which are most conducive to good government, and they vary
+upon some of the forms of government which it is expedient to adopt;
+but they are unanimous upon the general principles which ought to rule
+human society. From Maine to the Floridas, and from the Missouri to the
+Atlantic Ocean, the people is held to be the legitimate source of all
+power. The same notions are entertained respecting liberty and
+equality, the liberty of the press, the right of association, the jury,
+and the responsibility of the agents of Government.
+In moral and philosophical principles regulating daily conduct, we find the same consistency. Americans acknowledge the absolute moral authority of community reason, just as they acknowledge the political authority of the citizenry; they believe public opinion the most reliable arbiter of law, truth, and falsehood. Most believe a man guided by his own interest, rightly understood, will do what is just and good.
+If we turn from their political and religious opinions to the moral and
+philosophical principles which regulate the daily actions of life and
+govern their conduct, we shall still find the same uniformity. The
+Anglo-Americans *d acknowledge the absolute moral authority of the
+reason of the community, as they acknowledge the political authority of
+the mass of citizens; and they hold that public opinion is the surest
+arbiter of what is lawful or forbidden, true or false. The majority of
+them believe that a man will be led to do what is just and good by
+following his own interest rightly understood. They hold that every man
+is born in possession of the right of self-government, and that no one
+has the right of constraining his fellow-creatures to be happy. They
+have all a lively faith in the perfectibility of man; they are of
+opinion that the effects of the diffusion of knowledge must necessarily
+be advantageous, and the consequences of ignorance fatal; they all
+consider society as a body in a state of improvement, humanity as a
+changing scene, in which nothing is, or ought to be, permanent; and
+they admit that what appears to them to be good to-day may be
+superseded by something better-to-morrow. I do not give all these
+opinions as true, but I quote them as characteristic of the Americans.
+> **Quote:** "They hold that every man is born in possession of the right of self-government, and that no one has the right of constraining his fellow-creatures to be happy."
+[ It is scarcely necessary for me to observe that by the expression
+Anglo-Americans, I only mean to designate the great majority of the
+nation; for a certain number of isolated individuals are of course to
+be met with holding very different opinions.]
+They share a vibrant faith in the perfectibility of man, convinced that the diffusion of knowledge is necessarily beneficial and ignorance proves fatal. All view society as constantly improving, humanity as a changing scene where nothing is permanent; today's good may be replaced by something better tomorrow. I cite these not as truths but as characteristic of the American people (by which I mean the great majority, for isolated individuals naturally hold different opinions).
+Americans are further united by a common pride. For fifty years, no effort has been spared to convince them they are the only religious, enlightened, and free people. Seeing their democratic institutions succeed while others fail, they have developed an overweening opinion of their superiority, and are not far from believing themselves to belong to a distinct race of mankind.
+The Anglo-Americans are not only united together by these common
+opinions, but they are separated from all other nations by a common
+feeling of pride. For the last fifty years no pains have been spared to
+convince the inhabitants of the United States that they constitute the
+only religious, enlightened, and free people. They perceive that, for
+the present, their own democratic institutions succeed, whilst those of
+other countries fail; hence they conceive an overweening opinion of
+their superiority, and they are not very remote from believing
+themselves to belong to a distinct race of mankind.
+The dangers threatening the Union stem not from diverse interests or opinions, but from different characters and passions. The inhabitants of the vast American territory almost all share common stock; yet climate, and especially slavery, have gradually introduced striking differences between Southern and Northern settlers. Europeans generally believe slavery has made Southern interests contrary to Northern ones, but I found this untrue. Slavery has not created conflicting interests, but has modified character and changed habits.
+The dangers which threaten the American Union do not originate in the
+diversity of interests or of opinions, but in the various characters
+and passions of the Americans. The men who inhabit the vast territory
+of the United States are almost all the issue of a common stock; but
+the effects of the climate, and more especially of slavery, have
+gradually introduced very striking differences between the British
+settler of the Southern States and the British settler of the North. In
+Europe it is generally believed that slavery has rendered the interests
+of one part of the Union contrary to those of another part; but I by no
+means remarked this to be the case: slavery has not created interests
+in the South contrary to those of the North, but it has modified the
+character and changed the habits of the natives of the South.
+I have explained slavery's influence upon Southern commercial abilities, and this extends to manners. The slave is a servant who never argues and submits without complaint. He may commit violence, but never resists his master. In the South, no family is too poor to lack slaves. From his earliest years, the Southern citizen is invested with a sort of domestic dictatorship; his first notion in life is that he is born to command, and his first habit is being obeyed without resistance. His education therefore produces an arrogant, impulsive character—quick-tempered, violent, passionate in desires, impatient with obstacles, yet easily discouraged if success eludes his first attempt.
+I have already explained the influence which slavery has exercised upon
+the commercial ability of the Americans in the South; and this same
+influence equally extends to their manners. The slave is a servant who
+never remonstrates, and who submits to everything without complaint. He
+may sometimes assassinate, but he never withstands, his master. In the
+South there are no families so poor as not to have slaves. The citizen
+of the Southern States of the Union is invested with a sort of domestic
+dictatorship, from his earliest years; the first notion he acquires in
+life is that he is born to command, and the first habit which he
+contracts is that of being obeyed without resistance. His education
+tends, then, to give him the character of a supercilious and a hasty
+man; irascible, violent, and ardent in his desires, impatient of
+obstacles, but easily discouraged if he cannot succeed upon his first
+attempt.
+The Northerner grows up surrounded by no slaves, usually forced to provide for his own needs. Necessity confronts him immediately. He soon learns the natural limits of his authority; he never expects to overpower resistance by force, and knows the surest way to gain support is to win favor. Consequently, he becomes patient, reflective, tolerant, deliberate, and persistent.
+The American of the Northern States is surrounded by no slaves in his
+childhood; he is even unattended by free servants, and is usually
+obliged to provide for his own wants. No sooner does he enter the world
+than the idea of necessity assails him on every side: he soon learns to
+know exactly the natural limit of his authority; he never expects to
+subdue those who withstand him, by force; and he knows that the surest
+means of obtaining the support of his fellow-creatures, is to win their
+favor. He therefore becomes patient, reflecting, tolerant, slow to act,
+and persevering in his designs.
+In the South, life's immediate needs are always met by others, freeing imagination for more captivating but less definite pursuits. The Southerner favors grandeur, luxury, reputation, gaiety, pleasure, and above all, leisure. With no necessary work, he yields to laziness and neglects even what would be useful.
+In the Southern States the more immediate wants of life are always
+supplied; the inhabitants of those parts are not busied in the material
+cares of life, which are always provided for by others; and their
+imagination is diverted to more captivating and less definite objects.
+The American of the South is fond of grandeur, luxury, and renown, of
+gayety, of pleasure, and above all of idleness; nothing obliges him to
+exert himself in order to subsist; and as he has no necessary
+occupations, he gives way to indolence, and does not even attempt what
+would be useful.
+Conversely, wealth equality and slavery's absence in the North immerse inhabitants in daily cares disdained by Southern whites. From infancy they learn to struggle against want and value comfort above intellectual or emotional pleasures. Imagination is stifled by life's trivial details; ideas become fewer and less general, but more practical and precise. Prosperity being their sole goal, they achieve it remarkably well; nature and humanity are turned to financial advantage, and society is made to contribute to the welfare of each of its members, while individual egotism becomes the source of general happiness.
+But the equality of fortunes, and the absence of slavery in the North,
+plunge the inhabitants in those same cares of daily life which are
+disdained by the white population of the South. They are taught from
+infancy to combat want, and to place comfort above all the pleasures of
+the intellect or the heart. The imagination is extinguished by the
+trivial details of life, and the ideas become less numerous and less
+general, but far more practical and more precise. As prosperity is the
+sole aim of exertion, it is excellently well attained; nature and
+mankind are turned to the best pecuniary advantage, and society is
+dexterously made to contribute to the welfare of each of its members,
+whilst individual egotism is the source of general happiness.
+The Northerner possesses not only experience but knowledge, yet values learning only as a means to an end, eager to grasp its profitable applications. The Southerner acts more on impulse; he is cleverer, franker, more generous, intellectual, and brilliant. The former, with greater activity, common sense, information, and general aptitude, displays the middle class's characteristic virtues and vices. The latter has the tastes, prejudices, weaknesses, and magnanimity of an aristocracy. When two people share interests and many opinions but differ in character, skills, and civilization, they will likely disagree. The same applies to a society of nations.
+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 only
+anxious to seize its more lucrative applications. The citizen of the
+South is more given to act upon impulse; he is more clever, more frank,
+more generous, more intellectual, and more brilliant. The former, with
+a greater degree of activity, of common-sense, of information, and of
+general aptitude, has the characteristic good and evil qualities of the
+middle classes. The latter has the tastes, the prejudices, the
+weaknesses, and the magnanimity of all aristocracies. If two men are
+united in society, who have the same interests, and to a certain extent
+the same opinions, but different characters, different acquirements,
+and a different style of civilization, it is probable that these men
+will not agree. The same remark is applicable to a society of nations.
+Slavery, then, does not attack the American Union directly in its
+interests, but indirectly in its manners.
+> **Quote:** "Slavery, then, does not attack the American Union directly in its interests, but indirectly in its manners."
+[ Census of 1790, 3,929,328; 1830, 12,856,165; 1860, 31,443,321; 1870,
+,555,983; 1890, 62,831,900.]
+Census figures reveal staggering growth: 1790, 3,929,328; 1830, 12,856,165; 1860, 31,443,321; 1870, 38,555,983; 1890, 62,831,900. The Union expanded from thirteen states in 1790 to thirty-four, with the population more than tripling in forty years to reach nearly 13,000,000 by 1830. Changes of such magnitude cannot occur without danger.
+A society of nations, like individuals, depends for longevity on members' wisdom, individual weakness, and limited number. Americans who leave the Atlantic coast for the western wilderness are adventurers impatient with restraint, greedy for wealth, often cast out from their birth states. Arriving unknown to each other, lacking traditions, family ties, or social examples to check excesses, the empire of the laws is feeble among them, and that of morality is even more powerless. These Mississippi Valley settlers are inferior in every respect to Americans in the Union's older parts, yet already exercise great influence in councils and reach leadership before learning self-government. (This is temporary; I have no doubt the West will eventually match the Atlantic coast's stability.)
+The States which gave their assent to the federal contract in 1790 were
+thirteen in number; the Union now consists of thirty-four members. The
+population, which amounted to nearly 4,000,000 in 1790, had more than
+tripled in the space of forty years; and in 1830 it amounted to nearly
+,000,000. *e Changes of such magnitude cannot take place without some
+danger.
+The weaker each party, the better the contract's chances, as safety depends on union. In 1790, when the most populous republic (Pennsylvania with 431,373) felt its insignificance, compliance with federal authority came easily. But when a single confederate like New York has 2,000,000 inhabitants and covers roughly 49,170 square miles—a quarter of France—it feels its strength. Though it may continue supporting the Union as beneficial, it no longer views that body as essential and soon aims for federal dominance. Consensus likelihood decreases as states multiply. Presently, different parts' interests do not conflict, but who can foresee future changes in a country where towns are founded daily and States almost yearly?
+A society of nations, as well as a society of individuals, derives its
+principal chances of duration from the wisdom of its members, their
+individual weakness, and their limited number. The Americans who quit
+the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean to plunge into the western wilderness,
+are adventurers impatient of restraint, greedy of wealth, and
+frequently men expelled from the States in which they were born. When
+they arrive in the deserts they are unknown to each other, and they
+have neither traditions, family feeling, nor the force of example to
+check their excesses. The empire of the laws is feeble amongst them;
+that of morality is still more powerless. The settlers who are
+constantly peopling the valley of the Mississippi are, then, in every
+respect very inferior 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 have learnt to govern themselves. *f
+Since British colonial settlement, population has roughly doubled every twenty-two years. I see no cause to check this increase for the next hundred years; before that, I believe the United States will hold more than 100,000,000 inhabitants divided into forty states. I admit these 100,000,000 may have no inherently hostile interests; on the contrary, I assume they are all equally interested in maintaining the Union.
+[ This indeed is only a temporary danger. I have no doubt that in time
+society will assume as much stability and regularity in the West as it
+has already done upon the coast of the Atlantic Ocean.]
+> **Quote:** "I am still of opinion that where there are 100,000,000 of men, and forty distinct nations, unequally strong, the continuance of the Federal Government can only be a fortunate accident."
+If population continues doubling every twenty-two years, it would reach twenty million by 1852, forty-eight million by 1874, and ninety-six million by 1896. This growth will likely continue even if Rocky Mountain lands prove unfit for cultivation, as occupied territory can easily support it. One hundred million people spread across the Union would yield only 762 inhabitants per square league—far below France (1,063), England (1,457), or even Switzerland (783) despite its lakes and mountains. While census results fluctuated slightly due to territorial acquisitions, population by century's end—including Philippines, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico—reached approximately eighty-seven million.
+The greater the individual weakness of each of the contracting parties,
+the greater are the chances of the duration of the contract; for their
+safety is then dependent upon their union. When, in 1790, the most
+populous 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 more
+easy. But when one of the confederate States reckons, like the State of
+New York, 2,000,000 of inhabitants, and covers an extent of territory
+equal in surface to a quarter of France, *h it feels its own strength;
+and although it may continue to support the Union as advantageous to
+its prosperity, it no longer regards that body as necessary to its
+existence, and as it continues to belong to the federal compact, it
+soon aims at preponderance in the federal assemblies. The probable
+unanimity of the States is diminished as their number increases. At
+present the interests of the different parts of the Union are not at
+variance; but who is able to foresee the multifarious changes of the
+future, in a country in which towns are founded from day to day, and
+States almost from year to year?
+Whatever my faith in human progress, until human nature is altered and people completely transformed, I refuse to believe in a government tasked with holding together forty different peoples spread across half of Europe. It is difficult to imagine avoiding all rivalry, ambition, and conflict, or successfully directing independent activities toward common national goals.
+[ Pennsylvania contained 431,373 inhabitants in 1790 [and 5,258,014 in
+.]]
+But the greatest danger from growth arises from constant shifts in internal strength's location. From Lake Superior's 47th parallel to the Gulf of Mexico's 30th spans more than 1,200 miles. The frontier winds along this immense line, sometimes within borders but often pushing into wilderness. The white population advances an average of seventeen miles yearly along this boundary. Occasionally encountering obstacles—unproductive land, lakes, indigenous nations—the column halts briefly, edges pull back, reunite, then push forward again.
+> **Quote:** "This gradual and continuous progress of the European race towards the Rocky Mountains has the solemnity of a providential event; it is like a deluge of men rising unabatedly, and daily driven onwards by the hand of God."
+[ The area of the State of New York is 49,170 square miles. [See U. S.
+census report of 1890.]]
+Behind this conquering line, towns are built and vast states founded. In 1790, only a few thousand pioneers scattered along the Mississippi Valley; today those valleys hold nearly 4,000,000—as many as inhabited the entire Union in 1790. Washington was founded in 1800 at the Union's center, but changes have been so rapid it now sits at an extremity. Delegates from remote Western states must travel Vienna-to-Paris distances to reach the capital, with the Missouri-to-Washington trip exceeding 1,000 miles.
