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.
No comments:
Post a Comment