Democracy in America and in Switzerland.--European
Prejudices.--Influence of Property.--Nationality of the Swiss.--Want of
Local Attachments in Americans.--Swiss Republicanism.--Political Crusade
against America.--Affinities between America and Russia.--Feeling of the
European Powers towards Switzerland.
Dear ----,
It is a besetting error with those who write of America, whether as
travellers, political economists, or commentators on the moral features
of ordinary society, to refer nearly all that is peculiar in the country
to the nature of its institutions. It is scarcely exaggerated to say
that even its physical phenomena are ascribed to its democracy.
Reflecting on this subject, I have been struck by the fact that no such
flights of the imagination are ever indulged in by those who speak of
Switzerland. That which is termed the rudeness of liberty and equality,
with us, becomes softened down here into the frankness of mountaineers,
or the sturdy independence of republicans; what is vulgarity on the
other side of the Atlantic, is unsophistication on this, and truculence
in the States dwindles to be earnest remonstrances in the cantons!
There undeniably exist marked points of difference between the Swiss and
the Americans. The dominion of a really popular sway is admitted nowhere
here, except in a few unimportant mountain cantons, that are but little
known, and which, if known, would not exercise a very serious influence
on any but their own immediate inhabitants. With us, the case is
different. New York and Pennsylvania and Ohio, for instance, with a
united population of near five millions of souls, are as pure
democracies as can exist under a representative form of government, and
their trade, productions, and example so far connect them with the rest
of Christendom, as to render them objects of deep interest to all who
look beyond the present moment, in studying the history of man.
We have States, however, in which the franchise does not materially
differ from those of many of the cantons, and yet we do not find that
strangers make any material exceptions even in _their_ favour. Few think
of viewing the States in which there are property qualifications, in a
light different from those just named; nor is a disturbance in Virginia
deemed to be less the consequence of democratic effervescence, than it
is in Pennsylvania.
There must be reasons for all this. I make no doubt they are to be found
in the greater weight of the example of a large and growing community,
of active commercial and political habits, than in one like this, which
is satisfied with simply maintaining a quiet and secure existence; in
our total rejection of the usual aristocratical distinctions which still
exist, more or less, all over Switzerland; in the jealousy of commercial
and maritime power, and in the recollections which are inseparable from
the fact that the parties once stood to each other, in the relation of
principals and dependants. This latter feeling, an unavoidable
consequence of metropolitan sway, is more general than you may imagine,
for, as nearly all Europe once had colonies, the feelings of superiority
they uniformly excite, have as naturally led to jealousy of the rising
importance of our hemisphere. You may smile at the suggestion, but I do
not remember a single European in whom, under proper opportunities, I
have not been able to trace some lingering feeling of the old notion of
the moral and physical superiority of the man of Europe over the man of
America. I do not say that all I have met have betrayed this prejudice,
for in not one case in ten have I had the means to probe them; but such,
I think, has uniformly been the case, though in very different degrees,
whenever the opportunity has existed.
Though the mountain, or the purely rural population, here, possess more
independence and frankness of manner than those who inhabit the towns
and advanced valleys, neither has them in so great a degree, as to leave
plausible grounds for believing that the institutions are very
essentially connected with the traits. Institutions may _depress men
below_ what may be termed the natural level of feeling in this respect,
as in the case of slavery; but, in a civilized society, where property
has its influence, I much question if any political regulations can
raise them above it. After allowing for the independence of manner and
feeling that are coincident to easy circumstances, and which is the
result of obvious causes, I know no part of America in which this is not
also the fact. The employed is, and will be everywhere, to a certain
point, dependent on his employer, and the relations between the two
cannot fail to bring forth a degree of authority and submission, that
will vary according to the character of individuals and the
circumstances of the moment.
I infer from this that the general aspects of society, after men cease
to be serfs and slaves, can never be expected to vary essentially from
each other, merely on account of the political institutions, except,
perhaps, as those institutions themselves may happen to affect their
temporal condition. In other words, I believe that we are to look more
to property and to the absence or presence of facilities of living, for
effects of this nature, than to the breadth or narrowness of
constituencies.
The Swiss, as is natural from their greater antiquity, richer
recollections, and perhaps from their geographical position, are more
national than the Americans. With us, national pride and national
character exist chiefly in the classes that lie between the yeomen and
the very bottom of the social scale; whereas, here, I think the higher
one ascends, the stronger the feeling becomes. The Swiss moreover is
pressed upon by his wants, and is often obliged to tear himself from his
native soil, in order to find the means of subsistence; and yet very few
of them absolutely expatriate themselves.
