Chapter Summary
A Social condition is commonly the result of circumstances, sometimes
of laws, oftener still of these two causes united; but wherever it
exists, it may justly be considered as the source of almost all the
laws, the usages, and the ideas which regulate the conduct of nations;
whatever it does not produce it modifies. It is therefore necessary, if
we would become acquainted with the legislation and the manners of a
nation, to begin by the study of its social condition.
The Striking Characteristic Of The Social Condition Of The
Anglo-Americans In Its Essential Democracy.
The first emigrants of New England—Their equality—Aristocratic laws
introduced in the South—Period of the Revolution—Change in the law of
descent—Effects produced by this change—Democracy carried to its utmost
limits in the new States of the West—Equality of education.
Many important observations suggest themselves upon the social
condition of the Anglo-Americans, but there is one which takes
precedence of all the rest. The social condition of the Americans is
eminently democratic; this was its character at the foundation of the
Colonies, and is still more strongly marked at the present day. I have
stated in the preceding chapter that great equality existed among the
emigrants who settled on the shores of New England. The germ of
aristocracy was never planted in that part of the Union. The only
influence which obtained there was that of intellect; the people were
used to reverence certain names as the emblems of knowledge and virtue.
Some of their fellow-citizens acquired a power over the rest which
might truly have been called aristocratic, if it had been capable of
transmission from father to son.
This was the state of things to the east of the Hudson: to the
south-west of that river, and in the direction of the Floridas, the
case was different. In most of the States situated to the south-west of
the Hudson some great English proprietors had settled, who had imported
with them aristocratic principles and the English law of descent. I
have explained the reasons why it was impossible ever to establish a
powerful aristocracy in America; these reasons existed with less force
to the south-west of the Hudson. In the South, one man, aided by
slaves, could cultivate a great extent of country: it was therefore
common to see rich landed proprietors. But their influence was not
altogether aristocratic as that term is understood in Europe, since
they possessed no privileges; and the cultivation of their estates
being carried on by slaves, they had no tenants depending on them, and
consequently no patronage. Still, the great proprietors south of the
Hudson constituted a superior class, having ideas and tastes of its
own, and forming the centre of political action. This kind of
aristocracy sympathized with the body of the people, whose passions and
interests it easily embraced; but it was too weak and too short-lived
to excite either love or hatred for itself. This was the class which
headed the insurrection in the South, and furnished the best leaders of
the American revolution.
At the period of which we are now speaking society was shaken to its
centre: the people, in whose name the struggle had taken place,
conceived the desire of exercising the authority which it had acquired;
its democratic tendencies were awakened; and having thrown off the yoke
of the mother-country, it aspired to independence of every kind. The
influence of individuals gradually ceased to be felt, and custom and
law united together to produce the same result.
But the law of descent was the last step to equality. I am surprised
that ancient and modern jurists have not attributed to this law a
greater influence on human affairs. *a It is true that these laws
belong to civil affairs; but they ought nevertheless to be placed at
the head of all political institutions; for, whilst political laws are
only the symbol of a nation’s condition, they exercise an incredible
influence upon its social state. They have, moreover, a sure and
uniform manner of operating upon society, affecting, as it were,
generations yet unborn.
a
[ I understand by the law of descent all those laws whose principal
object is to regulate the distribution of property after the death of
its owner. The law of entail is of this number; it certainly prevents
the owner from disposing of his possessions before his death; but this
is solely with the view of preserving them entire for the heir. The
principal object, therefore, of the law of entail is to regulate the
descent of property after the death of its owner: its other provisions
are merely means to this end.]
