the present and probable future condition of the three races which inhabit the territory of the united states.

the principal part of the task which i had imposed upon myself is now performed: i have shown, as far as i was able, the laws and manners of the american democracy. here i might stop; but the reader would perhaps feel that i had not satisfied his expectations.

the absolute supremacy of democracy is not all that we meet with in america; the inhabitants of the new world may be considered from more than one point of view. in the course of this work, my subject has often led me to speak of the indians and the negroes; but i have never been able to stop in order to show what places these two races occupy, in the midst of the democratic people whom i was engaged in describing. i have mentioned in what spirit, and according to what laws, the anglo-american union was formed; but i could only glance at the dangers which menace that confederation, while it was equally impossible for me to give a detailed account of its chances of duration, independently of its laws and manners. when speaking of the united republican states, i hazarded no conjectures upon the permanence of republican forms in the new world; and when making frequent allusion to the commercial activity which reigns in the union, i was unable to inquire into the future condition of the americans as a commercial people.

these topics are collaterally connected with my subject, without forming a part of it; they are american, without being democratic; and to portray democracy has been my principal aim. it was therefore necessary to postpone these questions, which i now take up as the proper termination of my work.

the territory now occupied or claimed by the american union, spreads from the shores of the atlantic to those of the pacific ocean. on the east and west its limits are those of the continent itself. on the south it advances nearly to the tropic, and it extends upward to the icy regions of the north.{207}

the human beings who are scattered over this space do not form, as in europe, so many branches of the same stock. three races naturally distinct, and i might almost say hostile to each other, are discoverable among them at the first glance. almost insurmountable barriers had been raised between them by education and by law, as well as by their origin and outward characteristics; but fortune has brought them together on the same soil, where, although they are mixed, they do not amalgamate, and each race fulfils its destiny apart.

among these widely differing families of men, the first which attracts attention, the superior in intelligence, in power, and in enjoyment, is the white or european, the man pre-eminent; and in subordinate grades, the negro and the indian. these two unhappy races have nothing in common; neither birth, nor features, nor language, nor habits. their only resemblance lies in their misfortunes. both of them occupy an inferior rank in the country they inhabit; both suffer from tyranny; and if their wrongs are not the same, they originate at any rate with the same authors.

if we reasoned from what passes in the world, we should almost say that the european is to the other races of mankind, what man is to the lower animals;—he makes them subservient to his use; and when he cannot subdue, he destroys them. oppression has at one stroke deprived the descendants of the africans of almost all the privileges of humanity. the negro of the united states has lost all remembrance of his country; the language which his forefathers spoke is never heard around him; he abjured their religion and forgot their customs when he ceased to belong to africa, without acquiring any claim to european privileges. but he remains half-way between the two communities; sold by the one, repulsed by the other; finding not a spot in the universe to call by the name of country, except the faint image of a home which the shelter of his master's roof affords.

the negro has no family; woman is merely the temporary companion of his pleasures, and his children are upon an equality with himself from the moment of their birth. am i to call it a proof of god's mercy, or a visitation of his wrath, that man in certain states appears to be insensible to his extreme wretchedness, and almost affects with a depraved taste the cause of his misfortunes? the negro, who is plunged in this abyss of evils, scarcely feels his own calamitous situation. violence made him a slave, and the habit of servitude gives him the thoughts and desires of a slave; he admires his tyrants more than he hates them, and finds his joy and his pride in the servile imitation of those who oppress him: his understanding is degraded to the level of his soul.

the negro enters upon slavery as soon as he is born; nay, he may have been purchased in the womb, and have begun his slavery before he began his existence. equally devoid of wants and of enjoyment, and useless to himself, he learns, with his first notions of existence, that he is the property of another who has an interest in preserving his life, and that the care of it does not devolve upon himself; even the power of thought appears to him a useless gift of providence, and he quietly enjoys the privileges of his debasement.

if he becomes free, independence is often felt by him to be a heavier burden than slavery; for having learned, in the course of his life, to submit to everything except reason, he is too much unacquainted with her dictates to obey them. a thousand new desires beset him, and he is destitute of the knowledge and energy necessary to resist them: these are masters which it is necessary to contend with, and he has learned only to submit and obey. in short, he sinks to such a depth of wretchedness, that while servitude brutalizes, liberty destroys him.

oppression has been no less fatal to the indian than to the negro race, but its effects are different. before the arrival of the white men in the new world, the inhabitants of north america lived quietly in their woods, enduring the vicissitudes, and practising the virtues and vices common to savage nations. the europeans, having dispersed the indian tribes and driven them into the deserts, condemned them to a wandering life full of inexpressible sufferings.

savage nations are only controlled by opinion and by custom. when the north american indians had lost their sentiment of attachment to their country; when their families were dispersed, their traditions obscured, and the chain of their recollections broken; when all their habits were changed, and their wants increased beyond measure, european tyranny rendered them more disorderly and less civilized than they were before. the moral and physical condition of these tribes continually grew worse, and they became more barbarous as they became more wretched. nevertheless the europeans have not been able to metamorphose the character of the indians; and though they have had power to destroy them, they have never been able to make them submit to the rules of civilized society.

the lot of the negro is placed on the extreme limit of servitude, while that of the indian lies on the utmost verge of liberty; and slavery does not produce more fatal effects upon the first, than independence upon the second. the negro has lost all property in his own person, and he cannot dispose of his existence without committing a sort of fraud: but the savage is his own master as soon as he is able to act; parental authority is scarcely known to him; he has never bent his will to that of any of his kind, or learned the difference between voluntary obedience and a shameful subjection; and the very name of law is unknown to him. to be free, with him, signifies to escape from all the shackles of society. as he delights in this barbarous independence, and would rather perish than sacrifice the least part of it, civilisation has little power over him.

the negro makes a thousand fruitless efforts to insinuate himself among men who repulse him; he conforms to the taste of his oppressors, adopts their opinions, and hopes by imitating them to form a part of their community. having been told from infancy that his race is naturally inferior to that of the whites, he assents to the proposition, and is ashamed of his own nature. in each of his features he discovers a trace of slavery, and, if it were in his power, he would willingly rid himself of everything that makes him what he is.

the indian, on the contrary, has his imagination inflated with the pretended nobility of his origin, and lives and dies in the midst of these dreams of pride. far from desiring to conform his habits to ours, he loves his savage life as the distinguishing mark of his race, and he repels every advance to civilisation, less perhaps from the hatred which he entertains for it, than from a dread of resembling the europeans.{208} while he has nothing to oppose to our perfection in the arts but the resources of the desert, to our tactics nothing but undisciplined courage; while our well-digested plans are met by the spontaneous instincts of savage life, who can wonder if he fails in this unequal contest?

the negro who earnestly desires to mingle his race with that of the european, cannot effect it; while the indian, who might succeed to a certain extent, disdains to make the attempt. the servility of the one dooms him to slavery, the pride of the other to death.

i remember that while i was travelling through the forests which still cover the state of alabama, i arrived one day at the log house of a pioneer. i did not wish to penetrate into the dwelling of the american, but retired to rest myself for a while on the margin of a spring, which was not far off, in the woods. while i was in this place (which was in the neighborhood of the creek territory), an indian woman appeared, followed by a negress, and holding by the hand a little white girl of five or six years old, whom i took to be the daughter of the pioneer. a sort of barbarous luxury set off the costume of the indian; rings of metal were hanging from her nostrils and ears; her hair, which was adorned with glass beads, fell loosely upon her shoulders; and i saw that she was not married, for she still wore the necklace of shells which the bride always deposits on the nuptial couch. the negress was clad in squalid european garments.

they all three came and seated themselves upon the banks of the fountain; and the young indian, taking the child in her arms, lavished upon her such fond caresses as mothers give; while the negress endeavored by various little artifices to attract the attention of the young creole. the child displayed in her slightest gestures a consciousness of superiority which formed a strange contrast with her infantine weakness; as if she received the attentions of her companions with a sort of condescension.

the negress was seated on the ground before her mistress, watching her smallest desires, and apparently divided between strong affection for the child and servile fear; while the savage displayed, in the midst of her tenderness, an air of freedom and of pride which was almost ferocious. i had approached the group, and i contemplated them in silence; but my curiosity was probably displeasing to the indian woman, for she suddenly rose, pushed the child roughly from her, and giving me an angry look, plunged into the thicket.

i had often chanced to see individuals met together in the same place, who belonged to the three races of men which people north america. i had perceived from many different results the preponderance of the whites. but in the picture which i have just been describing there was something peculiarly touching; a bond of affection here united the oppressors with the oppressed, and the effort of nature to bring them together rendered still more striking the immense distance placed between them by prejudice and by law.

the present and probable future condition of the indian tribes which inhabit the territory possessed by the union.

gradual disappearance of the native tribes.—manner in which it takes place.—miseries accompanying the forced migrations of the indians.—the savages of north america had only two ways of escaping destruction; war or civilisation.—they are no longer able to make war.—reasons why they refused to become civilized when it was in their power, and why they cannot become so now that they desire it.—instance of the creek and cherokees.—policy of the particular states toward these indians.—policy of the federal government.

none of the indian tribes which formerly inhabited the territory of new england—the narragansets, the mohicans, the pequots—have any existence but in the recollection of man. the lenapes, who received william penn a hundred and fifty years ago upon the banks of the delaware, have disappeared; and i myself met with the last of the iroquois, who were begging alms. the nations i have mentioned formerly covered the country to the seacoast; but a traveller at the present day must penetrate more than a hundred leagues into the interior of the continent to find an indian. not only have these wild tribes receded, but they are destroyed;{209} and as they give way or perish, an immense and increasing people fills their place. there is no instance on record of so prodigious a growth, or so rapid a destruction; the manner in which the latter change takes place is not difficult to describe.

when the indians were the sole inhabitants of the wilds whence they have been expelled, their wants were few. their arms were of their own manufacture, their only drink was the water of the brook, and their clothes consisted of the skin of animals, whose flesh furnished them with food.

the europeans introduced among the savages of north america firearms, ardent spirits, and iron: they taught them to exchange for manufactured stuffs the rough garments which had previously satisfied their untutored simplicity. having acquired new tastes, without the arts by which they could be gratified, the indians were obliged to have recourse to the workmanship of the whites; but in return for their productions, the savage had nothing to offer except the rich furs which still abounded in his woods. hence the chase became necessary, not merely to provide for his subsistence, but in order to procure the only objects of barter which he could furnish to europe.{210} while the wants of the natives were thus increasing, their resources continued to diminish. from the moment when a european settlement is formed in the neighborhood of the territory occupied by the indians, the beasts of chase take the alarm.{211} thousands of savages, wandering in the forest and destitute of any fixed dwelling, did not disturb them; but as soon as the continuous sounds of european labor are heard in the neighborhood, they begin to flee away, and retire to the west, where their instinct teaches them that they will find deserts of immeasurable extent. "the buffalo is constantly receding", say messrs. clarke and cass in their report of the year 1829; "a few years since they approached the base of the allegany; and a few years hence they may even be rare upon the immense plains which extend to the base of the rocky mountains." i have been assured that this effect of the approach of the whites is often felt at two hundred leagues' distance from the frontier. their influence is thus exerted over tribes whose name is unknown to them, and who suffer the evils of usurpation long before they are acquainted with the authors of their distress.{212}

bold adventurers soon penetrate into the country the indians have deserted, and when they have advanced about fifteen or twenty leagues from the extreme frontiers of the whites, they begin to build habitations for civilized beings in the midst of the wilderness. this is done without difficulty, as the territory of a hunting nation is ill defined; it is the common property of the tribe, and belongs to no one in particular, so that individual interests are not concerned in the protection of any part of it.

a few european families, settled in different situations at a considerable distance from each other, soon drive away the wild animals which remain between their places of abode. the indians, who had previously lived in a sort of abundance, then find it difficult to subsist, and still more difficult to procure the articles of barter which they stand in need of.

to drive away their game is to deprive them of the means of existence, as effectually as if the fields of our agriculturists were stricken with barrenness; and they are reduced, like famished wolves, to prowl through the forsaken woods in quest of prey. their instinctive love of their country attaches them to the soil which gave them birth,{213} even after it has ceased to yield anything but misery and death. at length they are compelled to acquiesce, and to depart: they follow the traces of the elk, the buffalo, and the beaver, and are guided by those wild animals in the choice of their future country. properly speaking, therefore, it is not the europeans who drive away the native inhabitants of america; it is famine which compels them to recede; a happy distinction, which had escaped the casuists of former times, and for which we are indebted to modern discovery.

it is impossible to conceive the extent of the sufferings which attend these forced emigrations. they are undertaken by a people already exhausted and reduced; and the countries to which the new-comers betake themselves are inhabited by other tribes which receive them with jealous hostility. hunger is in the rear; war awaits them, and misery besets them on all sides. in the hope of escaping from such a host of enemies, they separate, and each individual endeavors to procure the means of supporting his existence in solitude and secrecy, living in the immensity of the desert like an outcast in civilized society. the social tie, which distress had long since weakened, is then dissolved; they have lost their country, and their people soon deserts them; their very families are obliterated; the names they bore in common are forgotten, their language perishes, and all the traces of their origin disappear. their nation has ceased to exist, except in the recollection of the antiquaries of america and a few of the learned of europe.

i should be sorry to have my reader suppose that i am coloring the picture too highly: i saw with my own eyes several of the cases of misery which i have been describing; and i was the witness of sufferings which i have not the power to portray.

at the end of the year 1831, while i was on the left bank of the mississippi, at a place named by europeans memphis, there arrived a numerous band of choctaws (or chactas, as they are called by the french in louisiana). these savages had left their country, and were endeavoring to gain the right bank of the mississippi, where they hoped to find an asylum which had been promised them by the american government. it was then in the middle of winter, and the cold was unusually severe; the snow had frozen hard upon the ground, and the river was drifting huge masses of ice. the indians had their families with them; and they brought in their train the wounded and the sick, with children newly born, and old men upon the verge of death. they possessed neither tents nor wagons, but only their arms and some provisions. i saw them embark to pass the mighty river, and never will that solemn spectacle fade from my remembrance. no cry, no sob was heard among the assembled crowd: all were silent. their calamities were of ancient date, and they knew them to be irremediable. the indians had all stepped into the bark which was to carry them across, but their dogs remained upon the bank. as soon as these animals perceived that their masters were finally leaving the shore, they set up a dismal howl, and plunging all together into the icy waters of the mississippi, they swam after the boat.

the ejectment of the indians very often takes place at the present day, in a regular, and, as it were, a legal manner. when the european population begins to approach the limit of the desert inhabited by a savage tribe, the government of the united states usually despatches envoys to them, who assemble the indians in a large plain, and having first eaten and drunk with them, accost them in the following manner: "what have you to do in the land of your fathers? before long you must dig up their bones in order to live. in what respect is the country you inhabit better than another? are there no woods, marshes, or prairies, except where you dwell? and can you live nowhere but under your own sun? beyond those mountains which you see at the horizon, beyond the lake which bounds your territory on the west, there lie vast countries where beasts of chase are found in great abundance; sell your land to us, and go to live happily in those solitudes." after holding this language, they spread before the eyes of the indians fire-arms, woollen garments, kegs of brandy, glass necklaces, bracelets of tinsel, ear-rings, and looking-glasses.{214} if, when they have beheld all these riches, they still hesitate, it is insinuated that they have not the means of refusing their required consent, and that the government itself will not long have the power of protecting them in their rights. what are they to do? half convinced and half compelled, they go to inhabit new deserts, where the importunate whites will not let them remain ten years in tranquillity. in this manner do the americans obtain at a very low price whole provinces, which the richest sovereigns of europe could not purchase.{215}

these are great evils, and it must be added that they appear to me to be irremediable. i believe that the indian nations of north america are doomed to perish: and that whenever the europeans shall be established on the shores of the pacific ocean, that race of men will be no more.{216} the indians had only the two alternatives of war or civilization; in other words, they must either have destroyed the europeans or become their equals.

at the first settlement of the colonies they might have found it possible, by uniting their forces, to deliver themselves from the small bodies of strangers who landed on their continent.{217} they several times attempted to do it, and were on the point of succeeding; but the disproportion of their resources, at the present day, when compared with those of the whites, is too great to allow such an enterprise to be thought of. nevertheless, there do arise from time to time among the indians men of penetration, who foresee the final destiny which awaits the native population, and who exert themselves to unite all the tribes in common hostility to the europeans; but their efforts are unavailing. those tribes which are in the neighborhood of the whites are too much weakened to offer an effectual resistance; while the others, giving way to that childish carelessness of the morrow which characterizes savage life, wait for the near approach of danger before they prepare to meet it: some are unable, the others are unwilling to exert themselves.

it is easy to foresee that the indians will never conform to civilisation; or that it will be too late, whenever they may be inclined to make the experiment.

