political associations in the united states.
daily use which the anglo-americans make of the right of association.—three kinds of political association.—in what manner the americans apply the representative system to associations.—dangers resulting to the state.—great convention of 1831 relative to the tariff. legislative character of this convention.—why the unlimited exercise of the right of association is less dangerous in the united states than elsewhere.—why it may be looked upon as necessary.—utility of associations in a democratic people.
in no country in the world has the principle of association been more successfully used, or more unsparingly applied to a multitude of different objects, than in america. beside the permanent associations which are established by law under the names of townships, cities, and counties, a vast number of others are formed and maintained by the agency of private individuals.
the citizen of the united states is taught from his earliest infancy to rely upon his own exertions, in order to resist the evils and the difficulties of life; he looks upon the social authority with an eye of mistrust and anxiety, and he only claims its assistance when he is quite unable to shift without it. this habit may even be traced in the schools of the rising generation, where the children in their games are wont to submit to rules which they have themselves established, and to punish misdemeanors which they have themselves defined. the same spirit pervades every act of social life. if a stoppage occurs in a thoroughfare, and the circulation of the public is hindered, the neighbors immediately constitute a deliberative body; and this extemporaneous assembly gives rise to an executive power, which remedies the inconvenience, before anybody has thought of recurring to an authority superior to that of the persons immediately concerned. if the public pleasures are concerned, an association is formed to provide for the splendor and the regularity of the entertainment. societies are formed to resist enemies which are exclusively of a moral nature, and to diminish the vice of intemperance: in the united states associations are established to promote public order, commerce, industry, morality, and religion; for there is no end which the human will, seconded by the collective exertions of individuals, despairs of attaining.
i shall hereafter have occasion to show the effects of association upon the course of society, and i must confine myself for the present to the political world. when once the right of association is recognized, the citizens may employ it in several different ways.
an association consists simply in the public assent which a number of individuals give to certain doctrines; and in the engagement which they contract to promote the spread of those doctrines by their exertions. the right of associating with these views is very analogous to the liberty of unlicensed writing; but societies thus formed possess more authority than the press. when an opinion is represented by a society, it necessarily assumes a more exact and explicit form. it numbers its partisans, and compromises their welfare in its cause; they, on the other hand, become acquainted with each other, and their zeal is increased by their number. an association unites the efforts of minds which have a tendency to diverge, in one single channel, and urges them vigorously toward one single end which it points out.
the second degree in the right of association is the power of meeting. when an association is allowed to establish centres of action at certain important points in the country, its activity is increased, and its influence extended. men have the opportunity of seeing each other; means of execution are more readily combined; and opinions are maintained with a degree of warmth and energy which written language cannot approach.
lastly, in the exercise of the right of political association, there is a third degree: the partisans of an opinion may unite in electoral bodies, and choose delegates to represent them in a central assembly. this is, properly speaking, the application of the representative system to a party.
thus, in the first instance, a society is formed between individuals professing the same opinion, and the tie which keeps it together is of a purely intellectual nature: in the second case, small assemblies are formed which only represent a fraction of the party. lastly, in the third case, they constitute a separate nation in the midst of the nation, a government within the government. their delegates, like the real delegates of the majority, represent the entire collective force of their party; and they enjoy a certain degree of that national dignity and great influence which belong to the chosen representatives of the people. it is true that they have not the right of making the laws; but they have the power of attacking those which are in being, and of drawing up beforehand those which they may afterward cause to be adopted.
if, in a people which is imperfectly accustomed to the exercise of freedom, or which is exposed to violent political passions, a deliberating minority, which confines itself to the contemplation of future laws, be placed in juxtaposition to the legislative majority, i cannot but believe that public tranquillity incurs very great risks in that nation. there is doubtless a very wide difference between proving that one law is in itself better than another, and proving that the former ought to be substituted for the latter. but the imagination of the populace is very apt to overlook this difference, which is so apparent in the minds of thinking men. it sometimes happens that a nation is divided into two nearly equal parties, each of which affects to represent the majority. if, in immediate contiguity to the directing power, another power be established, which exercises almost as much moral authority as the former, it is not to be believed that it will long be content to speak without acting; or that it will always be restrained by the abstract consideration of the nature of associations, which are meant to direct, but not to enforce opinions, to suggest but not to make the laws.
the more we consider the independence of the press in its principal consequences, the more are we convinced that it is the chief, and, so to speak, the constitutive element of freedom in the modern world. a nation which is determined to remain free, is therefore right in demanding the unrestrained exercise of this independence. but the unrestrained liberty of political association cannot be entirely assimilated to the liberty of the press. the one is at the same time less necessary and more dangerous than the other. a nation may confine it within certain limits without forfeiting any part of its self-control; and it may sometimes be obliged to do so in order to maintain its own authority.