Through their means man acquires a kind of preternatural power over the
future lot of his fellow-creatures. When the legislator has regulated
the law of inheritance, he may rest from his labor. The machine once
put in motion will go on for ages, and advance, as if self-guided,
towards a given point. When framed in a particular manner, this law
unites, draws together, and vests property and power in a few hands:
its tendency is clearly aristocratic. On opposite principles its action
is still more rapid; it divides, distributes, and disperses both
property and power. Alarmed by the rapidity of its progress, those who
despair of arresting its motion endeavor to obstruct it by difficulties
and impediments; they vainly seek to counteract its effect by contrary
efforts; but it gradually reduces or destroys every obstacle, until by
its incessant activity the bulwarks of the influence of wealth are
ground down to the fine and shifting sand which is the basis of
democracy. When the law of inheritance permits, still more when it
decrees, the equal division of a father’s property amongst all his
children, its effects are of two kinds: it is important to distinguish
them from each other, although they tend to the same end.
In virtue of the law of partible inheritance, the death of every
proprietor brings about a kind of revolution in property; not only do
his possessions change hands, but their very nature is altered, since
they are parcelled into shares, which become smaller and smaller at
each division. This is the direct and, as it were, the physical effect
of the law. It follows, then, that in countries where equality of
inheritance is established by law, property, and especially landed
property, must have a tendency to perpetual diminution. The effects,
however, of such legislation would only be perceptible after a lapse of
time, if the law was abandoned to its own working; for supposing the
family to consist of two children (and in a country people as France is
the average number is not above three), these children, sharing amongst
them the fortune of both parents, would not be poorer than their father
or mother.
But the law of equal division exercises its influence not merely upon
the property itself, but it affects the minds of the heirs, and brings
their passions into play. These indirect consequences tend powerfully
to the destruction of large fortunes, and especially of large domains.
Among nations whose law of descent is founded upon the right of
primogeniture landed estates often pass from generation to generation
without undergoing division, the consequence of which is that family
feeling is to a certain degree incorporated with the estate. The family
represents the estate, the estate the family; whose name, together with
its origin, its glory, its power, and its virtues, is thus perpetuated
in an imperishable memorial of the past and a sure pledge of the
future.
When the equal partition of property is established by law, the
intimate connection is destroyed between family feeling and the
preservation of the paternal estate; the property ceases to represent
the family; for as it must inevitably be divided after one or two
generations, it has evidently a constant tendency to diminish, and must
in the end be completely dispersed. The sons of the great landed
proprietor, if they are few in number, or if fortune befriends them,
may indeed entertain the hope of being as wealthy as their father, but
not that of possessing the same property as he did; the riches must
necessarily be composed of elements different from his.
Now, from the moment that you divest the landowner of that interest in
the preservation of his estate which he derives from association, from
tradition, and from family pride, you may be certain that sooner or
later he will dispose of it; for there is a strong pecuniary interest
in favor of selling, as floating capital produces higher interest than
real property, and is more readily available to gratify the passions of
the moment.
Great landed estates which have once been divided never come together
again; for the small proprietor draws from his land a better revenue,
in proportion, than the large owner does from his, and of course he
sells it at a higher rate. *b The calculations of gain, therefore,
which decide the rich man to sell his domain will still more powerfully
influence him against buying small estates to unite them into a large
one.
b
[ I do not mean to say that the small proprietor cultivates his land
better, but he cultivates it with more ardor and care; so that he makes
up by his labor for his want of skill.]
What is called family pride is often founded upon an illusion of
self-love. A man wishes to perpetuate and immortalize himself, as it
were, in his great-grandchildren. Where the esprit de famille ceases to
act individual selfishness comes into play. When the idea of family
becomes vague, indeterminate, and uncertain, a man thinks of his
present convenience; he provides for the establishment of his
succeeding generation, and no more. Either a man gives up the idea of
perpetuating his family, or at any rate he seeks to accomplish it by
other means than that of a landed estate. Thus not only does the law of
partible inheritance render it difficult for families to preserve their
ancestral domains entire, but it deprives them of the inclination to
attempt it, and compels them in some measure to co-operate with the law
in their own extinction.