civilisation is the result of long social process which takes place in the same spot, and is handed down from one generation to another, each one profiting by the experience of the last. of all nations, those submit to civilisation with the most difficulty, which habitually live by the chase. pastoral tribes, indeed, often change their place of abode; but they follow in regular order in their migrations, and often return again to their old stations, while the dwelling of the hunter varies with that of the animals he pursues.

several attempts have been made to diffuse knowledge among the indians, without controlling their wandering propensities; by the jesuits in canada, and by the puritans in new england;{218} but none of these endeavors were crowned by any lasting success. civilisation began in the cabin, but it soon retired to expire in the woods; the great error of these legislators of the indians was their not understanding, that in order to succeed in civilizing a people, it is first necessary to fix it; which cannot be done without inducing it to cultivate the soil: the indians ought in the first place to have been accustomed to agriculture. but not only are they destitute of this indispensable preliminary to civilisation, they would even have great difficulty in acquiring it. men who have once abandoned themselves to the restless and adventurous life of the hunter, feel an insurmountable disgust for the constant and regular labor which tillage requires. we see this proved in the bosom of our own society; but it is far more visible among peoples whose partiality for the chase is a part of their natural character.

independently of this general difficulty, there is another, which applies peculiarly to the indians; they consider labor not merely as an evil, but as a disgrace; so that their pride prevents them from becoming civilized, as much as their indolence.{219}

there is no indian so wretched as not to retain, under his hut of bark, a lofty idea of his personal worth; he considers the cares of industry and labor as degrading occupations, he compares the husbandman to the ox which traces the furrow; and even in our most ingenious handicraft, he can see nothing but the labor of slaves. not that he is devoid of admiration for the power and intellectual greatness of the whites; but although the result of our efforts surprises him, he contemns the means by which we obtain it; and while he acknowledges our ascendency, he still believes in his superiority. war and hunting are the only pursuits which appear to him worthy to be the occupations of a man.{220} the indian, in the dreary solitude of his woods, cherishes the same ideas, the same opinions, as the noble of the middle ages in his castle, and he only requires to become a conqueror to complete the resemblance; thus, however strange it may seem, it is in the forests of the new world, and not among the europeans who people its coasts, that the ancient prejudices of europe are still in existence.

more than once, in the course of this work, i have endeavored to explain the prodigious influence which the social condition appears to exercise upon the laws and the manners of men; and i beg to add a few words on the same subject. when i perceive the resemblance which exists between the political institutions of our ancestors, the germans, and of the wandering tribes of north america: between the customs described by tacitus, and those of which i have sometimes been a witness, i cannot help thinking that the same cause has brought about the same results in both hemispheres; and that in the midst of the apparent diversity of human affairs, a certain number of primary facts may be discovered, from which all the others are derived. in what we usually call the german institutions, then, i am inclined only to perceive barbarian habits; and the opinions of savages, in what we style feudal principles.

however strongly the vices and prejudices of the north american indians may be opposed to their becoming agricultural and civilized, necessity sometimes obliges them to it. several of the southern nations, and among them the cherokees and the creeks,{221} were surrounded by europeans, who had landed on the shores of the atlantic, and who, either descending the ohio or proceeding up the mississippi, arrived simultaneously upon their borders. these tribes have not been driven from place to place, like their northern brethren; but they have been gradually enclosed within narrow limits, like the game within the thicket before the huntsmen plunge into the interior. the indians, who were thus placed between civilisation and death, found themselves obliged to live by ignominious labor like the whites. they took to agriculture, and without entirely forsaking their old habits or manners, sacrificed only as much as was necessary to their existence.

the cherokees went further; they created a written language; established a permanent form of government; and as everything proceeds rapidly in the new world, before they had all of them clothes, they set up a newspaper.{222}

the growth of european habits has been remarkably accelerated among these indians by the mixed race which has sprung up{223}: deriving intelligence from the father's side, without entirely losing the savage customs of the mother, the half-blood forms the natural link between civilisation and barbarism. wherever this race has multiplied, the savage state has become modified, and a great change has taken place in the manners of the people.{224}

the success of the cherokees proves that the indians are capable of civilisation, but it does not prove that they will succeed in it. the difficulty which the indians find in submitting to civilisation proceeds from the influence of a general cause, which it is almost impossible for them to escape. an attentive survey of history demonstrates that, in general, barbarous nations have raised themselves to civilisation by degrees, and by their own efforts. whenever they derived knowledge from a foreign people, they stood toward it in the relation of conquerors, not of a conquered nation. when the conquered nation is enlightened, and the conquerors are half savage, as in the case of the invasion of rome by the northern nations, or that of china by the moguls, the power which victory bestows upon the barbarian is sufficient to keep up his importance among civilized men, and permit him to rank as their equal, until he becomes their rival: the one has might on his side, the other has intelligence; the former admires the knowledge and the arts of the conquered, the latter envies the power of the conquerors. the barbarians at length admit civilized man into their palaces, and he in turn opens his schools to the barbarians. but when the side on which the physical force lies, also possesses an intellectual preponderance, the conquered party seldom becomes civilized; it retreats, or is destroyed. it may therefore be said, in a general way, that savages go forth in arms to seek knowledge, but that they do not receive it when it comes to them.

if the indian tribes which now inhabit the heart of the continent could summon up energy enough to attempt to civilize themselves, they might possibly succeed. superior already to the barbarous nations which surround them, they would gradually gain strength and experience; and when the europeans should appear upon their borders, they would be in a state, if not to maintain their independence, at least to assert their right to the soil, and to incorporate themselves with the conquerors. but it is the misfortune of indians to be brought into contact with a civilized people, which is also (it may be owned) the most avaricious nation on the globe, while they are still semi-barbarian: to find despots in their instructors, and to receive knowledge from the hand of oppression. living in the freedom of the woods, the north american indian was destitute, but he had no feeling of inferiority toward any one; as soon, however, as he desires to penetrate into the social scale of the whites, he takes the lowest rank in society, for he enters ignorant and poor within the pale of science and wealth. after having led a life of agitation, beset with evils and dangers, but at the same time filled with proud emotions,{225} he is obliged to submit to a wearisome, obscure, and degraded state, and to gain the bread which nourishes him by hard and ignoble labor; such are in his eyes the only results of which civilisation can boast: and even this much he is not sure to obtain.

when the indians undertake to imitate their european neighbors, and to till the earth like the settlers, they are immediately exposed to a very formidable competition. the white man is skilled in the craft of agriculture; the indian is a rough beginner in an art with which he is unacquainted. the former reaps abundant crops without difficulty, the latter meets with a thousand obstacles in raising the fruits of the earth.

the european is placed among a population whose wants he knows and partakes. the savage is isolated in the midst of a hostile people, with whose manners, language and laws, he is imperfectly acquainted, but without whose assistance he cannot live. he can only procure the materials of comfort by bartering his commodities against the goods of the european, for the assistance of his countrymen is wholly insufficient to supply his wants. when the indian wishes to sell the produce of his labor, he cannot always meet with a purchaser, while the european readily finds a market; and the former can only produce at a considerable cost, that which the latter vends at a very low rate. thus the indian has no sooner escaped those evils to which barbarous nations are exposed, than he is subjected to the still greater miseries of civilized communities; and he finds it scarcely less difficult to live in the midst of our abundance, than in the depth of his own wilderness.

he has not yet lost the habits of his erratic life; the traditions of his fathers and his passion for the chase are still alive within him. the wild enjoyments which formerly animated him in the woods painfully excite his troubled imagination; and his former privations appear to be less keen, his former perils less appalling. he contrasts the independence which he possessed among his equals with the servile position which he occupies in civilized society. on the other hand, the solitudes which were so long his free home are still at hand; a few hours' march will bring him back to them once more. the whites offer him a sum, which seems to him to be considerable, for the ground which he has begun to clear. this money of the europeans may possibly furnish him with the means of a happy and peaceful subsistence in remote regions; and he quits the plough, resumes his native arms, and returns to the wilderness for ever.{226} the condition of the creeks and cherokees, to which i have already alluded, sufficiently corroborates the truth of this deplorable picture.

the indians, in the little which they have done, have unquestionably displayed as much natural genius as the peoples of europe in their most important designs; but nations as well as men require time to learn, whatever may be their intelligence and their zeal. while the savages were engaged in the work of civilisation, the europeans continued to surround them on every side, and to confine them within narrower limits; the two races gradually met, and they are now in immediate juxtaposition to each other. the indian is already superior to his barbarous parent, but he is still very far below his white neighbor. with their resources and acquired knowledge, the europeans soon appropriated to themselves most of the advantages which the natives might have derived from the possession of the soil: they have settled in the country, they have purchased land at a very low rate or have occupied it by force, and the indians have been ruined by a competition which they had not the means of resisting. they were isolated in their own country, and their race only constituted a colony of troublesome aliens in the midst of a numerous and domineering people.{227}

washington said in one of his messages to congress, "we are more enlightened and powerful than the indian nations, we are therefore bound in honor to treat them with kindness and even with generosity." but this virtuous and high-minded policy has not been followed. the rapacity of the settlers is usually backed by the tyranny of the government. although the cherokees and the creeks are established upon the territory which they inhabited before the settlement of the europeans, and although the americans have frequently treated with them as with foreign nations, the surrounding states have not consented to acknowledge them as an independent people, and attempts have been made to subject these children of the woods to anglo-american magistrates, laws, and customs.{228} destitution had driven these unfortunate indians to civilisation, and oppression now drives them back to their former condition; many of them abandon the soil which they had begun to clear, and return to their savage course of life.

if we consider the tyrannical measures which have been adopted by the legislatures of the southern states, the conduct of their governors, and the decrees of their courts of justice, we shall be convinced that the entire expulsion of the indians is the final result to which the efforts of their policy are directed. the americans of that part of the union look with jealousy upon the aborigines,{229} they are aware that these tribes have not yet lost the traditions of savage life, and before civilisation has permanently fixed them to the soil, it is intended to force them to recede by reducing them to despair. the creeks and cherokees, oppressed by the several states, have appealed to the central government, which is by no means insensible to their misfortunes, and is sincerely desirous of saving the remnant of the natives, and of maintaining them in the free possession of that territory which the union is pledged to respect.{230} but the several states oppose so formidable a resistance to the execution of this design, that the government is obliged to consent to the extirpation of a few barbarous tribes in order not to endanger the safety of the american union.

but the federal government, which is not able to protect the indians, would fain mitigate the hardships of their lot; and, with this intention, proposals have been made to transport them into more remote regions at the public cost.

between the 33d and 37th degrees of north latitude, a vast tract of country lies, which has taken the name of arkansas, from the principal river that waters its extent. it is bounded on the one side by the confines of mexico, on the other by the mississippi. numberless streams cross it in every direction; the climate is mild, and the soil productive, but it is only inhabited by a few wandering hordes of savages. the government of the union wishes to transport the broken remnants of the indigenous population of the south, to the portion of this country which is nearest to mexico, and at a great distance from the american settlements.

we were assured, toward the end of the year 1831, that 10,000 indians had already gone to the shores of the arkansas; and fresh detachments were constantly following them; but congress has been unable to excite a unanimous determination in those whom it is disposed to protect. some, indeed, are willing to quit the seat of oppression, but the most enlightened members of the community refuse to abandon their recent dwellings and the springing crops; they are of opinion that the work of civilisation, once interrupted, will never be resumed; they fear that those domestic habits which have been so recently contracted, may be irrecoverably lost in the midst of a country which is still barbarous, and where nothing is prepared for the subsistence of an agricultural people; they know that their entrance into those wilds will be opposed by inimical hordes, and that they have lost the energy of barbarians, without acquiring the resources of civilisation to resist their attacks. moreover the indians readily discover that the settlement which is proposed to them is merely a temporary expedient. who can assure them that they will at length be allowed to dwell in peace in their new retreat? the united states pledge themselves to the observance of the obligation; but the territory which they at present occupy was formerly secured to them by the most solemn oaths of anglo-american faith.{231} the american government does not indeed rob them of their lands, but it allows perpetual incursions to be made on them. in a few years the same white population which now flocks around them, will track them to the solitudes of the arkansas, they will then be exposed to the same evils without the same remedies; and as the limits of the earth will at last fail them, their only refuge is the grave.

the union treats the indians with less cupidity and rigor than the policy of the several states, but the two governments are alike destitute of good faith. the states extend what they are pleased to term the benefits of their laws to the indians, with a belief that the tribes will recede rather than submit; and the central government, which promises a permanent refuge to these unhappy beings, is well aware of its inability to secure it to them.{232}

thus the tyranny of the states obliges the savages to retire, the union, by its promises and resources facilitates their retreat; and these measures tend to precisely the same end.{233} "by the will of our father in heaven, the governor of the whole world," said the cherokees in their petition to congress,{234} "the red man of america has become small, and the white man great and renowned. when the ancestors of the people of these united states first came to the shores of america, they found the red man strong: though he was ignorant and savage, yet he received them kindly, and gave them dry land to rest their weary feet. they met in peace, and shook hands in token of friendship. whatever the white man wanted and asked of the indian, the latter willingly gave. at that time the indian was the lord, and the white man the suppliant. but now the scene has changed. the strength of the red man has become weakness. as his neighbors increased in numbers, his power became less and less, and now, of the many and powerful tribes who once covered the united states, only a few are to be seen—a few whom a sweeping pestilence had left. the northern tribes, who were once so numerous and powerful, are now nearly extinct. thus it has happened to the red man of america. shall we, who are remnants, share the same fate?

"the land on which we stand we have received as an inheritance from our fathers who possessed it from time immemorial, as a gift from our common father in heaven. they bequeathed it to us as their children, and we have sacredly kept it, as containing their remains. this right of inheritance we have never ceded, nor ever forfeited. permit us to ask what better right can the people have to a country than the right of inheritance and immemorial peaceable possession? we know it is said of late by the state of georgia and by the executive of the united states, that we have forfeited this right; but we think it is said gratuitously. at what time have we made the forfeit? what great crime have we committed, whereby we must for ever be divested of our country and rights? was it when we were hostile to the united states, and took part with the king of great britain, during the struggle for independence? if so, why was not this forfeiture declared in the first treaty which followed that war? why was not such an article as the following inserted in the treaty: 'the united states give peace to the cherokees, but for the part they took in the last war, declare them to be but tenants at will, to be removed when the convenience of the states, within whose chartered limits they live, shall require it?' that was the proper time to assume such a possession. but it was not thought of, nor would our forefathers have agreed to any treaty, whose tendency was to deprive them of their rights and their country."

such is the language of the indians: their assertions are true, their forebodings inevitable. from whichever side we consider the destinies of the aborigines of north america, their calamities appear to be irremediable: if they continue barbarous, they are forced to retire: if they attempt to civilize their manners, the contact of a more civilized community subjects them to oppression and destitution. they perish if they continue to wander from waste to waste, and if they attempt to settle, they still must perish; the assistance of europeans is necessary to instruct them, but the approach of europeans corrupts and repels them into savage life; they refuse to change their habits as long as their solitudes are their own, and it is too late to change them when they are constrained to submit.

the spaniards pursued the indians with blood-hounds, like wild beasts; and they sacked the new world with no more temper or compassion than a city taken by storm: but destruction must cease, and phrensy be stayed; the remnant of the indian population, which had escaped the massacre, mixed with its conquerors and adopted their religion and manners.{235} the conduct of the americans of the united states towards the aborigines is characterized, on the other hand, by a singular attachment to the formalities of law. provided that the indians retain their barbarous condition, the americans take no part in their affairs: they treat them as independent nations, and do not possess themselves of their hunting grounds without a treaty of purchase; and if an indian nation happens to be so encroached upon as to be unable to subsist upon its territory, they afford it brotherly assistance in transporting it to a grave sufficiently remote from the land of its fathers.

the spaniards were unable to exterminate the indian race by those unparalleled atrocities which brand them with indelible shame, nor did they even succeed in wholly depriving it of its rights; but the americans of the united states have accomplished this twofold purpose with singular felicity; tranquilly, legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, and without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world.{236} it is impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of humanity.

situation of the black population in the united states, and dangers with which its presence threatens the whites.

why it is more difficult to abolish slavery, and to efface all vestiges of it among the moderns, than it was among the ancients.—in the united states the prejudices of the whites against the blacks seem to increase in proportion as slavery is abolished.—situation of the negroes in the northern and southern states.—why the americans abolish slavery.—servitude, which debases the slave, impoverishes the master.—contrast between the left and the right bank of the ohio.—to what attributable.—the black race, as well as slavery, recedes toward the south.—explanation of this fact.—difficulties attendant upon the abolition of slavery in the south.—dangers to come.—general anxiety.—foundation of a black colony in africa.—why the americans of the south increase the hardships of slavery, while they are distressed at its continuance.

