But even if the government of the Union had any strength inherent in

itself, the physical situation of the country would render the exercise

of that strength very difficult.[259] The United States cover an immense

territory; they are separated from each other by great distances; and

the population is disseminated over the surface of a country which is

still half a wilderness. If the Union were to undertake to enforce the

allegiance of the confederate states by military means, it would be in

a position very analogous to that of England at the time of the war of

independence.

However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the

consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation

of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement

of the states; and, in uniting together, they have not forfeited their

nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the

same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the

compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so; and

the federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims

directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the federal

government easily to conquer the resistance which may be offered to it

by any one of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of

them should be especially interested in the existence of the Union, as

has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.

If it be supposed that among the states which are united by the federal

tie, there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of

union, or whose prosperity depends on the duration of that union, it

is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central

government in enforcing the obedience of the others. But the government

would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a

principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to

derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded

to, the federal government would derive its power from the unequal

distribution of those benefits among the states.

If one of the confederated states have acquired a preponderance

sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of

the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject

provinces, and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the

borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then

be done in the name of the federal government, but in reality that

government will have ceased to exist.[260] In both these cases, the

power which acts in the name of the confederation becomes stronger, the

more it abandons the natural state and the acknowledged principles of

confederations.

In America the existing Union is advantageous to all the states, but it

is not indispensable to any one of them. Several of them might break

the federal tie without compromising the welfare of the others, although

their own prosperity would be lessened. As the existence and the

happiness of none of the states are wholly dependent on the present

constitution, they would none of them be disposed to make great personal

sacrifices to maintain it. On the other hand, there is no state which

seems, hitherto, to have its ambition much interested in the maintenance

of the existing Union. They certainly do not all exercise the same

influence in the federal councils, but no one of them can hope to

domineer over the rest, or to treat them as its inferiors or as its

subjects.

It appears to me unquestionable, that if any portion of the Union

seriously desired to separate itself from the other states, they would

not be able, nor indeed would they attempt, to prevent it; and that

the present Union will only last as long as the states which compose

it choose to continue members of the confederation. If this point be

admitted, the question becomes less difficult; and our object is not

to inquire whether the states of the existing Union are capable of

separating, but whether they will choose to remain united.

[The remarks respecting the inability of the federal government to

retain within the Union any state that may choose "to withdraw its name

from the contract," ought not to pass through an American edition of

this work, without the expression of a dissent by the editor from the

opinion of the author. The laws of the United States must remain in

force in a revolted state, until repealed by congress; the customs and

postages must be collected; the courts of the United States must sit,

and must decide the causes submitted to them; as has been very happily

explained by the author, the courts act upon individuals. If their

judgments are resisted, the executive arm must interpose, and if the

state authorities aid in the resistance, the military power of the whole

Union must be invoked to overcome it. So long as the laws affecting

the citizens of such a state remain, and so long as there remain any

officers of a general government to enforce them, these results must

follow not only theoretically but actually. The author probably formed

the opinions which are the subject of these remarks, at the commencement

of the controversy with South Carolina respecting the tariff. And when

they were written and published, he had not learned the result of

that controversy, in which the supremacy of the Union and its laws

was triumphant. There was doubtless great reluctance in adopting the

necessary measures to collect the customs, and to bring every legal

question that could possibly arise out of the controversy, before the

judiciary of the United States, but they were finally adopted, and were

not the less successful for being the result of deliberation and of

necessity. Out of that controversy have arisen some advantages of a

permanent character, produced by the legislation which it required.

There were defects in the laws regulating the manner of bringing from

the state courts into those of the United States, a cause involving the

constitutionality of acts of congress or of the states, through which

the federal authority might be evaded. Those defects were remedied

by the legislation referred to; and it is now more emphatically and

universally true, than when the author wrote, that the acts of the

general government operate through the judiciary, upon individual

citizens, and not upon the states.--_American Editor._]

Among the various reasons which tend to render the existing Union useful

to the Americans, two principal causes are peculiarly evident to the

observer. Although the Americans are, as it were, alone upon their

continent, their commerce makes them the neighbors of all the nations

with which they trade. Notwithstanding their apparent isolation, the

Americans require a certain degree of strength, which they cannot retain

otherwise than by remaining united to each other. If the states were to

split, they would not only diminish the strength which they are now able

to display toward foreign nations, but they would soon create foreign

powers upon their own territory. A system of inland custom-houses would

then be established; the valleys would be divided by imaginary boundary

lines; the courses of the rivers would be confined by territorial

distinctions and a multitude of hindrances would prevent the Americans

from exploring the whole of that vast continent which Providence has

allotted to them for a dominion. At present they have no invasion to

fear, and consequently no standing armies to maintain, no taxes to levy.

If the Union were dissolved, all these burdensome measures might ere

long be required. The Americans are then very powerfully interested

in the maintenance of their Union. On the other hand, it is almost

impossible to discover any sort of material interest which might at

present tempt a portion of the Union to separate from the other states.

When we cast our eyes upon the map of the United States, we perceive

the chain of the Allegany mountains, running from the northeast to the

southwest, and crossing nearly one thousand miles of country; and we are

led to imagine that the design of Providence was to raise, between the

valley of the Mississippi and the coasts of the Atlantic ocean, one of

those natural barriers which break the mutual intercourse of men, and

form the necessary limits of different states. But the average height of

the Alleganies does not exceed 2,500 feet; their greatest elevation is

not above 4,000 feet; their rounded summits, and the spacious valleys

which they conceal within their passes, are of easy access from several

sides. Beside which, the principal rivers that fall into the Atlantic

ocean, the Hudson, the Susquehannah, and the Potomac, take their rise

beyond the Alleganies, in an open district, which borders upon

the valley of the Mississippi. These streams quit this tract of

country,[261] make their way through the barrier which would seem to

turn them westward, and as they wind through the mountains, they open an

easy and natural passage to man.

No natural barrier exists in the regions which are now inhabited by the

Anglo-Americans; the Alleganies are so far from serving as a boundary

to separate nations, that they do not even serve as a frontier to the

states. New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, comprise them within their

borders and extend as much to the west as to the east of the line.

The territory now occupied by the twenty-four states of the Union,

and the three great districts which have not yet acquired the rank of

states, although they already contain inhabitants, covers a surface

of 1,002,600 square miles,[262] which is about equal to five times the

extent of France. Within these limits the qualities of the soil, the

temperature, and the produce of the country, are extremely various. The

vast extent of territory occupied by the Anglo-American republics

has given rise to doubts as to the maintenance of the Union. Here a

distinction must be made; contrary interests sometimes arise in the

different provinces of a vast empire, which often terminate in open

dissensions; and the extent of the country is then most prejudicial to

the power of the state. But if the inhabitants of these vast regions are

not divided by contrary interests, the extent of the territory may be

favorable to their prosperity; for the unity of the government promotes

the interchange of the different productions of the soil, and increases

their value by facilitating their consumption.

It is indeed easy to discover different interests in the different parts

of the Union, but I am unacquainted with any which are hostile to each

other. The southern states are almost exclusively agricultural; the

northern states are more peculiarly commercial and manufacturing; the

states of the west are at the same time agricultural and manufacturing.

In the south the crops consist of tobacco, of rice, of cotton, and

of sugar; in the north and the west, of wheat and maize; these are

different sources of wealth; but union is the means by which these

sources are opened to all, and rendered equally advantageous to the

several districts.

The north, which ships the produce of the Anglo-Americans to all parts

of the world, and brings back the produce of the globe to the Union,

is evidently interested in maintaining the confederation in its present

condition, in order that the number of American producers and consumers

may remain as large as possible. The north is the most natural agent

of communication between the south and the west of the Union on the one

hand, and the rest of the world upon the other; the north is therefore

interested in the union and prosperity of the south and the west,

in order that they may continue to furnish raw materials for its

manufactures, and cargoes for its shipping.

The south and the west, on their side, are still more directly

interested in the preservation of the Union, and the prosperity of the

north. The produce of the south is for the most part exported beyond

seas; the south and the west consequently stand in need of the

commercial resources of the north. They are likewise interested in

the maintenance of a powerful fleet by the Union, to protect them

efficaciously. The south and the west have no vessels, but they cannot

refuse a willing subsidy to defray the expenses of the navy; for if the

fleets of Europe were to blockade the ports of the south and the delta

of the Mississippi, what would become of the rice of the Carolinas, the

tobacco of Virginia, and the sugar and cotton which grow in the valley

of the Mississippi? Every portion of the federal budget does therefore

contribute to the maintenance of material interests which are common to

all the confederate states.