The law of equal distribution proceeds by two methods: by acting upon
things, it acts upon persons; by influencing persons, it affects
things. By these means the law succeeds in striking at the root of
landed property, and dispersing rapidly both families and fortunes. *c
c
[ Land being the most stable kind of property, we find, from time to
time, rich individuals who are disposed to make great sacrifices in
order to obtain it, and who willingly forfeit a considerable part of
their income to make sure of the rest. But these are accidental cases.
The preference for landed property is no longer found habitually in any
class but among the poor. The small landowner, who has less
information, less imagination, and fewer passions than the great one,
is generally occupied with the desire of increasing his estate: and it
often happens that by inheritance, by marriage, or by the chances of
trade, he is gradually furnished with the means. Thus, to balance the
tendency which leads men to divide their estates, there exists another,
which incites them to add to them. This tendency, which is sufficient
to prevent estates from being divided ad infinitum, is not strong
enough to create great territorial possessions, certainly not to keep
them up in the same family.]
Most certainly it is not for us Frenchmen of the nineteenth century,
who daily witness the political and social changes which the law of
partition is bringing to pass, to question its influence. It is
perpetually conspicuous in our country, overthrowing the walls of our
dwellings and removing the landmarks of our fields. But although it has
produced great effects in France, much still remains for it to do. Our
recollections, opinions, and habits present powerful obstacles to its
progress.
In the United States it has nearly completed its work of destruction,
and there we can best study its results. The English laws concerning
the transmission of property were abolished in almost all the States at
the time of the Revolution. The law of entail was so modified as not to
interrupt the free circulation of property. *d The first generation
having passed away, estates began to be parcelled out, and the change
became more and more rapid with the progress of time. At this moment,
after a lapse of a little more than sixty years, the aspect of society
is totally altered; the families of the great landed proprietors are
almost all commingled with the general mass. In the State of New York,
which formerly contained many of these, there are but two who still
keep their heads above the stream, and they must shortly disappear. The
sons of these opulent citizens are become merchants, lawyers, or
physicians. Most of them have lapsed into obscurity. The last trace of
hereditary ranks and distinctions is destroyed—the law of partition has
reduced all to one level. [Footnote d: See Appendix, G.]
I do not mean that there is any deficiency of wealthy individuals in
the United States; I know of no country, indeed, where the love of
money has taken stronger hold on the affections of men, and where the
profounder contempt is expressed for the theory of the permanent
equality of property. But wealth circulates with inconceivable
rapidity, and experience shows that it is rare to find two succeeding
generations in the full enjoyment of it.
This picture, which may perhaps be thought to be overcharged, still
gives a very imperfect idea of what is taking place in the new States
of the West and South-west. At the end of the last century a few bold
adventurers began to penetrate into the valleys of the Mississippi, and
the mass of the population very soon began to move in that direction:
communities unheard of till then were seen to emerge from the wilds:
States whose names were not in existence a few years before claimed
their place in the American Union; and in the Western settlements we
may behold democracy arrived at its utmost extreme. In these States,
founded off-hand, and, as it were, by chance, the inhabitants are but
of yesterday. Scarcely known to one another, the nearest neighbors are
ignorant of each other’s history. In this part of the American
continent, therefore, the population has not experienced the influence
of great names and great wealth, nor even that of the natural
aristocracy of knowledge and virtue. None are there to wield that
respectable power which men willingly grant to the remembrance of a
life spent in doing good before their eyes. The new States of the West
are already inhabited, but society has no existence among them. *e
e
[ This may have been true in 1832, but is not so in 1874, when great
cities like Chicago and San Francisco have sprung up in the Western
States. But as yet the Western States exert no powerful influence on
American society.—-Translator’s Note.]