the indians will perish in the same isolated condition in which they have lived; but the destiny of the negroes is in some measure interwoven with that of the europeans. these two races are attached to each other without intermingling; and they are alike unable entirely to separate or to combine. the most formidable of all the ills which threaten the future existence of the united states, arises from the presence of a black population upon its territory; and in contemplating the causes of the present embarrassments or of the future dangers of the united states, the observer is invariably led to consider this as a primary fact.

the permanent evils to which mankind is subjected are usually produced by the vehement or the increasing efforts of men; but there is one calamity which penetrated furtively into the world, and which was at first scarcely distinguishable amid the ordinary abuses of power: it originated with an individual whose name history has not preserved; it was wafted like some accursed germ upon a portion of the soil, but it afterward nurtured itself, grew without effort, and spreads naturally with the society to which it belongs. i need scarcely add that this calamity is slavery. christianity suppressed slavery, but the christians of the sixteenth century re-established it—as an exception, indeed, to their social system, and restricted to one of the races of mankind; but the wound thus inflicted upon humanity, though less extensive, was at the same time rendered far more difficult of cure.

it is important to make an accurate distinction between slavery itself and its consequences. the immediate evils which are produced by slavery were very nearly the same in antiquity as they are among the moderns; but the consequences of these evils were different. the slave, among the ancients, belonged to the same race as his master, and he was often the superior of the two in education{237} and instruction. freedom was the only distinction between them; and when freedom was conferred, they were easily confounded together. the ancients, then, had a very simple means of avoiding slavery and its evil consequences, which was that of enfranchisement; and they succeeded as soon as they adopted this measure generally. not but, in ancient states, the vestiges of servitude subsisted for some time after servitude was abolished. there is a natural prejudice which prompts men to despise whomsoever has been their inferior, long after he has become their equal; and the real inequality which is produced by fortune or by law, is always succeeded by an imaginary inequality which is implanted in the manners of the people. nevertheless, this secondary consequence of slavery was limited to a certain term among the ancients; for the freedman bore so entire a resemblance to those born free, that it soon became impossible to distinguish him from among them.

the greatest difficulty in antiquity was that of altering the law; among the moderns it is of altering the manners; and, as far as we are concerned, the real obstacles begin where those of the ancients left off. this arises from the circumstance that, among the moderns, the abstract and transient fact of slavery is fatally united to the physical and permanent fact of color. the tradition of slavery dishonors the race, and the peculiarity of the race perpetuates the tradition of slavery. no african has ever voluntarily emigrated to the shores of the new world; whence it must be inferred, that all the blacks who are now to be found in that hemisphere are either slaves or freedmen. thus the negro transmits the eternal mark of his ignominy to all his descendants; and although the law may abolish slavery, god alone can obliterate the traces of its existence.

the modern slave differs from his master not only in his condition, but in his origin. you may set the negro free, but you cannot make him otherwise than an alien to the european. nor is this all; we scarcely acknowledge the common features of mankind in this child of debasement whom slavery has brought among us. his physiognomy is to our eyes hideous, his understanding weak, his tastes low; and we are almost inclined to look upon him as a being intermediate between man and the brutes.{238} the moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend against, which are less easy to attack, and far less easy to conquer, than the mere fact of servitude: the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of the race, and the prejudice of color.

it is difficult for us, who have had the good fortune to be born among men like ourselves by nature, and equal to ourselves by law, to conceive the irreconcilable differences which separate the negro from the european in america. but we may derive some faint notion of them from analogy. france was formerly a country in which numerous distinctions of rank existed, that had been created by the legislation. nothing can be more fictitious than a purely legal inferiority; nothing more contrary to the instinct of mankind than these permanent divisions which had been established between beings evidently similar. nevertheless these divisions subsisted for ages; they still subsist in many places; and on all sides they have left imaginary vestiges, which time alone can efface. if it be so difficult to root out an inequality which solely originates in the law, how are those distinctions to be destroyed which seem to be founded upon the immutable laws of nature herself? when i remember the extreme difficulty with which aristocratic bodies, of whatever nature they may be, are commingled with the mass of the people; and the exceeding care which they take to preserve the ideal boundaries of their caste inviolate, i despair of seeing an aristocracy disappear which is founded upon visible and indelible signs. those who hope that the europeans will ever mix with the negroes, appear to me to delude themselves; and i am not led to any such conclusion by my own reason, or by the evidence of facts.

hitherto, wherever the whites have been the most powerful, they have maintained the blacks in a subordinate or a servile position; wherever the negroes have been strongest, they have destroyed the whites; such has been the only course of events which has ever taken place between the two races.

i see that in a certain portion of the territory of the united states at the present day, the legal barrier which separated the two races is tending to fall away, but not that which exists in the manners of the country; slavery recedes, but the prejudice to which it has given birth remains stationary. whosoever has inhabited the united states, must have perceived, that in those parts of the union in which the negroes are no longer slaves, they have in nowise drawn nearer to the whites. on the contrary, the prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the states which have abolished slavery, than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known.

it is true, that in the north of the union, marriages may be legally contracted between negroes and whites, but public opinion would stigmatize a man who should connect himself with a negress as infamous, and it would be difficult to meet with a single instance of such a union. the electoral franchise has been conferred upon the negroes in almost all the states in which slavery has been abolished; but if they come forward to vote, their lives are in danger. if oppressed, they may bring an action at law, but they will find none but whites among their judges; and although they may legally serve as jurors, prejudice repulses them from that office. the same schools do not receive the child of the black and of the european. in the theatres, gold cannot procure a seat for the servile race beside their former masters; in the hospitals they lie apart; and although they are allowed to invoke the same divinity as the whites, it must be at a different altar, and in their own churches, with their own clergy. the gates of heaven are not closed against these unhappy beings; but their inferiority is continued to the very confines of the other world. when the negro is defunct, his bones are cast aside, and the distinction of condition prevails even in the equality of death. the negro is free, but he can share neither the rights, nor the pleasure, nor the labor, nor the afflictions, nor the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared to be; and he cannot meet him upon fair terms in life or in death.

in the south, where slavery still exists, the negroes are less carefully kept apart; they sometimes share the labor and the recreations of the whites; the whites consent to intermix with them to a certain extent, and although the legislation treats them more harshly, the habits of the people are more tolerant and compassionate. in the south the master is not afraid to raise his slave to his own standing, because he knows that he can in a moment reduce him to the dust at pleasure. in the north, the white no longer distinctly perceives the barrier which separates him from the degraded race, and he shuns the negro with the more pertinacity, because he fears lest they should be some day confounded together.

among the americans of the south, nature sometimes reasserts her rights, and restores a transient equality between the blacks and the whites; but in the north, pride restrains the most imperious of human passions. the american of the northern states would perhaps allow the negress to share his licentious pleasures, if the laws of his country did not declare that she may aspire to be the legitimate partner of his bed; but he recoils with horror from her who might become his wife.

thus it is, in the united states, that the prejudice which repels the negroes seems to increase in proportion as they are emancipated, and inequality is sanctioned by the manners while it is effaced from the laws of the country. but if the relative position of the two races which inhabit the united states, is such as i have described, it may be asked why the americans have abolished slavery in the north of the union, why they maintain it in the south, and why they aggravate its hardships there? the answer is easily given. it is not for the good of the negroes, but for that of the whites, that measures are taken to abolish slavery in the united states.

the first negroes were imported into virginia about the year 1621.{239} in america, therefore, as well as in the rest of the globe, slavery originated in the south. thence it spread from one settlement to another; but the number of slaves diminished toward the northern states, and the negro population was always very limited in new england.{240}

a century had scarcely elapsed since the foundation of the colonies, when the attention of the planters was struck by the extraordinary fact, that the provinces which were comparatively destitute of slaves, increased in population, in wealth, and in prosperity, more rapidly than those which contained the greatest number of negroes. in the former, however, the inhabitants were obliged to cultivate the soil themselves, or by hired laborers; in the latter, they were furnished with hands for which they paid no wages; yet, although labor and expense were on the one side, and ease with economy on the other, the former were in possession of the most advantageous system. this consequence seemed to be the more difficult to explain, since the settlers, who all belonged to the same european race, had the same habits, the same civilisation, the same laws, and their shades of difference were extremely slight.

time, however, continued to advance; and the anglo americans, spreading beyond the coasts of the atlantic ocean, penetrated farther and farther into the solitudes of the west; they met with a new soil and an unwonted climate; the obstacles which opposed them were of the most various character; their races intermingled, the inhabitants of the south went up toward the north, those of the north descended to the south; but in the midst of all these causes, the same result recurred at every step; and in general, the colonies in which there were no slaves became more populous and more rich than those in which slavery flourished. the more progress was made, the more was it shown that slavery, which is so cruel to the slave, is prejudicial to the master.

but this truth was most satisfactorily demonstrated when civilisation reached the banks of the ohio. the stream which the indians had distinguished by the name of ohio, or beautiful river, waters one of the most magnificent valleys which have ever been made the abode of man. undulating lands extend upon both shores of the ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is wholesome and the climate mild; and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast state: that which follows the numerous windings of the ohio upon the left is called kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. these two states only differ in a single respect; kentucky has admitted slavery, but the state of ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders.{241}

thus the traveller who floats down the current of the ohio, to the spot where that river falls into the mississippi, may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of the surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is most favorable to mankind.

upon the left bank of the stream the population is rare; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primeval forest recurs at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and of life.

from the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborer; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which are the reward of labor.{242}

the state of kentucky was founded in 1775, the state of ohio only twelve years later; but twelve years are more in america than half a century in europe, and, at the present day, the population of ohio exceeds that of kentucky by 250,000 souls.{243} these opposite consequences of slavery and freedom may readily be understood; and they suffice to explain many of the differences which we remark between the civilisation of antiquity and that of our own time.

upon the left bank of the ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, upon the right bank it is identified with that of prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honored; on the former territory no white laborers can be found, for they would be afraid of assimilating themselves to the negroes; on the latter no one is idle, for the white population extends its activity and its intelligence to every kind of employment. thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich soil of kentucky are ignorant and lukewarm; while those who are active and enlightened either do nothing, or pass over into the state of ohio, where they may work without dishonor.

it is true that in kentucky the planters are not obliged to pay wages to the slaves whom they employ; but they derive small profits from their labor, while the wages paid to free workmen would be returned with interest in the value of their services. the free workman is paid, but he does his work quicker than the slave; and rapidity of execution is one of the great elements of economy. the white sells his services, but they are only purchased at the times at which they may be useful; the black can claim no remuneration for his toil, but the expense of his maintenance is perpetual; he must be supported in his old age as well as in the prime of manhood, in his profitless infancy as well as in the productive years of youth. payment must equally be made in order to obtain the services of either class of men; the free workman receives his wages in money; the slave in education, in food, in care, and in clothing. the money which a master spends in the maintenance of his slaves, goes gradually and in detail, so that it is scarcely perceived; the salary of the free workman is paid in a round sum, which appears only to enrich the individual who receives it; but in the end the slave has cost more than the free servant, and his labor is less productive.{244}

the influence of slavery extends still farther; it affects the character of the master, and imparts a peculiar tendency to his ideas and his tastes. upon both banks of the ohio, the character of the inhabitants is enterprising and energetic; but this vigor is very differently exercised in the two states. the white inhabitant of ohio, who is obliged to subsist by his own exertions, regards temporal prosperity as the principal aim of his existence; and as the country which he occupies presents inexhaustible resources to his industry, and ever-varying lures to his activity, his acquisitive ardor surpasses the ordinary limits of human cupidity: he is tormented by the desire of wealth, and he boldly enters upon every path which fortune opens to him; he becomes a sailor, pioneer, an artisan, or a laborer, with the same indifference, and he supports, with equal constancy, the fatigues and the dangers incidental to these various professions; the resources of his intelligence are astonishing, and his avidity in the pursuit of gain amounts to a species of heroism.

but the kentuckian scorns not only labor, but all the undertakings which labor promotes; as he lives in an idle independence, his tastes are those of an idle man; money loses a portion of its value in his eyes; he covets wealth much less than pleasure and excitement; and the energy which his neighbor devotes to gain, turns with him to a passionate love of field sports and military exercises; he delights in violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat. thus slavery not only prevents the whites from becoming opulent, but even from desiring to become so.

as the same causes have been continually producing opposite effects for the last two centuries in the british colonies of north america, they have established a very striking difference between the commercial capacity of the inhabitants of the south and that of the north. at the present day, it is only the northern states which are in possession of shipping, manufactures, railroads, and canals. this difference is perceptible not only in comparing the north with the south, but in comparing the several southern states. almost all the individuals who carry on commercial operations, or who endeavor to turn slave-labor to account in the most southern districts of the union, have emigrated from the north. the natives of the northern states are constantly spreading over that portion of the american territory, where they have less to fear from competition; they discover resources there, which escaped the notice of the inhabitants; and, as they comply with a system which they do not approve, they succeed in turning it to better advantage than those who first founded, and who still maintain it.

were i inclined to continue this parallel, i could easily prove that almost all the differences, which may be remarked between the characters of the americans in the southern and in the northern states, have originated in slavery; but this would divert me from my subject, and my present intention is not to point out all the consequences of servitude, but those effects which it has produced upon the prosperity of the countries which have admitted it.

the influence of slavery upon the production of wealth must have been very imperfectly known in antiquity, as slavery then obtained throughout the civilized world, and the nations which were unacquainted with it were barbarous. and indeed christianity only abolished slavery by advocating the claims of the slave; at the present time it may be attacked in the name of the master; and, upon this point, interest is reconciled with morality.

as these truths became apparent in the united states, slavery receded before the progress of experience. servitude had begun in the south, and had thence spread toward the north; but it now retires again. freedom, which started from the north, now descends uninterruptedly toward the south. among the great states, pennsylvania now constitutes the extreme limit of slavery to the north; but even within those limits the slave-system is shaken; maryland, which is immediately below pennsylvania, is preparing for its abolition; and virginia, which comes next to maryland, is already discussing its utility and its dangers.{245}

no great change takes place in human institutions, without involving among its causes the law of inheritance. when the law of primogeniture obtained in the south, each family was represented by a wealthy individual, who was neither compelled nor induced to labor; and he was surrounded, as by parasitic plants, by the other members of his family, who were then excluded by law from sharing the common inheritance, and who led the same kind of life as himself. the very same thing then occurred in all the families of the south that still happens in the wealthy families of some countries in europe, namely, that the younger sons remain in the same state of idleness as their elder brother, without being as rich as he is. this identical result seems to be produced in europe and in america by wholly analogous causes. in the south of the united states, the whole race of whites formed an aristocratic body, which was headed by a certain number of privileged individuals, whose wealth was permanent, and whose leisure was hereditary. these leaders of the american nobility kept alive the traditional prejudices of the white race in the body of which they were the representatives, and maintained the honor of inactive life. this aristocracy contained many who were poor, but none who would work; its members preferred want to labor; consequently no competition was set on foot against negro laborers and slaves, and whatever opinion might be entertained as to the utility of their efforts, it was indispensable to employ them, since there was no one else to work.

no sooner was the law of primogeniture abolished than fortunes began to diminish, and all the families of the country were simultaneously reduced to a state in which labor became necessary to procure the means of subsistence: several of them have since entirely disappeared; and all of them learned to look forward to the time at which it would be necessary for every one to provide for his own wants. wealthy individuals are still to be met with, but they no longer constitute a compact and hereditary body, nor have they been able to adopt a line of conduct in which they could persevere, and which they could infuse into all ranks of society. the prejudice which stigmatized labor was in the first place abandoned by common consent; the number of needy men was increased, and the needy were allowed to gain a laborious subsistence without blushing for their exertions. thus one of the most immediate consequences of the partible quality of estates has been to create a class of free laborers. as soon as a competition was set on foot between the free laborer and the slave, the inferiority of the latter became manifest, and slavery was attacked in its fundamental principles, which is, the interest of the master.

as slavery recedes, the black population follows its retrograde course, and returns with it to those tropical regions from which it originally came. however singular this fact may at first appear to be, it may readily be explained. although the americans abolish the principle of slavery, they do not set their slaves free. to illustrate this remark i will quote the example of the state of new york. in 1788, the state of new york prohibited the sale of slaves within its limits; which was an indirect method of prohibiting the importation of blacks. thenceforward the number of negroes could only increase according to the ratio of the natural increase of population. but eight years later a more decisive measure was taken, and it was enacted that all children born of slave parents after the 4th of july, 1799, should be free. no increase could then take place, and although slaves still existed, slavery might be said to be abolished.