+All states progress toward wealth, but unequally. In the North, Appalachian ridges reach the Atlantic, creating accessible roads and deep-water ports. Yet from the Potomac to the Mississippi mouth, the coast is flat and sandy, with obstructed river mouths and shallow harbors offering fewer commercial advantages. This natural disadvantage is compounded by slavery, abolished in the North but persisting in the South, whose fatal impact on planter prosperity I have already noted. Consequently, the North surpasses the South in commerce and manufacturing, increasing population and wealth more rapidly. In 1829, Massachusetts's shipping tonnage alone tripled that of Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas combined, despite Massachusetts being a fraction of their size. Slavery damages Southern commerce by stifling enterprise and preventing a maritime class, since lower classes of slaves cannot easily or safely serve as sailors.
+Since the first settlement of the British colonies, the number of
+inhabitants has about doubled every twenty-two years. I perceive no
+causes which are likely to check this progressive increase of the
+Anglo-American population for the next hundred years; and before that
+space of time has elapsed, I believe that the territories and
+dependencies of the United States will be covered by more than
+,000,000 of inhabitants, and divided into forty States. *i I admit
+that these 100,000,000 of men have no hostile interests. I suppose, on
+the contrary, that they are all equally interested in the maintenance
+of the Union; but I am still of opinion that where there are
+,000,000 of men, and forty distinct nations, unequally strong, the
+continuance of the Federal Government can only be a fortunate accident.
+The Atlantic states, being well-settled with mostly private land, cannot absorb immigrants like the Western states, where boundless fields remain open. The Mississippi Valley's superior fertility drives Europeans westward: while total population roughly tripled in forty years, the new Mississippi states increased thirty-one-fold.
+[ If the population continues to double every twenty-two years, as it
+has done for the last two hundred years, the number of inhabitants in
+the United States in 1852 will be twenty millions; in 1874, forty-eight
+millions; and in 1896, ninety-six millions. This may still be the case
+even if the lands on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains should be
+found to be unfit for cultivation. The territory which is already
+occupied can easily contain this number of inhabitants. One hundred
+millions of men disseminated over the surface of the twenty-four
+States, and the three dependencies, which constitute the Union, would
+only give 762 inhabitants to the square league; this would be far below
+the mean population of France, which is 1,063 to the square league; or
+of England, which is 1,457; and it would even be below the population
+of Switzerland, for that country, notwithstanding its lakes and
+mountains, contains 783 inhabitants to the square league. See “Malte
+Brun,” vol. vi. p. 92.
+The center of federal power is continually shifting. Forty years ago, most citizens lived near Washington on the Atlantic coast; today the great body moves inland and northward, so that within twenty years the majority will reside west of the Appalachians. If the Union persists, the Mississippi basin is clearly destined by fertility and size to become the Federal Government's future center. In thirty or forty years, that region will claim its natural prominence, its population eventually outweighing the Atlantic coast forty to eleven. Soon, the original states will lose policy control, and the Mississippi Valley will dominate federal assemblies.
+This constant northwestward power shift is revealed every ten years by the census recalculating congressional representation. In 1790, Virginia had nineteen representatives, growing to twenty-three by 1813, then declining to twenty-one by 1833. New York moved oppositely: ten in 1790, twenty-seven in 1813, thirty-four in 1823, forty in 1833. Ohio had one representative in 1803 and nineteen by 1833.
+[The actual result has fallen somewhat short of these calculations, in
+spite of the vast territorial acquisitions of the United States: but in
+the population is probably about eighty-seven millions, including
+the population of the Philippines, Hawaii, and Porto Rico.]]
+A state's influence can diminish even when its population grows, provided it grows slower than the Union. While Virginia's population rose thirteen percent over one decade, its relative share dropped because Ohio grew sixty-one percent and Michigan 250 percent. If a state's growth lags the national average, its representatives must decrease to reflect diminishing relative power. By century's end, this shift was so pronounced that Virginia and West Virginia combined sent only fourteen representatives to Congress.
+Whatever faith I may have in the perfectibility of man, until human
+nature is altered, and men wholly transformed, I shall refuse to
+believe in the duration of a government which is called upon to hold
+together forty different peoples, disseminated over a territory equal
+to one-half of Europe in extent; to avoid all rivalry, ambition, and
+struggles between them, and to direct their independent activity to the
+accomplishment of the same designs.
+But the greatest peril to which the Union is exposed by its increase
+arises from the continual changes which take place in the position of
+its internal strength. The distance from Lake Superior to the Gulf of
+Mexico extends from the 47th to the 30th degree of latitude, a distance
+of more than 1,200 miles as the bird flies. The frontier of the United
+States winds along the whole of this immense line, sometimes falling
+within its limits, but more frequently extending far beyond it, into
+the waste. It has been calculated that the whites advance every year a
+mean distance of seventeen miles along the whole of his vast boundary.
+*j Obstacles, such as an unproductive district, a lake or an Indian
+nation unexpectedly encountered, are sometimes met with. The advancing
+column then halts for a while; its two extremities fall back upon
+themselves, and as soon as they are reunited they proceed onwards. This
+gradual and continuous progress of the European race towards the Rocky
+Mountains has the solemnity of a providential event; it is like a
+deluge of men rising unabatedly, and daily driven onwards by the hand
+of God.
+[ See Legislative Documents, 20th Congress, No. 117, p. 105.]
+Within this first line of conquering settlers towns are built, and vast
+States founded. In 1790 there were only a few thousand pioneers
+sprinkled along the valleys of the Mississippi; and at the present day
+these valleys contain as many inhabitants as were to be found in the
+whole Union in 1790. Their population amounts to nearly 4,000,000. *k
+The city of Washington was founded in 1800, in the very centre of the
+Union; but such are the changes which have taken place, that it now
+stands at one of the extremities; and the delegates of the most remote
+Western States are already obliged to perform a journey as long as that
+from Vienna to Paris. *l
+[ 3,672,317—Census of 1830.]
+[ The distance from Jefferson, the capital of the State of Missouri, to
+Washington is 1,019 miles. (“American Almanac,” 1831, p. 48.)]
+All the States are borne onwards at the same time in the path of
+fortune, but of course they do not all increase and prosper in the same
+proportion. To the North of the Union the detached branches of the
+Alleghany chain, which extend as far as the Atlantic Ocean, form
+spacious roads and ports, which are constantly accessible to vessels of
+the greatest burden. But from the Potomac to the mouth of the
+Mississippi the coast is sandy and flat. In this part of the Union the
+mouths of almost all the rivers are obstructed; and the few harbors
+which exist amongst these lagoons afford much shallower water to
+vessels, and much fewer commercial advantages than those of the North.
+This first natural cause of inferiority is united to another cause
+proceeding from the laws. We have already seen that slavery, which is
+abolished in the North, still exists in the South; and I have pointed
+out its fatal consequences upon the prosperity of the planter himself.
+The North is therefore superior to the South both in commerce *m and
+manufacture; the natural consequence of which is the more rapid
+increase of population and of wealth within its borders. The States
+situate upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean are already half-peopled.
+Most of the land is held by an owner; and these districts cannot
+therefore receive so many emigrants as the Western States, where a
+boundless field is still open to their exertions. The valley of the
+Mississippi is far more fertile than the coast of the Atlantic Ocean.
+This reason, added to all the others, contributes to drive the
+Europeans westward—a fact which may be rigorously demonstrated by
+figures. It is found that the sum total of the population of all the
+United States has about tripled in the course of forty years. But in
+the recent States adjacent to the Mississippi, the population has
+increased thirty-one-fold, within the same space of time. *n
+[ The following statements will suffice to show the difference which
+exists between the commerce of the South and that of the 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
+vessels of the State of Massachusetts alone amounted to 17,322 tons.
+(See Legislative Documents, 21st Congress, 2d session, No. 140, p.
+.) Thus the State of Massachusetts had three times as much shipping
+as the four above-mentioned States. Nevertheless the area of the State
+of Massachusetts is only 7,335 square miles, and its population amounts
+to 610,014 inhabitants [2,238,943 in 1890]; whilst the area of the four
+other States I have quoted is 210,000 square miles, and their
+population 3,047,767. Thus the area of the State of Massachusetts forms
+only one-thirtieth part of the area of the four States; and its
+population is five times smaller than theirs. (See “Darby’s View of the
+United States.”) Slavery is prejudicial to the commercial prosperity of
+the South in several different ways; by diminishing the spirit of
+enterprise amongst the whites, and by preventing them from meeting with
+as numerous a class of sailors as they require. Sailors are usually
+taken from the lowest ranks of the population. But in the Southern
+States these lowest ranks are composed of slaves, and it is very
+difficult to employ them at sea. They are unable to serve as well as a
+white crew, and apprehensions would always be entertained of their
+mutinying in the middle of the ocean, or of their escaping in the
+foreign countries at which they might touch.]
+[ “Darby’s View of the United States,” p. 444.]
+The relative position of the central federal power is continually
+displaced. Forty years ago the majority of the citizens of the Union
+was established upon the coast of the Atlantic, in the environs of the
+spot upon which Washington now stands; but the great body of the people
+is now advancing inland and to the north, so that in twenty years the
+majority will unquestionably be on the western side of the Alleghanies.
+If the Union goes on to subsist, the basin of the Mississippi is
+evidently marked out, by its fertility and its extent, as the future
+centre of the Federal Government. In thirty or forty years, that tract
+of country will have assumed the rank which naturally belongs to it. It
+is easy to calculate that its population, compared to that of the coast
+of the Atlantic, will be, in round numbers, as 40 to 11. In a few years
+the States which founded the Union will lose the direction of its
+policy, and the population of the valley of the Mississippi will
+preponderate in the federal assemblies.
+This constant gravitation of the federal power and influence towards
+the northwest is shown every ten years, when a general census of the
+population is made, and the number of delegates which each State sends
+to Congress is settled afresh. *o In 1790 Virginia had nineteen
+representatives in Congress. This number continued to increase until
+the year 1813, when it reached to twenty-three; from that time it began
+to decrease, and in 1833 Virginia elected only twenty-one
+representatives. *p During the same period the State of New York
+progressed in the contrary direction: in 1790 it had ten
+representatives in Congress; in 1813, twenty-seven; in 1823,
+thirty-four; and in 1833, forty. The State of Ohio had only one
+representative in 1803, and in 1833 it had already nineteen.
+[ It may be seen that in the course of the last ten years (1820-1830)
+the population of one district, as, for instance, the State of
+Delaware, has increased in the proportion of five per cent.; whilst
+that of another, as the territory of Michigan, has increased 250 per
+cent. Thus the population of Virginia had augmented thirteen per cent.,
+and that of the border State of Ohio sixty-one per cent., in the same
+space of time. The general table of these changes, which is given in
+the “National Calendar,” displays a striking picture of the unequal
+fortunes of the different States.]
+[ It has just been said that in the course of the last term the
+population of Virginia has increased thirteen per cent.; and it is
+necessary to explain how the number of representatives for a State may
+decrease, when the population of that State, far from diminishing, is
+actually upon the increase. I take the State of Virginia, to which I
+have already alluded, as my term of comparison. The number of
+representatives of Virginia in 1823 was proportionate to the total
+number of the representatives of the Union, and to the relation which
+the population bore to that of the whole Union: in 1833 the number of
+representatives of Virginia was likewise proportionate to the total
+number of the representatives of the Union, and to the relation which
+its population, augmented in the course of ten years, bore to the
+augmented population of the Union in the same space of time. The new
+number of Virginian representatives will then be to the old numver, on
+the one hand, as the new numver of all the representatives is to the
+old number; and, on the other hand, as the augmentation of the
+population of Virginia is to that of the whole population of the
+country. Thus, if the increase of the population of the lesser country
+be to that of the greater in an exact inverse ratio of the proportion
+between the new and the old numbers of all the representatives, the
+number of the representatives of Virginia will remain stationary; and
+if the increase of the Virginian population be to that of the whole
+Union in a feeblerratio than the new number of the representatives of
+the Union to the old number, the number of the representatives of
+Virginia must decrease. [Thus, to the 56th Congress in 1899, Virginia
+and West Virginia send only fourteen representatives.]]
 ### Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part VIII
+A lasting union is difficult between rich and poor, strong and weak, even without direct causation. The difficulty grows when one party loses power while the other gains it. The rapid and disproportionate growth of certain states threatens the independence of the others. New York might—with its two million inhabitants and forty representatives—dominate Congress. But even without attempted oppression, the danger exists, for the mere possibility unsettles nearly as much as the act itself.
+It is difficult to imagine a durable union of a people which is rich
+and strong with one which is poor and weak, even if it were proved that
+the strength and wealth of the one are not the causes of the weakness
+and poverty of the other. But union is still more difficult to maintain
+at a time at which one party is losing strength, and the other is
+gaining it. This rapid and disproportionate increase of certain States
+threatens the independence of the others. New York might perhaps
+succeed, with its 2,000,000 of inhabitants and its forty
+representatives, in dictating to the other States in Congress. But even
+if the more powerful States make no attempt to bear down the lesser
+ones, the danger still exists; for there is almost as much in the
+possibility of the act as in the act itself. The weak generally
+mistrust the justice and the reason of the strong. The States which
+increase less rapidly than the others look upon those which are more
+favored by fortune with envy and suspicion. Hence arise the deep-seated
+uneasiness and ill-defined agitation which are observable in the South,
+and which form so striking a contrast to the confidence and prosperity
+which are common to other parts of the Union. I am inclined to think
+that the hostile measures taken by the Southern provinces upon a recent
+occasion are attributable to no other cause. The inhabitants of the
+Southern States are, of all the Americans, those who are most
+interested in the maintenance of the Union; they would assuredly suffer
+most from being left to themselves; and yet they are the only citizens
+who threaten to break the tie of confederation. But it is easy to
+perceive that the South, which has given four Presidents, Washington,
+Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, to the Union, which perceives that it
+is losing its federal influence, and that the number of its
+representatives in Congress is diminishing from year to year, whilst
+those of the Northern and Western States are increasing; the South,
+which is peopled with ardent and irascible beings, is becoming more and
+more irritated and alarmed. The citizens reflect upon their present
+position and remember their past influence, with the melancholy
+uneasiness of men who suspect oppression: if they discover a law of the
+Union which is not unequivocally favorable to their interests, they
+protest against it as an abuse of force; and if their ardent
+remonstrances are not listened to, they threaten to quit an association
+which loads them with burdens whilst it deprives them of their due
+profits. “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
+wealth of the North, with its inclement skies and arid soil; whilst the
+South, which may be styled the garden of America, is rapidly
+declining?” *q
+> **Quote:** "The weak generally mistrust the justice and the reason of the strong."
+[ See the report of its committee to the Convention which proclaimed
+the nullification of the tariff in South Carolina.]
+The states growing less rapidly look upon their more fortunate neighbors with envy and suspicion. This is the source of the deep-seated unease in the South, which stands in such striking contrast to the confidence elsewhere. I am inclined to believe this explains the hostile measures recently taken by Southern states. The inhabitants of the South are, of all Americans, most interested in maintaining the Union; they would suffer most alone; yet they are the only ones threatening to break the federal bond. The South, having provided four of the nation’s first five presidents—Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe—now watches its federal influence dwindle as Northern and Western representation grows. Peopled by ardent and irascible individuals, the region views this decline with the melancholy unease of those who suspect they are being oppressed.
