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 is 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 germe 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 invariable transmission from father to son.
this was the state of things to the east of the hudson: to the southwest of that river, and in the direction of the floridas, the case was different. in most of the states situated to the southwest 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 southwest 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.{57} 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, while 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 unknown.
through their means man acquires a kind of preternatural power over the future lot of his fellow-creatures. when the legislator has once 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, toward 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 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 among 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 a family to consist of two children (and in a country peopled as france is, the average number is not above three), these children, sharing among 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 the 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 befriend them, may indeed entertain the hope of being as wealthy as their father, but not that of possessing the same property as he did; their riches must necessarily be composed of elements different from his.
now, from the moment when you divest the land-owner 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.{58} the calculations of gain, therefore, which decided the rich man to sell his domain, will still more powerfully influence him against buying small estates to unite them into a large one.
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 the 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.{59}
most certainly is it not for us, frenchmen of the nineteenth century, who daily behold 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.{60} the first 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 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 have 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.
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 a 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 overcharged, still gives a very imperfect idea of what is taking place in the new states of the west and southwest. 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 their 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.
it is not only the fortunes of men which are equal in america; even their acquirements partake in some degree of the same uniformity. i do not believe 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 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 afterward, 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.
{this paragraph does not fairly render the meaning of the author. the original french is as follows:—
"en amérique il y a peu de riches; presque tous les américains ont donc besoin d'exercer une profession. or, toute profession exige an apprentissage. les américains ne peuvent donc donner a la culture générale de l'intelligence que les premières années de la vie: à quinze ans ils entrent dans une carrière: ainsi leur education finit le plus souvent à l'époque où la n?tre commence."
what is meant by the remark; that "at fifteen they enter upon a career, and thus their education is very often finished at the epoch when ours commences," is not clearly perceived. our professional men enter upon their course of preparation for their respective professions, wholly between eighteen and twenty-one years of age. apprentices to trades are bound out, ordinarily, at fourteen, but what general education they receive is after that period. previously, they have acquired the mere elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic. but it is supposed there is nothing peculiar to america, in the age at which apprenticeship commences. in england, they commence at the same age, and it is believed that the same thing occurs throughout europe. it is feared that the author has not here expressed himself with his usual clearness and precision.—american editor.}
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 the 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 middling 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.