from the time at which a northern state prohibited the importation of slaves, no slaves were brought from the south to be sold in its markets. on the other hand, as the sale of slaves was forbidden in that state, an owner was no longer able to get rid of his slaves (who thus became a burdensome possession) otherwise than by transporting him to the south. but when a northern state declared that the son of the slave should be born free, the slave lost a large portion of his market value, since his posterity was no longer included in the bargain, and the owner had then a strong interest in transporting him to the south. thus the same law prevents the slaves of the south from coming to the northern states, and drives those of the north to the south.

the want of free hands is felt in a state in proportion as the number of slaves decreases. but in proportion as labor is performed by free hands, slave-labor becomes less productive; and the slave is then a useless or an onerous possession, whom it is important to export to those southern states where the same competition is not to be feared. thus the abolition of slavery does not set the slave free, but it merely transfers him from one master to another, and from the north to the south.

the emancipated negroes, and those born after the abolition of slavery, do not, indeed, migrate from the north to the south; but their situation with regard to the europeans is not unlike that of the aborigines of america; they remain half civilized, and deprived of their rights in the midst of a population which is far superior to them in wealth and in knowledge; where they are exposed to the tyranny of the laws,{246} and the intolerance of the people. on some accounts they are still more to be pitied than the indians, since they are haunted by the reminiscence of slavery, and they cannot claim possession of a single portion of the soil: many of them perish miserably,{247} and the rest congregate in the great towns, where they perform the meanest offices, and lead a wretched and precarious existence.

but even if the number of negroes continued to increase as rapidly as when they were still in a state of slavery, as the number of whites augments with twofold rapidity since the abolition of slavery, the blacks would soon be, as it were, lost in the midst of a strange population.

a district which is cultivated by slaves is in general more scantily peopled than a district cultivated by free labor: moreover, america is still a new country, and a state is therefore not half peopled at the time when it abolished slavery. no sooner is an end put to slavery, than the want of free labor is felt, and a crowd of enterprising adventurers immediately arrive from all parts of the country, who hasten to profit by the fresh resources which are then opened to industry. the soil is soon divided among them, and a family of white settlers takes possession of each tract of country. besides which, european emigration is exclusively directed to the free states; for what would be the fate of a poor emigrant who crosses the atlantic in search of ease and happiness, if he were to land in a country where labor is stigmatized as degrading?

thus the white population grows by its natural increase, and at the same time by the immense influx of emigrants; while the black population receives no emigrants, and is upon its decline. the proportion which existed between the two races is soon inverted. the negroes constitute a scanty remnant, a poor tribe of vagrants, which is lost in the midst of an immense people in full possession of the land; and the presence of the blacks is only marked by the injustice and the hardships of which they are the unhappy victims.

in several of the western states the negro race never made its appearance; and in all the northern states it is rapidly declining. thus the great question of its future condition is confined within a narrow circle, where it becomes less formidable, though not more easy of solution.

the more we descend toward the south, the more difficult does it become to abolish slavery with advantage: and this arises from several physical causes, which it is important to point out.

the first of these causes is the climate: it is well known that in proportion as europeans approach the tropics, they suffer more from labor. many of the americans even assert, that within a certain latitude the exertions which a negro can make without danger are fatal to them;{248} but i do not think that this opinion, which is so favorable to the indolence of the inhabitants of southern regions, is confirmed by experience. the southern parts of the union are not hotter than the south of italy and of spain;{249} and it may be asked why the european cannot work as well there as in the two latter countries. if slavery has been abolished in italy and in spain without causing the destruction of the masters, why should not the same thing take place in the union? i cannot believe that nature has prohibited the europeans in georgia and the floridas, under pain of death, from raising the means of subsistence from the soil; but their labor would unquestionably be more irksome and less productive{250} to them than the inhabitants of new england. as the free workman thus loses a portion of his superiority over the slave in the southern states, there are fewer inducements to abolish slavery.

all the plants of europe grow in the northern parts of the union; the south has special productions of its own. it has been observed that slave labor is a very expensive method of cultivating corn. the farmer of corn-land in a country where slavery is unknown, habitually retains a small number of laborers in his service, and at seed-time and harvest he hires several additional hands, who only live at his cost for a short period. but the agriculturist in a slave state is obliged to keep a large number of slaves the whole year round, in order to sow his fields and to gather in his crops, although their services are only required for a few weeks; but slaves are unable to wait till they are hired, and to subsist by their own labor in the meantime like free laborers; in order to have their services, they must be bought. slavery, independently of its general disadvantages, is therefore still more inapplicable to countries in which corn is cultivated than to those which produce crops of a different kind.

the cultivation of tobacco, of cotton, and especially of the sugar-cane, demands, on the other hand, unremitting attention: and women and children are employed in it, whose services are of but little use in the cultivation of wheat. thus slavery is naturally more fitted to the countries from which these productions are derived.

tobacco, cotton, and the sugar-cane, are exclusively grown in the south, and they form one of the principal sources of the wealth of those states. if slavery were abolished, the inhabitants of the south would be constrained to adopt one of two alternatives: they must either change their system of cultivation, and then they would come into competition with the more active and more experienced inhabitants of the north; or, if they continued to cultivate the same produce without slave labor, they would have to support the competition of the other states of the south, which might still retain their slaves. thus, peculiar reasons for maintaining slavery exist in the south which do not operate in the north.

but there is yet another motive which is more cogent than all the others; the south might indeed, rigorously speaking, abolish slavery, but how should it rid its territory of the black population? slaves and slavery are driven from the north by the same law, but this twofold result cannot be hoped for in the south.

the arguments which i have adduced to show that slavery is more natural and more advantageous in the south than in the north, sufficiently prove that the number of slaves must be far greater in the former districts. it was to the southern settlements that the first africans were brought, and it is there that the greatest number of them have always been imported. as we advance toward the south, the prejudice which sanctions idleness increases in power. in the states nearest to the tropics there is not a single white laborer; the negroes are consequently much more numerous in the south than in the north. and, as i have already observed, this disproportion increases daily, since the negroes are transferred to one part of the union as soon as slavery is abolished in the other. thus the black population augments in the south, not only by its natural fecundity, but by the compulsory emigration of the negroes from the north; and the african race has causes of increase in the south very analogous to those which so powerfully accelerate the growth of the european race in the north.

in the state of maine there is one negro in three hundred inhabitants; in massachusetts, one in one hundred; in new york, two in one hundred; in pennsylvania, three in the same number; in maryland, thirty-four; in virginia, forty-two; and lastly, in south carolina, fifty-five per cent.{251} such was the proportion of the black population to the whites in the year 1830. but this proportion is perpetually changing, as it constantly decreases in the north and augments in the south.

it is evident that the most southern states of the union cannot abolish slavery without incurring very great dangers, which the north had no reason to apprehend when it emancipated its black population. we have already shown the system by which the northern states secure the transition from slavery to freedom, by keeping the present generation in chains, and setting their descendants free; by this means the negroes are gradually introduced into society; and while the men who might abuse their freedom are kept in a state of servitude, those who are emancipated may learn the art of being free before they become their own masters. but it would be difficult to apply this method in the south. to declare that all the negroes born after a certain period shall be free, is to introduce the principle and the notion of liberty into the heart of slavery; the blacks, whom the law thus maintains in a state of slavery from which their children are delivered, are astonished at so unequal a fate, and their astonishment is only the prelude to their impatience and irritation. thenceforward slavery loses in their eyes that kind of moral power which it derived from time and habit; it is reduced to a mere palpable abuse of force. the northern states had nothing to fear from the contrast, because in them the blacks were few in number, and the white population was very considerable. but if this faint dawn of freedom were to show two millions of men their true position, the oppressors would have reason to tremble. after having enfranchised the children of their slaves, the europeans of the southern states would very shortly be obliged to extend the same benefit to the whole black population.

in the north, as i have already remarked, a two-fold migration ensues upon the abolition of slavery, or even precedes that event when circumstances have rendered it probable; the slaves quit the country to be transported southward; and the whites of the northern states as well as the emigrants from europe hasten to fill up their place. but these two causes cannot operate in the same manner in the southern states. on the one hand, the mass of slaves is too great for any expectation of their ever being removed from the country to be entertained; and on the other hand, the europeans and the anglo-americans of the north are afraid to come to inhabit a country, in which labor has not yet been reinstated in its rightful honors. besides, they very justly look upon the states in which the proportion of the negroes equals or exceeds that of the whites, as exposed to very great dangers; and they refrain from turning their activity in that direction.

thus the inhabitants if the south would not be able, like their northern countrymen, to initiate the slaves gradually into a state of freedom, by abolishing slavery; they have no means of perceptibly diminishing the black population, and they would remain unsupported to repress its excesses. so that in the course of a few years, a great people of free negroes would exist in the heart of a white nation of equal size.

the same abuses of power which still maintain slavery, would then become the source of the most alarming perils, which the white population of the south might have to apprehend. at the present time the descendants of the europeans are the sole owners of the land; the absolute masters of all labor; and the only persons who are possessed of wealth, knowledge, and arms. the black is destitute of all these advantages, but he subsists without them because he is a slave. if he were free, and obliged to provide for his own subsistence, would it be possible for him to remain without these things and to support life? or would not the very instruments of the present superiority of the white, while slavery exists, expose him to a thousand dangers if it were abolished?

as long as the negro remains a slave, he may be kept in a condition not very far removed from that of the brutes; but, with his liberty, he cannot but acquire a degree of instruction which will enable him to appreciate his misfortunes, and to discern a remedy for them. moreover, there exists a singular principle of relative justice which is very firmly implanted in the human heart. men are much more forcibly struck by those inequalities which exist within the circles of the same class, than with those which may be remarked between different classes. it is more easy for them to admit slavery, than to allow several millions of citizens to exist under a load of eternal infamy and hereditary wretchedness. in the north, the population of freed negroes feels these hardships and resents these indignities; but its members and its powers are small, while in the south it would be numerous and strong.

as soon as it is admitted that the whites and the emancipated blacks are placed upon the same territory in the situation of two alien communities, it will readily be understood that there are but two alternatives for the future; the negroes and the whites must either wholly part or wholly mingle. i have already expressed the conviction which i entertain as to the latter event.{252} i do not imagine that the white and the black races will ever live in any country upon an equal footing. but i believe the difficulty to be still greater in the united states than elsewhere. an isolated individual may surmount the prejudices of religion, of his country, or of his race, and if this individual is a king he may effect surprising changes in society; but a whole people cannot rise, as it were, above itself. a despot who should subject the americans and their former slaves to the same yoke, might perhaps succeed in commingling their races; but as long as the american democracy remains at the head of affairs, no one will undertake so difficult a task; and it may be foreseen that the freer the white population of the united states becomes, the more isolated will it remain.{253}

i have previously observed that the mixed race is the true bond of union between the europeans and the indians; just so the mulattoes are the true means of transition between the white and the negro; so that wherever mulattoes abound, the intermixture of the two races is not impossible. in some parts of america the european and the negro races are so crossed by one another, that it is rare to meet with a man who is entirely black or entirely white: when they are arrived at this point, the two races may really be said to be combined; or rather to have been absorbed in a third race, which is connected with both, without being identical with either.

of all the europeans the english are those who have mixed least with the negroes. more mulattoes are to be seen in the south of the union than in the north, but still they are infinitely more scarce than in any other european colony: mulattoes are by no means numerous in the united states; they have no force peculiar to themselves, and when quarrels originating in differences of color take place, they generally side with the whites, just as the lacqueys of the great in europe assume the contemptuous airs of nobility to the lower orders.

the pride of origin, which is natural to the english, is singularly augmented by the personal pride which democratic liberty fosters among the americans: the white citizen of the united states is proud of his race, and proud of himself. but if the whites and the negroes do not intermingle in the north of the union, how should they mix in the south? can it be supposed for an instant, that an american of the southern states, placed, as he must for ever be, between the white man with all his physical and moral superiority, and the negro, will ever think of preferring the latter? the americans of the southern states have two powerful passions, which will always keep them aloof; the first is the fear of being assimilated to the negroes, their former slaves; and the second, the dread of sinking below the whites, their neighbors.

if i were called upon to predict what will probably occur at some future time, i should say, that the abolition of slavery in the south, will, in the common course of things, increase the repugnance of the white population for the men of color. i found this opinion upon the analogous observation which i already had occasion to make in the north. i there remarked, that the white inhabitants of the north avoid the negroes with increasing care, in proportion as the legal barriers of separation are removed by the legislature; and why should not the same result take place in the south? in the north, the whites are deterred from intermingling with the blacks by the fear of an imaginary danger; in the south, where the danger would be real, i cannot imagine that the fear would be less general.

if, on the one hand, it be admitted (and the fact is unquestionable), that the colored population perpetually accumulates in the extreme south, and that it increases more rapidly than that of the whites; and if, on the other hand, it be allowed that it is impossible to foresee a time at which the whites and the blacks will be so intermingled as to derive the same benefits from society; must it not be inferred, that the blacks and the whites will, sooner or later, come to open strife in the southern states of the union? but if it be asked what the issue of the struggle is likely to be, it will readily be understood, that we are here left to form a very vague surmise of the truth. the human mind may succeed in tracing a wide circle, as it were, which includes the course of future events; but within that circle a thousand various chances and circumstances may direct it in as many different ways; and in every picture of the future there is a dim spot, which the eye of the understanding cannot penetrate. it appears, however, to be extremely probable, that, in the west india islands the white race is destined to be subdued, and the black population to share the same fate upon the continent.

in the west india islands the white planters are surrounded by an immense black population; on the continent, the blacks are placed between the ocean and an innumerable people, which already extends over them in a dense mass from the icy confines of canada to the frontiers of virginia, and from the banks of the missouri to the shores of the atlantic. if the white citizens of north america remain united, it cannot be supposed that the negroes will escape the destruction with which they are menaced; they must be subdued by want or by the sword. but the black population which is accumulating along the coast of the gulf of mexico, has a chance of success, if the american union is dissolved when the struggle between the two races begins. if the federal tie were broken, the citizens of the south would be wrong to rely upon any lasting succor from their northern countrymen. the latter are well aware that the danger can never reach them; and unless they are constrained to march to the assistance of the south by a positive obligation, it may be foreseen that the sympathy of color will be insufficient to stimulate their exertions.

yet, at whatever period the strife may break out, the whites of the south, even if they are abandoned to their own resources, will enter the lists with an immense superiority of knowledge and of the means of warfare: but the blacks will have numerical strength and the energy of despair upon their side; and these are powerful resources to men who have taken up arms. the fate of the white population of the southern states will, perhaps, be similar to that of the moors in spain. after having occupied the land for centuries, it will perhaps be forced to retire to the country whence its ancestors came, and to abandon to the negroes the possession of a territory, which providence seems to have more peculiarly destined for them, since they can subsist and labor in it more easily than the whites.

the danger of a conflict between the white and the black inhabitants of the southern states of the union—a danger which, however remote it may be, is inevitable—perpetually haunts the imagination of the americans. the inhabitants of the north make it a common topic of conversation, although they have no direct injury to fear from the struggle; but they vainly endeavor to devise some means of obviating the misfortunes which they foresee. in the southern states the subject is not discussed: the planter does not allude to the future in conversing with strangers; the citizen does not communicate his apprehensions to his friends: he seeks to conceal them from himself: but there is something more alarming in the tacit forebodings of the south, than in the clamorous fears of the northern states.

this all-pervading disquietude has given birth to an undertaking which is but little known, but which may have the effect of changing the fate of a portion of the human race. from apprehension of the dangers which i have just been describing, a certain number of american citizens have formed a society for the purpose of exporting to the coast of guinea, at their own expense, such free negroes as may be willing to escape from the oppression to which they are subject.{254} in 1820, the society to which i allude formed a settlement in africa, upon the 7th degree of north latitude, which bears the name of liberia. the most recent intelligence informs us that two thousand five hundred negroes are collected there; they have introduced the democratic institutions of america into the country of their forefathers; and liberia has a representative system of government, negro-jurymen, negro-magistrates, and negro-priests; churches have been built, newspapers established, and, by a singular change in the vicissitudes of the world, white men are prohibited from sojourning within the settlement.{255}

this is indeed a strange caprice of fortune. two hundred years have now elapsed since the inhabitants of europe undertook to tear the negro from his family and his home, in order to transport him to the shores of north america; at the present day, the european settlers are engaged in sending back the descendants of those very negroes to the continent from which they were originally taken; and the barbarous africans have been brought into contact with civilisation in the midst of bondage, and have become acquainted with free political institutions in slavery. up to the present time africa has been closed against the arts and sciences of the whites; but the inventions of europe will perhaps penetrate into those regions, now that they are introduced by africans themselves. the settlement of liberia is founded upon a lofty and a most fruitful idea; but whatever may be its results with regard to the continent of africa, it can afford no remedy to the new world.

in twelve years the colonization society has transported two thousand five hundred negroes to africa; in the same space of time about seven hundred thousand blacks were born in the united states. if the colony of liberia were so situated as to be able to receive thousands of new inhabitants every year, and if the negroes were in a state to be sent thither with advantage; if the union were to supply the society with annual subsidies,{256} and to transport the negroes to liberia, there is little chance that the negro population of the united states would change.

