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

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 it was not in their power to found a state
of things originating solely in themselves; no man can entirely
shake off the influence of the past, and the settlers,
unintentionally or involuntarily, mingled habits 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 carefully to distinguish what is of
puritanical from 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 general 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 or 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.[Footnote:

Crimes no doubt exist for which bail is inadmissible, but they
are few in number.

] 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,[Footnote:

See Blackstone; and Delolme, book i., chap. x.

] 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 reflection.

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.[Footnote:

The author is not quite accurate in this statement. A person
accused of crime is, in the first instance, arrested by virtue of
a warrant issued by the magistrate, upon a complaint granted upon
proof of a crime having been committed by the person charged. He
is then brought before the magistrate, the complainant examined
in his presence, other evidence adduced, and he is heard in
explanation or defence. If the magistrate is satisfied that a
crime has been committed, and that the accused is guilty, the
latter is, then, and then only, required to give security for his
appearance at the proper court to take his trial, if an
indictment shall be found against him by a Grand Jury of
twenty-three of his fellow-citizens. In the event of his
inability or refusal to give the security he is incarcerated, so
as to secure his appearance at a trial.

In France, after the preliminary examination, the accused, unless
absolutely discharged, is in all cases incarcerated, to secure
his presence at the trial. It is the relaxation of this practice
in England and the United States, in order to attain the ends of
justice at the least possible inconvenience to the accused, by
accepting what is deemed an adequate pledge for his appearance,
which our author considers hostile to the poor man and favorable
to the rich. And yet it is very obvious, that such is not its
design or tendency. Good character, and probable innocence,
ordinarily obtain for the accused man the required security. And
if they do not, how can complaint be justly made that others are
not treated with unnecessary severity, and punished in
anticipation, because some are prevented by circumstances from
availing themselves of a benign provision so favorable to
humanity, and to that innocence which our law presumes, until
guilt is proved? To secure the persons of suspected criminals,
that they may abide the sentence of the law, is indispensable to
all jurisprudence. And instead of reproof or aristocratic
tendency, our system deserves credit for having ameliorated, as
far as possible, the condition of persons accused. That this
amelioration cannot be made in all instances, flows from the
necessity of the case.

It would be a mistake to suppose, as the author seems to have
done, that the forfeiture of the security given, exonerates the
accused from punishment. He may be again arrested and detained
in prison, as security would not ordinarily be received from a
person who had given such evidence of his guilt as would be
derived from his attempt to escape. And the difficulty of escape
is rendered so great by our constitutional provisions for the
delivery, by the different states, of fugitives from justice, and
by our treaties with England and France for the same purpose,
that the instances of successful evasion are few and rare.

]

* * * * *

CHAPTER III.

SOCIAL CONDITION OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS.

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 IS ITS ESSENTIAL DEMOCRACY.

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.

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 germe 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
invariable transmission from father to son.

This was the state of things to the east of the Hudson: to the
southwest of that river, and in the direction of the Floridas,
the case was different. In most of the states situated to the
southwest 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 southwest
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.

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.

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.[Footnote:

I understand by the law of descent all those laws whose principal
object it 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 a 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.

] It is true that these laws belong to civil affairs: but they
ought nevertheless to be placed at the head of all political
institutions; or, while 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
unknown.

Through their means man acquires a kind of preternatural power
over the future lot of his fellow-creatures. When the legislator
has once 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, toward 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 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 among 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.

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 a family
to consist of two children (and in a country peopled as France
is, the average number is not above three), these children,
sharing among them the fortune of both parents, would not be
poorer than their father or mother.

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 the 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.

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 befriend them, may indeed entertain the hope of being as
wealthy as their father, but not that of possessing the same
property as he did; their riches must necessarily be composed of
elements different from his.

Now, from the moment when you divest the land-owner 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.

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.[Footnote:

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.

] The calculations of gain, therefore, which decided the rich
man to sell his domain, will still more powerfully influence him
against buying small estates to unite them into a large one.

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 the 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.

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.[Footnote:

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 land-owner, 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.

]

Most certainly is it not for us, Frenchmen of the nineteenth
century, who daily behold 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.

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.[Footnote:

See Appendix G.

] The first 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 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 have 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.

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 a 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 overcharged, still
gives a very imperfect idea of what is taking place in the new
states of the west and southwest. 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 their 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.

It is not only the fortunes of men which are equal in America;
even their acquirements partake in some degree of the same
uniformity. I do not believe 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 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 afterward, 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.

[This paragraph does not fairly render the meaning of the author.
The original French is as follows:--

"En Amerique il y a peu de riches; presque tous les
Americains ont donc besoin d'exercer une profession. Or, toute
profession exige un apprentissage. Les Americains ne peuvent
donc donner a la culture generale de l'intelligence que les
premieres annees de la vie: a quinze ans ils entrent
dans une carriere: ainsi leur education finit le plus souvent
a l'epoque ou la notre commence."

What is meant by the remark; that "at fifteen they enter upon a
career, and thus their education is very often finished at the
epoch when ours commences," is not clearly perceived. Our
professional men enter upon their course of preparation for their
respective professions, wholly between eighteen and twenty-one
years of age. Apprentices to trades are bound out, ordinarily,
at fourteen, but what general education they receive is after
that period. Previously, they have acquired the mere elements of
reading, writing, and arithmetic. But it is supposed there is
nothing peculiar to America, in the age at which apprenticeship
commences. In England, they commence at the same age, and it is
believed that the same thing occurs throughout Europe. It is
feared that the author has not here expressed himself with his
usual clearness and precision.--_American Editor._]

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 the 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 middling 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.