in america the liberty of association for political purposes is unbounded. an example will show in the clearest light to what an extent this privilege is tolerated.
the question of the tariff, or of free trade, produced a great manifestation of party feeling in america; the tariff was not only a subject of debate as a matter of opinion, but it exercised a favorable or a prejudicial influence upon several very powerful interests of the states. the north attributed a great portion of its prosperity, and the south all its sufferings, to this system. insomuch, that for a long time the tariff was the sole source of the political animosities which agitated the union.
in 1831, when the dispute was raging with the utmost virulence, a private citizen of massachusetts proposed to all the enemies of the tariff, by means of the public prints, to send delegates to philadelphia in order to consult together upon the means which were most fitted to promote the freedom of trade. this proposal circulated in a few days from maine to new orleans by the power of the printing press: the opponents of the tariff adopted it with enthusiasm; meetings were formed on all sides, and delegates were named. the majority of these individuals were well known, and some of them had earned a considerable degree of celebrity. south carolina alone, which afterward took up arms in the same cause, sent sixty-three delegates. on the 1st october, 1831, this assembly, which, according to the american custom, had taken the name of a convention, met at philadelphia; it consisted of more than two hundred members. its debates were public, and they at once assumed a legislative character; the extent of the powers of congress, the theories of free trade, and the different clauses of the tariff, were discussed in turn. at the end of ten days' deliberation, the convention broke up, after having published an address to the american people, in which it is declared:
i. the congress had not the right of making a tariff, and that the existing tariff was unconstitutional.
ii. that the prohibition of free trade was prejudicial to the interests of all nations, and to that of the american people in particular.
it must be acknowledged that the unrestrained liberty of political association has not hitherto produced, in the united states, those fatal consequences which might perhaps be expected from it elsewhere. the right of association was imported from england, and it has always existed in america. so that the exercise of this privilege is now amalgamated with the manners and customs of the people. at the present time, the liberty of association is become a necessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority. in the united states, as soon as a party has become preponderant, all the public authority passes under its control; its private supporters occupy all the places, and have all the force of the administration at their disposal. as the most distinguished partisans of the other side of the question are unable to surmount the obstacles which exclude them from power, they require some means of establishing themselves upon their own basis, and of opposing the moral authority of the minority to the physical power which domineers over it. thus, a dangerous expedient is used to obviate a still more formidable danger.
the omnipotence of the majority appears to me to present such extreme perils to the american republics, that the dangerous measure which is used to repress it, seems to be more advantageous than prejudicial. and here i am about to advance a proposition which may remind the reader of what i said before in speaking of municipal freedom. there are no countries in which associations are more needed, to prevent the despotism of faction, or the arbitrary power of a prince, than those which are democratically constituted. in aristocratic nations, the body of the nobles and the more opulent part of the community are in themselves natural associations, which act as checks upon the abuses of power. in countries in which those associations do not exist, if private individuals are unable to create an artificial and a temporary substitute for them, i can imagine no permanent protection against the most galling tyranny; and a great people may be oppressed by a small faction, or by a single individual, with impunity.
the meeting of a great political convention (for there are conventions of all kinds), which may frequently become a necessary measure, is always a serious occurrence, even in america, and one which is never looked forward to by the judicious friends of the country, without alarm. this was very perceptible in the convention of 1831, at which the exertions of all the most distinguished members of the assembly tended to moderate its language, and to restrain the subjects which it treated within certain limits. it is probable, in fact, that the convention of 1831 exercised a very great influence upon the minds of the malcontents, and prepared them for the open revolt against the commercial laws of the union, which took place in 1832.
it cannot be denied that the unrestrained liberty of association for political purposes, is the privilege which a people is longest in learning how to exercise. if it does not throw the nation into anarchy, it perpetually augments the chances of that calamity. on one point, however, this perilous liberty offers a security against dangers of another kind; in countries where associations are free, secret societies are unknown. in america there are numerous factions, but no conspiracies.
