USA > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia County > Philadelphia > Municipal government history and politics, Vol. V > Part 27
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41
1 Sainte Beuve says somewhere of him, "Il a commencé à penser avant d'avoir rien appris : ce qui fait qu'il a quelquefois pensé creux." Thiers
29
353] The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville.
Hence, this part of the book is not so much a study of Ameri- can democracy as a series of ingenious and fine-spun abstract speculations on the features and results of equality on modern society and thought, speculations which, though they have been singled out for admiration by some high judges, such as Ampère and Laboulaye, will appear to most readers over fanciful, over confident in their effort to construct a general theory applicable to the infinitely diversified facts of human society, and occasionally monotonous in their repetition of distinctions without differences and generalities too vague, perhaps toc hollow, for practical use.
How far do these defects of De Tocqueville's work affect its value for our present purpose, that of discovering from it what was the condition, political, social, intellectual, of the United States in 1833 and what the forces that were then at work in determining the march of the nation and the development of its institutions ?
It is but slightly that they impair its worth as a record of facts. De Tocqueville is so careful and so unprejudiced an observer that I doubt if there be a single remark of his which can be dismissed as simply erroneous. There is always some basis for every statement he makes. But the basis is occasion- ally too small for the superstructure of inference, speculation and prediction which he rears upon it. To borrow an illus- tration from chemistry, his analysis is always right so far as it is qualitative, often wrong where it attempts to be quanti- tative. The fact is there, but it is perhaps a smaller fact than he thinks, or a transient fact, or a fact whose importance is, or shortly will be, diminished by other facts which he has not adequately recognized.
When we pass from description to argument he is a less safe guide. By the light of subsequent experience we can per- ceive that he mistook transitory for permanent causes. Many
once said, in the Chamber, "Quand je considère intuitivement, comme dirait M. de Tocqueville."
·
30
The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville. [354
of the phenomena which he ascribes to democracy were due only to the fact that large fortunes had not yet grown up in America, others to the absence, in most parts of the country, of that higher education and culture which comes with wealth, leisure and the settlement of society. I have already observed that he sometimes supposes features of American politics to be novel and democratic which are - really old and English, that he does not allow sufficiently for the imprint which colonial life had left on the habits and ideas of the people, an imprint which though it partly wears off with time, partly becomes transformed into something which, while you may call it democratic, remains different from the democracy of an old. European country, and is not an index to the character of democracy in general.
It need hardly be said that the worth of a book like his is not to be measured by the number of flaws which a minute criticism can discover in it. Even a sovereign genius like Aristotle cannot be expected to foresee which of the influences he discerns will retain their potency : it is enough if his view is more piercing and more comprehensive than that of his greatest contemporaries ; if his record shows the high water mark of the learning and philosophy of the time. Had his- tory falsified far more of De Tocqueville's predictions than she has done, his work would still remain eminently suggestive and stimulating. And it is edificatory not merely because it contains precepts instinct with the loftiest morality. It is a model of that spirit of fairness and justice, that love of pure truth which is conspicuously necessary and not less conspicu- ously difficult in the discussion, even the abstract discussion, of the problems of political philosophy.
III. DE TOCQUEVILLE'S VIEW OF THE UNITED STATES.
Before we examine the picture of the social and political phenomena of America which De Tocqueville has drawn, let us see what were the chief changes that had passed on the
31
The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville.
355]
territory of the Union, on its material resources, on the habits and ideas of the people during the forty-six years that elapsed from the publication of the Federalist to that of the Democracy in America.