in the south, however, this leaves two choices: either for the whites to remain in communities with the negroes, and to intermingle with them; or, remaining isolated from them, to keep them in a state of slavery as long as possible. all intermediate measures seem to me likely to terminate, and that shortly, in the most horrible of civil wars, and perhaps in the extirpation of one or other of the two races. such is the view which the americans of the south take of the question, and they act consistently with it. as they are determined not to mingle with the negroes, they refuse to emancipate them.

not that the inhabitants of the south regard slavery as necessary to the wealth of the planter; for on this point many of them agree with their northern countrymen in freely admitting that slavery is prejudicial to their interests; but they are convinced that, however prejudicial it may be, they hold their lives upon no other tenure. the instruction which is now diffused in the south has convinced the inhabitants that slavery is injurious to the slave-owner, but it has also shown them, more clearly than before, that no means exist of getting rid of its bad consequences. hence arises a singular contrast; the more the utility of slavery is contested, the more firmly is it established in the laws; and while the principle of servitude is gradually abolished in the north, that self-same principle gives rise to more and more rigorous consequences in the south.

the legislation of the southern states, with regard to slaves, presents at the present day such unparalleled atrocities, as suffice to show how radically the laws of humanity have been perverted, and to betray the desperate position of the community in which that legislation has been promulgated. the americans of this portion of the union have not, indeed, augmented the hardships of slavery; they have, on the contrary, bettered the physical condition of the slaves. the only means by which the ancients maintained slavery were fetters and death; the americans of the south of the union have discovered more intellectual securities for the duration of their power. they have employed their despotism and their violence against the human mind. in antiquity, precautions were taken to prevent the slave from breaking his chains; at the present day measures are adopted to deprive him even of the desire of freedom. the ancients kept the bodies of their slaves in bondage, but they placed no restraint upon the mind and no check upon education; and they acted consistently with their established principle, since a natural termination of slavery then existed, and one day or other the slave might be set free, and become the equal of his master. but the americans of the south, who do not admit that the negroes can ever be commingled with themselves, have forbidden them to be taught to read or to write, under severe penalties; and as they will not raise them to their own level, they sink them as nearly as possible to that of the brutes.

the hope of liberty had always been allowed to the slave to cheer the hardships of his condition. but the americans of the south are well aware that emancipation cannot but be dangerous, when the freed man can never be assimilated to his former master. to give a man his freedom, and to leave him in wretchedness and ignominy, is nothing less than to prepare a future chief for a revolt of the slaves. moreover, it has long been remarked, that the presence of a free negro vaguely agitates the minds of his less fortunate brethren, and conveys to them a dim notion of their rights. the americans of the south have consequently taken measures to prevent slave-owners from emancipating their slaves in most cases; not indeed by a positive prohibition, but by subjecting that step to various forms which it is difficult to comply with.

i happened to meet with an old man, in the south of the union, who had lived in illicit intercourse with one of his negresses, and had had several children by her, who were born the slaves of their father. he had indeed frequently thought of bequeathing to them at least their liberty; but years had elapsed without his being able to surmount the legal obstacles to their emancipation, and in the meanwhile his old age was come, and he was about to die. he pictured to himself his sons dragged from market to market, and passing from the authority of a parent to the rod of the stranger, until these horrid anticipations worked his expiring imagination into phrensy. when i saw him he was a prey to all the anguish of despair, and he made me feel how awful is the retribution of nature upon those who have broken her laws.

these evils are unquestionably great; but they are the necessary and foreseen consequences of the very principle of modern slavery. when the europeans chose their slaves from a race differing from their own, which many of them considered as inferior to the other races of mankind, and which they all repelled with horror from any notion of intimate connexion, they must have believed that slavery would last for ever; since there is no intermediate state which can be durable, between the excessive inequality produced by servitude, and the complete equality which originates in independence. the europeans did imperfectly feel this truth, but without acknowledging it even to themselves. whenever they have had to do with negroes, their conduct has either been dictated by their interest and their pride, or by their compassion. they first violated every right of humanity by their treatment of the negro; and they afterward informed him that those rights were precious and inviolable. they affected to open their ranks to the slave, but the negroes who attempted to penetrate into the community were driven back with scorn; and they have incautiously and involuntarily been led to admit of freedom instead of slavery, without having the courage to be wholly iniquitous, or wholly just.{257}

if it be impossible to anticipate a period at which the americans of the south will mingle their blood with that of the negroes, can they allow their slaves to become free without compromising their own security? and if they are obliged to keep that race in bondage, in order to save their own families, may they not be excused for availing themselves of the means best adapted to that end? the events which are taking place in the southern states of the union, appear to be at once the most horrible and the most natural results of slavery. when i see the order of nature overthrown, and when i hear the cry of humanity in its vain struggle against the laws, my indignation does not light upon the men of our own time who were the instruments of these outrages; but i reserve my execration for those who, after a thousand years of freedom, brought back slavery into the world once more.

whatever may be the efforts of the americans of the south to maintain slavery, they will not always succeed. slavery, which is now confined to a single tract of the civilized earth, which is attacked by christianity as unjust, and by political economy as prejudicial, and which is now contrasted with democratic liberties and the information of our age, cannot survive. by the choice of the master or the will of the slave, it will cease; and in either case great calamities may be expected to ensue. if liberty be refused to the negroes of the south, they will in the end seize it for themselves by force; if it be given, they will abuse it ere long.

what are the chances in favor of the duration of the american union, and what dangers threaten it.

reasons why the preponderating force lies in the states rather than in the union.—the union will only last as long as all the states choose to belong to it.—causes which tend to keep them united.—utility of the union to resist foreign enemies, and to prevent the existence of foreigners in america.—no natural barriers between the several states.—no conflicting interests to divide them.—reciprocal interests of the northern, southern, and western states.—intellectual ties of union.—uniformity of opinions.—dangers of the union resulting from the different characters and the passions of its citizens.—character of the citizens in the south and in the north.—the rapid growth of the union one of its greatest dangers.—progress of the population to the northwest.—power gravitates in the same direction.—passions originating from sudden turns of fortune.—whether the existing government of the union tends to gain strength, or to lose it.—various signs of its decrease.—internal improvement.—waste lands.—indians.—the bank.—the tariff.—general jackson.

the maintenance of the existing institutions of the several states depends in some measure upon the maintenance of the union itself. it is therefore important in the first instance to inquire into the probable fate of the union. one point may indeed be assumed at once; if the present confederation were dissolved, it appears to me to be incontestable that the states of which it is now composed would not return to their original isolated condition; but that several unions would then be formed in the place of one. it is not my intention to inquire into the principles upon which these new unions would probably be established, but merely to show what the causes are which may effect the dismemberment of the existing confederation.

with this object i shall be obliged to retrace some of the steps which i have already taken, and to revert to topics which i have before discussed. i am aware that the reader may accuse me of repetition, but the importance of the matter which still remains to be treated is my excuse; i had rather say too much, than say too little to be thoroughly understood, and i prefer injuring the author to slighting the subject.

the legislators who formed the constitution of 1789 endeavored to confer a distinct and preponderating authority upon the federal power. but they were confined by the conditions of the task which they had undertaken to perform. they were not appointed to constitute the government of a single people, but to regulate the association of several states; and, whatever their inclinations might be, they could not but divide the exercise of sovereignty in the end.

in order to understand the consequences of this division, it is necessary to make a short distinction between the affairs of government. there are some objects which are national by their very nature, that is to say, which affect the nation as a body, and can only be intrusted to the man or the assembly of men who most completely represent the entire nation. among these may be reckoned war and diplomacy. there are other objects which are provincial by their very nature, that is to say, which only affect certain localities, and which can only be properly treated in that locality. such, for instance, is the budget of municipality. lastly, there are certain objects of a mixed nature, which are national inasmuch as they affect all the citizens who compose the nation, and which are provincial inasmuch as it is not necessary that the nation itself should provide for them all. such are the rights which regulate the civil and political condition of the citizens. no society can exist without civil and political rights. these rights therefore interest all the citizens alike; but it is not always necessary to the existence and the prosperity of the nation that these rights should be uniform, nor consequently, that they should be regulated by the central authority.

there are, then, two distinct categories of objects which are submitted to the direction of the sovereign power; and these categories occur in all well-constituted communities, whatever the basis of the political constitution may otherwise be. between these two extremes, the objects which i have termed mixed may be considered to lie. as these objects are neither exclusively national nor entirely provincial, they may be attained by a national or a provincial government, according to the agreement of the contracting parties, without in any way impairing the contract of association.

the sovereign power is usually formed by the union of separate individuals, who compose a people; and individual powers or collective forces, each representing a very small portion of the sovereign authority, are the sole elements which are subjected to the general government of their choice. in this case the general government is more naturally called upon to regulate, not only those affairs which are of essential national importance, but those which are of a more local interest; and the local governments are reduced to that small share of sovereign authority which is indispensable to their prosperity.

but sometimes the sovereign authority is composed of preorganized political bodies, by virtue of circumstances anterior to their union; and in this case the provincial governments assume the control, not only of those affairs which more peculiarly belong to their province, but of all, or of a part of the mixed affairs to which allusion has been made. for the confederate nations which were independent sovereign states before their union, and which still represent a very considerable share of the sovereign power, have only consented to cede to the general government the exercise of those rights which are indispensable to the union.

when the national government, independently of the prerogative inherent in its nature, is invested with the right of regulating the affairs which relate partly to the general and partly to the local interest, it possesses a preponderating influence. not only are its own rights extensive, but all the rights which it does not possess exist by its sufferance, and it may be apprehended that the provincial governments may be deprived of their natural and necessary prerogatives by its influence.

when, on the other hand, the provincial governments are invested with the power of regulating those same affairs of mixed interest, an opposite tendency prevails in society. the preponderating force resides in the province, not in the nation; and it may be apprehended that the national government may in the end be stripped of the privileges which are necessary to its existence.

independent nations have therefore a natural tendency to centralization, and confederations to dismemberment.

it now only remains for us to apply these general principles to the american union. the several states were necessarily possessed of the right of regulating all exclusively provincial affairs. moreover these same states retained the right of determining the civil and political competency of the citizens, of regulating the reciprocal relations of the members of the community, and of dispensing justice; rights which are of a general nature, but which do not necessarily appertain to the national government. we have shown that the government of the union is invested with the power of acting in the name of the whole nation, in those cases in which the nation has to appear as a single and undivided power; as, for instance, in foreign relations, and in offering a common resistance to a common enemy; in short, in conducting those affairs which i have styled exclusively national.

in this division of the rights of sovereignty, the share of the union seems at first sight to be more considerable than that of the states; but a more attentive investigation shows it to be less so. the undertakings of the government of the union are more vast, but their influence is more rarely felt. those of the provincial government are comparatively small, but they are incessant, and they serve to keep alive the authority which they represent. the government of the union watches the general interests of the country; but the general interests of a people have a very questionable influence upon individual happiness; while provincial interests produce a most immediate effect upon the welfare of the inhabitants. the union secures the independence and the greatness of the nation, which do not immediately affect private citizens; but the several states maintain the liberty, regulate the rights, protect the fortune, and secure the life and the whole future prosperity of every citizen.

the federal government is very far removed from its subjects, while the provincial governments are within the reach of them all, and are ready to attend to the smallest appeal. the central government has upon its side the passions of a few superior men who aspire to conduct it; but upon the side of the provincial governments are the interests of all those second-rate individuals who can only hope to obtain power within their own state, and who nevertheless exercise the largest share of authority over the people because they are placed nearest to its level.

the americans have therefore much more to hope and to fear from the states than from the union; and, in conformity with the natural tendency of the human mind, they are more likely to attach themselves to the former than to the latter. in this respect their habits and feelings harmonize with their interests.

when a compact nation divides its sovereignty, and adopts a confederate form of government, the traditions, the customs, and the manners of the people are for a long time at variance with their legislation; and the former tend to give a degree of influence to the central government which the latter forbids. when a number of confederate states unite to form a single nation, the same causes operate in an opposite direction. i have no doubt that if france were to become a confederate republic like that of the united states, the government would at first display more energy than that of the union; and if the union were to alter its constitution to a monarchy like that of france, i think that the american government would be a long time in acquiring the force which now rules the latter nation. when the national existence of the anglo-americans began, their provincial existence was already of long standing; necessary relations were established between the townships and the individual citizens of the same states; and they were accustomed to consider some objects as common to them all, and to conduct other affairs as exclusively relating to their own special interests.

the union is a vast body, which presents no definite object to patriotic feeling. the forms and limits of the state are distinct and circumscribed, since it represents a certain number of objects which are familiar to the citizens and beloved by all. it is identified with the very soil, with the right of property and the domestic affections, with the recollections of the past, the labors of the present, and the hopes of the future. patriotism, then, which is frequently a mere extension of individual egotism, is still directed to the state, and is not excited by the union. thus the tendency of the interests, the habits, and the feelings of the people, is to centre political activity in the states, in preference to the union.

it is easy to estimate the different forces of the two governments, by remarking the manner in which they fulfil their respective functions. whenever the government of a state has occasion to address an individual, or an assembly of individuals, its language is clear and imperative; and such is also the tone of the federal government in its intercourse with individuals, but no sooner has it anything to do with a state, than it begins to parley, to explain its motives, and to justify its conduct, to argue, to advise, and in short, anything but to command. if doubts are raised as to the limits of the constitutional powers of each government, the provincial government prefers its claims with boldness, and takes prompt and energetic steps to support it. in the meanwhile the government of the union reasons, it appeals to the interests, to the good sense, to the glory of the nation; it temporizes, it negotiates, and does not consent to act until it is reduced to the last extremity. at first sight it might readily be imagined that it is the provincial government which is armed with the authority of the nation, and that congress represents a single state.

the federal government is, therefore, notwithstanding the precautions of those who founded it, naturally so weak, that it more peculiarly requires the free consent of the governed to enable it to subsist. it is easy to perceive that its object is to enable the states to realize with facility their determination of remaining united; and, as long as this preliminary consideration exists, its authority is great, temperate, and effective. the constitution fits the government to control individuals, and easily to surmount such obstacles as they may be inclined to offer, but it was by no means established with a view to the possible separation of one or more of the states from the union.

if the sovereignty of the union were to engage in a struggle with that of the states at the present day, its defeat may be confidently predicted; and it is not probable that such a struggle would be seriously undertaken. as often as steady resistance is offered to the federal government, it will be found to yield. experience has hitherto shown that whenever a state has demanded anything with perseverance and resolution, it has invariably succeeded; and that if a separate government has distinctly refused to act, it was left to do as it thought fit.{258}

but even if the government of the union had any strength inherent in itself, the physical situation of the country would render the exercise of that strength very difficult.{259} the united states cover an immense territory; they are separated from each other by great distances; and the population is disseminated over the surface of a country which is still half a wilderness. if the union were to undertake to enforce the allegiance of the confederate states by military means, it would be in a position very analogous to that of england at the time of the war of independence.

however strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. the union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and, in uniting together, they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. if one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so; and the federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. in order to enable the federal government easily to conquer the resistance which may be offered to it by any one of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be especially interested in the existence of the union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.

if it be supposed that among the states which are united by the federal tie, there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose prosperity depends on the duration of that union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the central government in enforcing the obedience of the others. but the government would then be exerting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. states form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union; and in the case just alluded to, the federal government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the states.

if one of the confederated states have acquired a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces, and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the union. great things may then be done in the name of the federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist.{260} in both these cases, the power which acts in the name of the confederation becomes stronger, the more it abandons the natural state and the acknowledged principles of confederations.

in america the existing union is advantageous to all the states, but it is not indispensable to any one of them. several of them might break the federal tie without compromising the welfare of the others, although their own prosperity would be lessened. as the existence and the happiness of none of the states are wholly dependent on the present constitution, they would none of them be disposed to make great personal sacrifices to maintain it. on the other hand, there is no state which seems, hitherto, to have its ambition much interested in the maintenance of the existing union. they certainly do not all exercise the same influence in the federal councils, but no one of them can hope to domineer over the rest, or to treat them as its inferiors or as its subjects.

it appears to me unquestionable, that if any portion of the union seriously desired to separate itself from the other states, they would not be able, nor indeed would they attempt, to prevent it; and that the present union will only last as long as the states which compose it choose to continue members of the confederation. if this point be admitted, the question becomes less difficult; and our object is not to inquire whether the states of the existing union are capable of separating, but whether they will choose to remain united.