+South Carolina—purely agricultural, with no manufacturing to protect—complained early. In 1832, its inhabitants said: "The tariff enriches the North and ruins the South; for if this were not the case, to what can we attribute the continually increasing power and wealth of the North, with its inclement skies and arid soil; whilst the South, which may be styled the garden of America, is rapidly declining?"
+If the changes which I have described were gradual, so that each
+generation at least might have time to disappear with the order of
+things under which it had lived, the danger would be less; but the
+progress of society in America is precipitate, and almost
+revolutionary. The same citizen may have lived to see his State take
+the lead in the Union, and afterwards become powerless in the federal
+assemblies; and an Anglo-American republic has been known to grow as
+rapidly as a man passing from birth and infancy to maturity in the
+course of thirty years. It must not be imagined, however, that the
+States which lose their preponderance, also lose their population or
+their riches: no stop is put to their prosperity, and they even go on
+to increase more rapidly than any kingdom in Europe. *r But they
+believe themselves to be impoverished because their wealth does not
+augment as rapidly as that of their neighbors; any they think that
+their power is lost, because they suddenly come into collision with a
+power greater than their own: *s thus they are more hurt in their
+feelings and their passions than in their interests. But this is amply
+sufficient to endanger the maintenance of the Union. If kings and
+peoples had only had their true interests in view ever since the
+beginning of the world, the name of war would scarcely be known among
+mankind.
+Were these changes gradual—one generation passing with its order—the danger would be less. But American progress is precipitate, almost revolutionary; a republic may grow from infancy to maturity in a mere thirty years. The declining states are not losing population or wealth. Between 1820-1830, Virginia grew 13.7%, South Carolina 15%, Georgia 15.5%—exceeding European rates. Yet they feel impoverished because their neighbors grow faster, and their power lost because they are eclipsed. Though falling tobacco prices have reduced planters' wealth, they are more wounded in pride than interests. But this is enough to endanger the Union. If nations considered only true interests, "war" would be unknown.
+[ The population of a country assuredly constitutes the first element
+of its wealth. In the ten years (1820-1830) during which Virginia lost
+two of its representatives in Congress, its population increased in the
+proportion of 13.7 per cent.; that of Carolina in the proportion 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, at the
+rate of seven per cent.; and in Europe in general, at the rate of 4.7
+per cent. (See “Malte Brun,” vol. vi. p. 95)]
+The Union may perish in two ways: a state may forcibly withdraw, or federal authority may be progressively eroded by states reclaiming independence. The central power, stripped of prerogatives by silent consent, would become impotent. The Union would perish, like the first, through a sort of senile inaptitude.
+Americans fear centralization, seeing sovereignty concentrate in most nations. They attack federal overreach to win popular favor. But they fail to realize those countries contain single peoples, whereas the Union comprises independent communities. I consider these fears imaginary. Far from dreading consolidation, I believe the Federal Government is visibly losing strength.
+[ It must be admitted, however, that the depreciation which has taken
+place in the value of tobacco, during the last fifty years, has notably
+diminished the opulence of the Southern planters: but this circumstance
+is as independent of the will of their Northern brethren as it is of
+their own.]
+The Union is forty-five years old. Local prejudices have faded; state patriotism has become less exclusive; the regions have grown better acquainted. The postal service reaches into the wilderness—Michigan had nearly a thousand miles of mail roads by 1832. Steamboats run daily along the coasts; hundreds operate on the Mississippi. Americans cross the country constantly; no French province knows itself as well as thirteen million Americans do.
+Yet as they intermingle, they grow more alike. Differences from climate, origin, and institutions diminish. Thousands leave the North annually, bringing their faith and opinions; being often more educated, they rise to leadership. Northern civilization appears the national standard. The commercial ties uniting the states are strengthened by growing American manufacturing, and the shared opinions that initially unified them are gradually becoming part of their daily habits.
+Thus the prosperity of the United States is the source of the most
+serious dangers that threaten them, since it tends to create in some of
+the confederate States that over-excitement which accompanies a rapid
+increase of fortune; and to awaken in others those feelings of envy,
+mistrust, and regret which usually attend upon the loss of it. The
+Americans contemplate this extraordinary and hasty progress with
+exultation; but they would be wiser to consider it with sorrow and
+alarm. The Americans of the United States must inevitably become one of
+the greatest nations in the world; their offset will cover almost the
+whole of North America; the continent which they inhabit is their
+dominion, and it cannot escape them. What urges them to take possession
+of it so soon? Riches, power, and renown cannot fail to be theirs at
+some future time, but they rush upon their fortune as if but a moment
+remained for them to make it their own.
+The fears of 1789 have vanished. Federal power has not become oppressive, destroyed state independence, or subjected them to monarchy. The Union has grown in population, wealth, and power. Natural obstacles to its survival are weaker than in 1789; its enemies fewer. Nevertheless, federal power is declining. It should be noted that while federal power has increased significantly since 1861, the trend in the earlier era was the opposite.
+I think that I have demonstrated that the existence of the present
+confederation depends entirely on the continued assent of all the
+confederates; and, starting from this principle, I have inquired into
+the causes which may induce the several States to separate from the
+others. The Union may, however, perish in two different ways: one of
+the confederate States may choose to retire from the compact, and so
+forcibly to sever the federal tie; and it is to this supposition that
+most of the remarks that I have made apply: or the authority of the
+Federal Government may be progressively entrenched on by the
+simultaneous tendency of the united republics to resume their
+independence. The central power, successively stripped of all its
+prerogatives, and reduced to impotence by tacit consent, would become
+incompetent to fulfil its purpose; and the second Union would perish,
+like the first, by a sort of senile inaptitude. The gradual weakening
+of the federal tie, which may finally lead to the dissolution of the
+Union, is a distinct circumstance, that may produce a variety of minor
+consequences before it operates so violent a change. The confederation
+might still subsist, although its Government were reduced to such a
+degree of inanition as to paralyze the nation, to cause internal
+anarchy, and to check the general prosperity of the country.
+When the 1789 Constitution was established, the nation suffered anarchy. The Union met desperate need, so despite hostility, federal power soon peaked—as happens after hard-won struggles. Constitutional interpretations then expanded federal sovereignty; the Union seemed a single people. But this required rising above natural inclinations. The Constitution did not destroy state sovereignty, and all communities naturally assert independence—especially in America, where every village is a republic. Submitting to federal authority required effort, which fades as causes disappear.
+After having investigated the causes which may induce the
+Anglo-Americans to disunite, it is important to inquire whether, if the
+Union continues to subsist, their Government will extend or contract
+its sphere of action, and whether it will become more energetic or more
+weak.
+As federal authority solidified, America regained international standing, peace returned, credit restored. Prosperity made Americans forget its causes; patriotism vanished with danger. Freed from pressing concerns, they returned to old habits and natural inclinations. They found powerful government intrusive and wanted it as light as possible. The Union principle was accepted, but details trended toward independence. The Federal Government brought about its own decline while establishing order.
+The Americans are evidently disposed to look upon their future
+condition with alarm. They perceive that in most of the nations of the
+world the exercise of the rights of sovereignty tends to fall under the
+control of a few individuals, and they are dismayed by the idea that
+such will also be the case in their own country. Even the statesmen
+feel, or affect to feel, these fears; for, in America, centralization
+is by no means popular, and there is no surer means of courting the
+majority than by inveighing against the encroachments of the central
+power. The Americans do not perceive that the countries in which this
+alarming tendency to centralization exists are inhabited by a single
+people; whilst the fact of the Union being composed of different
+confederate communities is sufficient to baffle all the inferences
+which might be drawn from analogous circumstances. I confess that I am
+inclined to consider the fears of a great number of Americans as purely
+imaginary; and far from participating in their dread of the
+consolidation of power in the hands of the Union, I think that the
+Federal Government is visibly losing strength.
+Party leaders exploited this shift. The Federal Government's position became critical; enemies gained favor by promising to reduce its influence.
+To prove this assertion I shall not have recourse to any remote
+occurrences, but to circumstances which I have myself witnessed, and
+which belong to our own time.
+The Constitution gave the Union right over national interests, including "internal improvements" like canals. States feared this distinct power would acquire dangerous patronage. The Democratic party, opposing federal expansion, accused Congress of overreach. Intimidated, the central government admitted error and promised to limit itself to legal boundaries.
+An attentive examination of what is going on in the United States will
+easily convince us that two opposite tendencies exist in that country,
+like two distinct currents flowing in contrary directions in the same
+channel. The Union has now existed for forty-five years, and in the
+course of that time a vast number of provincial prejudices, which were
+at first hostile to its power, have died away. The patriotic feeling
+which attached each of the Americans to his own native State is become
+less exclusive; and the different parts of the Union have become more
+intimately connected the better they have become acquainted with each
+other. The post, *t that great instrument of intellectual intercourse,
+now reaches into the backwoods; and steamboats have established daily
+means of communication between the different points of the coast. An
+inland navigation of unexampled rapidity conveys commodities up and
+down the rivers of the country. *u And to these facilities of nature
+and art may be added those restless cravings, that busy-mindedness, and
+love of pelf, which are constantly urging the American into active
+life, and bringing him into contact with his fellow-citizens. He
+crosses the country in every direction; he visits all the various
+populations of the land; and there is not a province in France in which
+the natives are so well known to each other as the 13,000,000 of men
+who cover the territory of the United States.
+The Union's constitutional right to negotiate with foreign nations once applied to Native tribes. While tribes moved willingly, federal authority stood. But when tribes sought permanent settlement, neighboring States claimed land and sovereignty. The central government recognized these claims; after concluding treaties with the Indians as independent nations, it effectively abandoned them to the legislative tyranny of the states.
+[ In 1832, the district of Michigan, which only contains 31,639
+inhabitants, and is still an almost unexplored wilderness, possessed
+miles of mail-roads. The territory of Arkansas, which is still more
+uncultivated, was already intersected by 1,938 miles of mail-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.]
+Atlantic states once claimed indefinite western territories. To preserve union, they ceded these lands to the confederation (New York 1780 through Georgia 1802). The Federal Government owned and sold these lands, reserving proceeds for national purposes. But as new States formed in these territories, they demanded exclusive rights to sale profits. Facing threats, Congress in 1832 passed a law—supported by the President in 1833—giving most revenue to the new western states, though the Union retained land ownership.
+The national bank offers striking benefits: its notes circulate at uniform value from wilderness to Philadelphia. Established in 1816 with $35 million capital, it faced intense opposition. Congress renewed its charter in 1832, but the President vetoed it. Its downfall—later completed by Jackson—seemed inevitable.
+[ In the course of ten years, from 1821 to 1831, 271 steamboats have
+been launched upon the rivers which water the valley of the Mississippi
+alone. In 1829 259 steamboats existed in the United States. (See
+Legislative Documents, No. 140, p. 274.)]
+The Bank faced deep animosity. Directors opposed the President, who retaliated bitterly, believing he had majority support. The bank served as the Union's financial bond, like Congress is its legislative bond; the same passions driving states toward independence also pushed to destroy it.
+The Bank held many state bank notes, demanding conversion to cash at will. While the National Bank could meet these demands, local banks—restricted to issuing notes proportional to their capital—resented this oversight. Newspapers and the President attacked the bank, stirring local prejudices and claiming its directors formed a permanent aristocracy that would corrupt government and undermine equality.
+But whilst the Americans intermingle, they grow in resemblance of each
+other; the differences resulting from their climate, their origin, and
+their institutions, diminish; and they all draw nearer and nearer to
+the common type. Every year, thousands of men leave the North to settle
+in different parts of the Union: they bring with them their faith,
+their opinions, and their manners; and as they are more enlighthned
+than the men amongst whom they are about to dwell, they soon rise to
+the head of affairs, and they adapt society to their own advantage.
+This continual emigration of the North to the South is peculiarly
+favorable to the fusion of all the different provincial characters into
+one national character. The civilization of the North appears to be the
+common standard, to which the whole nation will one day be assimilated.
+This conflict reflects the larger struggle between states and central power—between democratic independence and national order. The bank's enemies share motivations with federal government's attackers. This widespread opposition signals weakening federal support.
+The commercial ties which unite the confederate States are strengthened
+by the increasing manufactures of the Americans; and the union which
+began to exist in their opinions, gradually forms a part of their
+habits: the course of time has swept away the bugbear thoughts which
+haunted the imaginations of the citizens in 1789. The federal power is
+not become oppressive; it has not destroyed the independence of the
+States; it has not subjected the confederates to monarchial
+institutions; and the Union has not rendered the lesser States
+dependent upon the larger ones; but the confederation has continued to
+increase in population, in wealth, and in power. I am therefore
+convinced that the natural obstacles to the continuance of the American
+Union are not so powerful at the present time as they were in 1789; and
+that the enemies of the Union are not so numerous.
+The Union never seemed weaker than during the tariff controversy. The French Revolutionary wars and War of 1812 created Northern factories by cutting European trade. When peace returned, import duties protected these industries and paid war debts. The purely agricultural South, lacking manufacturing, complained—whether justly or not, I will not judge.
+Nevertheless, a careful examination of the history of the United States
+for the last forty-five years will readily convince us that the federal
+power is declining; nor is it difficult to explain the causes of this
+phenomenon. *v When the Constitution of 1789 was promulgated, the
+nation was a prey to anarchy; the Union, which succeeded this
+confusion, excited much dread and much animosity; but it was warmly
+supported because it satisfied an imperious want. Thus, although it was
+more attacked than it is now, the federal power soon reached the
+maximum of its authority, as is usually the case with a government
+which triumphs after having braced its strength by the struggle. At
+that time the interpretation of the Constitution seemed to extend,
+rather than to repress, the federal sovereignty; and the Union offered,
+in several respects, the appearance of a single and undivided people,
+directed in its foreign and internal policy by a single Government. But
+to attain this point the people had risen, to a certain extent, above
+itself.
+In 1820, South Carolina petitioned Congress, calling the tariff "unconstitutional, oppressive, and unjust." Other Southern states later protested. But Congress raised rates in 1824 and 1828, reviving the doctrine of Nullification.
+[ [Since 1861 the movement is certainly in the opposite direction, and
+the federal power has largely increased, and tends to further
+increase.]]
+The Federal Constitution aimed not at a loose league but a national government. In constitutional matters, Americans are one people; the majority expresses national will, and the minority must submit. This sound doctrine aligns with the Constitution and founders' intentions.
+Nullifiers argue the opposite: the Union is a league of independent States retaining full sovereignty. Therefore, each State may interpret and suspend federal laws it deems unconstitutional or unjust.
+The Constitution had not destroyed the distinct sovereignty of the
+States; and all communities, of whatever nature they may be, are
+impelled by a secret propensity to assert their independence. This
+propensity is still more decided in a country like America, in which
+every village forms a sort of republic accustomed to conduct its own
+affairs. It therefore cost the States an effort to submit to the
+federal supremacy; and all efforts, however successful they may be,
+necessarily subside with the causes in which they originated.
+> **Quote:** "The Constitution is a compact to which the States were parties in their sovereign capacity; now, whenever a compact is entered into by parties which acknowledge no tribunal above their authority to decide in the last resort, each of them has a right to judge for itself in relation to the nature, extent, and obligations of the instrument."
