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

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 for ever 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
have 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 aggression of power. No one among them
being strong enough to engage singly 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 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.

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.

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 recognised, 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.

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 recognised 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.

I have already observed that, from their origin, the sovereignty
of the people was the fundamental principle of the greater number
of the 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 the
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.

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 limit the exercise of social authority
within 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 dependant on a certain qualification,
which was exceedingly low in the north, and more considerable in
the south.

The American revolution broke out, and the doctrine of the
sovereignty of the people, which had been nurtured in the
townships, 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.

A scarcely less rapid change was effected in the interior of
society, where the law of descent completed the abolition of
local influences.

At the very time when this consequence of the laws and of the
revolution became 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 interest; 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,[Footnote:

See the amendments made to the constitution of Maryland in 1801
and 1809.

] and to introduce the most democratic forms into the conduct of
its government.

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 farther electoral rights are extended,
the more is felt 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.

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.

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 met with who would
venture to conceive, or, still more, 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.[Footnote:

See Appendix H.

]

* * * * *

CHAPTER V.

NECESSITY OF EXAMINING THE CONDITION OF THE STATES
BEFORE THAT OF THE UNION AT LARGE.

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 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 these 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.

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 clew 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 foci of action, which may not inaptly be
compared to the different nervous centres which convey motion to
the human body. The township is in the lowest order, then the
county, and lastly the state; and I propose to devote the
following chapter to the examination of these three divisions.

* * * * *

THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF TOWNSHIPS AND MUNICIPAL BODIES.
[Footnote:

[It is by this periphrasis that I attempt to render the French
expressions "_Commune_" and "_Systeme Communal_." I
am not aware that any English word precisely corresponds to the
general term of the original. In France every association of
human dwellings forms a _commune,_ and every commune is
governed by a _maire_ and a _conseil municipal._ In
other words, the _mancipium_ or municipal privilege, which
belongs in England to chartered corporations alone, is alike
extended to every commune into which the cantons and departements
of France were divided at the revolution. Thence the different
application of the expression, which is general in one country
and restricted in the other. In America, the counties of the
northern states are divided into townships, those of the southern
into parishes; besides which, municipal bodies, bearing the name
of corporations, exist in the cities. I shall apply these
several expressions to render the term _commune._ The word
"parish," now commonly used in England, belongs exclusively to
the ecclesiastical division; it denotes the limits over which a
_parson's_ (_personae ecclesiae_ or perhaps
_parochianus_) rights extend.--_Translator's Note._]

]

Why the Author begins the Examination of the Political
Institutions with the Township.--Its Existence in all
Nations.--Difficulty of Establishing and Preserving
Independence.--Its Importance.--Why the Author has selected the
Township System of New England as the main Object of his
Inquiry.

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.

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 eludes the exertions of man; 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. Municipal institutions
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.

In order to explain to the reader the general principles on which
the political organisations of the counties and townships of the
United States rest, 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 farther 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.

* * * * *

LIMITS OF THE TOWNSHIP.

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;[Footnote:

In 1830, there were 305 townships in the state of Massachusetts,
and 610,014 inhabitants; which gives an average of about 2,000
inhabitants to each township.

] so that, on the one hand, the interests of the inhabitants are
not likely to conflict, and, on the other, men capable of
conducting its affairs are always to be found among its citizens.

* * * * *

AUTHORITIES OF THE TOWNSHIP IN NEW ENGLAND.

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.

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.

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 township,
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 anything that exceeds the simple and ordinary
executive business of the state.[Footnote:

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 a sanction
of a law. See the act of 22d February, 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's Register_.

]

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.

The public duties in the township are extremely numerous and
minutely divided, as we shall see farther on; but the large
proportion of administrative power is vested in the hands of a
small number of individuals called "the selectmen."[Footnote:

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:--

Act of the 20th February, 1786, vol. i, p. 219; 24th February,
1796, vol. i., p. 488, 7th March, 1801, vol. ii., p. 45; 16th
June, 1795, vol. i., p. 475; 12th March, 1808, vol. ii., p. 186;
28th February, 1787, vol. i., p. 302; 22d June, 1797, vol. i.,
p. 539.

]

The general laws of the state impose a certain number of
obligations on the selectmen, which may they fulfil without the
authorization of the body they govern, 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
the 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 recognised 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
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.

The selectmen alone have the right of calling a town-meeting; but
they may be requested to do so: if the 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.[Footnote:

See laws of Massachusetts, vol. i., p. 150. Act of the 25th
March, 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
municipal magistrates, who are intrusted 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 farther subdivided; and
among 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.[Footnote: