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

I think 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 any of the 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 sever the federal tie; and it is to this
supposition that most of the remarks which I have made apply: or
the authority of the federal government may be progressively
intrenched 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.

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.

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; while 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.

To prove this assertion I shall not have recourse to any remote
occurrences, but to circumstances which I have myself observed,
and which belong to our own time.

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,[Footnote:

In 1832, the district of Michigan, which only contains 31,639
inhabitants, and is still an almost unexplored wilderness,
possessed 940 miles of mail-roads. The territory of Arkansas,
which is still more uncultivated, was already intersected by
1,938 miles of mail-roads (See report of the general post-office,
30th November, 1833.) The postage of newspapers alone in the
whole Union amounted to $254,796.

] 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.[Footnote:

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.)

] And to these facilities of nature and art may be added those
restless cravings, that busymindedness, and love of self, 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 thirteen millions
of men who cover the territory of the United States.

But while 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 enlightened than the men among 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 civilisation of the north appears to be the
common standard, to which the whole nation will one day be
assimilated.

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 monarchical institutions; and the Union has
not rendered the lesser states dependant 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.

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. 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.

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.

As the federal government consolidated its authority, America
resumed its rank among 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 among 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, while it was creating
order and peace.

As soon as this tendency of public opinion began to be manifested
externally, the leaders of parties, who live by the passions of
the people, began to 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 forward, the
government of the Union has invariably been obliged to recede, as
often as it has attempted to enter the lists with the government
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.

The constitution invested the federal government with the right
of providing for the interests of the nation; and it has 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.

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, have 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.[Footnote:

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.[Footnote:

The first act of cession 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.

] 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 treasury 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 civilisation 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.[Footnote:

It is true that the president refused his assent to this law; but
he completely adopted it in principle. See message of 8th
December, 1833.

]

[The remark of the author, that "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" requires considerable qualification.
The instances which the author cites, are those of
_legislative_ interpretations, not those made by the
judiciary. It may be questioned whether any of those cited by
him are fair instances of _interpretation_. Although the
then president and many of his friends doubted or denied the
power of congress over many of the subjects mentioned by the
author, yet the omission to exercise the power thus questioned,
did not proceed wholly from doubts of the constitutional
authority. It must be remembered that all these questions
affected local interests of the states or districts represented
in congress, and the author has elsewhere shown the tendency of
the local feeling to overcome all regard for the abstract
interest of the Union. Hence many members have voted on these
questions without reference to the constitutional question, and
indeed without entertaining any doubt of their power. These
instances may afford proof that the federal power is declining,
as the author contends, but they do not prove any actual
interpretation of the constitution. And so numerous and various
are the circumstances to influence the decision of a legislative
body like the congress of the United States, that the people do
not regard them as sound and authoritative expositions of the
true sense of the constitution, except perhaps in those very few
cases, where there has been a constant and uninterrupted practice
from the organization of the government. The judiciary is looked
to as the only authentic expounder of the constitution, and until
a law of congress has passed that ordeal, its constitutionality
is open to question: of which our history furnishes many examples
... There are errors in some of the instances given by our
author, which would materially mislead, if not corrected. That
in relation to the Indians proceeds upon the assumption that the
United States claimed some rights over Indians or the territory
occupied by them, inconsistent with the claims of the states.
But this is a mistake. As to their lands, the United States
never pretended to any right in them, except such as was granted
by the cessions of the states. The principle universally
acknowledged in the courts of the United States and of the
several states, is, that by the treaty with Great Britain in
which the independence of the colonies was acknowledged, the
states became severally and individually independent, and as such
succeeded to the rights of the crown of England to and over the
lands within the boundaries of the respective states. The right
of the crown in these lands was the absolute ownership, subject
only to the rights of occupancy by the Indians so long as they
remained a tribe. This right devolved to each state by the
treaty which established their independence, and the United
States have never questioned it. See 6th Cranch, 87; 8th
Wheaton, 502, S84; 17th Johnson's Reports, 231. On the other
hand, the right of holding treaties with the Indians has
universally been conceded to the United States. The right of a
state to the lands occupied by the Indians, within the boundaries
of such state, does not in the least conflict with the right of
holding treaties on national subjects by the United States with
those Indians. With respect to Indians residing in any territory
_without_ the boundaries of any state, or on lands ceded to
the United States, the case is different; the United States are
in such cases the proprietors of the soil, subject to the Indian
right of occupancy, and when that right is extinguished the
proprietorship becomes absolute. It will be seen, then, that in
relation to the Indians and their lands, no question could arise
respecting the interpretation of the constitution. The
observation that "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"--is a strange compound of error and of truth. As above
remarked, the Indian right of occupancy has ever been recognized
by the states, with the exception of the case referred to by the
author, in which Georgia claimed the right to possess certain
lands occupied by the Cherokees. This was anomalous, and grew
out of treaties and cessions, the details of which are too
numerous and complicated for the limits of a note. But in no
other cases have the states ever claimed the possession of lands
occupied by Indians, without having previously extinguished their
right by purchase.

As to the rights of sovereignty over the natives, the principle
admitted in the United States is that all persons within the
territorial limits of a state are and of necessity must be,
subject to the jurisdiction of its laws. While the Indian tribes
were numerous, distinct, and separate from the whites, and
possessed a government of their own, the state authorities, from
considerations of policy, abstained from the exercise of criminal
jurisdiction for offences committed by the Indians among
themselves, although for offences against the whites they were
subjected to the operation of the state laws. But as these
tribes diminished in numbers, as those who remained among them
became enervated by bad habits, and ceased to exercise any
effectual government, humanity demanded that the power of the
states should be interposed to protect the miserable remnants
from the violence and outrage of each other. The first recorded
instance of interposition in such a case was in 1821, when an
Indian of the Seneca tribe in the state of New York was tried and
convicted of murder on a squaw of the tribe. The courts declared
their competency to take cognizance of such offences, and the
legislature confirmed the declaration by a law.--Another instance
of what the author calls interpretation of the constitution
against the general government, is given by him in the proposed
act of 1832, which passed both houses of congress, but was vetoed
by the president, by which, as he says, "the greatest part of the
revenue derived from the sale of lands, was made over to the new
western republics." But this act was not founded on any doubt of
the title of the United States to the lands in question, or of
its constitutional power over them, and cannot be cited as any
evidence of the interpretation of the constitution. An error of
fact in this statement ought to be corrected. The bill to which
the author refers, is doubtless that usually called Mr. Clay's
land bill. Instead of making over the greatest part of the
revenue to the new states, it appropriated twelve and a half per
cent. to them, in addition to five per cent. which had been
originally granted for the purpose of making roads. See Niles's
Register, vol. 42, p. 355.--_American Editor._]

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 bank-notes 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.[Footnote:

The present bank of the United States was established in 1816,
with a capital of 35,000,000 dollars; 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.

]

The bank of the United States is nevertheless an 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
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.[Footnote:

See principally for the details of this affair, the legislative
documents, 22d congress, 2d session, No 3.