Independently of this commercial utility, the south and the west of the

Union derive great political advantages from their connexion with the

north. The south contains an enormous slave population; a population

which is already alarming, and still more formidable for the future. The

states of the west lie in the remoter part of a single valley; and all

the rivers which intersect their territory rise in the Rocky mountains

or in the Alleganies, and fall into the Mississippi, which bears them

onward to the gulf of Mexico. The western states are consequently

entirely cut off, by their position, from the traditions of Europe and

the civilisation of the Old World. The inhabitants of the south, then,

are induced to support the Union in order to avail themselves of its

protection against the blacks; and the inhabitants of the west, in order

not to be excluded from a free communication with the rest of the globe,

and shut up in the wilds of central America. The north cannot but desire

the maintenance of the Union, in order to remain, as it now is, the

connecting link between that vast body and the other parts of the world.

The temporal interests of all the several parts of the Union are, then,

intimately connected; and the same assertion holds true respecting those

opinions and sentiments which may be termed the immaterial interests of

men.

The inhabitants of the United States talk a great deal of their

attachment to their country; but I confess that I do not rely upon

that calculating patriotism which is founded upon interest, and which

a change in the interest at stake may obliterate. Nor do I attach much

importance to the language of the Americans, when they manifest in their

daily conversation, the intention of maintaining the federal system

adopted by their forefathers. A government retains its sway over a great

number of citizens, far less by the voluntary and rational consent

of the multitude, than by that instinctive and, to a certain extent,

involuntary agreement, which results from similarity of feelings and

resemblances of opinion. I will never admit that men constitute a social

body, simply because they obey the same head and the same laws. Society

can only exist when a great number of men consider a great number of

things in the same point of view; when they hold the same opinions upon

many subjects, and when the same occurrences suggest the same thoughts

and impressions to their minds.

The observer who examines the present condition of the United States

upon this principle, will readily discover, that although the citizens

are divided into twenty-four distinct sovereignties, they nevertheless

constitute a single people; and he may perhaps be led to think that the

state of the Anglo-American Union is more truly a state of society, than

that of certain nations of Europe which live under the same legislation

and the same prince.

Although the Anglo-Americans have several religious sects, they all

regard religion in the same manner. They are not always agreed upon the

measures which are most conducive to good government, and they vary upon

some of the forms of government which it is expedient to adopt; but

they are unanimous upon the general principles which ought to rule human

society. From Maine to the Floridas, and from Missouri to the Atlantic

ocean, the people is held to be the legitimate source of all power.

The same notions are entertained respecting liberty and equality,

the liberty of the press, the right of association, the jury, and the

responsibility of the agents of government.

If we turn from their political and religious opinions to the moral and

philosophical principles which regulate the daily actions of life,

and govern their conduct, we shall still find the same uniformity. The

Anglo-Americans[263] acknowledge the absolute moral authority of the

reason of the community, as they acknowledge the political authority of

the mass of citizens; and they hold that public opinion is the surest

arbiter of what is lawful or forbidden, true or false. The majority

of them believe that a man will be led to do what is just and good by

following his own interests, rightly understood. They hold that every

man is born in possession of the right of self-government, and that no

one has the right of constraining his fellow-creatures to be happy.

They have all a lively faith in the perfectibility of man; they are of

opinion that the effects of the diffusion of knowledge must necessarily

be advantageous, and the consequences of ignorance fatal; they all

consider society as a body in a state of improvement, humanity as a

changing scene, in which nothing is, or ought to be, permanent; and they

admit that what appears to them to be good to-day may be superseded by

something better to-morrow. I do not give all these opinions as true,

but I quote them as characteristic of the Americans.

The Anglo-Americans are not only united together by those common

opinions, but they are separated from all other nations by a common

feeling of pride. For the last fifty years, no pains have been spared to

convince the inhabitants of the United States that they constitute the

only religious, enlightened, and free people. They perceive that, for

the present, their own democratic institutions succeed, while those

of other countries fail; hence they conceive an overweening opinion

of their superiority, and they are not very remote from believing

themselves to belong to a distinct race of mankind.

The dangers which threaten the American Union do not originate in the

diversity of interests or opinions; but in the various characters and

passions of the Americans. The men who inhabit the vast territory of

the United States are almost all the issue of a common stock; but the

effects of the climate, and more especially of slavery, have gradually

introduced very striking differences between the British settler of the

southern states, and the British settler of the north. In Europe it is

generally believed that slavery has rendered the interests of one

part of the Union contrary to those of another part; but I by no means

remarked this to be the case; slavery has not created interests in the

south contrary to those of the north, but it has modified the character

and changed the habits of the natives of the south.

I have already explained the influence which slavery has exerted upon

the commercial ability of the Americans in the south; and this same

influence equally extends to their manners. The slave is a servant who

never remonstrates, and who submits to everything without complaint. He

may sometimes assassinate, but he never withstands, his master. In the

south there are no families so poor as not to have slaves. The citizen

of the southern states of the Union is invested with a sort of domestic

dictatorship from his earliest years; the first notion he acquires in

life is, that he is born to command, and the first habit he contracts is

that of being obeyed without resistance. His education tends, then, to

give him the character of a supercilious and a hasty man; irascible,

violent, and ardent in his desires, impatient of obstacles, but easily

discouraged if he cannot succeed upon his first attempt.

The American of the northern states is surrounded by no slaves in

his childhood; he is even unattended by free servants; and is usually

obliged to provide for his own wants. No sooner does he enter the world

than the idea of necessity assails him on every side; he soon learns to

know exactly the natural limits of his authority; he never expects to

subdue those who withstand him, by force; and he knows that the surest

means of obtaining the support of his fellow-creatures, is to win their

favor. He therefore becomes patient, reflecting, tolerant, slow to act,

and persevering in his designs.

In the southern states the more immediate wants of life are always

supplied; the inhabitants of those parts are not busied in the material

cares of life, which are always provided for by others; and their

imagination is diverted to more captivating and less definite objects.

The American of the south is fond of grandeur, luxury, and renown, of

gaiety, of pleasure, and above all, of idleness; nothing obliges him

to exert himself in order to subsist; and as he has no necessary

occupations, he gives way to indolence, and does not even attempt what

would be useful.

But the equality of fortunes, and the absence of slavery in the north,

plunge the inhabitants in those same cares of daily life which are

disdained by the white population of the south. They are taught from

infancy to combat want, and to place comfort above all the pleasures

of the intellect or the heart. The imagination is extinguished by the

trivial details of life; and the ideas become less numerous and less

general, but far more practical and more precise. As prosperity is

the sole aim of exertion, it is excellently well attained; nature and

mankind are turned to the best pecuniary advantage; and society is

dexterously made to contribute to the welfare of each of its members,

while individual egotism is the source of general happiness.

The citizen of the north has not only experience, but knowledge:

nevertheless, he sets but little value upon the pleasures of knowledge;

he esteems it as the means of obtaining a certain end, and he is only

anxious to seize its more lucrative applications. The citizen of the

south is more given to act upon impulse; he is more clever, more frank,

more generous, more intellectual, and more brilliant. The former, with

a greater degree of activity, of common sense, of information, and of

general aptitude, has the characteristic good and evil qualities of

the middle classes. The latter has the tastes, the prejudices, the

weaknesses, and the magnanimity of all aristocracies.

If two men are united in society, who have the same interests, and to

a certain extent the same opinions, but different characters, different

acquirements, and a different style of civilisation, it is probable that

these men will not agree. The same remark is applicable to a society of

nations.

Slavery then does not attack the American Union directly in its

interests, but indirectly in its manners.

The states which gave their assent to the federal contract in 1790 were

thirteen in number; the Union now consists of twenty-four members. The

population which amounted to nearly four millions in 1790, had more than

tripled in the space of forty years; and in 1830 it amounted to nearly

thirteen millions.[264] Changes of such magnitude cannot take place

without some danger.

A society of nations, as well as a society of individuals, derive its

principal chances of duration from the wisdom of its members, their

individual weakness, and their limited number. The Americans who quit

the coasts of the Atlantic ocean to plunge into the western wilderness,

are adventurers impatient of restraint, greedy of wealth, and frequently

men expelled from the states in which they were born. When they arrive

in the deserts, they are unknown to each other; and they have neither

traditions, family feeling, nor the force of example to check their

excesses. The empire of the laws is feeble among them; that of morality

is still more powerless. The settlers who are constantly peopling the

valley of the Mississippi are, then, in every respect inferior to the

Americans who inhabit the older parts of the Union. Nevertheless, they

already exercise a great influence in its councils; and they arrive at

the government of the commonwealth before they have learned to govern

themselves.[265]

The greater the individual weakness of each of the contracting parties,

the greater are the chances of the duration of the contract; for their

safety is then dependant upon their union. When, in 1790, the

most populous of the American republics did not contain 500,000

inhabitants,[266] each of them felt its own insignificance as an

independent people, and this feeling rendered compliance with the

federal authority more easy. But when one of the confederate states

reckons, like the State of New York, two millions of inhabitants,

and covers an extent of territory equal in surface to a quarter of

France,[267] it feels its own strength; and although it may continue

to support the Union as advantageous to its prosperity, it no longer

regards that body as necessary to its existence; and, as it continues

to belong to the federal compact, it soon aims at preponderance in the

federal assemblies. The probable unanimity of the states is diminished

as their number increases. At present the interests of the different

parts of the Union are not at variance; but who is able to foresee the

multifarious changes of the future, in a country in which towns are

founded from day to day, and states almost from year to year?