{the remarks respecting the inability of the federal government to retain within the union any state that may choose "to withdraw its name from the contract," ought not to pass through an american edition of this work, without the expression of a dissent by the editor from the opinion of the author. the laws of the united states must remain in force in a revolted state, until repealed by congress; the customs and postages must be collected; the courts of the united states must sit, and must decide the causes submitted to them; as has been very happily explained by the author, the courts act upon individuals. if their judgments are resisted, the executive arm must interpose, and if the state authorities aid in the resistance, the military power of the whole union must be invoked to overcome it. so long as the laws affecting the citizens of such a state remain, and so long as there remain any officers of a general government to enforce them, these results must follow not only theoretically but actually. the author probably formed the opinions which are the subject of these remarks, at the commencement of the controversy with south carolina respecting the tariff. and when they were written and published, he had not learned the result of that controversy, in which the supremacy of the union and its laws was triumphant. there was doubtless great reluctance in adopting the necessary measures to collect the customs, and to bring every legal question that could possibly arise out of the controversy, before the judiciary of the united states, but they were finally adopted, and were not the less successful for being the result of deliberation and of necessity. out of that controversy have arisen some advantages of a permanent character, produced by the legislation which it required. there were defects in the laws regulating the manner of bringing from the state courts into those of the united states, a cause involving the constitutionality of acts of congress or of the states, through which the federal authority might be evaded. those defects were remedied by the legislation referred to; and it is now more emphatically and universally true, than when the author wrote, that the acts of the general government operate through the judiciary, upon individual citizens, and not upon the states.—american editor.}

among the various reasons which tend to render the existing union useful to the americans, two principal causes are peculiarly evident to the observer. although the americans are, as it were, alone upon their continent, their commerce makes them the neighbors of all the nations with which they trade. notwithstanding their apparent isolation, the americans require a certain degree of strength, which they cannot retain otherwise than by remaining united to each other. if the states were to split, they would not only diminish the strength which they are now able to display toward foreign nations, but they would soon create foreign powers upon their own territory. a system of inland custom-houses would then be established; the valleys would be divided by imaginary boundary lines; the courses of the rivers would be confined by territorial distinctions and a multitude of hindrances would prevent the americans from exploring the whole of that vast continent which providence has allotted to them for a dominion. at present they have no invasion to fear, and consequently no standing armies to maintain, no taxes to levy. if the union were dissolved, all these burdensome measures might ere long be required. the americans are then very powerfully interested in the maintenance of their union. on the other hand, it is almost impossible to discover any sort of material interest which might at present tempt a portion of the union to separate from the other states.

when we cast our eyes upon the map of the united states, we perceive the chain of the allegany mountains, running from the northeast to the southwest, and crossing nearly one thousand miles of country; and we are led to imagine that the design of providence was to raise, between the valley of the mississippi and the coasts of the atlantic ocean, one of those natural barriers which break the mutual intercourse of men, and form the necessary limits of different states. but the average height of the alleganies does not exceed 2,500 feet; their greatest elevation is not above 4,000 feet; their rounded summits, and the spacious valleys which they conceal within their passes, are of easy access from several sides. beside which, the principal rivers that fall into the atlantic ocean, the hudson, the susquehannah, and the potomac, take their rise beyond the alleganies, in an open district, which borders upon the valley of the mississippi. these streams quit this tract of country,{261} make their way through the barrier which would seem to turn them westward, and as they wind through the mountains, they open an easy and natural passage to man.

no natural barrier exists in the regions which are now inhabited by the anglo-americans; the alleganies are so far from serving as a boundary to separate nations, that they do not even serve as a frontier to the states. new york, pennsylvania, and virginia, comprise them within their borders and extend as much to the west as to the east of the line.

the territory now occupied by the twenty-four states of the union, and the three great districts which have not yet acquired the rank of states, although they already contain inhabitants, covers a surface of 1,002,600 square miles,{262} which is about equal to five times the extent of france. within these limits the qualities of the soil, the temperature, and the produce of the country, are extremely various. the vast extent of territory occupied by the anglo-american republics has given rise to doubts as to the maintenance of the union. here a distinction must be made; contrary interests sometimes arise in the different provinces of a vast empire, which often terminate in open dissensions; and the extent of the country is then most prejudicial to the power of the state. but if the inhabitants of these vast regions are not divided by contrary interests, the extent of the territory may be favorable to their prosperity; for the unity of the government promotes the interchange of the different productions of the soil, and increases their value by facilitating their consumption.

it is indeed easy to discover different interests in the different parts of the union, but i am unacquainted with any which are hostile to each other. the southern states are almost exclusively agricultural; the northern states are more peculiarly commercial and manufacturing; the states of the west are at the same time agricultural and manufacturing. in the south the crops consist of tobacco, of rice, of cotton, and of sugar; in the north and the west, of wheat and maize; these are different sources of wealth; but union is the means by which these sources are opened to all, and rendered equally advantageous to the several districts.

the north, which ships the produce of the anglo-americans to all parts of the world, and brings back the produce of the globe to the union, is evidently interested in maintaining the confederation in its present condition, in order that the number of american producers and consumers may remain as large as possible. the north is the most natural agent of communication between the south and the west of the union on the one hand, and the rest of the world upon the other; the north is therefore interested in the union and prosperity of the south and the west, in order that they may continue to furnish raw materials for its manufactures, and cargoes for its shipping.

the south and the west, on their side, are still more directly interested in the preservation of the union, and the prosperity of the north. the produce of the south is for the most part exported beyond seas; the south and the west consequently stand in need of the commercial resources of the north. they are likewise interested in the maintenance of a powerful fleet by the union, to protect them efficaciously. the south and the west have no vessels, but they cannot refuse a willing subsidy to defray the expenses of the navy; for if the fleets of europe were to blockade the ports of the south and the delta of the mississippi, what would become of the rice of the carolinas, the tobacco of virginia, and the sugar and cotton which grow in the valley of the mississippi? every portion of the federal budget does therefore contribute to the maintenance of material interests which are common to all the confederate states.

independently of this commercial utility, the south and the west of the union derive great political advantages from their connexion with the north. the south contains an enormous slave population; a population which is already alarming, and still more formidable for the future. the states of the west lie in the remoter part of a single valley; and all the rivers which intersect their territory rise in the rocky mountains or in the alleganies, and fall into the mississippi, which bears them onward to the gulf of mexico. the western states are consequently entirely cut off, by their position, from the traditions of europe and the civilisation of the old world. the inhabitants of the south, then, are induced to support the union in order to avail themselves of its protection against the blacks; and the inhabitants of the west, in order not to be excluded from a free communication with the rest of the globe, and shut up in the wilds of central america. the north cannot but desire the maintenance of the union, in order to remain, as it now is, the connecting link between that vast body and the other parts of the world.

the temporal interests of all the several parts of the union are, then, intimately connected; and the same assertion holds true respecting those opinions and sentiments which may be termed the immaterial interests of men.

the inhabitants of the united states talk a great deal of their attachment to their country; but i confess that i do not rely upon that calculating patriotism which is founded upon interest, and which a change in the interest at stake may obliterate. nor do i attach much importance to the language of the americans, when they manifest in their daily conversation, the intention of maintaining the federal system adopted by their forefathers. a government retains its sway over a great number of citizens, far less by the voluntary and rational consent of the multitude, than by that instinctive and, to a certain extent, involuntary agreement, which results from similarity of feelings and resemblances of opinion. i will never admit that men constitute a social body, simply because they obey the same head and the same laws. society can only exist when a great number of men consider a great number of things in the same point of view; when they hold the same opinions upon many subjects, and when the same occurrences suggest the same thoughts and impressions to their minds.

the observer who examines the present condition of the united states upon this principle, will readily discover, that although the citizens are divided into twenty-four distinct sovereignties, they nevertheless constitute a single people; and he may perhaps be led to think that the state of the anglo-american union is more truly a state of society, than that of certain nations of europe which live under the same legislation and the same prince.

although the anglo-americans have several religious sects, they all regard religion in the same manner. they are not always agreed upon the measures which are most conducive to good government, and they vary upon some of the forms of government which it is expedient to adopt; but they are unanimous upon the general principles which ought to rule human society. from maine to the floridas, and from missouri to the atlantic ocean, the people is held to be the legitimate source of all power. the same notions are entertained respecting liberty and equality, the liberty of the press, the right of association, the jury, and the responsibility of the agents of government.

if we turn from their political and religious opinions to the moral and philosophical principles which regulate the daily actions of life, and govern their conduct, we shall still find the same uniformity. the anglo-americans{263} acknowledge the absolute moral authority of the reason of the community, as they acknowledge the political authority of the mass of citizens; and they hold that public opinion is the surest arbiter of what is lawful or forbidden, true or false. the majority of them believe that a man will be led to do what is just and good by following his own interests, rightly understood. they hold that every man is born in possession of the right of self-government, and that no one has the right of constraining his fellow-creatures to be happy. they have all a lively faith in the perfectibility of man; they are of opinion that the effects of the diffusion of knowledge must necessarily be advantageous, and the consequences of ignorance fatal; they all consider society as a body in a state of improvement, humanity as a changing scene, in which nothing is, or ought to be, permanent; and they admit that what appears to them to be good to-day may be superseded by something better to-morrow. i do not give all these opinions as true, but i quote them as characteristic of the americans.

the anglo-americans are not only united together by those common opinions, but they are separated from all other nations by a common feeling of pride. for the last fifty years, no pains have been spared to convince the inhabitants of the united states that they constitute the only religious, enlightened, and free people. they perceive that, for the present, their own democratic institutions succeed, while those of other countries fail; hence they conceive an overweening opinion of their superiority, and they are not very remote from believing themselves to belong to a distinct race of mankind.

the dangers which threaten the american union do not originate in the diversity of interests or opinions; but in the various characters and passions of the americans. the men who inhabit the vast territory of the united states are almost all the issue of a common stock; but the effects of the climate, and more especially of slavery, have gradually introduced very striking differences between the british settler of the southern states, and the british settler of the north. in europe it is generally believed that slavery has rendered the interests of one part of the union contrary to those of another part; but i by no means remarked this to be the case; slavery has not created interests in the south contrary to those of the north, but it has modified the character and changed the habits of the natives of the south.

i have already explained the influence which slavery has exerted upon the commercial ability of the americans in the south; and this same influence equally extends to their manners. the slave is a servant who never remonstrates, and who submits to everything without complaint. he may sometimes assassinate, but he never withstands, his master. in the south there are no families so poor as not to have slaves. the citizen of the southern states of the union is invested with a sort of domestic dictatorship from his earliest years; the first notion he acquires in life is, that he is born to command, and the first habit he contracts is that of being obeyed without resistance. his education tends, then, to give him the character of a supercilious and a hasty man; irascible, violent, and ardent in his desires, impatient of obstacles, but easily discouraged if he cannot succeed upon his first attempt.

the american of the northern states is surrounded by no slaves in his childhood; he is even unattended by free servants; and is usually obliged to provide for his own wants. no sooner does he enter the world than the idea of necessity assails him on every side; he soon learns to know exactly the natural limits of his authority; he never expects to subdue those who withstand him, by force; and he knows that the surest means of obtaining the support of his fellow-creatures, is to win their favor. he therefore becomes patient, reflecting, tolerant, slow to act, and persevering in his designs.

in the southern states the more immediate wants of life are always supplied; the inhabitants of those parts are not busied in the material cares of life, which are always provided for by others; and their imagination is diverted to more captivating and less definite objects. the american of the south is fond of grandeur, luxury, and renown, of gaiety, of pleasure, and above all, of idleness; nothing obliges him to exert himself in order to subsist; and as he has no necessary occupations, he gives way to indolence, and does not even attempt what would be useful.

but the equality of fortunes, and the absence of slavery in the north, plunge the inhabitants in those same cares of daily life which are disdained by the white population of the south. they are taught from infancy to combat want, and to place comfort above all the pleasures of the intellect or the heart. the imagination is extinguished by the trivial details of life; and the ideas become less numerous and less general, but far more practical and more precise. as prosperity is the sole aim of exertion, it is excellently well attained; nature and mankind are turned to the best pecuniary advantage; and society is dexterously made to contribute to the welfare of each of its members, while individual egotism is the source of general happiness.

the citizen of the north has not only experience, but knowledge: nevertheless, he sets but little value upon the pleasures of knowledge; he esteems it as the means of obtaining a certain end, and he is only anxious to seize its more lucrative applications. the citizen of the south is more given to act upon impulse; he is more clever, more frank, more generous, more intellectual, and more brilliant. the former, with a greater degree of activity, of common sense, of information, and of general aptitude, has the characteristic good and evil qualities of the middle classes. the latter has the tastes, the prejudices, the weaknesses, and the magnanimity of all aristocracies.

if two men are united in society, who have the same interests, and to a certain extent the same opinions, but different characters, different acquirements, and a different style of civilisation, it is probable that these men will not agree. the same remark is applicable to a society of nations.

slavery then does not attack the american union directly in its interests, but indirectly in its manners.

the states which gave their assent to the federal contract in 1790 were thirteen in number; the union now consists of twenty-four members. the population which amounted to nearly four millions in 1790, had more than tripled in the space of forty years; and in 1830 it amounted to nearly thirteen millions.{264} changes of such magnitude cannot take place without some danger.

a society of nations, as well as a society of individuals, derive its principal chances of duration from the wisdom of its members, their individual weakness, and their limited number. the americans who quit the coasts of the atlantic ocean to plunge into the western wilderness, are adventurers impatient of restraint, greedy of wealth, and frequently men expelled from the states in which they were born. when they arrive in the deserts, they are unknown to each other; and they have neither traditions, family feeling, nor the force of example to check their excesses. the empire of the laws is feeble among them; that of morality is still more powerless. the settlers who are constantly peopling the valley of the mississippi are, then, in every respect inferior to the americans who inhabit the older parts of the union. nevertheless, they already exercise a great influence in its councils; and they arrive at the government of the commonwealth before they have learned to govern themselves.{265}

the greater the individual weakness of each of the contracting parties, the greater are the chances of the duration of the contract; for their safety is then dependant upon their union. when, in 1790, the most populous of the american republics did not contain 500,000 inhabitants,{266} each of them felt its own insignificance as an independent people, and this feeling rendered compliance with the federal authority more easy. but when one of the confederate states reckons, like the state of new york, two millions of inhabitants, and covers an extent of territory equal in surface to a quarter of france,{267} it feels its own strength; and although it may continue to support the union as advantageous to its prosperity, it no longer regards that body as necessary to its existence; and, as it continues to belong to the federal compact, it soon aims at preponderance in the federal assemblies. the probable unanimity of the states is diminished as their number increases. at present the interests of the different parts of the union are not at variance; but who is able to foresee the multifarious changes of the future, in a country in which towns are founded from day to day, and states almost from year to year?

since the first settlement of the british colonies, the number of inhabitants has about doubled every twenty-two years. i perceive no causes which are likely to check this progressive increase of the anglo-american population for the next hundred years; and before that space of time has elapsed, i believe that the territories and dependencies of the united states will be covered by more than a hundred millions of inhabitants, and divided into forty states.{268} i admit that these hundred millions of men have no hostile interests; i suppose, on the contrary, that they are all equally interested in the maintenance of the union; but i am still of opinion, that where there are a hundred millions of men, and forty distinct nations unequally strong, the continuance of the federal government can only be a fortunate accident.

whatever faith i may have in the perfectibility of man until human nature is altered, and men wholly transformed, i shall refuse to believe in the duration of a government which is called upon to hold together forty different peoples, disseminated over a territory equal to one-half of europe in extent; to avoid all rivalry, ambition, and struggles, between them; and to direct their independent activity to the accomplishment of the same designs.

but the greatest peril to which the union is exposed by its increase, arises from the continual changes which take place in the position of its internal strength. the distance from lake superior to the gulf of mexico extends from the 47th to the 30th degree of latitude, a distance of more than twelve hundred miles, as the bird flies. the frontier of the united states winds along the whole of this immense line; sometimes falling within its limits, but more frequently extending far beyond it, into the waste. it has been calculated that the whites advance a mean distance of seventeen miles along the whole of this vast boundary.{269} obstacles, such as an unproductive district, a lake, or an indian nation unexpectedly encountered, are sometimes met with. the advancing column then halts for a while; its two extremities fall back upon themselves, and as soon as they are reunited they proceed onward. this gradual and continuous progress of the european race toward the rocky mountains, has the solemnity of a providential event; it is like a deluge of men rising unabatedly, and daily driven onward by the hand of god.