The territory of the United States had been extended to include the whole valley of the Mississippi, while to the north- west it stretched across the Rocky Mountains as far as the Pacific. All beyond the Missouri was still wilderness, much of it wholly unexplored, but to the east of the Mississippi there were now twenty-four States with an area of 2,059,043 square miles and a population of fourteen millions. The new Western States, though rapidly increasing, were still so raw as to exercise little influence on the balance of national power, which vibrated between the free Northern and the Southern Slave States.> Slavery was not an immediately menacing question, for the first wound it made had been skinned over, so to speak, by the Missouri Compromise of 1820, but it was evidently pregnant with future trouble, for the number of slaves was rapidly increasing, and the slaveholders were already resolved to retain their political influence by the crea- tion of new slave States. The great Federalist party had vanished, and the Republican-Democratic party, which had triumphed over it, had just been split up into several bitterly hostile factions. Questions of foreign policy were no longer urgent, for Europe had ceased to menace America, who had now no neighbors on her own continent except the British Crown on the north and the Mexican Republic on the south. The protective tariff and the existence of the United States Bank were the questions most agitated, but the main dividing party lines were still those which connected themselves with the stricter or looser interpretation of the Federal Constitution -that is to say, they were questions as to the extent of Federal power on the one hand, of the rights of the States on the other. New England was still Puritan and commercial, with a bias towards Protection, the South still agricultural, and in favor of free trade. The rule of the masses had made its greatest
32
The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville. [356
strides in New York, the first among the other States which introduced the new methods of party organization and which thoroughly democratized (in 1846) her Constitution. Every- where property qualifications for office or the electoral fran- chise were being abolished, and even the judges formerly nominated by the State Governor or chosen by the State Legislature, were beginning to be elected by universal pop- ular suffrage and for terms of years. ( In fact a great demo- cratic wave was passing over the country, sweeping away the old landmarks, destroying the respect for authority, casting office and power more and more into the hands of the humbler classes, and causing the withdrawal from public life of men of education and refinement. State feeling was still strong, especially in the South, and perhaps stronger than national fecling, but the activity of commerce and the west- ward movement of population were breaking down the old local exclusiveness, and those who saw steamboats plying on the Hudson and heard that locomotive engines were beginning to be run in England, might have foreseen that the creation of more easy, cheap and rapid communications would bind the sections of the country together with a new and irresistible power. The time was one of great commercial activity and great apparent prosperity ; but large fortunes were still few, while in the general pursuit of material objects science, learn- ing and literature had fallen into the background. Emerson was still a young Unitarian minister, known only to the circle of his own friends. Channing was just rising into note; Longfellow and Hawthorne, Prescott and Ticknor had not begun to write. Washington Irving was probably the only author whose name had reached Europe. How disagreeable the manners of ordinary people {for one must of course except the cultivated circles of Boston and Philadelphia) seemed to the European visitor may be gathered from the diaries of Richard Cobden and Sir Charles Lyell, who travelled in America a year or two after De Tocqueville. There was a good deal of ability among the ruling generation of statesmen-the genera-
.
33
357] The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville.
tion of 1787 was just dying out with Madison-but only three names can be said to have survived in the world's memory, the names of three party leaders who were also great orators, Clay, Calhoun and Webster.1
In those days America was a month from Europe and com- paratively little affected by Europe. Her people walked in a vain conceit of their own greatness and freedom, and scorned instruction from the effete monarchies of the Old World, which in turn repaid them with contemptuous indifference. Neither continent had realized how closely its fortunes were to be interwoven with those of the other by trade and the move- ments of population. No wheat, no cattle were sent across the Atlantic, nor had the flow of immigration from Ireland, much less from Germany, as yet begun. 2
The United States of 1834 had made enormous advances in material prosperity from those of 1789. They had become a great nation, and could become a great power as soon as they cared to spend money on fleets and armies. Their Federal government had stood the test of time and of not a few storms. Its component parts knew their respective functions, and worked with less friction than might have been expected. The sense of national unity, powerfully stimulated by the war of 1812,2 was still growing. But the level of public life had not risen. It was now rather below than above that of average private society. Even in the realm of morality there were strange contrasts. A puritan strictness in some departments of conduct and. a universal recognition of the sanctions of religion co-existed in the North with great com- mercial laxity, while the semi-civilized South, not less religious
' To none of whom, oddly enough, does De Tocqueville refer. He is singularly sparing in his references to individuals, mentioning no one except Jackson for blame, and Livingston (of the Louisiana Code and Secretary of State, 1831-33) for praise.
' An interesting discussion of the effects in this respect of the War of 1812 is contained in Mr. N. M. Butler's paper in the Johns Hopkins Uni- versity Studies, No. VII of the Fifth Series.
3
34
The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville. [358
and valuing itself on its high code of honor, was disgraced by the tolerance accorded to duels and acts of murderous violence, not to speak of the darker evils which slavery brought in its train. As respects the government of States and cities, demo- cratic doctrines had triumphed all along the line. The masses of the people had now realized their power, and entered into the full fruition of it.1 They had unlimited confidence in their wisdom and virtue, and had not yet discovered the dangers incidental to popular government. The wise elders, or the philosophic minds who looked on with distrust, were either afraid to speak out, or deemed it hopeless to stem the flowing tide. They stood aside (as Plato says) under the wall out of the storm. The party organizations had just begun to spread their tough yet flexible network over the whole country ; and the class of professional politicians, at once the creator and the creature of such organizations, was already formed. The spoils of office had, three years before, been proclaimed to belong to the victors, but few saw to what consequences this doctrine was to lead. I will not say that it was a period of transition, for that is true of every period in America, so fast do events move even in the quietest times. But it was a period when that which had been democratic theory was passing swiftly into democratic practice, when the seeds sown long ago by Jefferson had ripened into a waving crop, when the forces which in every society react against extreme democracy were unusually weak, some not yet developed, some afraid to resist the stream.
IV. DE TOCQUEVILLE'S IMPRESSIONS.
Let us see what were the impressions which the America of 1832 made on the mind of De Tocqueville. I do not pre-
' Dr. Von Holst gives at the beginning of the second part of his Consti- tutional History a powerful picture of the democratic revolution, and in- swarming of a new class of men, which accompanied the election and installation of Andrew Jackson.
35
The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville.
359]
tend to summarize his account, which every student ought to read for himself, but shall be content with presenting those more salient points to which our comparison of 1832 with 1788 on the one hand, and 1887 on the other, relates.
He is struck by the thoroughness with which the principle of the Sovereignty of the People is carried out. Fifty-five years ago this principle was far from having obtained its pres- ent ascendancy in Western Europe. In America, however, it was not merely recognized in theory, but consistently applied through every branch of local, State and national government.
He is impressed by the greater importance to ordinary cit- izens of State government than of Federal government, and their warmer attachment to the former than to the latter. The Federal government seems comparatively weak, and in case of a conflict between the two powers, the loyalty of the people would be given rather to the State.1
The basis of all American government is to be found in the " commune," i. e., in local government, the ultimate unit of which is in New England the township, in the Southern and Middle States the county. It is here that the bulk of the work of administration is done, here that the citizens learn how to use and love freedom, here that the wonderful activity they display in public affairs finds its chief sphere and its constant stimulus.
, The absence of what a European calls "the administration " is remarkable. Public work is divided up between a multitude of petty and unrelated local officials: there is no "hierarchy," no organized civil service with a subordination of ranks. The means employed to keep officials to their work and punish offences are two : frequent popular election and the powers of invoking the ordinary courts of justice to obtain damages for negligence or unwarranted action. But along with the ex- treme " administrative decentralization " there exists a no less
' Note the singular fact that he does not give any description of a State as a commonwealth, nor characterize the general features of its government.
36
The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville. [360
extreme "governmental centralization," that is to say, all the powers of government are collected into one hand, that of the people, the majority of the voters. This majority is omnipo- tent; and thus authority is strong, capable of great efforts, capable also of tyranny. Hence the value of local self-gov- ernment which prevents the abuse of power by a central au- thority : hence the necessity for this administrative decentrali- zation, which atones for its want of skill in details by the wholesome influence it exerts on the character of the people.
The judges enjoy along with the dignity of their European brethren the singular but most salutary power of "declaring laws to be unconstitutional," and thus serve to restrain ex- cesses of legislative as well as executive authority.
The President appears to our author to be a comparatively weak official. No person, no group, no party, has much to hope from the success of a particular candidate at a Presiden- tial election, because he has not much to give away. The elective system unduly weakens executive authority because a President who approaches the end of his four years' term feels himself feeble, and dares not take any bold step : while the coming in of a new President may cause a complete change of policy. His re-eligibility further weakens and abases him, for he must purchase re-election by intrigue and an unworthy pandering to the desires of his party. It intensifies the char- acteristic fault of democratic government, the predominance · of a temporary majority.
The Federal Supreme Court is the noblest product of the wisdom of those who framed the Federal Constitution. It keeps the whole machine in working order, protecting the Union against the States, and each part of the Federal gov- ernment against the aggressions of the others. The strength of the Federation, naturally a weak form of government, lies in the direct authority which the Federal courts have over the individual citizen : while their action, even against a State, is less offensive than might be expected because they do not directly attach its statutes, but merely, at the instance of an
1
37
361] The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville.
individual plaintiff or defendant, secure rights which those statutes may have infringed.
The Federal Constitution is much superior to the State Constitutions; the Federal Legislature, Executive and Judi- ciary, are all of them more independent of the popular majority, and freer in their action than the corresponding authorities in the several States. Similarly the Federal gov- ernment is better than those of the States, wiser, more skilful, more consistent, more firm.
The day of great parties is past : there is now a feverish agitation of small parties and a constant effort to create parties, to grasp at some principle or watchward under which men may group themselves, probably for selfish ends. Self-interest is at the bottom of the parties, yet aristocratic or democratic sentiment attaches itself to each of them, that is to say, when a practical issue arises, the old antithesis of faith in the masses and distrust of the masses reappears in the view which men and parties take of it. The rich mix little in politics. Secretly disgusted at the predominance of the crowd, they treat their shoemaker as an equal when they meet him on the street, but in the luxury of their own homes lament the vulgarity of public life and predict a bad end for democracy.
Next to the people, the greatest power in the country is the press : yet it is less powerful than in France, because the number of journals is so prodigious, because they are so poorly written, because there is no centre like Paris. Advertisements and general news occupy far more of their space than does political argument, and in the midst of a din of opposing voices, the ordinary citizen retains his dull fixity of opinion, the prejudices of his sect or party.