+As the Federal Government consolidated its authority, America resumed
+its rank amongst the nations, peace returned to its frontiers, and
+public credit was restored; confusion was succeeded by a fixed state of
+things, which was favorable to the full and free exercise of
+industrious enterprise. It was this very prosperity which made the
+Americans forget the cause to which it was attributable; and when once
+the danger was passed, the energy and the patriotism which had enabled
+them to brave it disappeared from amongst them. No sooner were they
+delivered from the cares which oppressed them, than they easily
+returned to their ordinary habits, and gave themselves up without
+resistance to their natural inclinations. When a powerful Government no
+longer appeared to be necessary, they once more began to think it
+irksome. The Union encouraged a general prosperity, and the States were
+not inclined to abandon the Union; but they desired to render the
+action of the power which represented that body as light as possible.
+The general principle of Union was adopted, but in every minor detail
+there was an actual tendency to independence. The principle of
+confederation was every day more easily admitted, and more rarely
+applied; so that the Federal Government brought about its own decline,
+whilst it was creating order and peace.
+This doctrine destroys the Federal Constitution's foundation and revives the old confederation's problems.
+As soon as this tendency of public opinion began to be manifested
+externally, the leaders of parties, who live by the passions of the
+people, began to work it to their own advantage. The position of the
+Federal Government then became exceedingly critical. Its enemies were
+in possession of the popular favor; and they obtained the right of
+conducting its policy by pledging themselves to lessen its influence.
+From that time forwards the Government of the Union has invariably been
+obliged to recede, as often as it has attempted to enter the lists with
+the governments of the States. And whenever an interpretation of the
+terms of the Federal Constitution has been called for, that
+interpretation has most frequently been opposed to the Union, and
+favorable to the States.
+When South Carolina saw Congress ignore its protests, it threatened nullification. In 1832, a majority—30,000 against 17,000 pro-Union—called a Convention. On November 24th, it issued a decree annulling the tariff, forbidding duty collection, and rejecting federal court appeals. The report argued that violated states must interfere to maintain sovereignty, acknowledging no earthly authority. The decree was set for February, though Congress could avert it by modifying the tariff. Later, South Carolina vaguely suggested submitting the issue to a general assembly of all states. The state’s position was summarized in its convention report:
+The Constitution invested the Federal Government with the right of
+providing for the interests of the nation; and it had been held that no
+other authority was so fit to superintend the “internal improvements”
+which affected the prosperity of the whole Union; such, for instance,
+as the cutting of canals. But the States were alarmed at a power,
+distinct from their own, which could thus dispose of a portion of their
+territory; and they were afraid that the central Government would, by
+this means, acquire a formidable extent of patronage within their own
+confines, and exercise a degree of influence which they intended to
+reserve exclusively to their own agents. The Democratic party, which
+has constantly been opposed to the increase of the federal authority,
+then accused the Congress of usurpation, and the Chief Magistrate of
+ambition. The central Government was intimidated by the opposition; and
+it soon acknowledged its error, promising exactly to confine its
+influence for the future within the circle which was prescribed to it.
+> **Quote:** "South Carolina declares that she acknowledges no tribunal upon earth above her authority. She has indeed entered into a solemn compact of union with the other States; but she demands, and will exercise, the right of putting her own construction upon it."
+The Constitution confers upon the Union the right of treating with
+foreign nations. The Indian tribes, which border upon the frontiers of
+the United States, had usually been regarded in this light. As long as
+these savages consented to retire before the civilized settlers, the
+federal right was not contested: but as soon as an Indian tribe
+attempted to fix its dwelling upon a given spot, the adjacent States
+claimed possession of the lands and the rights of sovereignty over the
+natives. The central Government soon recognized both these claims; and
+after it had concluded treaties with the Indians as independent
+nations, it gave them up as subjects to the legislative tyranny of the
+States. *w
+[ See in the Legislative Documents, already quoted in speaking of the
+Indians, the letter of the President of the United States to the
+Cherokees, his correspondence on this subject with his agents, and his
+messages to Congress.]
+Some of the States which had been founded upon the coast of the
+Atlantic, extended indefinitely to the West, into wild regions where no
+European had ever penetrated. The States whose confines were
+irrevocably fixed, looked with a jealous eye upon the unbounded regions
+which the future would enable their neighbors to explore. The latter
+then agreed, with a view to conciliate the others, and to facilitate
+the act of union, to lay down their own boundaries, and to abandon all
+the territory which lay beyond those limits to the confederation at
+large. *x Thenceforward the Federal Government became the owner of all
+the uncultivated lands which lie beyond the borders of the thirteen
+States first confederated. It was invested with the right of parcelling
+and selling them, and the sums derived from this source were
+exclusively reserved to the public treasure of the Union, in order to
+furnish supplies for purchasing tracts of country from the Indians, for
+opening roads to the remote settlements, and for accelerating the
+increase of civilization as much as possible. New States have, however,
+been formed in the course of time, in the midst of those wilds which
+were formerly ceded by the inhabitants of the shores of the Atlantic.
+Congress has gone on to sell, for the profit of the nation at large,
+the uncultivated lands which those new States contained. But the latter
+at length asserted that, as they were now fully constituted, they ought
+to enjoy the exclusive right of converting the produce of these sales
+to their own use. As their remonstrances became more and more
+threatening, Congress thought fit to deprive the Union of a portion of
+the privileges which it had hitherto enjoyed; and at the end of 1832 it
+passed a law by which the greatest part of the revenue derived from the
+sale of lands was made over to the new western republics, although the
+lands themselves were not ceded to them. *y
+[ The first act of session was made by the State of New York in 1780;
+Virginia, Massachusetts, Connecticut, South and North Carolina,
+followed this example at different times, and lastly, the act of
+cession of Georgia was made as recently as 1802.]
+[ It is true that the President refused his assent to this law; but he
+completely adopted it in principle. (See Message of December 8, 1833.)]
+The slightest observation in the United States enables one to
+appreciate the advantages which the country derives from the bank.
+These advantages are of several kinds, but one of them is peculiarly
+striking to the stranger. The banknotes of the United States are taken
+upon the borders of the desert for the same value as at Philadelphia,
+where the bank conducts its operations. *z
+[ The present Bank of the United States was established in 1816, with a
+capital of $35,000,000; its charter expires in 1836. Last year Congress
+passed a law to renew it, but the President put his veto upon the bill.
+The struggle is still going on with great violence on either side, and
+the speedy fall of the bank may easily be foreseen. [It was soon
+afterwards extinguished by General Jackson.]]
+The Bank of the United States is nevertheless the object of great
+animosity. Its directors have proclaimed their hostility to the
+President: and they are accused, not without some show of probability,
+of having abused their influence to thwart his election. The President
+therefore attacks the establishment which they represent with all the
+warmth of personal enmity; and he is encouraged in the pursuit of his
+revenge by the conviction that he is supported by the secret
+propensities of the majority. The bank may be regarded as the great
+monetary tie of the Union, just as Congress is the great legislative
+tie; and the same passions which tend to render the States independent
+of the central power, contribute to the overthrow of the bank.
+The Bank of the United States always holds a great number of the notes
+issued by the provincial banks, which it can at any time oblige them to
+convert into cash. It has itself nothing to fear from a similar demand,
+as the extent of its resources enables it to meet all claims. But the
+existence of the provincial banks is thus threatened, and their
+operations are restricted, since they are only able to issue a quantity
+of notes duly proportioned to their capital. They submit with
+impatience to this salutary control. The newspapers which they have
+bought over, and the President, whose interest renders him their
+instrument, attack the bank with the greatest vehemence. They rouse the
+local passions and the blind democratic instinct of the country to aid
+their cause; and they assert that the bank directors form a permanent
+aristocratic body, whose influence must ultimately be felt in the
+Government, and must affect those principles of equality upon which
+society rests in America.
+The contest between the bank and its opponents is only an incident in
+the great struggle which is going on in America between the provinces
+and the central power; between the spirit of democratic independence
+and the spirit of gradation and subordination. I do not mean that the
+enemies of the bank are identically the same individuals who, on other
+points, attack the Federal Government; but I assert that the attacks
+directed against the bank of the United States originate in the same
+propensities which militate against the Federal Government; and that
+the very numerous opponents of the former afford a deplorable symptom
+of the decreasing support of the latter.
+The Union has never displayed so much weakness as in the celebrated
+question of the tariff. *a The wars of the French Revolution and of
+had created manufacturing establishments in the North of the
+Union, by cutting off all free communication between America and
+Europe. When peace was concluded, and the channel of intercourse
+reopened by which the produce of Europe was transmitted to the New
+World, the Americans thought fit to establish a system of import
+duties, for the twofold purpose of protecting their incipient
+manufactures and of paying off the amount of the debt contracted during
+the war. The Southern States, which have no manufactures to encourage,
+and which are exclusively agricultural, soon complained of this
+measure. Such were the simple facts, and I do not pretend to examine in
+this place whether their complaints were well founded or unjust.
+[ See principally for the details of this affair, the Legislative
+Documents, 22d Congress, 2d Session, No. 30.]
+As early as the year 1820, South Carolina declared, in a petition to
+Congress, that the tariff was “unconstitutional, oppressive, and
+unjust.” And the States of Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama,
+and Mississippi subsequently remonstrated against it with more or less
+vigor. But Congress, far from lending an ear to these complaints,
+raised the scale of tariff duties in the years 1824 and 1828, and
+recognized anew the principle on which it was founded. A doctrine was
+then proclaimed, or rather revived, in the South, which took the name
+of Nullification.
+I have shown in the proper place that the object of the Federal
+Constitution was not to form a league, but to create a national
+government. The Americans of the United States form a sole and
+undivided people, in all the cases which are specified by that
+Constitution; and upon these points the will of the nation is
+expressed, as it is in all constitutional nations, by the voice of the
+majority. When the majority has 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 the text of the Constitution, and the known
+intention of those who framed it.
+The partisans of Nullification in the South maintain, on the contrary,
+that the intention of the Americans in uniting was not to reduce
+themselves to the condition of one and the same people; that they meant
+to constitute a league of independent States; and that each State,
+consequently retains its entire sovereignty, if not de facto, at least
+de jure; and has the right of putting its own construction upon the
+laws of Congress, and of suspending their execution within the limits
+of its own territory, if they are held to be unconstitutional and
+unjust.
+The entire doctrine of Nullification is comprised in a sentence uttered
+by Vice-President Calhoun, the head of that party in the South, before
+the Senate of the United States, in the year 1833: “The Constitution is
+a compact to which the States were parties in their sovereign capacity;
+now, whenever a compact is entered into by parties which acknowledge no
+tribunal above their authority to decide in the last resort, each of
+them has a right to judge for itself in relation to the nature, extent,
+and obligations of the instrument.” It is evident that a similar
+doctrine destroys the very basis of the Federal Constitution, 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 its
+remonstrances, it threatened to apply the doctrine of nullification to
+the federal tariff bill. Congress persisted in its former system; and
+at length the storm broke out. In the course of 1832 the citizens of
+South Carolina, *b named a national Convention, to consult upon the
+extraordinary measures which they were called upon to take; and on
+November 24th of the same year this Convention promulgated a law, under
+the form of a decree, which annulled the federal law of the tariff,
+forbade the levy of the imposts which that law commands, and refused to
+recognize 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 of
+February, and it was intimated, that if Congress modified the tariff
+before that period, South Carolina might be induced to proceed no
+further with her menaces; and a vague desire was afterwards expressed
+of submitting the question to an extraordinary assembly of all the
+confederate States.
+[ That is to say, the majority of the people; for the opposite party,
+called the Union party, always formed a very strong and active
+minority. Carolina may contain about 47,000 electors; 30,000 were in
+favor of nullification, and 17,000 opposed to it.]
+[ This decree was preceded by a report of the committee by which it was
+framed, containing the explanation of the motives and object of the
+law. The following passage occurs in it, p. 34:—“When the rights
+reserved by the Constitution to the different States are deliberately
+violated, it is the duty and the right of those States to interfere, in
+order to check the progress of the evil; to resist usurpation, and to
+maintain, within their respective limits, those powers and privileges
+which belong to them as independent sovereign States. If they were
+destitute of this right, they would not be sovereign. South Carolina
+declares that she acknowledges no tribunal upon earth above her
+authority. She has indeed entered into a solemn compact of union with
+the other States; but she demands, and will exercise, the right of
+putting her own construction upon it; and when this compact is violated
+by her sister States, and by the Government which they have created,
+she is determined to avail herself of the unquestionable 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
+South Carolina armed its militia for war, and Congress, which had previously slighted its suppliant subjects, suddenly listened to their complaints once they had taken up arms, prompted also by Virginia's offer to mediate. Until then, South Carolina had seemed completely isolated, even from protesting states.
+In the meantime South Carolina armed her militia, and prepared for war.
+But Congress, which had slighted its suppliant subjects, listened to
+their complaints as soon as they were found to have taken up arms. *d A
+law was passed, by which the tariff duties were to be progressively
+reduced for ten years, until they were brought so low as not to exceed
+the amount of supplies necessary to the Government. *e Thus Congress
+completely abandoned the principle of the tariff; and substituted a
+mere fiscal impost to a system of protective duties. *f The Government
+of the Union, in order to conceal its defeat, had recourse to an
+expedient which is very much in vogue with feeble governments. It
+yielded the point de facto, but it remained inflexible upon the
+principles in question; and whilst Congress was altering the tariff
+law, it passed another bill, by which the President was invested with
+extraordinary powers, enabling him to overcome by force a resistance
+which was then no longer to be apprehended.
+On March 2, 1833, Congress passed a law—introduced by Mr. Clay and rushed through both houses in four days—progressively reducing tariff duties over ten years until they became merely fiscal, abandoning protectionism entirely. The federal government, concealing its defeat through an expedient common to feeble regimes, yielded the *point de facto* while remaining inflexible on principle. Simultaneously, it granted the President extraordinary powers to use force against resistance that was no longer expected.
+[ Congress was finally decided to take this step by the conduct of the
+powerful State of Virginia, whose legislature offered to serve as
+mediator between the Union and South Carolina. Hitherto the latter
+State had appeared to be entirely abandoned, even by the States which
+had joined in her remonstrances.]
+South Carolina's convention accepted the concession while reaffirming Nullification and annulling the President's extraordinary powers, though they would never be used.
+These controversies occurred under Jackson, who supported Union claims regarding the tariff with vigor. Yet his conduct itself threatens federal survival. European opinion exaggerates Jackson's influence. Though an energetic, forceful despot by temperament, he could not establish a dictatorship without losing his position and risking his life. Far from expanding federal power, he belongs to the party that wants to limit it to the Constitution's strict letter, serving states' jealousies and flattering popular passions.
+[ This law was passed on March 2, 1833.]
+> **Quote:** "General Jackson is the slave of the majority: he yields to its wishes, its propensities, and its demands; say rather, that he anticipates and forestalls them."
+When state and federal interests collide, the President is often the first to question his own rights; he outstrips the legislature in taking part, as it were, against himself. Yet when the majority opposed nullification, he led them energetically, asserting national doctrine and recommending force.
+[ This bill was brought in by Mr. Clay, and it passed in four days
+through both Houses of Congress by an immense majority.]
+> **Quote:** "General Jackson appears to me, if I may use the American expressions, to be a Federalist by taste, and a Republican by calculation."
+Once popular, Jackson overthrows obstacles, tramples enemies, and treats Congress with disdain—vetoing acts, often ignoring replies—like a favorite who roughly handles his master.