Since the first settlement of the British colonies, the number of

inhabitants has about doubled every twenty-two years. I perceive no

causes which are likely to check this progressive increase of the

Anglo-American population for the next hundred years; and before

that space of time has elapsed, I believe that the territories and

dependencies of the United States will be covered by more than a hundred

millions of inhabitants, and divided into forty states.[268] I admit

that these hundred millions of men have no hostile interests; I suppose,

on the contrary, that they are all equally interested in the maintenance

of the Union; but I am still of opinion, that where there are a hundred

millions of men, and forty distinct nations unequally strong, the

continuance of the federal government can only be a fortunate accident.

Whatever faith I may have in the perfectibility of man until human

nature is altered, and men wholly transformed, I shall refuse to believe

in the duration of a government which is called upon to hold together

forty different peoples, disseminated over a territory equal to one-half

of Europe in extent; to avoid all rivalry, ambition, and struggles,

between them; and to direct their independent activity to the

accomplishment of the same designs.

But the greatest peril to which the Union is exposed by its increase,

arises from the continual changes which take place in the position of

its internal strength. The distance from Lake Superior to the gulf of

Mexico extends from the 47th to the 30th degree of latitude, a distance

of more than twelve hundred miles, as the bird flies. The frontier of

the United States winds along the whole of this immense line; sometimes

falling within its limits, but more frequently extending far beyond it,

into the waste. It has been calculated that the whites advance a mean

distance of seventeen miles along the whole of this vast boundary.[269]

Obstacles, such as an unproductive district, a lake, or an Indian nation

unexpectedly encountered, are sometimes met with. The advancing column

then halts for a while; its two extremities fall back upon themselves,

and as soon as they are reunited they proceed onward. This gradual and

continuous progress of the European race toward the Rocky mountains, has

the solemnity of a providential event; it is like a deluge of men rising

unabatedly, and daily driven onward by the hand of God.

Within this first line of conquering settlers, towns are built, and

vast states founded. In 1790 there were only a few thousand pioneers

sprinkled along the valleys of the Mississippi; and at the present day

these valleys contain as many inhabitants as were to be found in

the whole Union in 1790. Their population amounts to nearly four

millions.[270] The city of Washington was founded in 1800, in the very

centre of the Union; but such are the changes which have taken place,

that it now stands at one of the extremities; and the delegates of the

most remote western states are already obliged to perform a journey as

long as that from Vienna to Paris.[271]

All the states are borne onward at the same time in the path of

fortune, but of course they do not all increase and prosper in the same

proportion. In the north of the Union detached branches of the Allegany

chain, extending as far as the Atlantic ocean, form spacious roads

and ports, which are constantly accessible to vessels of the greatest

burden. But from the Potomac to the mouth of the Mississippi, the coast

is sandy and flat. In this part of the Union the mouths of almost all

the rivers are obstructed; and the few harbors which exist among

these lagunes, afford much shallower water to vessels, and much fewer

commercial advantages than those of the north.

This first natural cause of inferiority is united to another cause

proceeding from the laws. We have already seen that slavery, which is

abolished in the north, still exists in the south; and I have pointed

out its fatal consequences upon the prosperity of the planter himself.

The north is therefore superior to the south both in commerce[272] and

manufacture; the natural consequence of which is the more rapid increase

of population and of wealth within its borders. The states situated upon

the shores of the Atlantic ocean are already half-peopled. Most of the

land is held by an owner; and these districts cannot therefore receive

so many emigrants as the western states, where a boundless field is

still open to their exertions. The valley of the Mississippi is far more

fertile than the coast of the Atlantic ocean. This reason, added to all

the others, contributes to drive the Europeans westward--a fact which

may be rigorously demonstrated by figures. It is found that the sum

total of the population of all the United States has about tripled in

the course of forty years. But in the recent states adjacent to the

Mississippi, the population has increased thirty-one fold within the

same space of time.[273]

The relative position of the central federal power is continually

displaced. Forty years ago the majority of the citizens of the Union was

established upon the coast of the Atlantic, in the environs of the spot

upon which Washington now stands; but the great body of the people

is now advancing inland and to the north, so that in twenty years the

majority will unquestionably be on the western side of the Alleganies.

If the Union goes on to subsist, the basin of the Mississippi is

evidently marked out, by its fertility and its extent, as the future

centre of the federal government. In thirty or forty years, that tract

of country will have assumed the rank which naturally belongs to it. It

is easy to calculate that its population, compared to that of the coast

of the Atlantic, will be, in round numbers, as 40 to 11. In a few

years the states which founded the Union will lose the direction of

its policy, and the population of the valleys of the Mississippi will

preponderate in the federal assemblies.

This constant gravitation of the federal power and influence toward

the northwest, is shown every ten years, when a general census of the

population is made, and the number of delegates which each state sends

to congress is settled afresh.[274] In 1790 Virginia had nineteen

representatives in congress. This number continued to increase until the

year 1813, when it reached to twenty-three: from that time it began

to decrease, and in 1833, Virginia elected only twenty-one

representatives.[275] During the same period the state of New York

advanced in the contrary direction; in 1790, it had ten representatives

in congress; in 1813, twenty-seven; in 1823, thirty-four; and in 1833,

forty. The state of Ohio had only one representative in 1803, and in

1833, it had already nineteen.

It is difficult to imagine a durable union of a people which is rich and

strong, with one which is poor and weak, and if it were proved that the

strength and wealth of the one are not the causes of the weakness and

poverty of the other. But union is still move difficult to maintain at a

time at which one party is losing strength, and the other is gaining it.

This rapid and disproportionate increase of certain states threatens the

independence of the others. New York might, perhaps, succeed with its

two millions of inhabitants and its forty representatives, in dictating

to the other states in congress. But even if the more powerful states

make no attempt to bear down the lesser ones, the danger still exists;

for there is almost as much in the possibility of the act as in the act

itself. The weak generally mistrusts the justice and the reason of the

strong. The states which increase less rapidily than the others, look

upon those which are more favored by fortune, with envy and suspicion.

Hence arise the deep-seated uneasiness and ill-defined agitation which

are observable in the south, and which form so striking a contrast to

the confidence and prosperity which are common to other parts of the

Union. I am inclined to think that the hostile measures taken by the

southern provinces upon a recent occasion, are attributable to no other

cause. The inhabitants of the southern states are, of all the Americans,

those who are most interested in the maintenance of the Union; they

would assuredly suffer most from being left to themselves; and yet they

are the only citizens who threaten to break the tie of confederation.

But it is easy to perceive that the south, which has given four

presidents, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, to the Union;

which perceives that it is losing its federal influence, and that the

number of its representatives in congress is diminishing from year to

year while those of the northern and western states are increasing; the

south, which is peopled with ardent and irascible beings, is becoming

more and more irritated and alarmed. The citizens reflect upon their

present position and remember their past influence, with the melancholy

uneasiness of men who suspect oppression: if they discover a law of

the Union which is not unequivocally favorable to their interests,

they protest against it as an abuse of force; and if their ardent

remonstrances are not listened to, they threaten to quit an association

which loads them with burdens while it deprives them of their due

profits. "The tariff," said the inhabitants of Carolina in 1832,

"enriches the north, and ruins the south; for if this were not the case,

to what can we attribute the continually increasing power and wealth

of the north, with its inclement skies and arid soil; while the south,

which may be styled the garden of America, is rapidly declining."[276]

If the changes which I have described were gradual, so that each

generation at least might have time to disappear with the order of

things under which it had lived, the danger would be less: but the

progress of society in America is precipitate, and almost revolutionary.

The same citizen may have lived to see his state take the lead in the

Union, and afterward become powerless in the federal assemblies; and

an Anglo-American republic has been known to grow as rapidly as a man,

passing from birth and infancy to maturity in the course of thirty

years. It must not be imagined, however, that the states which lose

their preponderance, also lose their population or their riches; no stop

is put to their prosperity, and they even go on to increase more rapidly

than any kingdom in Europe.[277] But they believe themselves to be

impoverished because their wealth does not augment as rapidly as that of

their neighbors; and they think that their power is lost, because they

suddenly come into collision with a power greater than their own.[278]

Thus they are more hurt in their feelings and their passions, than

in their interests. But this is amply sufficient to endanger the

maintenance of the Union. If kings and peoples had only had their true

interests in view, ever since the beginning of the world, the name of

war would scarcely be known among mankind.

Thus the prosperity of the United States is the source of the most

serious dangers that threaten them, since it tends to create in some of

the confederate states that over-excitement which accompanies a rapid

increase of fortune; and to awaken in others those feelings of envy,

mistrust, and regret, which usually attend upon the loss of it. The

Americans contemplate this extraordinary and hasty progress with

exultation; but they would be wiser to consider it with sorrow and

alarm. The Americans of the United States must inevitably become one of

the greatest nations in the world; their offset will cover almost

the whole of North America; the continent which they inhabit is their

dominion, and it cannot escape them. What urges them to take possession

of it so soon? Riches, power, and renown, cannot fail to be theirs at

some future time; but they rush upon their fortune as if but a moment

remained for them to make it their own.

