American Institutions and Their Influence by Alexis de Tocqueville et al

A >> Alexis de Tocqueville et al >> American Institutions and Their Influence

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49

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.