+But South Carolina did not consent to leave the Union in the enjoyment
+of these scanty trophies of success: the same national Convention which
+had annulled the tariff bill, met again, and accepted the proffered
+concession; but at the same time it declared its unabated perseverance
+in the doctrine of Nullification: and to prove what it said, it
+annulled the law investing the President with extraordinary powers,
+although it was very certain that the clauses of that law would never
+be carried into effect.
+> **Quote:** "The power of General Jackson perpetually increases; but that of the President declines; in his hands the Federal Government is strong, but it will pass enfeebled into the hands of his successor."
+Almost all the controversies of which I have been speaking have taken
+place under the Presidency of General Jackson; and it cannot be denied
+that in the question of the tariff he has supported the claims of the
+Union with vigor and with skill. I am, however, of opinion that the
+conduct of the individual who now represents the Federal Government may
+be reckoned as one of the dangers which threaten its continuance.
+The federal government constantly loses strength, withdrawing from public affairs and narrowing its scope. It abandons even its claims to strength while states show more independence. The Union survives as a shadow—strong in war, barely perceptible in peace.
+Some persons in Europe have formed an opinion of the possible influence
+of General Jackson upon the affairs of his country, which appears
+highly extravagant to those who have seen more of the subject. We have
+been told that General Jackson has won sundry battles, that he is an
+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 be true;
+but the inferences which have been drawn from these truths are
+exceedingly erroneous. It has been imagined that General Jackson is
+bent on establishing a dictatorship in America, on introducing a
+military spirit, and on giving a degree of influence to the central
+authority which cannot but be dangerous to provincial liberties. But in
+America the time for similar undertakings, and the age for men of this
+kind, is not yet come: if General Jackson had entertained a hope of
+exercising his authority in this manner, he would infallibly have
+forfeited his political station, and compromised his life; accordingly
+he has not been so imprudent as to make any such attempt.
+Nothing currently checks this shift; the causes persist, so the Union will grow weaker daily unless some extraordinary event intervenes. But federal power's complete extinction is still far off. Supported by popular customs and desires, the Union's benefits are tangible. When its weakness threatens the Union's existence, a reaction will increase its strength.
+Far from wishing to extend the federal power, the President belongs to
+the party which is desirous of limiting that power to the bare and
+precise letter of the Constitution, and which never puts a construction
+upon that act favorable to the Government of the Union; far from
+standing forth as the champion of centralization, General Jackson is
+the agent of all the jealousies of the States; and he was placed in the
+lofty station he occupies by the passions of the people which are most
+opposed to the central Government. It is by perpetually flattering
+these passions that he maintains his station and his popularity.
+General Jackson is the slave of the majority: he yields to its wishes,
+its propensities, and its demands; say rather, that he anticipates and
+forestalls them.
+The U.S. government is most naturally suited for action. As long as it's only indirectly attacked through law interpretation, public opinion shifts, crisis, or war could restore its vigor.
+Whenever the governments of the States come into collision with that of
+the Union, the President is generally the first to question his own
+rights: he almost always outstrips the legislature; and when the extent
+of the federal power is controverted, he takes part, as it were,
+against himself; he conceals his official interests, and extinguishes
+his own natural inclinations. Not indeed that he is naturally weak or
+hostile to the Union; for when the majority decided against the claims
+of the partisans of nullification, he put himself at its head, asserted
+the doctrines which the nation held distinctly and energetically, and
+was the first to recommend forcible measures; but General Jackson
+appears to me, if I may use the American expressions, to be a
+Federalist by taste, and a Republican by calculation.
+Many in France imagine U.S. opinion favors centralizing power in the President and Congress. I maintain the opposite: the federal government grows weaker, endangering only the Union's sovereignty. The present reveals these facts; the future hides the result.
+General Jackson stoops to gain the favor of the majority, but when he
+feels that his popularity is secure, he overthrows all obstacles in the
+pursuit of the objects which the community approves, or of those which
+it does not look upon with a jealous eye. He is supported by a power
+with which his predecessors were unacquainted; and he tramples on his
+personal enemies whenever they cross his path with a facility which no
+former President ever enjoyed; he takes upon himself the responsibility
+of measures which no one before him would have ventured to attempt: he
+even treats the national representatives with disdain approaching to
+insult; he puts his veto upon the laws of Congress, and frequently
+neglects to reply to that powerful body. He is a favorite who sometimes
+treats his master roughly. The power of General Jackson perpetually
+increases; but that of the President declines; in his hands the Federal
+Government is strong, but it will pass enfeebled into the hands of his
+successor.
+The Union is accidental; republican institutions are more permanent. A republic is the natural state for Anglo-Americans, requiring simultaneous legal and social upheaval to destroy. Union breakup might endanger republican institutions through war, armies, dictatorship, and taxation—but we should not confuse their prospects.
+I am strangely mistaken if the Federal Government of the United States
+be not constantly losing strength, retiring gradually from public
+affairs, and narrowing its circle of action more and more. It is
+naturally feeble, but it now abandons even its pretensions to strength.
+On the other hand, I thought that I remarked a more lively sense of
+independence, and a more decided attachment to provincial government in
+the States. The Union is to subsist, but to subsist as a shadow; it is
+to be strong in certain cases, and weak in all others; in time of
+warfare, it is to be able to concentrate all the forces of the nation
+and all the resources of the country in its hands; and in time of peace
+its existence is to be scarcely perceptible: as if this alternate
+debility and vigor were natural or possible.
+> **Quote:** "The Union is an accident, which will only last as long as circumstances are favorable to its existence; but a republican form of government seems to me to be the natural state of the Americans; which nothing but the continued action of hostile causes, always acting in the same direction, could change into a monarchy."
+I do not foresee anything for the present which may be able to check
+this general impulse of public opinion; the causes in which it
+originated do not cease to operate with the same effect. The change
+will therefore go on, and it may be predicted that, unless some
+extraordinary event occurs, the Government of the Union will grow
+weaker and weaker every day.
+The Union exists in law alone and could be destroyed by revolution or opinion shift. The republic has a deeper foundation.
+I think, however, that the period is still remote at which the federal
+power will be entirely extinguished by its inability to protect itself
+and to maintain peace in the country. The Union is sanctioned by the
+manners and desires of the people; its results are palpable, its
+benefits visible. When it is perceived that the weakness of the Federal
+Government compromises the existence of the Union, I do not doubt that
+a reaction will take place with a view to increase its strength.
+U.S. republican government is society's quiet action on itself, founded on the enlightened will of the people—the tranquil rule of the majority that values morality, religion, and rights, believing freedom requires a moral, temperate people. Majority power has barriers: humanity, justice, reason, and established rights. It occasionally oversteps from passion, like individuals who know right but do wrong.
+The Government of the United States is, of all the federal governments
+which have hitherto been established, the one which is most naturally
+destined to act. As long as it is only indirectly assailed by the
+interpretation of its laws, and as long as its substance is not
+seriously altered, a change of opinion, an internal crisis, or a war,
+may restore all the vigor which it requires. The point which I have
+been 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 in
+the United States, which is favorable to a centralization of power in
+the hands of the President and the Congress. I hold that a contrary
+tendency may distinctly be observed. So far is the Federal Government
+from acquiring strength, and from threatening the sovereignty of the
+States, as it grows older, that I maintain it to be growing weaker and
+weaker, and that the sovereignty of the Union alone is in danger. Such
+are the facts which the present time discloses. The future conceals the
+final result of this tendency, and the events which may check, retard,
+or accelerate the changes I have described; but I do not affect to be
+able to remove the veil which hides them from our sight.
+European demagogues claim a republic means rule by the majority's vocal partisans, not the people themselves—allowing them to act without consultation, trampling rights while claiming gratitude. They assert republics may despise moral obligations and common sense, discovering "legitimate tyranny" and "holy injustice" in the people's name.
+Of The Republican Institutions Of The United States, And What Their
+Chances Of Duration Are
+These republican ideas, though practically flawed, are theoretically sound and ensure longevity, as people ultimately act according to theory.
+The Union is accidental—The Republican institutions have more prospect
+of permanence—A republic for the present the natural state of the
+Anglo-Americans—Reason of this—In order to destroy it, all the laws
+must be changed at the same time, and a great alteration take place in
+manners—Difficulties experienced by the Americans in creating an
+aristocracy.
+Centralized administration was impossible at founding and remains difficult. America's vast spaces and natural obstacles make it preeminently a country of local government—a cause felt by all Europeans, with Anglo-Americans adding unique factors.
+The dismemberment of the Union, by the introduction of war into the
+heart of those States which are now confederate, with standing armies,
+a dictatorship, and a heavy taxation, might, eventually, compromise the
+fate of the republican institutions. But we ought not to confound the
+future prospects of the republic with those of the Union. The Union is
+an accident, which will only last as long as circumstances are
+favorable to its existence; but a republican form of government seems
+to me to be the natural state of the Americans; which nothing but the
+continued action of hostile causes, always acting in the same
+direction, could change into a monarchy. The Union exists principally
+in the law which formed it; one revolution, one change in public
+opinion, might destroy it forever; but the republic has a much deeper
+foundation to rest upon.
+Municipal liberty had permeated English law and customs, which emigrants adopted as a valued benefit. Colonies were founded separately by strangers, creating small communities without a common center that had to manage their own affairs. Geography, founding patterns, and emigrant habits together promoted extraordinary local liberties.
+What is understood by a republican government in the United States is
+the slow and quiet action of society upon itself. It is a regular state
+of things really founded upon the enlightened will of the people. It is
+a conciliatory government under which resolutions are allowed time to
+ripen; and in which they are deliberately discussed, and executed with
+mature judgment. The republicans in the United States set a high value
+upon morality, respect religious belief, and acknowledge the existence
+of rights. They profess to think that a people ought to be moral,
+religious, and temperate, in proportion as it is free. What is called
+the republic in the United States, is the tranquil rule of the
+majority, which, after having had time to examine itself, and to give
+proof of its existence, is the common source of all the powers of the
+State. But the power of the majority is not of itself unlimited. In the
+moral 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 then overstep them, it is because, like individuals, it has
+passions, and, like them, it is prone to do what is wrong, whilst it
+discerns what is right.
+U.S. institutions are essentially republican. Destroying the republic requires abolishing all laws simultaneously. Establishing monarchy would be harder than declaring France a republic, as royalty would find no prepared legislative system and would struggle to penetrate American customs.
+But the demagogues of Europe have made strange discoveries. A republic
+is not, according to them, the rule of the majority, as has hitherto
+been thought, but the rule of those who are strenuous partisans of the
+majority. It is not the people who preponderates in this kind of
+government, but those who are best versed in the good qualities of the
+people. A happy distinction, which allows men to act in the name of
+nations without consulting them, and to claim their gratitude whilst
+their rights are spurned. A republican government, moreover, is the
+only one which claims the right of doing whatever it chooses, and
+despising what men have hitherto respected, from the highest moral
+obligations to the vulgar rules of common-sense. It had been supposed,
+until our time, that despotism was odious, under whatever form it
+appeared. But it is a discovery of modern days that there are such
+things as legitimate tyranny and holy injustice, provided they are
+exercised in the name of the people.
+Sovereignty of the people is not isolated doctrine but the final link in a chain of opinions binding the Anglo-American world.
+The ideas which the Americans have adopted respecting the republican
+form of government, render it easy for them to live under it, and
+insure its duration. If, in their country, this form be often
+practically bad, at least it is theoretically good; and, in the end,
+the people always acts in conformity to it.
+> **Quote:** "That Providence has given to every human being the degree of reason necessary to direct himself in the affairs which interest him exclusively—such is the grand maxim upon which civil and political society rests in the United States."
+It was impossible at the foundation of the States, and it would still
+be difficult, to establish a central administration in America. The
+inhabitants are dispersed over too great a space, and separated by too
+many natural obstacles, for one man to undertake to direct the details
+of their existence. America is therefore pre-eminently the country of
+provincial and municipal government. To this cause, which was plainly
+felt by all the Europeans of the New World, the Anglo-Americans added
+several others peculiar to themselves.
+Applied from father to children, master to servants, township to officials, province to townships, State to provinces, Union to States, it becomes the doctrine of sovereignty of the people.
+At the time of the settlement of the North American colonies, municipal
+liberty had already penetrated into the laws as well as the manners of
+the English; and the emigrants adopted it, not only as a necessary
+thing, but as a benefit which they knew how to appreciate. We have
+already seen the manner in which the colonies were founded: every
+province, and almost every district, was peopled separately by men who
+were strangers to each other, or who associated with very different
+purposes. The English settlers in the United States, therefore, early
+perceived that they were divided into a great number of small and
+distinct communities which belonged to no common centre; and that it
+was needful for each of these little communities to take care of its
+own affairs, since there did not appear to be any central authority
+which was naturally bound and easily enabled to provide for them. Thus,
+the nature of the country, the manner in which the British colonies
+were founded, the habits of the first emigrants, in short everything,
+united to promote, in an extraordinary degree, municipal and provincial
+liberties.
+The republic's principle governs most human actions, permeating thoughts, opinions, and habits while recognized by law. Altering it requires profound community-wide changes. Even American religion is republican, subjecting spiritual truths to individual judgment as politics leaves worldly interests to common sense. Individuals freely choose their heavenly path as citizens choose their government.
+In the United States, therefore, the mass of the institutions of the
+country is essentially republican; and in order permanently to destroy
+the laws which form the basis of the republic, it would be necessary to
+abolish all the laws at once. At the present day it would be even more
+difficult for a party to succeed in founding a monarchy in the United
+States than for a set of men to proclaim that France should
+henceforward be a republic. Royalty would not find a system of
+legislation prepared for it beforehand; and a monarchy would then
+exist, really surrounded by republican institutions. The monarchical
+principle would likewise have great difficulty in penetrating into the
+manners of the Americans.
+Only a long sequence of events trending one direction could replace this combination. Republican principles would fail after a long, interrupted social process, not extinct until a new people replaces the current one.
+In the United States, the sovereignty of the people is not an isolated
+doctrine bearing no relation to the prevailing manners and ideas of the
+people: it may, on the contrary, be regarded as the last link of a
+chain of opinions which binds the whole Anglo-American world. That
+Providence has given to every human being the degree of reason
+necessary to direct himself in the affairs which interest him
+exclusively—such is the grand maxim upon which civil and political
+society rests in the United States. The father of a family applies it
+to his children; the master to his servants; the township to its
+officers; the province to its townships; the State to its provinces;
+the Union to the States; and when extended to the nation, it becomes
+the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people.
+No revolution sign approaches, though newcomers are struck by constant agitation and changing laws. Such fears are premature. Instability has two types: secondary law changes (compatible with stability) and constitutional foundation-shaking (causing violent transition). Experience shows these types aren't necessarily linked—the first is common in America, the second is not. Americans change laws often but respect constitutional foundations.
+Thus, in the United States, the fundamental principle of the republic
+is the same which governs the greater part of human actions; republican
+notions insinuate themselves into all the ideas, opinions, and habits
+of the Americans, whilst they are formerly recognized by the
+legislation: and before this legislation can be altered the whole
+community must undergo very serious changes. In the United States, even
+the religion of most of the citizens is republican, since it submits
+the truths of the other world to private judgment: as in politics the
+care of its temporal interests is abandoned to the good sense of the
+people. Thus every man is allowed freely to take that road which he
+thinks will lead him to heaven; just as the law permits every citizen
+to have the right of choosing his government.