within this first line of conquering settlers, towns are built, and vast states founded. in 1790 there were only a few thousand pioneers sprinkled along the valleys of the mississippi; and at the present day these valleys contain as many inhabitants as were to be found in the whole union in 1790. their population amounts to nearly four millions.{270} the city of washington was founded in 1800, in the very centre of the union; but such are the changes which have taken place, that it now stands at one of the extremities; and the delegates of the most remote western states are already obliged to perform a journey as long as that from vienna to paris.{271}

all the states are borne onward at the same time in the path of fortune, but of course they do not all increase and prosper in the same proportion. in the north of the union detached branches of the allegany chain, extending as far as the atlantic ocean, form spacious roads and ports, which are constantly accessible to vessels of the greatest burden. but from the potomac to the mouth of the mississippi, the coast is sandy and flat. in this part of the union the mouths of almost all the rivers are obstructed; and the few harbors which exist among these lagunes, afford much shallower water to vessels, and much fewer commercial advantages than those of the north.

this first natural cause of inferiority is united to another cause proceeding from the laws. we have already seen that slavery, which is abolished in the north, still exists in the south; and i have pointed out its fatal consequences upon the prosperity of the planter himself.

the north is therefore superior to the south both in commerce{272} and manufacture; the natural consequence of which is the more rapid increase of population and of wealth within its borders. the states situated upon the shores of the atlantic ocean are already half-peopled. most of the land is held by an owner; and these districts cannot therefore receive so many emigrants as the western states, where a boundless field is still open to their exertions. the valley of the mississippi is far more fertile than the coast of the atlantic ocean. this reason, added to all the others, contributes to drive the europeans westward—a fact which may be rigorously demonstrated by figures. it is found that the sum total of the population of all the united states has about tripled in the course of forty years. but in the recent states adjacent to the mississippi, the population has increased thirty-one fold within the same space of time.{273}

the relative position of the central federal power is continually displaced. forty years ago the majority of the citizens of the union was established upon the coast of the atlantic, in the environs of the spot upon which washington now stands; but the great body of the people is now advancing inland and to the north, so that in twenty years the majority will unquestionably be on the western side of the alleganies. if the union goes on to subsist, the basin of the mississippi is evidently marked out, by its fertility and its extent, as the future centre of the federal government. in thirty or forty years, that tract of country will have assumed the rank which naturally belongs to it. it is easy to calculate that its population, compared to that of the coast of the atlantic, will be, in round numbers, as 40 to 11. in a few years the states which founded the union will lose the direction of its policy, and the population of the valleys of the mississippi will preponderate in the federal assemblies.

this constant gravitation of the federal power and influence toward the northwest, is shown every ten years, when a general census of the population is made, and the number of delegates which each state sends to congress is settled afresh.{274} in 1790 virginia had nineteen representatives in congress. this number continued to increase until the year 1813, when it reached to twenty-three: from that time it began to decrease, and in 1833, virginia elected only twenty-one representatives.{275} during the same period the state of new york advanced in the contrary direction; in 1790, it had ten representatives in congress; in 1813, twenty-seven; in 1823, thirty-four; and in 1833, forty. the state of ohio had only one representative in 1803, and in 1833, it had already nineteen.

it is difficult to imagine a durable union of a people which is rich and strong, with one which is poor and weak, and if it were proved that the strength and wealth of the one are not the causes of the weakness and poverty of the other. but union is still move difficult to maintain at a time at which one party is losing strength, and the other is gaining it. this rapid and disproportionate increase of certain states threatens the independence of the others. new york might, perhaps, succeed with its two millions of inhabitants and its forty representatives, in dictating to the other states in congress. but even if the more powerful states make no attempt to bear down the lesser ones, the danger still exists; for there is almost as much in the possibility of the act as in the act itself. the weak generally mistrusts the justice and the reason of the strong. the states which increase less rapidily than the others, look upon those which are more favored by fortune, with envy and suspicion. hence arise the deep-seated uneasiness and ill-defined agitation which are observable in the south, and which form so striking a contrast to the confidence and prosperity which are common to other parts of the union. i am inclined to think that the hostile measures taken by the southern provinces upon a recent occasion, are attributable to no other cause. the inhabitants of the southern states are, of all the americans, those who are most interested in the maintenance of the union; they would assuredly suffer most from being left to themselves; and yet they are the only citizens who threaten to break the tie of confederation. but it is easy to perceive that the south, which has given four presidents, washington, jefferson, madison, and monroe, to the union; which perceives that it is losing its federal influence, and that the number of its representatives in congress is diminishing from year to year while those of the northern and western states are increasing; the south, which is peopled with ardent and irascible beings, is becoming more and more irritated and alarmed. the citizens reflect upon their present position and remember their past influence, with the melancholy uneasiness of men who suspect oppression: if they discover a law of the union which is not unequivocally favorable to their interests, they protest against it as an abuse of force; and if their ardent remonstrances are not listened to, they threaten to quit an association which loads them with burdens while it deprives them of their due profits. "the tariff," said the inhabitants of carolina in 1832, "enriches the north, and ruins the south; for if this were not the case, to what can we attribute the continually increasing power and wealth of the north, with its inclement skies and arid soil; while the south, which may be styled the garden of america, is rapidly declining."{276} if the changes which i have described were gradual, so that each generation at least might have time to disappear with the order of things under which it had lived, the danger would be less: but the progress of society in america is precipitate, and almost revolutionary. the same citizen may have lived to see his state take the lead in the union, and afterward become powerless in the federal assemblies; and an anglo-american republic has been known to grow as rapidly as a man, passing from birth and infancy to maturity in the course of thirty years. it must not be imagined, however, that the states which lose their preponderance, also lose their population or their riches; no stop is put to their prosperity, and they even go on to increase more rapidly than any kingdom in europe.{277} but they believe themselves to be impoverished because their wealth does not augment as rapidly as that of their neighbors; and they think that their power is lost, because they suddenly come into collision with a power greater than their own.{278} thus they are more hurt in their feelings and their passions, than in their interests. but this is amply sufficient to endanger the maintenance of the union. if kings and peoples had only had their true interests in view, ever since the beginning of the world, the name of war would scarcely be known among mankind.

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.

as early as the year 1820, south carolina declared, in a petition to congress, that the tariff was "unconstitutional, oppressive, and unjust." and the states of georgia, virginia, north carolina, alabama, and mississippi, subsequently remonstrated against it with more or less vigor. but congress, far from lending an ear to these complaints, raised the scale of tariff duties in the years 1824 and 1828, and recognized anew the principle on which it was founded. a doctrine was then proclaimed, or rather revived, in the south, which took the name of nullification.

i have shown in the proper place that the object of the federal constitution was not to form a league, but to create a national government. the americans of the united states form a sole and undivided people, in all the cases which are specified by that constitution; and upon these points the will of the nation is expressed, as it is in all constitutional nations, by the voice of the majority. when the majority has pronounced its decision, it is the duty of the minority to submit. such is the sound legal doctrine, and the only one which agrees with the text of the constitution, and the known intention of those who framed it.

the partisans of nullification in the south maintain, on the contrary, that the intention of the americans in uniting was not to reduce themselves to the condition of one and the same people; that they meant to constitute a league of independent states; and that each state, consequently, retains its entire sovereignty, if not de facto, at least de jure; and has the right of putting its own construction upon the laws of congress, and of suspending their execution within the limits of its own territory, if they are held to be unconstitutional or unjust.

the entire doctrine of nullification is comprised in a sentence uttered by vice-president calhoun, the head of that party in the south, before the senate of the united states, in the year 1833: "the constitution is a compact to which the states were parties in their sovereign capacity; now, whenever a contract is entered into by parties which acknowledge no tribunal above their authority to decide in the last resort, each of them has a right to judge for himself in relation to the nature, extent, and obligations of the instrument." it is evident that a similar doctrine destroys the very basis of the federal constitution, and brings back all the evils of the old confederation, from which the americans were supposed to have had a safe deliverance.

when south carolina perceived that congress turned a deaf ear to its remonstrances, it threatened to apply the doctrine of nullification to the federal tariff bill. congress persisted in its former system; and at length the storm broke out. in the course of 1832 the citizens of south carolina{286} named a national {state} convention, to consult upon the extraordinary measures which they were called upon to take; and on the 24th november of the same year, this convention promulgated a law, under the form of a decree, which annulled the federal law of the tariff, forbade the levy of the imposts which that law commands, and refused to recognize the appeal which might be made to the federal courts of law.{287} this decree was only to be put into execution in the ensuing month of february, and it was intimated, that if congress modified the tariff before that period, south carolina might be induced to proceed no farther with her menaces; and a vague desire was afterward expressed of submitting the question to an extraordinary assembly of all the confederate states.

in the meantime south carolina armed her militia, and prepared for war. but congress, which had slighted its suppliant subjects, listened to their complaints as soon as they were found to have taken up arms.{288} a law was passed, by which the tariff duties were to be progressively reduced for ten years, until they were brought so low as not to exceed the amount of supplies necessary to the government.{289} thus congress completely abandoned the principle of the tariff; and substituted a mere fiscal impost for a system of protective duties.{290} the government of the union, in order to conceal its defeat, had recourse to an expedient which is very much in vogue with feeble governments. it yielded the point de facto, but it remained inflexible upon the principles in question; and while congress was altering the tariff law, it passed another bill, by which the president was invested with extraordinary powers, enabling him to overcome by force a resistance which was then no longer to be apprehended.

but south carolina did not consent to leave the union in the enjoyment of these scanty trophies of success: the same national {state} convention which annulled the tariff bill, met again, and accepted the proffered concession: but at the same time it declared its unabated perseverance in the doctrine of nullification; and to prove what it said, it annulled the law investing the president with extraordinary powers, although it was very certain that the clauses of that law would never be carried into effect.

almost all the controversies of which i have been speaking have taken place under the presidency of general jackson; and it cannot be denied that in the question of the tariff he has supported the claims of the union with vigor and with skill. i am however of opinion that the conduct of the individual who now represents the federal government, may be reckoned as one of the dangers which threaten its continuance.

some persons in europe have formed an opinion of the possible influence of general jackson upon the affairs of his country, which appears highly extravagant to those who have seen more of the subject. we have been told that general jackson has won sundry battles, that he is an energetic man, prone by nature and by habit to the use of force, covetous of power, and a despot by taste. all this may perhaps be true; but the inferences which have been drawn from these truths are exceedingly erroneous. it has been imagined that general jackson is bent on establishing a dictatorship in america, on introducing a military spirit, and on giving a degree of influence to the central authority which cannot but be dangerous to provincial liberties. but in america, the time for similar undertakings, and the age for men of this kind, is not yet come; if general jackson had entertained a hope of exercising his authority in this manner, he would infallibly have forfeited his political station, and compromised his life; accordingly he has not been so imprudent as to make any such attempt.

far from wishing to extend the federal power, the president belongs to the party which is desirous of limiting that power to the bare and precise letter of the constitution, and which never puts a construction upon that act, favorable to the government of the union; far from standing forth as the champion of centralization, general jackson is the agent of all the jealousies of the states; and he was placed in the lofty station he occupies, by the passions of the people which are most opposed to the central government. it is by perpetually flattering these passions, that he maintains his station and his popularity. general jackson is the slave of the majority: he yields to its wishes, its propensities, and its demands; say rather, that he anticipates and forestalls them.

whenever the governments of the states come into collision with that of the union, the president is generally the first to question his own rights: he almost always outstrips the legislature; and when the extent of the federal power is controverted he takes part, as it were, against himself; he conceals his official interests, and extinguishes his own natural inclinations. not indeed that he is naturally weak or hostile to the union; for when the majority decided against the claims of the partisans of nullification, he put himself at its head, asserted the doctrines which the nation held, distinctly and energetically, and was the first to recommend forcible measures; but general jackson appears to me, if i may use the american expressions, to be a federalist by taste, and a republican by calculation.

general jackson stoops to gain the favor of the majority but when he feels that his popularity is secure, he overthrows all obstacles in the pursuit of the objects which the community approves, or of those which it does not look upon with a jealous eye. he is supported by a power with which his predecessors were unacquainted; and he tramples on his personal enemies wherever they cross his path, with a facility which no former president ever enjoyed; he takes upon himself the responsibility of measures which no one, before him, would have ventured to attempt; he even treats the national representatives with disdain approaching to insult; he puts his veto upon the laws of congress, and frequently neglects to reply to that powerful body. he is a favorite who sometimes treats his master roughly. the power of general jackson perpetually increases; but that of the president declines: in his hands the federal government is strong, but it will pass enfeebled into the hands of his successor.

i am strangely mistaken if the federal government of the united states be not constantly losing strength, retiring gradually from public affairs, and narrowing its circle of action more and more. it is naturally feeble, but it now abandons even its pretensions to strength. on the other hand, i thought that i remarked a more lively sense of independence, and a more decided attachment to provincial government, in the states. the union is to subsist, but to subsist as a shadow; it is to be strong in certain cases, and weak in all others; in time of warfare, it is to be able to concentrate all the forces of the nation and all the resources of the country in its hands; and in time of peace its existence is to be scarcely perceptible: as if this alternate debility and vigor were natural or possible.

i do not foresee anything for the present which may be able to check this general impulse of public opinion: the causes in which it originated do not cease to operate with the same effect. the change will therefore go on, and it may be predicted that, unless some extraordinary event occurs, the government of the union will grow weaker and weaker every day.

i think, however, that the period is still remote, at which the federal power will be entirely extinguished by its inability to protect itself and to maintain peace in the country. the union is sanctioned by the manners and desires of the people; its results are palpable, its benefits visible. when it is perceived that the weakness of the federal government compromises the existence of the union, i do not doubt that a reaction will take place with a view to increase its strength.

the government of the united states is, of all the federal governments which have hitherto been established, the one which is most naturally destined to act. as long as it is only indirectly assailed by the interpretation of its laws, and as long as its substance is not seriously altered, a change of opinion, an internal crisis, or a war, may restore all the vigor which it requires. the point which i have been most anxious to put in a clear light is simply this; many people, especially in france, imagine that a change of opinion is going on in the united states, which is favorable to a centralization of power in the hands of the president and the congress. i hold that a contrary tendency may be distinctly observed. so far is the federal government from acquiring strength, and from threatening the sovereignty of the states, as it grows older, that i maintain it to be growing weaker and weaker, and that the sovereignty of the union alone is in danger. such are the facts which the present time discloses. the future conceals the final result of this tendency, and the events which may check, retard, or accelerate, the changes i have described; but i do not affect to be able to remove the veil which hides them from our sight.

of the republican institutions of the united states, and what their chances of duration are.

the union is accidental.—the republican institutions have more prospect of permanence.—a republic for the present the natural state of the anglo-americans.—reason of this.—in order to destroy it, all laws must be changed at the same time, and a great alteration take place in manners.—difficulties experienced by the americans in creating an aristocracy.

the dismemberment of the union, by the introduction of war into the heart of those states which are now confederate, with standing armies, a dictatorship, and a heavy taxation, might eventually compromise the fate of the republican institutions. but we ought not to confound the future prospects of the republic with those of the union. the union is an accident, which will last only so long as circumstances are favorable to its existence; but a republican form of government seems to me to be the natural state of the americans; which nothing but the continued action of hostile causes, always acting in the same direction, could change into a monarchy. the union exists principally in the law which formed it; one revolution, one change in public opinion, might destroy it for ever; but the republic has a much deeper foundation to rest upon.

what is understood by republican government in the united states, is the slow and quiet action of society upon itself. it is a regular state of things really founded upon the enlightened will of the people. it is a conciliatory government under which resolutions are allowed time to ripen, and in which they are deliberately discussed, and executed with mature judgment. the republicans in the united states set a high value upon morality, respect religious belief, and acknowledge the existence of rights. they profess to think that a people ought to be moral, religious, and temperate, in proportion as it is free. what is called the republic in the united states, is the tranquil rule of the majority, which, after having had time to examine itself, and to give proof of its existence, is the common source of all the powers of the state. but the power of the majority is not of itself unlimited. in the moral world humanity, justice, and reason, enjoy an undisputed supremacy; in the political world vested rights are treated with no less deference. the majority recognizes these two barriers; and if it now and then overstep them, it is because, like individuals, it has passions, and like them, it is prone to do what is wrong, while it discerns what is right.

but the demagogues of europe have made strange discoveries. a republic is not, according to them, the rule of the majority, as has hitherto been taught, but the rule of those who are strenuous partisans of the majority. it is not the people who preponderates in this kind of government, but those who best know what is for the good of the people. a happy distinction, which allows men to act in the name of nations without consulting them, and to claim their gratitude while their rights are spurned. a republican government, moreover, is the only one which claims the right of doing whatever it chooses, and despising what men have hitherto respected, from the highest moral obligations to the vulgar rules of common sense. it had been supposed, until our time, that despotism was odious, under whatever form it appeared. but it is a discovery of modern days that there are such things as legitimate tyranny and holy injustice, provided they are exercised in the name of the people.

the ideas which the americans have adopted respecting the republican form of government, render it easy for them to live under it, and ensure its duration. if, in their country, this form be often practically bad, at least it is theoretically good; and, in the end, the people always acts in conformity with it.