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,[279] 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.[280] 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.[281]

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.[282] 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.[283]

[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, 884; 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.[284]

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.[285] The wars of the French revolution and of

1812 had created manufacturing establishments in the north of the Union,

by cutting off all free communication between America and Europe. When

peace was concluded, and the channel of intercourse reopened by which

the produce of Europe was transmitted to the New World, the Americans

thought fit to establish a system of import duties, for the twofold

purpose of protecting their incipient manufactures, and of paying off

the amount of the debt contracted during the war. The southern states,

which have no manufactures to encourage, and which are exclusively

agricultural, soon complained of this measure. Such were the simple

facts, and I do not pretend to examine in this place whether their

complaints were well founded or unjust.

As early as the year 1820, South Carolina declared, in a petition

to Congress, that the tariff was "unconstitutional, oppressive, and

unjust." And the states of Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama,

and Mississippi, subsequently remonstrated against it with more or less

vigor. But Congress, far from lending an ear to these complaints, raised

the scale of tariff duties in the years 1824 and 1828, and recognized

anew the principle on which it was founded. A doctrine was then

proclaimed, or rather revived, in the south, which took the name of

nullification.

I have shown in the proper place that the object of the federal

constitution was not to form a league, but to create a national

government. The Americans of the United States form a sole and undivided

people, in all the cases which are specified by that constitution; and

upon these points the will of the nation is expressed, as it is in all

constitutional nations, by the voice of the majority. When the majority

has pronounced its decision, it is the duty of the minority to submit.

Such is the sound legal doctrine, and the only one which agrees with the

text of the constitution, and the known intention of those who framed

it.

The partisans of nullification in the south maintain, on the contrary,

that the intention of the Americans in uniting was not to reduce

themselves to the condition of one and the same people; that they meant

to constitute a league of independent states; and that each state,

consequently, retains its entire sovereignty, if not _de facto_, at

least _de jure_; and has the right of putting its own construction

upon the laws of congress, and of suspending their execution within the

limits of its own territory, if they are held to be unconstitutional or

unjust.

The entire doctrine of nullification is comprised in a sentence uttered

by Vice-President Calhoun, the head of that party in the south, before

the senate of the United States, in the year 1833: "The constitution is

a compact to which the states were parties in their sovereign capacity;

now, whenever a contract is entered into by parties which acknowledge

no tribunal above their authority to decide in the last resort, each of

them has a right to judge for himself in relation to the nature,

extent, and obligations of the instrument." It is evident that a similar

doctrine destroys the very basis of the federal constitution, and brings

back all the evils of the old confederation, from which the Americans

were supposed to have had a safe deliverance.

When South Carolina perceived that Congress turned a deaf ear to its

remonstrances, it threatened to apply the doctrine of nullification to

the federal tariff bill. Congress persisted in its former system; and at

length the storm broke out. In the course of 1832 the citizens of South

Carolina[286] named a national [state] convention, to consult upon the

extraordinary measures which they were called upon to take; and on the

24th November of the same year, this convention promulgated a law, under

the form of a decree, which annulled the federal law of the tariff,

forbade the levy of the imposts which that law commands, and refused

to recognize the appeal which might be made to the federal courts of

law.[287] This decree was only to be put into execution in the ensuing

month of February, and it was intimated, that if Congress modified the

tariff before that period, South Carolina might be induced to proceed no

farther with her menaces; and a vague desire was afterward expressed

of submitting the question to an extraordinary assembly of all the

confederate states.

In the meantime South Carolina armed her militia, and prepared for war.

But congress, which had slighted its suppliant subjects, listened to

their complaints as soon as they were found to have taken up arms.[288]

A law was passed, by which the tariff duties were to be progressively

reduced for ten years, until they were brought so low as not to exceed

the amount of supplies necessary to the government.[289] Thus congress

completely abandoned the principle of the tariff; and substituted a mere

fiscal impost for a system of protective duties.[290] The government of

the Union, in order to conceal its defeat, had recourse to an expedient

which is very much in vogue with feeble governments. It yielded the

point _de facto_, but it remained inflexible upon the principles in

question; and while congress was altering the tariff law, it passed

another bill, by which the president was invested with extraordinary

powers, enabling him to overcome by force a resistance which was then no

longer to be apprehended.

But South Carolina did not consent to leave the Union in the enjoyment

of these scanty trophies of success: the same national [state]

convention which annulled the tariff bill, met again, and accepted the

proffered concession: but at the same time it declared its unabated

perseverance in the doctrine of nullification; and to prove what it

said, it annulled the law investing the president with extraordinary

powers, although it was very certain that the clauses of that law would

never be carried into effect.

Almost all the controversies of which I have been speaking have taken

place under the presidency of General Jackson; and it cannot be denied

that in the question of the tariff he has supported the claims of

the Union with vigor and with skill. I am however of opinion that the

conduct of the individual who now represents the federal government, may

be reckoned as one of the dangers which threaten its continuance.

Some persons in Europe have formed an opinion of the possible influence

of General Jackson upon the affairs of his country, which appears highly

extravagant to those who have seen more of the subject. We have

been told that General Jackson has won sundry battles, that he is

an energetic man, prone by nature and by habit to the use of force,

covetous of power, and a despot by taste. All this may perhaps be

true; but the inferences which have been drawn from these truths are

exceedingly erroneous. It has been imagined that General Jackson is bent

on establishing a dictatorship in America, on introducing a military

spirit, and on giving a degree of influence to the central authority

which cannot but be dangerous to provincial liberties. But in America,

the time for similar undertakings, and the age for men of this kind, is

not yet come; if General Jackson had entertained a hope of exercising

his authority in this manner, he would infallibly have forfeited his

political station, and compromised his life; accordingly he has not been

so imprudent as to make any such attempt.

Far from wishing to extend the federal power, the president belongs

to the party which is desirous of limiting that power to the bare and

precise letter of the constitution, and which never puts a construction

upon that act, favorable to the government of the Union; far from

standing forth as the champion of centralization, General Jackson is

the agent of all the jealousies of the states; and he was placed in the

lofty station he occupies, by the passions of the people which are most

opposed to the central government. It is by perpetually flattering these

passions, that he maintains his station and his popularity. General

Jackson is the slave of the majority: he yields to its wishes, its

propensities, and its demands; say rather, that he anticipates and

forestalls them.

Whenever the governments of the states come into collision with that

of the Union, the president is generally the first to question his own

rights: he almost always outstrips the legislature; and when the extent

of the federal power is controverted he takes part, as it were, against

himself; he conceals his official interests, and extinguishes his own

natural inclinations. Not indeed that he is naturally weak or hostile

to the Union; for when the majority decided against the claims of the

partisans of nullification, he put himself at its head, asserted the

doctrines which the nation held, distinctly and energetically, and was

the first to recommend forcible measures; but General Jackson appears to

me, if I may use the American expressions, to be a federalist by taste,

and a republican by calculation.

General Jackson stoops to gain the favor of the majority but when he

feels that his popularity is secure, he overthrows all obstacles in the

pursuit of the objects which the community approves, or of those which

it does not look upon with a jealous eye. He is supported by a power

with which his predecessors were unacquainted; and he tramples on his

personal enemies wherever they cross his path, with a facility which no

former president ever enjoyed; he takes upon himself the responsibility

of measures which no one, before him, would have ventured to attempt;

he even treats the national representatives with disdain approaching

to insult; he puts his veto upon the laws of congress, and frequently

neglects to reply to that powerful body. He is a favorite who sometimes

treats his master roughly. The power of General Jackson perpetually

increases; but that of the President declines: in his hands the federal

government is strong, but it will pass enfeebled into the hands of his

successor.

I am strangely mistaken if the federal government of the United States

be not constantly losing strength, retiring gradually from public

affairs, and narrowing its circle of action more and more. It is

naturally feeble, but it now abandons even its pretensions to strength.

On the other hand, I thought that I remarked a more lively sense of

independence, and a more decided attachment to provincial government, in

the states. The Union is to subsist, but to subsist as a shadow; it

is to be strong in certain cases, and weak in all others; in time of

warfare, it is to be able to concentrate all the forces of the nation

and all the resources of the country in its hands; and in time of

peace its existence is to be scarcely perceptible: as if this alternate

debility and vigor were natural or possible.

I do not foresee anything for the present which may be able to

check this general impulse of public opinion: the causes in which it

originated do not cease to operate with the same effect. The change will

therefore go on, and it may be predicted that, unless some extraordinary

event occurs, the government of the Union will grow weaker and weaker

every day.

I think, however, that the period is still remote, at which the federal

power will be entirely extinguished by its inability to protect itself

and to maintain peace in the country. The Union is sanctioned by

the manners and desires of the people; its results are palpable, its

benefits visible. When it is perceived that the weakness of the federal

government compromises the existence of the Union, I do not doubt that a

reaction will take place with a view to increase its strength.

The government of the United States is, of all the federal governments

which have hitherto been established, the one which is most naturally

destined to act. As long as it is only indirectly assailed by the

interpretation of its laws, and as long as its substance is not

seriously altered, a change of opinion, an internal crisis, or a war,

may restore all the vigor which it requires. The point which I have

been most anxious to put in a clear light is simply this; many people,

especially in France, imagine that a change of opinion is going on in

the United States, which is favorable to a centralization of power in

the hands of the president and the congress. I hold that a contrary

tendency may be distinctly observed. So far is the federal government

from acquiring strength, and from threatening the sovereignty of the

states, as it grows older, that I maintain it to be growing weaker and

weaker, and that the sovereignty of the Union alone is in danger. Such

are the facts which the present time discloses. The future conceals the

final result of this tendency, and the events which may check, retard,

or accelerate, the changes I have described; but I do not affect to be

able to remove the veil which hides them from our sight.

* * * * *

OF THE REPUBLICAN INSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WHAT THEIR

CHANCES OF DURATION ARE.

The Union is Accidental.--The Republican Institutions have more prospect

of Permanence.--A Republic for the Present the Natural State of the

Anglo-Americans.--Reason of this.--In order to destroy it, all Laws

must be changed at the same time, and a great alteration take place

in Manners.--Difficulties experienced by the Americans in creating an

Aristocracy.

The dismemberment of the Union, by the introduction of war into the

heart of those states which are now confederate, with standing armies, a

dictatorship, and a heavy taxation, might eventually compromise the fate

of the republican institutions. But we ought not to confound the future

prospects of the republic with those of the Union. The Union is an

accident, which will last only so long as circumstances are favorable to

its existence; but a republican form of government seems to me to be the

natural state of the Americans; which nothing but the continued action

of hostile causes, always acting in the same direction, could change

into a monarchy. The Union exists principally in the law which formed

it; one revolution, one change in public opinion, might destroy it for

ever; but the republic has a much deeper foundation to rest upon.

What is understood by republican government in the United States, is the

slow and quiet action of society upon itself. It is a regular state of

things really founded upon the enlightened will of the people. It is

a conciliatory government under which resolutions are allowed time to

ripen, and in which they are deliberately discussed, and executed with

mature judgment. The republicans in the United States set a high value

upon morality, respect religious belief, and acknowledge the existence

of rights. They profess to think that a people ought to be moral,

religious, and temperate, in proportion as it is free. What is called

the republic in the United States, is the tranquil rule of the majority,

which, after having had time to examine itself, and to give proof of its

existence, is the common source of all the powers of the state. But the

power of the majority is not of itself unlimited. In the moral world

humanity, justice, and reason, enjoy an undisputed supremacy; in the

political world vested rights are treated with no less deference. The

majority recognizes these two barriers; and if it now and then overstep

them, it is because, like individuals, it has passions, and like them,

it is prone to do what is wrong, while it discerns what is right.

But the demagogues of Europe have made strange discoveries. A republic

is not, according to them, the rule of the majority, as has hitherto

been taught, but the rule of those who are strenuous partisans of

the majority. It is not the people who preponderates in this kind of

government, but those who best know what is for the good of the people.

A happy distinction, which allows men to act in the name of nations

without consulting them, and to claim their gratitude while their rights

are spurned. A republican government, moreover, is the only one which

claims the right of doing whatever it chooses, and despising what men

have hitherto respected, from the highest moral obligations to the

vulgar rules of common sense. It had been supposed, until our time,

that despotism was odious, under whatever form it appeared. But it is

a discovery of modern days that there are such things as legitimate

tyranny and holy injustice, provided they are exercised in the name of

the people.

The ideas which the Americans have adopted respecting the republican

form of government, render it easy for them to live under it, and ensure

its duration. If, in their country, this form be often practically bad,

at least it is theoretically good; and, in the end, the people always

acts in conformity with it.

It was impossible, at the foundation of the states, and it would still

be difficult, to establish a central administration in America. The

inhabitants are dispersed over too great a space, and separated by too

many natural obstacles, for one man to undertake to direct the details

of their existence. America is therefore pre-eminently the country of

provincial and municipal government. To this cause, which was plainly

felt by all the Europeans of the New World, the Anglo-Americans added

several others peculiar to themselves.

At the time of the settlement of the North American colonies, municipal

liberty had already penetrated into the laws as well as the manners

of the English, and the emigrants adopted it, not only as a necessary

thing, but as a benefit which they knew how to appreciate. We have

already seen the manner in which the colonies were founded: every

province, and almost every district, was peopled separately by men who

were strangers to each other, or who associated with very different

purposes. The English settlers in the United States, therefore, early

perceived that they were divided into a great number of small and

distinct communities which belonged to no common centre; and that it

was needful for each of these little communities to take care of its own

affairs, since there did not appear to be any central authority which

was naturally bound and easily enabled to provide for them. Thus, the

nature of the country, the manner in which the British colonies were

founded, the habits of the first emigrants, in short everything, united

to promote, in an extra-ordinary degree, municipal and provincial

liberties.

In the United States, therefore, the mass of the institutions of the

country is essentially republican; and in order permanently to destroy

the laws which form the basis of the republic, it would be necessary to

abolish all the laws at once. At the present day, it would be even more

difficult for a party to succeed in founding a monarchy in the

United States, than for a set of men to proclaim that France should

henceforward be a republic. Royalty would not find a system of

legislation prepared for it beforehand; and a monarchy would then exist,

really surrounded by republican institutions. The monarchical principle

would likewise have great difficulty in penetrating into the manners of

the Americans.

In the United States, the sovereignty of the people is not an isolated

doctrine bearing no relation to the prevailing manners and ideas of the

people: it may, on the contrary, be regarded as the last link of a chain

of opinions which binds the whole Anglo-American world. That Providence

has given to every human being the degree of reason necessary to direct

himself in the affairs which interest him exclusively; such is the grand

maxim upon which civil and political society rests in the United States.

The father of a family applies it to his children; the master to his

servants; the township to its officers; the province to its townships;

the state to the provinces; the Union to the states; and when extended

to the nation, it becomes the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people.

Thus, in the United States, the fundamental principle of the republic

is the same which governs the greater part of human actions; republican

notions insinuate themselves into all the ideas, opinions, and habits

of the Americans, while they are formally recognized by the legislation:

and before this legislation can be altered, the whole community must

undergo very serious changes. In the United States, even the religion of

most of the citizens is republican, since it submits the truths of the

other world to private judgment: as in politics the care of its temporal

interests is abandoned to the good sense of the people. Thus every man

is allowed freely to take that road which he thinks will lead him to

heaven; just as the law permits every citizen to have the right of

choosing his government.

It is evident that nothing but a long series of events, all having the

same tendency, can substitute for this combination of laws, opinions,

and manners, a mass of opposite opinions, manners and laws.

If republican principles are to perish in America, they can only yield

after a laborious social process, often interrupted, and as often

resumed; they will have many apparent revivals, and will not become

totally extinct until an entirely new people shall have succeeded to

that which now exists. Now, it must be admitted that there is no symptom

or presage of the approach of such a revolution. There is nothing more

striking to a person newly arrived in the United States, than the kind

of tumultuous agitation in which he finds political society. The laws

are incessantly changing, and at first sight it seems impossible that a

people so variable in its desires should avoid adopting, within a short

space of time, a completely new form of government. Such apprehensions

are, however, premature; the instability which affects political

institutions is of two kinds, which ought not to be confounded: the

first, which modifies secondary laws, is not incompatible with a very

settled state of society; the other shakes the very foundations of the

constitution, and attacks the fundamental principles of legislation;

this species of instability is always followed by troubles and

revolutions, and the nation which suffers under it, is in a state of

violent transition.

Experience shows that these two kinds of legislative instability have

no necessary connexion; for they have been found united or separate,

according to times and circumstances. The first is common in the United

States, but not the second: the Americans often change their laws, but

the foundation of the constitution is respected.

In our days the republican principle rules in America, as the

monarchical principle did in France under Louis XIV. The French of

that period were not only friends of the monarchy, but they thought it

impossible to put anything in its place; they received it as we receive

the rays of the sun and the return of the seasons. Among them the royal

power had neither advocates nor opponents. In like manner does

the republican government exist in America, without contention or

opposition; without proofs and arguments, by a tacit agreement, a

sort of _consensus universalis_. It is, however, my opinion, that, by

changing their administrative forms as often as they do, the inhabitants

of the United States compromise the future stability of their

government.

It may be apprehended that men, perpetually thwarted in their designs

by the mutability of legislation, will learn to look upon republican

institutions as an inconvenient form of society; the evil resulting from

the instability of the secondary enactments, might then raise a doubt

as to the nature of the fundamental principles of the constitution,

and indirectly bring about a revolution; but this epoch is still very

remote.

[It has been objected by an American review, that our author is mistaken

in charging our laws with instability, and in answer to the charge, the

permanence of our fundamental political institutions has been contrasted

with the revolutions in France. But the objection proceeds upon a

mistake of the author's meaning, which at this page is very clearly

expressed. He refers to the instability which modifies _secondary laws_,

and not to that which shakes the foundations of the constitution. The

distinction is equally sound and philosophic, and those in the least

acquainted with the history of our legislation, must bear witness to the

truth of the author's remarks. The frequent revisions of the statutes of

the states rendered necessary by the multitude, variety, and often

the contradiction of the enactments, furnish abundant evidence of this

instability.--_American Editor_.]

It may, however, be foreseen, even now, that when the Americans lose

their republican institutions, they will speedily arrive at a despotic

government, without a long interval of limited monarchy. Montesquieu

remarked, that nothing is more absolute than the authority of a

prince who immediately succeeds a republic, since the powers which had

fearlessly been intrusted to an elected magistrate are then transferred

to an hereditary sovereign. This is true in general, but it is more

peculiarly applicable to a democratic republic. In the United States,

the magistrates are not elected by a particular class of citizens, but

by the majority of the nation; they are the immediate representatives of

the passions of the multitude; and as they are wholly dependent upon its

pleasure, they excite neither hatred nor fear: hence, as I have already

shown, very little care has been taken to limit their influence, and

they are left in possession of a vast deal of arbitrary power. This

state of things has engendered habits which would outlive itself; the

American magistrate would retain his power, but he would cease to be

responsible for the exercise of it; and it is impossible to say what

bounds could then be set to tyranny.

Some of our European politicians expect to see an aristocracy arise in

America, and they already predict the exact period at which it will be

able to assume the reins of government. I have previously observed, and

I repeat my assertion, that the present tendency of American society

appears to me to become more and more democratic. Nevertheless, I do not

assert that the Americans will not, at some future time, restrict the

circle of political rights in their country, or confiscate those rights

to the advantage of a single individual; but I cannot imagine that they

will ever bestow the exclusive exercise of them upon a privileged

class of citizens, or, in other words, that they will ever found an

aristocracy.

An aristocratic body is composed of a certain number of citizens,

who, without being very far removed from the mass of the people, are,

nevertheless, permanently stationed above it: a body which it is easy

to touch, and difficult to strike; with which the people are in daily

contact, but with which they can never combine. Nothing can be imagined

more contrary to nature and to the secret propensities of the human

heart, than a subjection of this kind; and men, who are left to follow

their own bent, will always prefer the arbitrary power of a king to

the regular administration of an aristocracy. Aristocratic institutions

cannot subsist without laying down the inequality of men as a

fundamental principle, as a part and parcel of the legislation,

affecting the condition of the human family as much as it affects that

of society; but these things are so repugnant to natural equity that

they can only be extorted from men by constraint.

I do not think a single people can be quoted, since human society began

to exist, which has, by its own free will and by its own exertions,

created an aristocracy within its own bosom. All the aristocracies of

the middle ages were founded by military conquest: the conqueror was the

noble, the vanquished became the serf. Inequality was then imposed by

force; and after it had been introduced into the manners of the country,

it maintained its own authority, and was sanctioned by the legislation.

Communities have existed which were aristocratic from their earliest

origin, owing to circumstances anterior to that event, and which became

more democratic in each succeeding age. Such was the destiny of the

Romans, and of the Barbarians after them. But a people, having taken its

rise in civilisation and democracy, which should gradually establish an

inequality of conditions until it arrived at inviolable privileges and

exclusive castes, would be a novelty in the world; and nothing intimates

that America is likely to furnish so singular an example.

* * * * *

REFLECTIONS ON THE CAUSES OF THE COMMERCIAL PROSPERITY OF THE UNITED

STATES.

The Americans destined by Nature to be a great maritime People.--Extent

of their Coasts.--Depth of their Ports.--Size of their Rivers.--The

commercial Superiority of the Anglo-Saxons less attributable, however,

to physical Circumstances than to moral and intellectual Causes.--Reason

of this Opinion.--Future Destiny of the Anglo-Americans as a commercial

Nation.--The Dissolution of the Union would not check the maritime Vigor

of the States.--Reason of this.--Anglo-Americans will naturally supply

the Wants of the inhabitants of South America.--They will become, like

the English, the Factors of a great portion of the World.

The coast of the United States, from the bay of Fundy to the Sabine

river in the gulf of Mexico, is more than two thousand miles in extent.

These shores form an unbroken line, and they are all subject to the same

government. No nation in the world possesses vaster, deeper, or more

secure ports for shipping than the Americans.

The inhabitants of the United States constitute a great civilized

people, which fortune has placed in the midst of an uncultivated

country, at a distance of three thousand miles from the central point

of civilisation. America consequently stands in daily need of European

trade. The Americans will, no doubt, ultimately succeed in producing or

manufacturing at home most of the articles which they require; but the

two continents can never be independent of each other, so numerous are

the natural ties which exist between their wants, their ideas, their

habits, and their manners.

The Union produces peculiar commodities which are now become necessary

to us, but which cannot be cultivated, or can only be raised at an

enormous expense, upon the soil of Europe. The Americans only consume a

small portion of this produce, and they are willing to sell us the rest.

Europe is therefore the market of America, as America is the market

of Europe; and maritime commerce is no less necessary to enable the

inhabitants of the United States to transport their raw materials to

the ports of Europe, than it is to enable us to supply them with our

manufactured produce. The United States were therefore necessarily

reduced to the alternative of increasing the business of other maritime

nations to a great extent, if they had themselves declined to enter

into commerce, as the Spaniards of Mexico have hitherto done; or, in the

second place, of becoming one of the first trading powers of the globe.

The Anglo-Americans have always displayed a very decided taste for the

sea. The declaration of independence broke the commercial restrictions

which united them to England, and gave a fresh and powerful stimulus to

their maritime genius. Ever since that time, the shipping of the Union

has increased in almost the same rapid proportion as the number of its

inhabitants. The Americans themselves now transport to their own shores

nine-tenths of the European produce which they consume.[291] And

they also bring three-quarters of the exports of the New World to the

European consumer.[292] The ships of the United States fill the docks of

Havre and of Liverpool; while the number of English and French vessels

which are to be seen at New York is comparatively small.[293]

Thus, not only does the American merchant face competition in his own

country, but he even supports that of foreign nations in their own ports

with success. This is readily explained by the fact that the vessels of

the United States can cross the seas at a cheaper rate than any other

vessels in the world. As long as the mercantile shipping of the United

States preserves this superiority, it will not only retain what it has

acquired, but it will constantly increase in prosperity.

It is difficult to say for what reason the Americans can trade at a

lower rate than other nations; and one is at first led to attribute

this circumstance to the physical or natural advantages which are within

their reach; but this supposition is erroneous. The American vessels

cost almost as much to build as our own[294]; they are not better built,

and they generally last for a shorter time. The pay of the American

sailor is more considerable than the pay on board European ships; which

is proved by the great number of Europeans who are to be met with in the

merchant vessels of the United States. But I am of opinion that the

true cause of their superiority must not be sought for in physical

advantages, but that it is wholly attributable to their moral and

intellectual qualities.

The following comparison will illustrate my meaning. During the

campaigns of the revolution the French introduced a new system of

tactics into the art of war, which perplexed the oldest generals,

and very nearly destroyed the most ancient monarchies in Europe. They

undertook (what had never been before attempted) to make shift without

a number of things which had always been held to be indispensable in

warfare; they required novel exertions on the part of their troops,

which no civilized nations had ever thought of; they achieved great

actions in an incredibly short space of time: and they risked human life

without hesitation, to obtain the object in view. The French had less

money and fewer men than their enemies; their resources were infinitely

inferior; nevertheless they were constantly victorious, until their

adversaries chose to imitate their example.

The Americans have introduced a similar system into their commercial

speculations; and they do for cheapness what the French did for

conquest. The European sailor navigates with prudence; he only sets sail

when the weather is favorable; if an unforeseen accident befalls him, he

puts into port; at night he furls a portion of his canvass; and when the

whitening billows intimate the vicinity of land, he checks his way,

and takes an observation of the sun. But the American neglects these

precautions and braves these dangers. He weighs anchor in the midst

of tempestuous gales; by night and by day he spreads his sheets to the

wind; he repairs as he goes along such damage as his vessel may have

sustained from the storm; and when he at last approaches the term of his

voyage, he darts onward to the shore as if he already descried a port.

The Americans are often shipwrecked, but no trader crosses the seas so

rapidly. And as they perform the same distance in a shorter time, they

can perform it at a cheaper rate.

The European touches several times at different ports in the course of a

long voyage; he loses a good deal of precious time in making the harbor,

or in waiting for a favorable wind to leave it; and he pays daily dues

to be allowed to remain there. The American starts from Boston to go to

purchase tea in China: he arrives at Canton, stays there a few days and

then returns. In less than two years he has sailed as far as the entire

circumference of the globe, and he has seen land but once. It is true

that during a voyage of eight or ten months he has drunk brackish water,

and lived upon salt meat; that he has been in a continual contest with

the sea, with disease, and with the tedium of monotony; but, upon his

return, he can sell a pound of his tea for a halfpenny less than the

English merchant, and his purpose is accomplished.

I cannot better explain my meaning than by saying that the Americans

affect a sort of heroism in their manner of trading. But the European

merchant will always find it very difficult to imitate his American

competitor, who, in adopting the system which I have just described,

follows not only a calculation of his gain, but an impulse of his

nature.

The inhabitants of the United States are subject to all the wants and

all the desires which result from an advanced stage of civilisation; but

as they are not surrounded by a community admirably adapted, like that

of Europe, to satisfy their wants, they are often obliged to procure for

themselves the various articles which education and habit have rendered

necessaries. In America it sometimes happens that the same individual

tills his field, builds his dwelling, contrives his tools, makes his

shoes, and weaves the coarse stuff of which his dress is composed.

This circumstance is prejudicial to the excellence of the work: but

it powerfully contributes to awaken the intelligence of the workman.

Nothing tends to materialise man, and to deprive his work of the

faintest trace of mind, more than extreme division of labor. In a

country like America, where men devoted to special occupations are rare,

a long apprenticeship cannot be required from any one who embraces a

profession. The Americans therefore change their means of gaining

a livelihood very readily; and they suit their occupations to the

exigencies of the moment, in the manner most profitable to themselves.

Men are to be met with who have successively been barristers, farmers,

merchants, ministers of the gospel, and physicians. If the American be

less perfect in each craft than the European, at least there is scarcely

any trade with which he is utterly unacquainted. His capacity is more

general, and the circle of his intelligence is enlarged.

The inhabitants of the United States are never fettered by the axioms of

their profession; they escape from all the prejudices of their present

station; they are not more attached to one line of operation than to

another; they are not more prone to employ an old method than a new

one; they have no rooted habits, and they easily shake off the influence

which the habits of other nations might exercise upon their minds,

from a conviction that their country is unlike any other, and that its

situation is without a precedent in the world. America is a land of

wonders, in which everything is in constant motion, and every movement

seems an improvement. The idea of novelty is there indissolubly

connected with the idea of melioration. No natural boundary seems to be

set to the efforts of man; and what is not yet done is only what he has

not yet attempted to do.

This perpetual change which goes on in the United States, these frequent

vicissitudes of fortune, accompanied by such unforeseen fluctuations in

private and in public wealth, serve to keep the minds of the citizens

in a perpetual state of feverish agitation, which admirably invigorates

their exertions, and keeps them in a state of excitement above the

ordinary level of mankind. The whole life of an American is passed like

a game of chance, a revolutionary crisis or a battle. As the same causes

are continually in operation throughout the country, they ultimately

impart an irresistible impulse to the national character. The American,

taken as a chance specimen of his countrymen, must then be a man of

singular warmth in his desires, enterprising, fond of adventure, and

above all of innovation. The same bent is manifest in all that he does;

he introduces it into his political laws, his religious doctrines, his

theories of social economy, and his domestic occupations; he bears it

with him in the depth of the backwoods, as well as in the business of

the city. It is the same passion, applied to maritime commerce, which

makes him the cheapest and the quickest trader in the world.

As long as the sailors of the United States retain these inspiriting

advantages, and the practical superiority which they derive from them,

they will not only continue to supply the wants of the producers and

consumers of their own country, but they will tend more and more to

become, like the English, the factors of all other peoples.[295] This

prediction has already begun to be realized; we perceive that the

American traders are introducing themselves as intermediate agents in

the commerce of several European nations;[296] and America will offer a

still wider field to their enterprise.

The great colonies which were founded in South America by the Spaniards

and the Portuguese have since become empires. Civil war and oppression

now lay waste those extensive regions. Population does not increase, and

the thinly-scattered inhabitants are too much absorbed in the cares of

self-defence even to attempt any melioration of their condition. Such,

however, will not always be the case. Europe has succeeded by her own

efforts in piercing the gloom of the middle ages; South America has the

same Christian laws and Christian manners as we have; she contains all

the germs of civilisation which have grown amid the nations of Europe or

their offsets, added to the advantages to be derived from our example;

why then should she always remain uncivilized? It is clear that the

question is simply one of time; at some future period, which may be

more or less remote, the inhabitants of South America will constitute

flourishing and enlightened nations.

But when the Spaniards and Portuguese of South America begin to feel

the wants common to all civilized nations, they will still be unable

to satisfy those wants for themselves; as the youngest children of

civilisation, they must perforce admit the superiority of their elder

brethren. They will be agriculturists long before they succeed in

manufactures or commerce, and they will require the mediation of

strangers to exchange their produce beyond seas for those articles for

which a demand will begin to be felt.

It is unquestionable that the Americans of the north will one day supply

the wants of the Americans of the south. Nature has placed them in

contiguity; and has furnished the former with every means of knowing and

appreciating those demands, of establishing a permanent connexion with

those states, and of gradually filling their markets. The merchant of

the United States could only forfeit these natural advantages if he were

very inferior to the merchant of Europe; to whom he is, on the contrary,

superior in several respects. The Americans of the United States already

exercise a very considerable moral influence upon all the people of

the New World. They are the source of intelligence, and all the nations

which inhabit the same continent are already accustomed to consider them

as the most enlightened, the most powerful, and the most wealthy members

of the great American family. All eyes are therefore turned toward the

Union; and the states of which that body is composed are the models

which the other communities try to imitate to the best of their power:

it is from the United states that they borrow their political principles

and their laws.

The Americans of the United States stand in precisely the same position

with regard to the peoples of South America as their fathers, the

English, occupy with regard to the Italians, the Spaniards, the

Portuguese, and all those nations of Europe, which receive their

articles of daily consumption from England, because they are less

advanced in civilisation and trade. England is at this time the natural

emporium of almost all the nations which are within its reach; the

American Union will perform the same part in the other hemisphere; and

every community which is founded, or which prospers in the New World, is

founded and prospers to the advantage of the Anglo-Americans.

If the Union were to be dissolved, the commerce of the states which

now compose it, would undoubtedly be checked for a time; but this

consequence would be less perceptible than is generally supposed. It

is evident that whatever may happen, the commercial states will remain

united. They are all contiguous to each other; they have identically the

same opinions, interests, and manners, and they are alone competent to

form a very great maritime power. Even if the south of the Union were to

become independent of the north, it would still require the service of

those states. I have already observed that the south is not a commercial

country, and nothing intimates that it is likely to become so. The

Americans of the south of the United States will therefore be obliged,

for a long time to come, to have recourse to strangers to export their

produce, and to supply them with the commodities which are requisite to

satisfy their wants. But the northern states are undoubtedly able to act

as their intermediate agents cheaper than any other merchants. They will

therefore retain that employment, for cheapness is the sovereign law

of commerce. National claims and national prejudices cannot resist the

influence of cheapness. Nothing can be more virulent than the hatred

which exists between the Americans of the United States and the English.

But, notwithstanding these inimical feelings, the Americans derive the

greater part of their manufactured commodities from England, because

England supplies them at a cheaper rate than any other nation. Thus the

increasing prosperity of America turns, notwithstanding the grudges of

the Americans, to the advantage of British manufactures.

Reason shows and experience proves that no commercial prosperity can be

durable if it cannot be united, in case of need, to naval force. This

truth is as well understood in the United States as it can be anywhere

else: the Americans are already able to make their flag respected: in a

few years they will be able to make it feared. I am convinced that the

dismemberment of the Union would not have the effect of diminishing the

naval power of the Americans, but that it would powerfully contribute

to increase it. At the present time the commercial states are connected

with others which have not the same interests, and which frequently

yield an unwilling consent to the increase of a maritime power by which

they are only indirectly benefited. If, on the contrary, the commercial

states of the Union formed one independent nation, commerce would become

the foremost of their national interests; they would consequently be

willing to make very great sacrifices to protect their shipping, and

nothing would prevent them from pursuing their designs upon this point.

Nations, as well as men, almost always betray the most prominent

features of their future destiny in their earliest years. When

I contemplate the ardor with which the Anglo-Americans prosecute

commercial enterprise, the advantages which befriend them, and the

success of their undertakings, I cannot refrain from believing that they

will one day become the first maritime power of the globe. They are born

to rule the seas, as the Romans were to conquer the world.

* * * * *

Notes:

[207] See the map. [Transcriber's Note: Map of North America.]