+The republican principle rules America as monarchy once did under Louis XIV—accepted without contention or argument, by a sort of *consensus universalis*. Yet constantly changing administrative methods risks future stability.
+It is evident that nothing but a long series of events, all having the
+same tendency, can substitute for this combination of laws, opinions,
+and manners, a mass of opposite opinions, manners, and laws.
+Constantly frustrated people might see republican institutions as inconvenient, creating doubt about constitutional principles and indirectly causing revolution—but that time is far off.
+If republican principles are to perish in America, they can only yield
+after a laborious social process, often interrupted, and as often
+resumed; they will have many apparent revivals, and will not become
+totally extinct until an entirely new people shall have succeeded to
+that which now exists. Now, it must be admitted that there is no
+symptom or presage of the approach of such a revolution. There is
+nothing more striking to a person newly arrived in the United States,
+than the kind of tumultuous agitation in which he finds political
+society. The laws are incessantly changing, and at first sight it seems
+impossible that a people so variable in its desires should avoid
+adopting, within a short space of time, a completely new form of
+government. Such apprehensions are, however, premature; the instability
+which affects political institutions is of two kinds, which ought not
+to be confounded: the first, which modifies secondary laws, is not
+incompatible with a very settled state of society; the other shakes the
+very foundations of the Constitution, and attacks the fundamental
+principles of legislation; this species of instability is always
+followed by troubles and revolutions, and the nation which suffers
+under it is in a state of violent transition.
+If Americans lose republican institutions, they will quickly move to despotism, not limited monarchy.
+Experience shows that these two kinds of legislative instability have
+no necessary connection; for they have been found united or separate,
+according to times and circumstances. The first is common in the United
+States, but not the second: the Americans often change their laws, but
+the foundation of the Constitution is respected.
+> **Quote:** "nothing is more absolute than the authority of a prince who immediately succeeds a republic, since the powers which had fearlessly been intrusted to an elected magistrate are then transferred to a hereditary sovereign."
+In our days the republican principle rules in America, as the
+monarchical principle did in France under Louis XIV. The French of that
+period were not only friends of the monarchy, but they thought it
+impossible to put anything in its place; they received it as we receive
+the rays of the sun and the return of the seasons. Amongst them the
+royal power had neither advocates nor opponents. In like manner does
+the republican government exist in America, without contention or
+opposition; without proofs and arguments, by a tacit agreement, a sort
+of consensus universalis. It is, however, my opinion that by changing
+their administrative forms as often as they do, the inhabitants of the
+United States compromise the future stability of their government.
+In a democratic republic, magistrates are the immediate representatives of the passions of the multitude; because they depend entirely on its pleasure, they excite neither hatred nor fear. Consequently, little care is taken to limit their influence, leaving them with a vast deal of arbitrary power, creating habits that would survive the republic. An official would keep power without accountability, making tyranny limits impossible to predict.
+It may be apprehended that men, perpetually thwarted in their designs
+by the mutability of the legislation, will learn to look upon
+republican institutions as an inconvenient form of society; the evil
+resulting from the instability of the secondary enactments might then
+raise a doubt as to the nature of the fundamental principles of the
+Constitution, and indirectly bring about a revolution; but this epoch
+is still very remote.
+European politicians predict aristocracy's emergence, but the trend is increasingly democratic. Americans might restrict rights for an individual but will never grant exclusive exercise to a privileged class—they will not establish aristocracy.
+It may, however, be foreseen even now, that when the Americans lose
+their republican institutions they will speedily arrive at a despotic
+government, without a long interval of limited monarchy. Montesquieu
+remarked, that nothing is more absolute than the authority of a prince
+who immediately succeeds a republic, since the powers which had
+fearlessly been intrusted to an elected magistrate are then transferred
+to a hereditary sovereign. This is true in general, but it is more
+peculiarly applicable to a democratic republic. In the United States,
+the magistrates are not elected by a particular class of citizens, but
+by the majority of the nation; they are the immediate representatives
+of the passions of the multitude; and as they are wholly dependent upon
+its pleasure, they excite neither hatred nor fear: hence, as I have
+already shown, very little care has been taken to limit their
+influence, and they are left in possession of a vast deal of arbitrary
+power. This state of things has engendered habits which would outlive
+itself; the American magistrate would retain his power, but he would
+cease to be responsible for the exercise of it; and it is impossible to
+say what bounds could then be set to tyranny.
+An aristocracy is a group permanently above but not far from the masses—easy to reach but difficult to strike, with daily contact but no merging. This contradicts human nature; people prefer a king's arbitrary power to aristocratic administration. Aristocracy requires legally enforced inequality so offensive to natural justice it can only be imposed by coercion.
+Some of our European politicians expect to see an aristocracy arise in
+America, and they already predict the exact period at which it will be
+able to assume the reins of government. I have previously observed, and
+I repeat my assertion, that the present tendency of American society
+appears to me to become more and more democratic. Nevertheless, I do
+not assert that the Americans will not, at some future time, restrict
+the circle of political rights in their country, or confiscate those
+rights to the advantage of a single individual; but I cannot imagine
+that they will ever bestow the exclusive exercise of them upon a
+privileged class of citizens, or, in other words, that they will ever
+found an aristocracy.
+No nation has willingly created aristocracy from within. Medieval aristocracies came through conquest: conquerors became nobles, the defeated serfs. Inequality was forcibly imposed, then written into law. Some societies began aristocratic and democratized, like Rome. For a civilized, democratic people to gradually establish inequality and exclusive castes would be unprecedented. America shows no sign of providing this example.
+An aristocratic body is composed of a certain number of citizens who,
+without being very far removed from the mass of the people, are,
+nevertheless, permanently stationed above it: a body which it is easy
+to touch and difficult to strike; with which the people are in daily
+contact, but with which they can never combine. Nothing can be imagined
+more contrary to nature and to the secret propensities of the human
+heart than a subjection of this kind; and men who are left to follow
+their own bent will always prefer the arbitrary power of a king to the
+regular administration of an aristocracy. Aristocratic institutions
+cannot subsist without laying down the inequality of men as a
+fundamental principle, as a part and parcel of the legislation,
+affecting the condition of the human family as much as it affects that
+of society; but these are things so repugnant to natural equity that
+they can only be extorted from men by constraint.
+Americans are destined to be a maritime people. Their commercial superiority stems more from moral and intellectual causes than physical circumstances. Union dissolution wouldn't stop their maritime energy, and they will become commercial agents for much of the world.
+I do not think a single people can be quoted, since human society began
+to exist, which has, by its own free will and by its own exertions,
+created an aristocracy within its own bosom. All the aristocracies of
+the Middle Ages were founded by military conquest; the conqueror was
+the noble, the vanquished became the serf. Inequality was then imposed
+by force; and after it had been introduced into the manners of the
+country it maintained its own authority, and was sanctioned by the
+legislation. Communities have existed which were aristocratic from
+their earliest origin, owing to circumstances anterior to that event,
+and which became more democratic in each succeeding age. Such was the
+destiny of the Romans, and of the barbarians after them. But a people,
+having taken its rise in civilization and democracy, which should
+gradually establish an inequality of conditions, until it arrived at
+inviolable privileges and exclusive castes, would be a novelty in the
+world; and nothing intimates that America is likely to furnish so
+singular an example.
+The U.S. coastline stretches over two thousand miles from Bay of Fundy to Sabine River, forming a continuous line under one government with the world's largest, deepest, safest ports.
+Reflection On The Causes Of The Commercial Prosperity Of The Of The
+United States
+A civilized people in an uncultivated wilderness three thousand miles from Europe, America daily needs European trade. Though Americans will eventually produce most necessities themselves, the continents can never be fully independent—their needs, ideas, habits, and customs are too intertwined.
+The Americans destined by Nature to be a great maritime people—Extent
+of their coasts—Depth of their ports—Size of their rivers—The
+commercial superiority of the Anglo-Americans less attributable,
+however, to physical circumstances than to moral and intellectual
+causes—Reason of this opinion—Future destiny of the Anglo-Americans as
+a commercial nation—The dissolution of the Union would not check the
+maritime vigor of the States—Reason of this—Anglo-Americans will
+naturally supply the wants of the inhabitants of South America—They
+will become, like the English, the factors of a great portion of the
+world.
+The U.S. produces unique commodities essential to Europe but too costly to grow there. Americans consume little and eagerly sell the rest. Maritime commerce is necessary for both raw material transport and manufactured goods exchange, forcing America to either enrich other maritime nations or become a leading trading power.
+The coast of the United States, from the Bay of Fundy to the Sabine
+River 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
+same government. No nation in the world possesses vaster, deeper, or
+more secure ports for shipping than the Americans.
+Anglo-Americans have always shown maritime passion. Independence broke English commercial restrictions, powerfully boosting their shipping, which grew with population.
+The inhabitants of the United States constitute a great civilized
+people, which fortune has placed in the midst of an uncultivated
+country at a distance of three thousand miles from the central point of
+civilization. America consequently stands in daily need of European
+trade. The Americans will, no doubt, ultimately succeed in producing or
+manufacturing at home most of the articles which they require; but the
+two continents can never be independent of each other, so numerous are
+the natural ties which exist between their wants, their ideas, their
+habits, and their manners.
+Americans transport nine-tenths of their imported European goods. In 1832, imports exceeded $101 million, with foreign vessels carrying only $10.7 million. They also bring three-quarters of New World exports to Europe; of $87 million that year, foreign vessels transported only $21 million. American ships fill Le Havre and Liverpool, while few English or French vessels appear in New York. From 1829-1831, foreign ships entering U.S. ports were 16 per 100 American vessels, compared to 36 per 100 in British ports. The Civil War later changed patterns, but at the time, American merchants competed successfully even in foreign ports.
+The Union produces peculiar commodities which are now become necessary
+to us, but which cannot be cultivated, or can only be raised at an
+enormous expense, upon the soil of Europe. The Americans only consume a
+small portion of this produce, and they are willing to sell us the
+rest. Europe is therefore the market of America, as America is the
+market of Europe; and maritime commerce is no less necessary to enable
+the inhabitants of the United States to transport their raw materials
+to the ports of Europe, than it is to enable us to supply them with our
+manufactured produce. The United States were therefore necessarily
+reduced to the alternative of increasing the business of other maritime
+nations to a great extent, if they had themselves declined to enter
+into commerce, as the Spaniards of Mexico have hitherto done; or, in
+the second place, of becoming one of the first trading powers of the
+globe.
+American merchants compete successfully with foreign nations in their own ports because their vessels cross oceans at lower cost. Maintaining this advantage ensures continued prosperity.
+The Anglo-Americans have always displayed a very decided taste for the
+sea. The Declaration of Independence broke the commercial restrictions
+which united them to England, and gave a fresh and powerful stimulus to
+their maritime genius. Ever since that time, the shipping of the Union
+has increased in almost the same rapid proportion as the number of its
+inhabitants. The Americans themselves now transport to their own shores
+nine-tenths of the European produce which they consume. *g And they
+also bring three-quarters of the exports of the New World to the
+European consumer. *h The ships of the United States fill the docks of
+Havre and of Liverpool; whilst the number of English and French vessels
+which are to be seen at New York is comparatively small. *i
+[ The total value of goods imported during the year which ended on
+September 30, 1832, was $101,129,266. The value of the cargoes of
+foreign vessels did not amount to $10,731,039, or about one-tenth of
+the entire sum.]
+[ The value of goods exported during the same year amounted to
+$87,176,943; the value of goods exported by foreign vessels amounted to
+$21,036,183, or about one quarter of the whole sum. (Williams’s
+“Register,” 1833, p. 398.)]
+[ The tonnage of the vessels which entered all the ports of the Union
+in the years 1829, 1830, and 1831, amounted to 3,307,719 tons, of which
+,571 tons were foreign vessels; they stood, therefore, to the
+American vessels in a ratio of about 16 to 100. (“National Calendar,”
+, p. 304.) The tonnage of the English vessels which entered the
+ports of London, Liverpool, and Hull, in the years 1820, 1826, and
+, amounted to 443,800 tons. The foreign vessels which entered the
+same ports during the same years amounted to 159,431 tons. The ratio
+between them was, therefore, about 36 to 100. (“Companion to the
+Almanac,” 1834, p. 169.) In the year 1832 the ratio between the foreign
+and British ships which entered the ports of Great Britain was 29 to
+. [These statements relate to a condition of affairs which has
+ceased to exist; the Civil War and the heavy taxation of the United
+States entirely altered the trade and navigation of the country.]]
+Thus, not only does the American merchant face the competition of his
+own countrymen, but he even supports that of foreign nations in their
+own ports with success. This is readily explained by the fact that the
+vessels of the United States can cross the seas at a cheaper rate than
+any other vessels in the world. As long as the mercantile shipping of
+the United States preserves this superiority, it will not only retain
+what it has acquired, but it will constantly increase in prosperity.
 ### Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races—Part X
+Why the Americans can trade cheaper than other nations is difficult to explain. One might attribute this to physical advantages, but that assumption is wrong. Their ships cost nearly as much to build as ours and generally last less long. American sailors receive higher pay than Europeans—a fact proved by the many Europeans working on U.S. merchant vessels. While materials are cheaper in America than Europe, labor costs are much higher. The true cause lies not in physical advantages but entirely in moral and intellectual qualities.
+It is difficult to say for what reason the Americans can trade at a
+lower rate than other nations; and one is at first led to attribute
+this circumstance to the physical or natural advantages which are
+within their reach; but this supposition is erroneous. The American
+vessels cost 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
+American sailor is more considerable than the pay on board European
+ships; which is proved by the great number of Europeans who are to be
+met with in the merchant vessels of the United States. But I am of
+opinion that the true cause of their superiority must not be sought for
+in physical advantages, but that it is wholly attributable to their
+moral and intellectual qualities.
+The following comparison will illustrate my point. During the French Revolutionary wars, the French introduced a new system of military tactics that baffled the most experienced generals and nearly destroyed the oldest monarchies in Europe. They did without many things previously considered indispensable, demanded unprecedented efforts, and risked lives without hesitation. Though inferior in money, men, and resources, they were constantly victorious until opponents followed their example.
+[ Materials are, generally speaking, less expensive in America than in
+Europe, but the price of labor is much higher.]
+> **Quote:** "The Americans have introduced a similar system into their commercial speculations; and they do for cheapness what the French did for conquest."
+The European sailor navigates with caution, setting sail only in favorable weather, returning to port after accidents, folding sails at night, and when whitening billows signal land is near, slowing to check his position by the sun. The American ignores these precautions. He weighs anchor in gales, keeps sails spread day and night, repairs damage at sea, and speeds toward shore as if the harbor were in sight. Though often shipwrecked, no trader crosses faster. By covering distances in less time, they trade cheaper.
+The following comparison will illustrate my meaning. During the
+campaigns of the Revolution the French introduced a new system of
+tactics into the art of war, which perplexed the oldest generals, and
+very nearly destroyed the most ancient monarchies in Europe. They
+undertook (what had never before been attempted) to make shift without
+a number of things which had always been held to be indispensable in
+warfare; they required novel exertions on the part of their troops
+which no civilized nations had ever thought of; they achieved great
+actions in an incredibly short space of time; and they risked human
+life without hesitation to obtain the object in view. The French had
+less money and fewer men than their enemies; their resources were
+infinitely inferior; nevertheless they were constantly victorious,
+until their adversaries chose to imitate their example.