It is not only the fortunes of men which are equal in America; even
their requirements partake in some degree of the same uniformity. I do
not believe that there is a country in the world where, in proportion
to the population, there are so few uninstructed and at the same time
so few learned individuals. Primary instruction is within the reach of
everybody; superior instruction is scarcely to be obtained by any. This
is not surprising; it is in fact the necessary consequence of what we
have advanced above. Almost all the Americans are in easy
circumstances, and can therefore obtain the first elements of human
knowledge.
In America there are comparatively few who are rich enough to live
without a profession. Every profession requires an apprenticeship,
which limits the time of instruction to the early years of life. At
fifteen they enter upon their calling, and thus their education ends at
the age when ours begins. Whatever is done afterwards is with a view to
some special and lucrative object; a science is taken up as a matter of
business, and the only branch of it which is attended to is such as
admits of an immediate practical application. In America most of the
rich men were formerly poor; most of those who now enjoy leisure were
absorbed in business during their youth; the consequence of which is,
that when they might have had a taste for study they had no time for
it, and when time is at their disposal they have no longer the
inclination.
There is no class, then, in America, in which the taste for
intellectual pleasures is transmitted with hereditary fortune and
leisure, and by which the labors of the intellect are held in honor.
Accordingly there is an equal want of the desire and the power of
application to these objects.
A middle standard is fixed in America for human knowledge. All approach
as near to it as they can; some as they rise, others as they descend.
Of course, an immense multitude of persons are to be found who
entertain the same number of ideas on religion, history, science,
political economy, legislation, and government. The gifts of intellect
proceed directly from God, and man cannot prevent their unequal
distribution. But in consequence of the state of things which we have
here represented it happens that, although the capacities of men are
widely different, as the Creator has doubtless intended they should be,
they are submitted to the same method of treatment.
In America the aristocratic element has always been feeble from its
birth; and if at the present day it is not actually destroyed, it is at
any rate so completely disabled that we can scarcely assign to it any
degree of influence in the course of affairs. The democratic principle,
on the contrary, has gained so much strength by time, by events, and by
legislation, as to have become not only predominant but all-powerful.
There is no family or corporate authority, and it is rare to find even
the influence of individual character enjoy any durability.
America, then, exhibits in her social state a most extraordinary
phenomenon. Men are there seen on a greater equality in point of
fortune and intellect, or, in other words, more equal in their
strength, than in any other country of the world, or in any age of
which history has preserved the remembrance.
Political Consequences Of The Social Condition Of The Anglo-Americans
The political consequences of such a social condition as this are
easily deducible. It is impossible to believe that equality will not
eventually find its way into the political world as it does everywhere
else. To conceive of men remaining forever unequal upon one single
point, yet equal on all others, is impossible; they must come in the
end to be equal upon all. Now I know of only two methods of
establishing equality in the political world; every citizen must be put
in possession of his rights, or rights must be granted to no one. For
nations which are arrived at the same stage of social existence as the
Anglo-Americans, it is therefore very difficult to discover a medium
between the sovereignty of all and the absolute power of one man: and
it would be vain to deny that the social condition which I have been
describing is equally liable to each of these consequences.
There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which
excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends
to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also
in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak
to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to
prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom. Not that those
nations whose social condition is democratic naturally despise liberty;
on the contrary, they have an instinctive love of it. But liberty is
not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their
idol: they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty, and if they
miss their aim resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing
can satisfy them except equality, and rather than lose it they resolve
to perish.
On the other hand, in a State where the citizens are nearly on an
equality, it becomes difficult for them to preserve their independence
against the aggressions of power. No one among them being strong enough
to engage in the struggle with advantage, nothing but a general
combination can protect their liberty. And such a union is not always
to be found.
From the same social position, then, nations may derive one or the
other of two great political results; these results are extremely
different from each other, but they may both proceed from the same
cause.
The Anglo-Americans are the first nations who, having been exposed to
this formidable alternative, have been happy enough to escape the
dominion of absolute power. They have been allowed by their
circumstances, their origin, their intelligence, and especially by
their moral feeling, to establish and maintain the sovereignty of the
people.