American Institutions And Their Influence

A >> Alexis de Tocqueville >> American Institutions And Their Influence

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49

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 among the moderns; but the consequences of these evils
were different. The slave, among the ancients, belonged to the
same race as his master, and he was often the superior of the two
in education[Footnote:

It is well known that several of the most distinguished authors
of antiquity, and among 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.

] 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
enfranchisement; 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 was abollished.
There is a natural prejudice which prompts men to despise
whomsoever has been their inferior, long after he has 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
among the ancients; for the freedman bore so entire a resemblance
to those born free, that it soon became impossible to distinguish
him from among them.

The greatest difficulty in antiquity was that of altering the
law; among the moderns it is 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, among
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
among 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.[Footnote:

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.

] 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.

It is difficult for us, who have had the good fortune to be born
among 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 founded 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 course of events
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 nowise 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 among 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 pleasure, 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, because he fears lest they should be some day
confounded together.

Among 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 while 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.[Footnote:

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.

] 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 toward
the northern states, and the negro population was always very
limited in New England.[Footnote:

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
Collections 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 afterward 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 expense 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
civilisation, 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 toward the
north, those of the north descended to the south; but in the
midst of all these causes, the same result recurred 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.

But this truth was most satisfactorily demonstrated when
civilisation 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 which have 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.[Footnote:

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.

]

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 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 primeval 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 are the reward
of labor.[Footnote:

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 with arrive at New
York, may be forwarded by water to New Orleans across five
hundred leagues of continent.

]

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 250,000 souls.[Footnote:

The exact numbers given by the census of 1830 were: Kentucky,
588,844; Ohio, 937,679.

[In 1840 the census gave, Kentucky 779,828; Ohio 1,519,467.]

] 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 civilisation of antiquity
and that of our own time.

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;
while those who are active and enlightened either do nothing, or
pass over into the state of Ohio, where they may work without
dishonor.

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, while 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.[Footnote:

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;
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 confederate 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 influence of slavery extends still farther; 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, 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.

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.

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 that 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.

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.

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.

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 toward the north; but it now
retires again. Freedom, which started from the north, now
descends uninterruptedly toward the south. Among 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.[Footnote:

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, while 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.

]

No great change takes place in human institutions, without
involving among 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 that 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.