+The European loses precious time stopping at ports, waiting for winds, and paying harbor fees. The American sails from Boston to Canton for tea, stays briefly, and returns. In under two years he travels the globe's circumference, seeing land once, enduring foul water, salted meat, disease, and monotony. Yet he can undersell the English merchant by a fraction of a penny, and his goal is accomplished.
+The Americans have introduced a similar system into their commercial
+speculations; and they do for cheapness what the French did for
+conquest. The European sailor navigates with prudence; he only sets
+sail when the weather is favorable; if an unforseen accident befalls
+him, he puts into port; at night he furls a portion of his canvas; and
+when the whitening billows intimate the vicinity of land, he checks his
+way, and takes an observation of the sun. But the American neglects
+these precautions and braves these dangers. He weighs anchor in the
+midst of tempestuous gales; by night and by day he spreads his sheets
+to the wind; he repairs as he goes along such damage as his vessel may
+have sustained from the storm; and when he at last approaches the term
+of his voyage, he darts onward to the shore as if he already descried a
+port. The Americans are often shipwrecked, but no trader crosses the
+seas so rapidly. And as they perform the same distance in a shorter
+time, they can perform it at a cheaper rate.
+> **Quote:** "I cannot better explain my meaning than by saying that the Americans affect a sort of heroism in their manner of trading."
+The European touches several times at different ports in the course of
+a long 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 dues to be allowed to remain there. The American starts from
+Boston to go to purchase tea in China; he arrives at Canton, stays
+there a few days, and then returns. In less than two years he has
+sailed as far as the entire circumference of the globe, and he has seen
+land but once. It is true that during a voyage of eight or ten months
+he has drunk brackish water and lived upon salt meat; that he has been
+in a continual contest with the sea, with disease, and with a tedious
+existence; but upon his return he can sell a pound of his tea for a
+half-penny less than the English merchant, and his purpose is
+accomplished.
+The European merchant will always struggle to imitate his American competitor, who follows not only profit but an impulse of nature.
+I cannot better explain my meaning than by saying that the Americans
+affect a sort of heroism in their manner of trading. But the European
+merchant will always find it very difficult to imitate his American
+competitor, who, in adopting the system which I have just described,
+follows not only a calculation of his gain, but an impulse of his
+nature.
+Americans are subject to all the needs and desires that accompany advanced civilization. Yet lacking Europe's specialized society to satisfy them, they are often forced to provide for themselves. The same individual may farm his field, build his house, contrive his tools, make his shoes, and weave coarse cloth for his clothes. This versatility harms perfection but powerfully awakens intelligence. Nothing dehumanizes work more than extreme division of labor. In America, where specialized occupations are rare, long apprenticeships cannot be required. Americans therefore change their livelihood easily, adapting to whatever is most profitable. One meets men who have been successively lawyers, farmers, merchants, ministers, and physicians. Though less perfect in each craft than Europeans, no trade is completely unfamiliar to them. Their capability is more versatile, their intelligence widened.
+The inhabitants of the United States are subject to all the wants and
+all the desires which result from an advanced stage of civilization;
+but as they are not surrounded by a community admirably adapted, like
+that of Europe, to satisfy their wants, they are often obliged to
+procure for themselves the various articles which education and habit
+have rendered necessaries. In America it sometimes happens that the
+same individual tills his field, builds his dwelling, contrives his
+tools, makes his shoes, and weaves the coarse stuff of which his dress
+is composed. This circumstance is prejudicial to the excellence of the
+work; but it powerfully contributes to awaken the intelligence of the
+workman. Nothing tends to materialize man, and to deprive his work of
+the faintest trace of mind, more than extreme division of labor. In a
+country like America, where men devoted to special occupations are
+rare, a long apprenticeship cannot be required from anyone who embraces
+a profession. The Americans, therefore, change their means of gaining a
+livelihood very readily; and they suit their occupations to the
+exigencies 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 be
+less perfect in each craft than the European, at least there is
+scarcely any trade with which he is utterly unacquainted. His capacity
+is more general, and the circle of his intelligence is enlarged.
+Americans are never bound by rigid profession rules, escape social prejudices, and hold no deep attachment to any line of work or method. They easily shake off foreign customs, convinced their country is unique and unprecedented.
+The inhabitants of the United States are never fettered by the axioms
+of their profession; they escape from all the prejudices of their
+present station; they are not more attached to one line of operation
+than to another; they are not more prone to employ an old method than a
+new one; they have no rooted habits, and they easily shake off the
+influence which the habits of other nations might exercise upon their
+minds from a conviction that their country is unlike any other, and
+that its situation is without a precedent in the world. America is a
+land of wonders, in which everything is in constant motion, and every
+movement seems an improvement. The idea of novelty is there
+indissolubly connected with the idea of amelioration. No natural
+boundary seems to be set to the efforts of man; and what is not yet
+done is only what he has not yet attempted to do.
+> **Quote:** "America is a land of wonders, in which everything is in constant motion, and every movement seems an improvement."
+This perpetual change which goes on in the United States, these
+frequent vicissitudes of fortune, accompanied by such unforeseen
+fluctuations in private and in public wealth, serve to keep the minds
+of the citizens in a perpetual state of feverish agitation, which
+admirably invigorates their exertions, and keeps them in a state of
+excitement above the ordinary level of mankind. The whole life of an
+American is passed like a game of chance, a revolutionary crisis, or a
+battle. As the same causes are continually in operation throughout the
+country, they ultimately impart an irresistible impulse to the national
+character. The American, taken as a chance specimen of his countrymen,
+must then be a man of singular warmth in his desires, enterprising,
+fond of adventure, and, above all, of innovation. The same bent is
+manifest in all that he does; he introduces it into his political laws,
+his religious doctrines, his theories of social economy, and his
+domestic occupations; he bears it with him in the depths of the
+backwoods, as well as in the business of the city. It is this same
+passion, applied to maritime commerce, which makes him the cheapest and
+the quickest trader in the world.
+The idea of novelty is indissolubly linked with progress. No natural boundary seems to limit human effort; what has not been done is simply what has not been attempted.
+As long as the sailors of the United States retain these inspiriting
+advantages, and the practical superiority which they derive from them,
+they will not only continue to supply the wants of the producers and
+consumers of their own country, but they will tend more and more to
+become, like the English, the factors of all other peoples. *k This
+prediction has already begun to be realized; we perceive that the
+American traders are introducing themselves as intermediate agents in
+the commerce of several European nations; *l and America will offer a
+still wider field to their enterprise.
+This perpetual change—these frequent shifts in private and public fortune—keeps citizens in constant restless energy, invigorating their efforts above mankind's ordinary level.
+[ It must not be supposed that English vessels are exclusively employed
+in transporting foreign produce into England, or British produce to
+foreign countries; at the present day the merchant shipping of England
+may be regarded in the light of a vast system of public conveyances,
+ready to serve all the producers of the world, and to open
+communications between all peoples. The maritime genius of the
+Americans prompts them to enter into competition with the English.]
+> **Quote:** "The whole life of an American is passed like a game of chance, a revolutionary crisis, or a battle."
+As these causes operate continually, they give irresistible impulse to national character. The average American is passionate, enterprising, adventurous, and above all, an innovator. This inclination appears in his laws, religion, economic theories, and domestic life—in backwoods and city alike. This passion, applied to maritime commerce, makes him the world's cheapest and fastest trader.
+[ Part of the commerce of the Mediterranean is already carried on by
+American vessels.]
+As long as American sailors maintain these advantages, they will increasingly become shipping agents for all nations. England's merchant shipping serves as worldwide transport, yet American maritime genius competes directly. This prediction has begun; Americans already mediate commerce for several European nations, including Mediterranean trade, with wider fields ahead.
+The Spanish and Portuguese colonies have become empires devastated by civil war and oppression, their populations too consumed by self-defense to improve. Yet this cannot last. Europe broke through the Middle Ages; South America shares our Christian laws and customs, with all civilization's seeds and our example. It is only a matter of time before they become flourishing nations.
+The great colonies which were founded in South America by the Spaniards
+and the Portuguese have since become empires. Civil war and oppression
+now lay waste those extensive regions. Population does not increase,
+and the thinly scattered inhabitants are too much absorbed in the cares
+of self-defense even to attempt any amelioration of their condition.
+Such, however, will not always be the case. Europe has succeeded by her
+own efforts in piercing the gloom of the Middle Ages; South America has
+the same Christian laws and Christian manners as we have; she contains
+all the germs of civilization which have grown amidst the nations of
+Europe or their offsets, added to the advantages to be derived from our
+example: why then should she always remain uncivilized? It is clear
+that the question is simply one of time; at some future period, which
+may be more or less remote, the inhabitants of South America will
+constitute flourishing and enlightened nations.
+But when South Americans feel civilized nations' needs, they will be unable to satisfy them. As civilization's newest members, they must acknowledge their elders' superiority. They will remain agriculturalists long before developing manufacturing or commerce, requiring foreign mediation to exchange produce for goods.
+But when the Spaniards and Portuguese of South America begin to feel
+the wants common to all civilized nations, they will still be unable to
+satisfy those wants for themselves; as the youngest children of
+civilization, they must perforce admit the superiority of their elder
+brethren. They will be agriculturists long before they succeed in
+manufactures or commerce, and they will require the mediation of
+strangers to exchange their produce beyond seas for those articles for
+which a demand will begin to be felt.
+Northern Americans will supply the South's needs. Nature placed them close, giving means to understand and anticipate demands. They would only lose these advantages by being far inferior to European merchants, but they are superior. The United States already exerts cultural influence on the New World; all nations view them as the most enlightened, powerful, and wealthy, turning to them as models for political principles and laws.
+It is unquestionable that the Americans of the North will one day
+supply the wants of the Americans of the South. Nature has placed them
+in contiguity, and has furnished the former with every means of knowing
+and appreciating those demands, of establishing a permanent connection
+with those States, and of gradually filling their markets. The
+merchants of the United States could only forfeit these natural
+advantages if he were very inferior to the merchant of Europe; to whom
+he is, on the contrary, superior in several respects. The Americans of
+the United States already exercise a very considerable moral influence
+upon all the peoples of the New World. They are the source of
+intelligence, and all the nations which inhabit the same continent are
+already accustomed to consider them as the most enlightened, the most
+powerful, and the most wealthy members of the great American family.
+All eyes are therefore turned towards the Union; and the States of
+which that body is composed are the models which the other communities
+try to imitate to the best of their power; it is from the United States
+that they borrow their political principles and their laws.
+The United States stands toward South America as England stands toward Italy, Spain, Portugal—less advanced nations receiving daily goods from England. The Union will perform England's role in the other hemisphere. Every New World community prospers to Anglo-Americans' advantage.
+The Americans of the United States stand in precisely the same position
+with regard to the peoples of South America as their fathers, the
+English, occupy with regard to the Italians, the Spaniards, the
+Portuguese, and all those nations of Europe which receive their
+articles of daily consumption from England, because they are less
+advanced in civilization and trade. England is at this time the natural
+emporium of almost all the nations which are within its reach; the
+American Union will perform the same part in the other hemisphere; and
+every community which is founded, or which prospers in the New World,
+is founded and prospers to the advantage of the Anglo-Americans.
+If the Union dissolves, its commerce would be hindered temporarily, but less than assumed. The commercial States will remain united—they share opinions, interests, and customs, and alone can form a great maritime power. Even independent, the South would require the North's services, being non-commercial. Southern Americans will long rely on foreign intermediaries, but the North can serve more cheaply and will keep that business.
+If the Union were to be dissolved, the commerce of the States which now
+compose it would undoubtedly be checked for a time; but this
+consequence would be less perceptible than is generally supposed. It is
+evident that, whatever may happen, the commercial States will remain
+united. They are all contiguous to each other; they have identically
+the same opinions, interests, and manners; and they are alone competent
+to form a very great maritime power. Even if the South of the Union
+were to become independent of the North, it would still require the
+services of those States. I have already observed that the South is not
+a commercial country, and nothing intimates that it is likely to become
+so. The Americans of the South of the United States will therefore be
+obliged, for a long time to come, to have recourse to strangers to
+export their produce, and to supply them with the commodities which are
+requisite to satisfy their wants. But the Northern States are
+undoubtedly able to act as their intermediate agents cheaper than any
+other merchants. They will therefore retain that employment, for
+cheapness is the sovereign law of commerce. National claims and
+national prejudices cannot resist the influence of cheapness. Nothing
+can be more virulent than the hatred which exists between the Americans
+of the United States and the English. But notwithstanding these
+inimical feelings, the Americans derive the greater part of their
+manufactured commodities from England, because England supplies them at
+a cheaper rate than any other nation. Thus the increasing prosperity of
+America turns, notwithstanding the grudges of the Americans, to the
+advantage of British manufactures.
+> **Quote:** "Cheapness is the sovereign law of commerce."
+Reason shows and experience proves that no commercial prosperity can be
+durable if it cannot be united, in case of need, to naval force. This
+truth is as well understood in the United States as it can be anywhere
+else: the Americans are already able to make their flag respected; in a
+few years they will be able to make it feared. I am convinced that the
+dismemberment of the Union would not have the effect of diminishing the
+naval power of the Americans, but that it would powerfully contribute
+to increase it. At the present time the commercial States are connected
+with others which have not the same interests, and which frequently
+yield an unwilling consent to the increase of a maritime power by which
+they are only indirectly benefited. If, on the contrary, the commercial
+States of the Union formed one independent nation, commerce would
+become the foremost of their national interests; they would
+consequently be willing to make very great sacrifices to protect their
+shipping, and nothing would prevent them from pursuing their designs
+upon this point.
+National prejudices cannot resist low prices. Despite intense hatred between Americans and English, Americans buy most manufactured goods from England because it supplies them cheapest. Thus American prosperity benefits British manufacturers.
+Nations, as well as men, almost always betray the most prominent
+features of their future destiny in their earliest years. When I
+contemplate the ardor with which the Anglo-Americans prosecute
+commercial enterprise, the advantages which befriend them, and the
+success of their undertakings, I cannot refrain from believing that
+they will one day become the first maritime power of the globe. They
+are born to rule the seas, as the Romans were to conquer the world.
+Commercial prosperity requires naval force. Americans already command respect for their flag; soon they will command fear. The Union's breakup would not diminish but increase American naval power. Currently, commercial States are tied to others with different interests that reluctantly support maritime growth. If independent, commerce would become their primary interest, and they would sacrifice greatly to protect shipping.
+Nations reveal their future destiny in early years. Observing Anglo-Americans' commercial passion, advantages, and success, I believe they will become the leading maritime power.
+> **Quote:** "They are born to rule the seas, as the Romans were to conquer the world."
+I have nearly reached my inquiry's close. Until now, I have divided the subject to study each portion attentively. Now I view the whole from a single perspective—less detailed but more certain. A traveler leaving a massive city climbs a hill; as he distances himself, people disappear, dwellings blur, squares and streets become indistinct. Yet he sees the city's boundaries and shape for the first time. So appears the British race's future destiny in North America; the details of this stupendous picture are in shadow, but the whole is clear.
+ Conclusion
+The United States occupies about one-twentieth of the habitable earth, but the Anglo-American race has already moved far beyond these borders.