A European is surprised, not only by the number of volun- tary associations aiming at public objects, but at the tolerance which the law accords to them. They are immensely active and powerful, and do not threaten public security as they would in France, because they admit themselves, by the very fact of their existence, to represent a minority of voters, and seek to prevail by force of argument and not of arms.
V
1
38 The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville. [362
Universal suffrage, while it gives admirable stability to the government, does not, as people in Europe expect that it will, bring the best men to the top. On the contrary, the governors are inferior to the governed,1 the best men do not seek either office or a seat in the House of Representatives, and the people, without positively hating the "upper classes" does not like them ; and carefully keeps them out of power. "Il ne craint point les grands talents, mais il les goûte peu."
The striking inferiority of the House to the Senate is due to the fact that the latter is a product of double election, and it is to double election that democracies must come if they will avoid the evils inseparable from placing political functions in the hands of every class of the people.2
American magistrates are allowed a wider arbitrary dis- cretion than is common in Europe, because they are more constantly watched by the sovereign people, and are more absolutely at its mercy.3
Every office is, in America, a salaried office; nothing can be more conformable to the spirit of a democracy. The minor offices are, relatively to Europe, well paid, the higher ones ill paid. Nobody wears any dress or displays any insignia of office.4
Administration has both an unstable and an unscientific character. Few records are kept of the acts of departments, little information is accumulated, even original documents
1 This is a common remark of visitors to America, but it arises from their mistaking the people they see in society for the "governed" in general. They go with introductions to educated people: if they mixed with the masses they would form a different notion of the "governed," as De Tocque- ville rather oddly calls the ordinary citizens.
? It is remarkable that De Tocqueville should have supposed this to be the chief cause of the excellence he ascribes to the Senate.
3 The only instance given of this is in the discretion allowed to the officers of the New England townships, whose functions are, however, unimportant. I greatly doubt if the statement is or ever was generally true.
4 Still true as regards public offices, save and except the Judges of the Supreme Court when sitting at Washington.
1
39
The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville.
363]
are neglected. De Tocqueville was sometimes given such documents in answer to his queries, and told that he might keep them. The conduct of public business is a hand to mouth, rule of thumb sort of affair.1
Not less instability reigns in the field of legislation. Laws are being constantly changed ; nothing remains fixed or certain.2 .
It is a mistake to suppose that democratic governments are specially economical. They are parsimonious in salaries, at least to the higher officials, but they spend freely on objects beneficial to the mass of the people, such as education, while the want of financial skill involves a good deal of waste. You must not expect economy where those who pay the bulk of the taxes are a mere fraction of those who direct their expen- diture. If ever America finds herself among dangers, her taxation will be as heavy as that of the European monarchies.
There is little bribery of voters, but many charges against the integrity of politicians. Now the corruption of the gov- vernors is worse than that of the governed, for it lowers the tone of public morals by presenting the spectacle of pros- perous turpitude.
The American democracy is self-indulgent and self-compla- cent, slow to recognize, still more slow to correct, its faults. But it has the unequalled good fortune of being able to commit reparable faults, of sinning with impunity (la faculté de faire des fautes reparables).
1 This has ceased to be true in Federal administration, and in that of the more advanced States.
2 De Tocqueville does not say whether he intends this remark to apply to State legislation only or to Federal legislation also. He quotes dieta of Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson to the same effect, but these testimonies all refer to a time anterior to the creation of the Federal Constitution. Admitting that such instability did exist in 1832 as respects the States, one is tempted to believe that De Tocqueville was unconsciously comparing America with France, where the Code has arrested legislation to an extent surprising to an English observer. During the last thirty years there have been more important changes in the ordinary law annually made by the English Parliament than by most American legislatures.
40
The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville. [364
It is eminently ill-fitted to conduct foreign policy. Fortu- nately it has none.
The benefits which American society derives from its demo- cratic government are summed up as follows :
As the majority make the laws, their general tendency, in spite of many errors in detail, is to benefit the majority, because though the means may sometimes be ill chosen, the end is always the same. Hence the country prospers.
Every one is interested in the welfare of the country, be- cause his own welfare is bound up with it. This patriotism may be only an enlarged egotism, but it is powerful neverthe- less, for it is a permanent sentiment, independent of transient enthusiasms. Its character appears in the childish intolerance of criticism which the people display. They will not permit you to find fault with any one of their institutions or habits, not even if you praise all the rest.1
There is a profound respect for every political right, and therefore for every magistrate, and for the authority of the law, which is the work of the people themselves. If there be exceptions to this respect, they are to be found among the rich, who fear that the law may be made or used to their detriment.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.