[208] The native of North America retains his opinions and the most

insignificant of his habits with a degree of tenacity which has no

parallel in history. For more than two hundred years the wandering

tribes of North America have had daily intercourse with the whites, and

they have never derived from them either a custom or an idea. Yet the

European have exercised a powerful influence over the savages: they have

made them more licentious, but not more European. In the summer of 1831,

I happened to be beyond Lake Michigan, at a place called Green Bay,

which serves as the extreme frontier between the United States and

the Indians on the northwestern side. Here I became acquainted with an

American officer, Major H., who, after talking to me at length on the

inflexibility of the Indian character, related the following fact: "I

formerly knew a young Indian," said he, "who had been educated at a

college in New England, where he had greatly distinguished himself, and

had acquired the external appearance of a member of civilized society.

When the war broke out between ourselves and the English, in 1810, I

saw this young man again; he was serving in our army at the head of the

warriors of his tribe; for the Indians were admitted among the ranks

of the Americans, upon condition that they would abstain from their

horrible custom of scalping their victims. On the evening of the battle

of ----, C. came and sat himself down by the fire of our bivouac. I

asked him what had been his fortune that day: he related his exploits;

and growing warm and animated by the recollection of them, he concluded

by suddenly opening the breast of his coat, saying, 'You must not betray

me--see here!' And I actually beheld," said the major, "between his body

and his shirt, the skin and hair of an English head still dripping with

gore."

[209] In the thirteen original states, there are only 6,273 Indians

remaining. (See Legislative Documents, 20th congress, No. 117, p. 90.)

[210] Messrs. Clarke and Cass, in their report to congress, the 4th

February, 1829, p. 23, expressed themselves thus: "The time when the

Indians generally could supply themselves with food and clothing,

without any of the articles of civilized life, has long since passed

away. The more remote tribes, beyond the Mississippi, who live where

immense herds of buffalo are yet to be found, and who follow those

animals in their periodical migrations, could more easily than any

others recur to the habits of their ancestors, and live without the

white man or any of his manufactures. But the buffalo is constantly

receding. The smaller animals--the bear, the deer, the beaver, the

otter, the muskrat, &c., principally minister to the comfort and support

of the Indians; and these cannot be taken without guns, ammunition, and

traps.

"Among the northwestern Indians particularly, the labor of supplying

a family with food is excessive. Day after day is spent by the hunter

without success, and during this interval his family must subsist upon

bark or roots, or perish. Want and misery are around them and among

them. Many die every winter from actual starvation."

The Indians will not live as Europeans live; and yet they can neither

subsist without them, nor exactly after the fashion of their fathers.

This is demonstrated by a fact which I likewise give upon official

authority. Some Indians of a tribe on the banks of Lake Superior had

killed a European; the American government interdicted all traffic

with the tribe to which the guilty parties belonged, until they were

delivered up to justice. This measure had the desired effect.

[211] "Five years ago," says Volney in his Tableaux des Etats Unis, p.

370, "in going from Vincennes to Kaskaskia, a territory which now forms

part of the State of Illinois, but which at the time I mention was

completely wild (1797), you could not cross a prairie without seeing

herds of from four to five hundred buffaloes. There are now none

remaining; they swam across the Mississippi to escape from the hunters,

and more particularly from the bells of the American cows."

[212] The truth of what I here advance may be easily proved by

consulting the tabular statement of Indian tribes inhabiting the United

States, and their territories. (Legislative Documents, 20th congress,

No. 117, pp. 90-105.) It is there shown that the tribes of America

are rapidly decreasing, although the Europeans are at a considerable

distance from them.

[213] "The Indians," says Messrs. Clarke and Cass in their report to

congress, p. 15, "are attached to their country by the same feelings

which bind us to ours; and, besides, there are certain superstitious

notions connected with the alienation of what the Great Spirit gave to

their ancestors, which operate strongly upon the tribes who have made

few or no cessions, but which are gradually weakened as our intercourse

with them is extended. 'We will not sell the spot which contains

the bones of our fathers,' is almost always the first answer to a

proposition for a sale."

[214] See in the legislative documents of congress (Doc. 117), the

narrative of what takes place on these occasions. This curious passage

is from the abovementioned report, made to congress by Messrs. Clarke

and Cass, in February, 1829. Mr. Cass is now secretary of war.

"The Indians," says the report, "reach the treaty-ground poor, and

almost naked. Large quantities of goods are taken there by the traders,

and are seen and examined by the Indians. The women and children become

importunate to have their wants supplied, and their influence is

soon exerted to induce a sale. Their improvidence is habitual and

unconquerable. The gratification of his immediate wants and desires is

the ruling passion of an Indian: the expectation of future advantages

seldom produces much effect. The experience of the past is lost, and

the prospects of the future disregarded. It would be utterly hopeless

to demand a cession of land unless the means were at hand of gratifying

their immediate wants; and when their condition and circumstances are

fairly considered, it ought not to surprise us that they are so anxious

to relieve themselves."

[215] On the 19th of May, 1830, Mr. Edward Everett affirmed before the

house of representatives, that the Americans had already acquired by

_treaty_, to the east and west of the Mississippi, 230,000,000 of acres.

In 1808, the Osages gave up 48,000,000 acres for an annual payment of

1,000 dollars. In 1818, the Quapaws yielded up 29,000,000 acres for

4,000 dollars. They reserved for themselves a territory of 1,000,000

acres for a hunting-ground. A solemn oath was taken that it should be

respected: but before long it was invaded like the rest. Mr. Bell, in

his "Report of the Committee on Indian Affairs," February 24th,

1830, has these words: "To pay an Indian tribe what their ancient

hunting-grounds are worth to them, after the game is fled or destroyed,

as a mode of appropriating wild lands claimed by Indians, has been found

more convenient, and certainly it is more agreeable to the forms of

justice, as well as more merciful, than to assert the possession of

them by the sword. Thus the practice of buying Indian titles is but the

substitute which humanity and expediency have imposed, in place of the

sword, in arriving at the actual enjoyment of property claimed by the

right of discovery, and sanctioned by the natural superiority allowed to

the claims of civilized communities over those of savage tribes. Up

to the present time, so invariable has been the operation of certain

causes, first in diminishing the value of forest lands to the Indians,

and secondly in disposing them to sell readily, that the plan of

buying their right of occupancy has never threatened to retard, in any

perceptible degree, the prosperity of any of the states." (Legislative

documents, 21st congress, No. 227, p. 6.)

[216] This seems, indeed, to be the opinion of almost all the American

statesmen. "Judging of the future by the past," says Mr. Cass, "we

cannot err in anticipating a progressive diminution of their numbers,

and their eventual extinction, unless our border should become

stationary, and they be removed beyond it, or unless some radical change

should take place in the principles of our intercourse with them, which

it is easier to hope for than to expect."

[217] Among other warlike enterprises, there was one of the Wampanoags,

and other confederate tribes, under Metacom in 1675, against the

colonists of New England; the English were also engaged in war in

Virginia in 1622.

[218] See the "Histoire de la Nouvelle France," by Charlevoix, and the

work entitled "Lettres Edifiantes."

[219] "In all the tribes," says Volney, in his "Tableau des Etats Unis,"

p. 423, "there still exists a generation of old warriors, who cannot

forbear, when they see their countrymen using the hoe, from exclaiming

against the degradation of ancient manners, and asserting that the

savages owe their decline to these innovations: adding, that they have

only to return to their primitive habits, in order to recover their

power and their glory."

[220] The following description occurs in an official document: "Until a

young man has been engaged with an enemy, and has performed some acts of

valor, he gains no consideration, but is regarded nearly as a woman. In

their great war-dances all the warriors in succession strike the post,

as it is called, and recount their exploits. On these occasions their

auditory consists of the kinsmen, friends, and comrades of the narrator.

The profound impression which his discourse produces on them is

manifested by the silent attention it receives, and by the loud shouts

which hail its termination. The young man who finds himself at such a

meeting without anything to recount, is very unhappy; and instances

have sometimes occurred of young warriors whose passions had been thus

inflamed, quitting the war-dance suddenly, and going off alone to seek

for trophies which they might exhibit, and adventures which they might

be allowed to relate."

[221] These nations are now swallowed up in the states of Georgia,

Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. There were formerly in the south

four great nations (remnants of which still exist), the Choctaws, the

Chickasaws, the Creeks, and the Cherokees. The remnants of these four

nations amounted, in 1830, to about 75,000 individuals. It is computed

that there are now remaining in the territory occupied or claimed by

the Anglo-American Union about 300,000 Indians. (See proceedings of the

Indian board in the city of New York.) The official documents supplied

to congress make the number amount to 313,130. The reader who is curious

to know the names and numerical strength of all the tribes which inhabit

the Anglo-American territory, should consult the documents I refer to.

(Legislative Documents, 28th congress, No. 117, pp. 90-105.)

[222] I brought back with me to France, one or two copies of this

singular publication.

[223] See in the report of the committee on Indian affairs, 21st

congress, No. 227, p. 23, the reasons for the multiplication of Indians

of mixed blood among the Cherokees. The principal cause dates from the

war of independence. Many Anglo-Americans of Georgia, having taken the

side of England, were obliged to retreat among the Indians where they

married.