+France once held North American territory nearly as large as Europe, through which the continent's three greatest rivers flowed. Indian tribes from the St. Lawrence to the Mississippi knew only French, and settlements bore names dear to France: Louisbourg, Montmorency, Duquesne, St. Louis, Vincennes, New Orleans.
+I have now nearly reached the close of my inquiry; hitherto, in
+speaking of the future destiny of the United States, I have endeavored
+to divide my subject into distinct portions, in order to study each of
+them with more attention. My present object is to embrace the whole
+from one single point; the remarks I shall make will be less detailed,
+but they will be more sure. I shall perceive each object less
+distinctly, but I shall descry the principal facts with more certainty.
+A traveller who has 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 recently quitted; their dwellings are confused in a dense
+mass; he can no longer distinguish the public squares, and he can
+scarcely trace out the great thoroughfares; but his eye has less
+difficulty in following the boundaries of the city, and for the first
+time he sees the shape of the vast whole. Such is the future destiny of
+the British race in North America to my eye; the details of the
+stupendous picture are overhung with shade, but I conceive a clear idea
+of the entire subject.
+But circumstances have deprived us of this inheritance. Nations with free institutions and local government are best equipped to found colonies, where self-governance is indispensable. French settlers have disappeared where few; those remaining in Lower Canada are concentrated and now subject to other laws.
+The territory now occupied or possessed by the United States of America
+forms about one-twentieth part of the habitable earth. But extensive as
+these confines are, it must not be supposed that the Anglo-American
+race will always remain within them; indeed, it has already far
+overstepped them.
+The 400,000 French inhabitants of Lower Canada are remnants of an old nation lost among a new people. A growing foreign population—identical to that of the United States—dominates their cities and alters their language. The British race already extends beyond the Union's frontiers.
+There was once a time at which we also might have created a great
+French nation in the American wilds, to counterbalance the influence of
+the English upon the destinies of the New World. France formerly
+possessed a territory in North America, scarcely less extensive than
+the whole of Europe. The three greatest rivers of that continent then
+flowed within her dominions. The Indian tribes which dwelt between the
+mouth of the St. Lawrence and the delta of the Mississippi were
+unaccustomed to any other tongue but ours; and all the European
+settlements scattered over that immense region recalled the traditions
+of our country. Louisbourg, Montmorency, Duquesne, St. Louis,
+Vincennes, New Orleans (for such were the names they bore) are words
+dear to France and familiar to our ears.
+To the northwest are insignificant Russian settlements; to the southwest, Mexico presents a barrier. Spaniards and Anglo-Americans divide the New World. Treaty boundaries favor the Anglo-Americans, yet I do not doubt they will violate the arrangement. They will reach uninhabited provinces before their rightful owners, establishing settlements so that when legal owners arrive, they find strangers in their inheritance. Texas and California quickly became part of the United States, Russian settlements acquired by purchase.
+But a concourse of circumstances, which it would be tedious to
+enumerate, *m have deprived us of this magnificent inheritance.
+Wherever the French settlers were numerically weak and partially
+established, they have disappeared: those who remain are collected on a
+small extent of country, and are now subject to other laws. The 400,000
+French inhabitants of Lower Canada constitute, at the present time, the
+remnant of an old nation lost in the midst of a new people. A foreign
+population is increasing around them unceasingly and on all sides,
+which already penetrates amongst the ancient masters of the country,
+predominates in their cities and corrupts their language. This
+population is identical with that of the United States; it is therefore
+with truth that I asserted that the British race is not confined within
+the frontiers of the Union, since it already extends to the northeast.
+The New World belongs to the first occupant. Even populated countries cannot protect themselves. In Texas, U.S. residents migrate constantly, purchasing land and establishing their language and manners. Texas will soon contain no Mexicans; this occurs whenever Anglo-Americans contact different populations.
+[ The foremost of these circumstances is, that nations which are
+accustomed to free institutions and municipal government are better
+able than any others to found prosperous colonies. The habit of
+thinking and governing for oneself is indispensable in a new country,
+where success necessarily depends, in a great measure, upon the
+individual exertions of the settlers.]
+The British race has acquired amazing dominance in the New World, far superior in civilization, industry, and power. As long as it encounters only wilderness or thin populations, it will continue to spread. Treaty lines cannot stop it.
+The British race occupies the most temperate, habitable zone—between the frozen Pole and burning Equator.
+To the northwest nothing is to be met with but a few insignificant
+Russian settlements; but to the southwest, Mexico presents a barrier to
+the Anglo-Americans. Thus, the Spaniards and the Anglo-Americans are,
+properly speaking, the only two races which divide the possession of
+the New World. The limits of separation between them have been settled
+by a treaty; but although the conditions of that treaty are exceedingly
+favorable to the Anglo-Americans, I do not doubt that they will shortly
+infringe this arrangement. Vast provinces, extending beyond the
+frontiers of the Union towards Mexico, are still destitute of
+inhabitants. The natives of the United States will forestall the
+rightful occupants of these solitary regions. They will take possession
+of the soil, and establish social institutions, so that when the legal
+owner arrives at length, he will find the wilderness under cultivation,
+and strangers quietly settled in the midst of his inheritance. *n
+Many suppose population growth began after Independence, but this is wrong: it doubled every twenty-two years under colonial rule as today. Applied to thousands then, millions now, the same fact is now obvious.
+[ [This was speedily accomplished, and ere long both Texas and
+California formed part of the United States. The Russian settlements
+were acquired by purchase.]]
+British subjects in Canada, ruled by a king, grow as rapidly as republican Americans. During the eight-year War of Independence, population increased uninterrupted, despite Indian nations on the frontier and enemy ravages of the Atlantic. Kentucky, western Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Maine filled with inhabitants. Unstable post-war constitutional periods did not stop this progress. Laws, peace, war, order, and anarchy have no perceptible influence because no cause can affect the entire vast territory simultaneously; one part always offers refuge from another's disasters.
+The British race's momentum cannot be stopped. Union breakup, hostilities, tyranny might slow it, but cannot prevent its destiny. No power can close the fertile wilderness to emigrants. Future events cannot deprive Americans of climate, seas, rivers, or soil, nor extinguish their love of prosperity, spirit of enterprise, or guiding knowledge.
+The lands of the New World belong to the first occupant, and they are
+the natural reward of the swiftest pioneer. Even the countries which
+are already peopled will have some difficulty in securing themselves
+from this invasion. I have already alluded to what is taking place in
+the province of Texas. The inhabitants of the United States are
+perpetually migrating to Texas, where they purchase land; and although
+they conform to the laws of the country, they are gradually founding
+the empire of their own language and their own manners. The province of
+Texas is still part of the Mexican dominions, but it will soon contain
+no Mexicans; the same thing has occurred whenever the Anglo-Americans
+have come into contact with populations of a different origin.
+One event is sure: Anglo-Americans will soon cover the space from polar regions to tropics, Atlantic to Pacific—territory equal to three-quarters of Europe. The United States already covers half of Europe. With 410 inhabitants per square league in the war-torn Old World, the Union—with preferable climate and equal advantages—will become equally populous.
+It cannot be denied that the British race has acquired an amazing
+preponderance over all the other European races in the New World; and
+that it is very superior to them in civilization, in industry, and in
+power. As long as it is only surrounded by desert or thinly peopled
+countries, as long as it encounters no dense populations upon its
+route, through which it cannot work its way, it will assuredly continue
+to spread. The lines marked out by treaties will not stop it; but it
+will everywhere transgress these imaginary barriers.
+Many ages will pass before American branches of the British race lose their uniform characteristics. No permanent inequality of social conditions will be established. Whatever differences arise from peace, war, freedom, oppression, prosperity, or poverty, they will maintain similar conditions and share corresponding customs and opinions.
+The geographical position of the British race in the New World is
+peculiarly favorable to its rapid increase. Above its northern
+frontiers the icy regions of the Pole extend; and a few degrees below
+its southern confines lies the burning climate of the Equator. The
+Anglo-Americans are, therefore, placed in the most temperate and
+habitable zone of the continent.
+Medieval religion gave Europe common civilization despite fragmentation. The British in the New World have a thousand mutual ties and live in an age of universal equality. Today, nations move toward unity; communication unites remote parts, making ignorance impossible. There is less difference now between Europeans and American descendants than between thirteenth-century towns separated by a river. If assimilation brings foreign nations closer, it will certainly prevent descendants of the same people from becoming strangers.
+It is generally supposed that the prodigious increase of population in
+the United States is posterior to their Declaration of Independence.
+But this is an error: the population increased as rapidly under the
+colonial system as it does at the present day; that is to say, it
+doubled in about twenty-two years. But this proportion which is now
+applied to millions, was then applied to thousands of inhabitants; and
+the same fact which was scarcely noticeable a century ago, is now
+evident to every observer.
+The time will come when 150 million people live in North America, equal in condition, sharing civilization, language, religion, habits, manners, and opinions. This is certain—a fact new to the world with such massive consequences it defies imagination.
+The British subjects in Canada, who are dependent on a king, augment
+and spread 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 without intermission in the same ratio. Although powerful
+Indian nations allied with the English existed at that time upon the
+western frontiers, the emigration westward was never checked. Whilst
+the enemy laid waste the shores of the Atlantic, Kentucky, the western
+parts of Pennsylvania, and the States of Vermont and of Maine were
+filling with inhabitants. Nor did the unsettled state of the
+Constitution, which succeeded the war, prevent the increase of the
+population, or stop its progress across the wilds. Thus, the difference
+of laws, the various conditions of peace and war, of order and of
+anarchy, have exercised no perceptible influence upon the gradual
+development of the Anglo-Americans. This may be readily understood; for
+the fact is, that no causes are sufficiently general to exercise a
+simultaneous influence over the whole of so extensive a territory. One
+portion of the country always offers a sure retreat from the calamities
+which afflict another part; and however great may be the evil, the
+remedy which is at hand is greater still.
+Two great nations now move toward the same goal from different points: Russians and Americans. Both grew unnoticed, and while the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they suddenly assumed a prominent place among the nations; the world learned of their existence and their greatness at almost the same time.
+It must not, then, be imagined that the impulse of the British race in
+the New World can be arrested. The dismemberment of the Union, and the
+hostilities which might ensure, the abolition of republican
+institutions, and the tyrannical government which might succeed it, may
+retard this impulse, but they cannot prevent it from ultimately
+fulfilling the destinies to which that race is reserved. No power upon
+earth can close upon the emigrants that fertile wilderness which offers
+resources to all industry, and a refuge from all want. Future events,
+of whatever nature they may be, will not deprive the Americans of their
+climate or of their inland seas, of their great rivers or of their
+exuberant soil. Nor will bad laws, revolutions, and anarchy be able to
+obliterate that love of prosperity and that spirit of enterprise which
+seem to be the distinctive characteristics of their race, or to
+extinguish that knowledge which guides them on their way.
+> **Quote:** "The American struggles against the natural obstacles which oppose him; the adversaries of the Russian are men; the former combats the wilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization with all its weapons and its arts: the conquests of the one are therefore gained by the ploughshare; those of the other by the sword. The Anglo-American relies upon personal interest to accomplish his ends, and gives free scope to the unguided exertions and common-sense of the citizens; the Russian centres all the authority of society in a single arm: the principal 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 sway the destinies of half the globe."
+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 the
+life of a nation), the Anglo-Americans will alone cover the immense
+space contained between the polar regions and the tropics, extending
+from the coasts of the Atlantic to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. The
+territory which will probably be occupied by the Anglo-Americans at
+some future time, may be computed to equal three-quarters of Europe in
+extent. *o The climate of the Union is upon the whole preferable to
+that of Europe, and its natural advantages are not less great; it is
+therefore evident that its population will at some future time be
+proportionate to our own. Europe, divided as it is between so many
+different nations, and torn as it has been by incessant wars and the
+barbarous manners of the Middle Ages, has notwithstanding attained a
+population of 410 inhabitants to the square league. *p What cause can
+prevent the United States from having as numerous a population in time?
+[ The United States already extend over a territory equal to one-half
+of Europe. The area of Europe is 500,000 square leagues, and its
+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
+the author wrote. Twenty years later, in 1850, the superficial area of
+the United States had been extended to 3,306,865 square miles of
+territory, which is about the area of Europe.]]
+[ See “Malte Brun,” liv. 116, vol. vi. p. 92.]
+Many ages must elapse before the divers offsets of the British race in
+America cease to present the same homogeneous characteristics: and the
+time cannot be foreseen at which a permanent inequality of conditions
+will be established in the New World. Whatever differences may arise,
+from peace or from war, from freedom or oppression, from prosperity or
+want, between the destinies of the different descendants of the great
+Anglo-American family, they will at least preserve an analogous social
+condition, and they will hold in common the customs and the opinions to
+which that social condition has given birth.
+In the Middle Ages, the tie of religion was sufficiently powerful to
+imbue all the different populations of Europe with the same
+civilization. The British of the New World have a thousand other
+reciprocal ties; and they live at a time when the tendency to equality
+is general amongst mankind. The Middle Ages were a period when
+everything was broken up; when each people, each province, each city,
+and each family, had a strong tendency to maintain its distinct
+individuality. At the present time an opposite tendency seems to
+prevail, and the nations seem to be advancing to unity. Our means of
+intellectual intercourse unite the most remote parts of the earth; and
+it is impossible for men to remain strangers to each other, or to be
+ignorant of the events which are taking place in any corner of the
+globe. The consequence is that there is less difference, at the present
+day, between the Europeans and their descendants in the New World, than
+there was between certain towns in the thirteenth century which were
+only separated by a river. If this tendency to assimilation brings
+foreign nations closer to each other, it must a fortiori prevent the
+descendants of the same people from becoming aliens to each other.
+The time will therefore come when one hundred and fifty millions of men
+will be living in North America, *q equal in condition, the progeny of
+one race, owing their origin to the same cause, and preserving the same
+civilization, the same language, the same religion, the same habits,
+the same manners, and imbued with the same opinions, propagated under
+the same forms. The rest is uncertain, but this is certain; and it is a
+fact new to the world—a fact fraught with such portentous consequences
+as to baffle the efforts even of the imagination.
+[ 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 which
+seem to tend towards the same end, although they started from different
+points: I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have
+grown up unnoticed; and whilst the attention of mankind was directed
+elsewhere, they have suddenly assumed a most prominent place amongst
+the nations; and the world learned their existence and their greatness
+at almost the same time.
+All other nations seem to have nearly reached their natural limits, and
+only to be charged with the maintenance of their power; but these are
+still in the act of growth; *r all the others are stopped, or continue
+to advance with extreme difficulty; these are proceeding with ease and
+with celerity along a path to which the human eye can assign no term.
+The American struggles against the natural obstacles which oppose him;
+the adversaries of the Russian are men; the former combats the
+wilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization with all its
+weapons and its arts: the conquests of the one are therefore gained by
+the ploughshare; those of the other by the sword. The Anglo-American
+relies upon personal interest to accomplish his ends, and gives free
+scope to the unguided exertions and common-sense of the citizens; the
+Russian centres all the authority of society in a single arm: the
+principal 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 sway
+the destinies of half the globe.
+[ Russia is the country in the Old World in which population increases
+most rapidly in proportion.]

Back to Version v1.0 Back to Democracy in America - Volume I