The emigrants that are called Swiss in America, either come from
Germany, or are French Germans, from Alsace and Lorrain. I have never
met with a migration of a body of true Swiss, though some few cases
probably have existed. It would be curious to inquire how far the noble
nature of the country has an influence in producing their strong
national attachments. The Neapolitans love their climate, and would
rather be Lazzaroni beneath their sun, than gentlemen in Holland, or
England. This is simple enough, as it depends on physical indulgence.
The charm that binds the Swiss to his native mountains, must be of a
higher character, and is moral in its essence.
The American character suffers from the converse of the very feeling
which has an effect so beneficial on that of the Swiss. The migratory
habits of the country prevent the formation of the intensity of
interest, to which the long residence of a family in a particular spot
gives birth, and which comes, at last, to love a tree, or a hill, or a
rock, because they are the same tree, and hill, and rock, that have been
loved by our fathers before us. These are attachments that depend on
sentiment rather than on interest, and which are as much purer and
holier, as virtuous sentiment is purer and holier than worldly
interestedness. In this moral feature, therefore, we are inferior to all
old nations, and to the Swiss in particular, I think, as their local
attachments are both quickened and heightened by the exciting and grand
objects that surround them. The Italians have the same local affections,
in a still stronger degree; for with a nature equally, or even more
winning, they have still prouder and more-remote recollections.
I do not believe the Swiss, at heart, are a bit more attached to their
institutions than we are ourselves; for, while I complain of the _tone_
of so many of our people, I consider it, after all, as the tone of
people who, the means of comparison having been denied them, neither
know that which they denounce, nor that which they extol. Apart from the
weakness of wishing for personal distinctions, however, I never met with
a Swiss gentleman, who appeared to undervalue his institutions. They
frequently, perhaps generally, lament the want of greater power in the
confederation; but, as between a monarchy and a republic, so far as my
observation goes, they are uniformly Swiss. I do not believe there is
such a thing, in all the cantons, as a man, for instance, who pines for
the Prussian despotism! They will take service under kings, be their
soldiers, body-guards--real Dugald Dalgettys--but when the question
comes to Switzerland, one and all appear to think that the descendants
of the companions of Winkelried and Stauffer must be republicans. Now,
all this may be because there are few in the condition of gentlemen, in
the democratic cantons, and the gentlemen of the other parts of the
confederation prefer that things should be as they are (or rather, so
lately were, for the recent changes have hardly had time to make an
impression), to putting a prince in the place of the aristocrats. Self
is so prominent in everything of this nature, that I feel no great faith
in the generosity of men. Still I do believe that time and history, and
national pride, and Swiss _morgue_, have brought about a state of
feeling that would indispose them to bow down to a Swiss sovereign.
A policy is observed by the other states of Europe towards this
confederation, very different from that which is, or perhaps it would be
better to say, has been observed toward us. As respects ourselves, I
have already observed it was my opinion, there would have been a
political crusade got up against us, had not the recent changes taken
place in Europe, and had the secret efforts to divide the Union failed.
Their chief dependence, certainly, is on our national dissensions; but
as this would probably fail them, I think we should have seen some
pretence for an invasion. The motive would be the strong necessity which
existed for destroying the example of a republic, or rather of a
democracy, that was getting to be too powerful. Strange as you may think
it, I believe our chief protection in such a struggle would have been
Russia.
We hear and read a great deal about the "Russian bear," but it will be
our own fault if this bear does us any harm. Let the Edinburgh Review,
the advocate of mystified liberalism, prattle as much as it choose, on
this topic, it becomes us to look at the subject like Americans. There
are more practical and available affinities between America and Russia,
at this very moment, than there is between America and any other nation
in Europe. They have high common political objects to obtain, and Russia
has so little to apprehend from the example of America, that no jealousy
of the latter need interrupt their harmony. You see the counterpart of
this in the present condition of France and Russia. So far as their
general policy is concerned, they need not conflict, but rather ought to
unite, and yet the mutual jealousy on the subject of the institutions
keeps them alienated, and almost enemies. Napoleon, it is true, said
that these two nations, sooner or later, must fight for the possession
of the east, but it was the ambition of the man, rather than the
interests of his country, that dictated the sentiment. The France of
Napoleon, and the France of Louis-Philippe, are two very different
things.
Now, as I have told you, Switzerland is regarded by the powers who would
crush America, with other eyes. I do not believe that a congress of
Europe would convert this republic into a monarchy, if it could,
to-morrow. Nothing essential would be gained by such a measure, while a
great deal might be hazarded. A king must have family alliances, and
these alliances would impair the neutrality it is so desirable to
maintain. The cantons are equally good, as outworks, for France,
Austria, Bavaria, Wurtemburg, Lombardy, Sardinia, and the Tyrol. All
cannot have them, and all are satisfied to keep them as a defence
against their neighbours. No one hears, in the war of opinion, that is
going on here, the example of the Swiss quoted on the side of liberty!
For this purpose, they appear to be as totally out of view, as if they
had no existence.