the most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself, is that of combining his exertions with those of his fellow-creatures, and of acting in common with them. i am therefore led to conclude, that the right of association is almost as inalienable as the right of personal liberty. no legislator can attack it without impairing the very foundations of society. nevertheless, if the liberty of association is a fruitful source of advantages and prosperity to some nations, it may be perverted or carried to excess by others, and the element of life may be changed into an element of destruction. a comparison of the different methods which associations pursue, in those countries in which they are managed with discretion, as well as in those where liberty degenerates into license, may perhaps be thought useful both to governments and to parties. the greater part of europeans look upon an association as a weapon which is to be hastily fashioned, and immediately tried in the conflict. a society is to be formed for discussion, but the idea of impending action prevails in the minds of those who constitute it: it is, in fact, an army; and the time given to parley, serves to reckon up the strength and to animate the courage of the host, after which they direct the march against the enemy. resources which lie within the bounds of the law may suggest themselves to the persons who compose it, as means, but never as the only means, of success.
such, however, is not the manner in which the right of association is understood in the united states. in america, the citizens who form the minority associate, in order, in the first place, to show their numerical strength, and so to diminish the moral authority of the majority; and, in the second place, to stimulate competition, and to discover those arguments which are most fitted to act upon the majority; for they always entertain hopes of drawing over their opponents to their own side, and of afterward disposing of the supreme power in their name. political associations in the united states are therefore peaceable in their intentions, and strictly legal in the means which they employ; and they assert with perfect truth, that they only aim at success by lawful expedients.
the difference which exists between the americans and ourselves depends on several causes. in europe there are numerous parties so diametrically opposed to the majority, that they can never hope to acquire its support, and at the same time they think that they are sufficiently strong in themselves to struggle and to defend their cause. when a party of this kind forms an association, its object is, not to conquer, but to fight. in america, the individuals who hold opinions very much opposed to those of the majority, are no sort of impediment to its power; and all other parties hope to win it over to their own principles in the end. the exercise of the right of association becomes dangerous in proportion to the impossibility which excludes great parties from acquiring the majority. in a country like the united states, in which the differences of opinion are mere differences of hue, the right of association may remain unrestrained without evil consequences. the inexperience of many of the european nations in the enjoyment of liberty, leads them only to look upon the liberty of association as a right of attacking the government. the first notion which presents itself to a party, as well as to an individual, when it has acquired a consciousness of its own strength, is that of violence: the notion of persuasion arises at a later period, and is only derived from experience. the english, who are divided into parties which differ most essentially from each other, rarely abuse the right of association, because they have long been accustomed to exercise it. in france, the passion for war is so intense that there is no undertaking so mad, or so injurious to the welfare of the state, that a man does not consider himself honored in defending it, at the risk of his life.
but perhaps the most powerful of the causes which tend to mitigate the excesses of political association in the united states is universal suffrage. in countries in which universal suffrage exists, the majority is never doubtful, because neither party can pretend to represent that portion of the community which has not voted. the associations which are formed are aware, as well as the nation at large, that they do not represent the majority; this is, indeed, a condition inseparable from their existence; for if they did represent the preponderating power, they would change the law instead of soliciting its reform. the consequence of this is, that the moral influence of the government which they attack is very much increased, and their own power is very much enfeebled.
in europe there are few associations which do not affect to represent the majority, or which do not believe that they represent it. this conviction or this pretension tends to augment their force amazingly, and contributes no less to legalize their measures. violence may seem to be excusable in defence of the cause of oppressed right. thus it is, in the vast labyrinth of human laws, that extreme liberty sometimes corrects abuses of license, and that extreme democracy obviates the dangers of democratic government. in europe, associations consider themselves, in some degree, as the legislative and executive councils of the people, which is unable to speak for itself. in america, where they only represent a minority of the nation, they argue and they petition.
the means which the associations of europe employ, are in accordance with the end which they propose to obtain. as the principal aim of these bodies is to act, and not to debate, to fight rather than to persuade, they are naturally led to adopt a form of organization which differs from the ordinary customs of civil bodies, and which assumes the habits and the maxims of military life. they centralize the direction of their resources as much as possible, and they intrust the power of the whole party to a very small number of leaders.
the members of these associations reply to a watchword, like soldiers on duty: they profess the doctrine of passive obedience; say rather, that in uniting together they at once abjure the exercise of their own judgment and free will; and the tyrannical control, which these societies exercise, is often far more insupportable than the authority possessed over society by the government which they attack. their moral force is much diminished by these excesses, and they lose the powerful interest which is always excited by a struggle between oppressors and the oppressed. the man who in given cases consents to obey his fellows with servility, and who submits his activity, and even his opinions, to their control, can have no claim to rank as a free citizen.
the americans have also established certain forms of government which are applied to their associations, but these are invariably borrowed from the forms of the civil administration. the independence of each individual is formally recognized; the tendency of the members of the association points, as it does in the body of the community, toward the same end, but they are not obliged to follow the same track. no one abjures the exercise of his reason and his free will; but every one exerts that reason and that will for the benefit of a common undertaking.