it was impossible, at the foundation of the states, and it would still be difficult, to establish a central administration in america. the inhabitants are dispersed over too great a space, and separated by too many natural obstacles, for one man to undertake to direct the details of their existence. america is therefore pre-eminently the country of provincial and municipal government. to this cause, which was plainly felt by all the europeans of the new world, the anglo-americans added several others peculiar to themselves.

at the time of the settlement of the north american colonies, municipal liberty had already penetrated into the laws as well as the manners of the english, and the emigrants adopted it, not only as a necessary thing, but as a benefit which they knew how to appreciate. we have already seen the manner in which the colonies were founded: every province, and almost every district, was peopled separately by men who were strangers to each other, or who associated with very different purposes. the english settlers in the united states, therefore, early perceived that they were divided into a great number of small and distinct communities which belonged to no common centre; and that it was needful for each of these little communities to take care of its own affairs, since there did not appear to be any central authority which was naturally bound and easily enabled to provide for them. thus, the nature of the country, the manner in which the british colonies were founded, the habits of the first emigrants, in short everything, united to promote, in an extra-ordinary degree, municipal and provincial liberties.

in the united states, therefore, the mass of the institutions of the country is essentially republican; and in order permanently to destroy the laws which form the basis of the republic, it would be necessary to abolish all the laws at once. at the present day, it would be even more difficult for a party to succeed in founding a monarchy in the united states, than for a set of men to proclaim that france should henceforward be a republic. royalty would not find a system of legislation prepared for it beforehand; and a monarchy would then exist, really surrounded by republican institutions. the monarchical principle would likewise have great difficulty in penetrating into the manners of the americans.

in the united states, the sovereignty of the people is not an isolated doctrine bearing no relation to the prevailing manners and ideas of the people: it may, on the contrary, be regarded as the last link of a chain of opinions which binds the whole anglo-american world. that providence has given to every human being the degree of reason necessary to direct himself in the affairs which interest him exclusively; such is the grand maxim upon which civil and political society rests in the united states. the father of a family applies it to his children; the master to his servants; the township to its officers; the province to its townships; the state to the provinces; the union to the states; and when extended to the nation, it becomes the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people.

thus, in the united states, the fundamental principle of the republic is the same which governs the greater part of human actions; republican notions insinuate themselves into all the ideas, opinions, and habits of the americans, while they are formally recognized by the legislation: and before this legislation can be altered, the whole community must undergo very serious changes. in the united states, even the religion of most of the citizens is republican, since it submits the truths of the other world to private judgment: as in politics the care of its temporal interests is abandoned to the good sense of the people. thus every man is allowed freely to take that road which he thinks will lead him to heaven; just as the law permits every citizen to have the right of choosing his government.

it is evident that nothing but a long series of events, all having the same tendency, can substitute for this combination of laws, opinions, and manners, a mass of opposite opinions, manners and laws.

if republican principles are to perish in america, they can only yield after a laborious social process, often interrupted, and as often resumed; they will have many apparent revivals, and will not become totally extinct until an entirely new people shall have succeeded to that which now exists. now, it must be admitted that there is no symptom or presage of the approach of such a revolution. there is nothing more striking to a person newly arrived in the united states, than the kind of tumultuous agitation in which he finds political society. the laws are incessantly changing, and at first sight it seems impossible that a people so variable in its desires should avoid adopting, within a short space of time, a completely new form of government. such apprehensions are, however, premature; the instability which affects political institutions is of two kinds, which ought not to be confounded: the first, which modifies secondary laws, is not incompatible with a very settled state of society; the other shakes the very foundations of the constitution, and attacks the fundamental principles of legislation; this species of instability is always followed by troubles and revolutions, and the nation which suffers under it, is in a state of violent transition.

experience shows that these two kinds of legislative instability have no necessary connexion; for they have been found united or separate, according to times and circumstances. the first is common in the united states, but not the second: the americans often change their laws, but the foundation of the constitution is respected.

in our days the republican principle rules in america, as the monarchical principle did in france under louis xiv. the french of that period were not only friends of the monarchy, but they thought it impossible to put anything in its place; they received it as we receive the rays of the sun and the return of the seasons. among them the royal power had neither advocates nor opponents. in like manner does the republican government exist in america, without contention or opposition; without proofs and arguments, by a tacit agreement, a sort of consensus universalis. it is, however, my opinion, that, by changing their administrative forms as often as they do, the inhabitants of the united states compromise the future stability of their government.

it may be apprehended that men, perpetually thwarted in their designs by the mutability of legislation, will learn to look upon republican institutions as an inconvenient form of society; the evil resulting from the instability of the secondary enactments, might then raise a doubt as to the nature of the fundamental principles of the constitution, and indirectly bring about a revolution; but this epoch is still very remote.

{it has been objected by an american review, that our author is mistaken in charging our laws with instability, and in answer to the charge, the permanence of our fundamental political institutions has been contrasted with the revolutions in france. but the objection proceeds upon a mistake of the author's meaning, which at this page is very clearly expressed. he refers to the instability which modifies secondary laws, and not to that which shakes the foundations of the constitution. the distinction is equally sound and philosophic, and those in the least acquainted with the history of our legislation, must bear witness to the truth of the author's remarks. the frequent revisions of the statutes of the states rendered necessary by the multitude, variety, and often the contradiction of the enactments, furnish abundant evidence of this instability.—american editor.}

it may, however, be foreseen, even now, that when the americans lose their republican institutions, they will speedily arrive at a despotic government, without a long interval of limited monarchy. montesquieu remarked, that nothing is more absolute than the authority of a prince who immediately succeeds a republic, since the powers which had fearlessly been intrusted to an elected magistrate are then transferred to an hereditary sovereign. this is true in general, but it is more peculiarly applicable to a democratic republic. in the united states, the magistrates are not elected by a particular class of citizens, but by the majority of the nation; they are the immediate representatives of the passions of the multitude; and as they are wholly dependent upon its pleasure, they excite neither hatred nor fear: hence, as i have already shown, very little care has been taken to limit their influence, and they are left in possession of a vast deal of arbitrary power. this state of things has engendered habits which would outlive itself; the american magistrate would retain his power, but he would cease to be responsible for the exercise of it; and it is impossible to say what bounds could then be set to tyranny.

some of our european politicians expect to see an aristocracy arise in america, and they already predict the exact period at which it will be able to assume the reins of government. i have previously observed, and i repeat my assertion, that the present tendency of american society appears to me to become more and more democratic. nevertheless, i do not assert that the americans will not, at some future time, restrict the circle of political rights in their country, or confiscate those rights to the advantage of a single individual; but i cannot imagine that they will ever bestow the exclusive exercise of them upon a privileged class of citizens, or, in other words, that they will ever found an aristocracy.

an aristocratic body is composed of a certain number of citizens, who, without being very far removed from the mass of the people, are, nevertheless, permanently stationed above it: a body which it is easy to touch, and difficult to strike; with which the people are in daily contact, but with which they can never combine. nothing can be imagined more contrary to nature and to the secret propensities of the human heart, than a subjection of this kind; and men, who are left to follow their own bent, will always prefer the arbitrary power of a king to the regular administration of an aristocracy. aristocratic institutions cannot subsist without laying down the inequality of men as a fundamental principle, as a part and parcel of the legislation, affecting the condition of the human family as much as it affects that of society; but these things are so repugnant to natural equity that they can only be extorted from men by constraint.

i do not think a single people can be quoted, since human society began to exist, which has, by its own free will and by its own exertions, created an aristocracy within its own bosom. all the aristocracies of the middle ages were founded by military conquest: the conqueror was the noble, the vanquished became the serf. inequality was then imposed by force; and after it had been introduced into the manners of the country, it maintained its own authority, and was sanctioned by the legislation. communities have existed which were aristocratic from their earliest origin, owing to circumstances anterior to that event, and which became more democratic in each succeeding age. such was the destiny of the romans, and of the barbarians after them. but a people, having taken its rise in civilisation and democracy, which should gradually establish an inequality of conditions until it arrived at inviolable privileges and exclusive castes, would be a novelty in the world; and nothing intimates that america is likely to furnish so singular an example.

reflections on the causes of the commercial prosperity of the united states.

the americans destined by nature to be a great maritime people.—extent of their coasts.—depth of their ports.—size of their rivers.—the commercial superiority of the anglo-saxons less attributable, however, to physical circumstances than to moral and intellectual causes.—reason of this opinion.—future destiny of the anglo-americans as a commercial nation.—the dissolution of the union would not check the maritime vigor of the states.—reason of this.—anglo-americans will naturally supply the wants of the inhabitants of south america.—they will become, like the english, the factors of a great portion of the world.

the coast of the united states, from the bay of fundy to the sabine river in the gulf of mexico, is more than two thousand miles in extent. these shores form an unbroken line, and they are all subject to the same government. no nation in the world possesses vaster, deeper, or more secure ports for shipping than the americans.

the inhabitants of the united states constitute a great civilized people, which fortune has placed in the midst of an uncultivated country, at a distance of three thousand miles from the central point of civilisation. america consequently stands in daily need of european trade. the americans will, no doubt, ultimately succeed in producing or manufacturing at home most of the articles which they require; but the two continents can never be independent of each other, so numerous are the natural ties which exist between their wants, their ideas, their habits, and their manners.

the union produces peculiar commodities which are now become necessary to us, but which cannot be cultivated, or can only be raised at an enormous expense, upon the soil of europe. the americans only consume a small portion of this produce, and they are willing to sell us the rest. europe is therefore the market of america, as america is the market of europe; and maritime commerce is no less necessary to enable the inhabitants of the united states to transport their raw materials to the ports of europe, than it is to enable us to supply them with our manufactured produce. the united states were therefore necessarily reduced to the alternative of increasing the business of other maritime nations to a great extent, if they had themselves declined to enter into commerce, as the spaniards of mexico have hitherto done; or, in the second place, of becoming one of the first trading powers of the globe.

the anglo-americans have always displayed a very decided taste for the sea. the declaration of independence broke the commercial restrictions which united them to england, and gave a fresh and powerful stimulus to their maritime genius. ever since that time, the shipping of the union has increased in almost the same rapid proportion as the number of its inhabitants. the americans themselves now transport to their own shores nine-tenths of the european produce which they consume.{291} and they also bring three-quarters of the exports of the new world to the european consumer.{292} the ships of the united states fill the docks of havre and of liverpool; while the number of english and french vessels which are to be seen at new york is comparatively small.{293}

thus, not only does the american merchant face competition in his own country, but he even supports that of foreign nations in their own ports with success. this is readily explained by the fact that the vessels of the united states can cross the seas at a cheaper rate than any other vessels in the world. as long as the mercantile shipping of the united states preserves this superiority, it will not only retain what it has acquired, but it will constantly increase in prosperity.

it is difficult to say for what reason the americans can trade at a lower rate than other nations; and one is at first led to attribute this circumstance to the physical or natural advantages which are within their reach; but this supposition is erroneous. the american vessels cost almost as much to build as our own{294}; they are not better built, and they generally last for a shorter time. the pay of the american sailor is more considerable than the pay on board european ships; which is proved by the great number of europeans who are to be met with in the merchant vessels of the united states. but i am of opinion that the true cause of their superiority must not be sought for in physical advantages, but that it is wholly attributable to their moral and intellectual qualities.

the following comparison will illustrate my meaning. during the campaigns of the revolution the french introduced a new system of tactics into the art of war, which perplexed the oldest generals, and very nearly destroyed the most ancient monarchies in europe. they undertook (what had never been before attempted) to make shift without a number of things which had always been held to be indispensable in warfare; they required novel exertions on the part of their troops, which no civilized nations had ever thought of; they achieved great actions in an incredibly short space of time: and they risked human life without hesitation, to obtain the object in view. the french had less money and fewer men than their enemies; their resources were infinitely inferior; nevertheless they were constantly victorious, until their adversaries chose to imitate their example.

the americans have introduced a similar system into their commercial speculations; and they do for cheapness what the french did for conquest. the european sailor navigates with prudence; he only sets sail when the weather is favorable; if an unforeseen accident befalls him, he puts into port; at night he furls a portion of his canvass; and when the whitening billows intimate the vicinity of land, he checks his way, and takes an observation of the sun. but the american neglects these precautions and braves these dangers. he weighs anchor in the midst of tempestuous gales; by night and by day he spreads his sheets to the wind; he repairs as he goes along such damage as his vessel may have sustained from the storm; and when he at last approaches the term of his voyage, he darts onward to the shore as if he already descried a port. the americans are often shipwrecked, but no trader crosses the seas so rapidly. and as they perform the same distance in a shorter time, they can perform it at a cheaper rate.

the european touches several times at different ports in the course of a long voyage; he loses a good deal of precious time in making the harbor, or in waiting for a favorable wind to leave it; and he pays daily dues to be allowed to remain there. the american starts from boston to go to purchase tea in china: he arrives at canton, stays there a few days and then returns. in less than two years he has sailed as far as the entire circumference of the globe, and he has seen land but once. it is true that during a voyage of eight or ten months he has drunk brackish water, and lived upon salt meat; that he has been in a continual contest with the sea, with disease, and with the tedium of monotony; but, upon his return, he can sell a pound of his tea for a halfpenny less than the english merchant, and his purpose is accomplished.

i cannot better explain my meaning than by saying that the americans affect a sort of heroism in their manner of trading. but the european merchant will always find it very difficult to imitate his american competitor, who, in adopting the system which i have just described, follows not only a calculation of his gain, but an impulse of his nature.

the inhabitants of the united states are subject to all the wants and all the desires which result from an advanced stage of civilisation; but as they are not surrounded by a community admirably adapted, like that of europe, to satisfy their wants, they are often obliged to procure for themselves the various articles which education and habit have rendered necessaries. in america it sometimes happens that the same individual tills his field, builds his dwelling, contrives his tools, makes his shoes, and weaves the coarse stuff of which his dress is composed. this circumstance is prejudicial to the excellence of the work: but it powerfully contributes to awaken the intelligence of the workman. nothing tends to materialise man, and to deprive his work of the faintest trace of mind, more than extreme division of labor. in a country like america, where men devoted to special occupations are rare, a long apprenticeship cannot be required from any one who embraces a profession. the americans therefore change their means of gaining a livelihood very readily; and they suit their occupations to the exigencies of the moment, in the manner most profitable to themselves. men are to be met with who have successively been barristers, farmers, merchants, ministers of the gospel, and physicians. if the american be less perfect in each craft than the european, at least there is scarcely any trade with which he is utterly unacquainted. his capacity is more general, and the circle of his intelligence is enlarged.

the inhabitants of the united states are never fettered by the axioms of their profession; they escape from all the prejudices of their present station; they are not more attached to one line of operation than to another; they are not more prone to employ an old method than a new one; they have no rooted habits, and they easily shake off the influence which the habits of other nations might exercise upon their minds, from a conviction that their country is unlike any other, and that its situation is without a precedent in the world. america is a land of wonders, in which everything is in constant motion, and every movement seems an improvement. the idea of novelty is there indissolubly connected with the idea of melioration. no natural boundary seems to be set to the efforts of man; and what is not yet done is only what he has not yet attempted to do.

this perpetual change which goes on in the united states, these frequent vicissitudes of fortune, accompanied by such unforeseen fluctuations in private and in public wealth, serve to keep the minds of the citizens in a perpetual state of feverish agitation, which admirably invigorates their exertions, and keeps them in a state of excitement above the ordinary level of mankind. the whole life of an american is passed like a game of chance, a revolutionary crisis or a battle. as the same causes are continually in operation throughout the country, they ultimately impart an irresistible impulse to the national character. the american, taken as a chance specimen of his countrymen, must then be a man of singular warmth in his desires, enterprising, fond of adventure, and above all of innovation. the same bent is manifest in all that he does; he introduces it into his political laws, his religious doctrines, his theories of social economy, and his domestic occupations; he bears it with him in the depth of the backwoods, as well as in the business of the city. it is the same passion, applied to maritime commerce, which makes him the cheapest and the quickest trader in the world.

as long as the sailors of the united states retain these inspiriting advantages, and the practical superiority which they derive from them, they will not only continue to supply the wants of the producers and consumers of their own country, but they will tend more and more to become, like the english, the factors of all other peoples.{295} this prediction has already begun to be realized; we perceive that the american traders are introducing themselves as intermediate agents in the commerce of several european nations;{296} and america will offer a still wider field to their enterprise.

the great colonies which were founded in south america by the spaniards and the portuguese have since become empires. civil war and oppression now lay waste those extensive regions. population does not increase, and the thinly-scattered inhabitants are too much absorbed in the cares of self-defence even to attempt any melioration of their condition. such, however, will not always be the case. europe has succeeded by her own efforts in piercing the gloom of the middle ages; south america has the same christian laws and christian manners as we have; she contains all the germs of civilisation which have grown amid the nations of europe or their offsets, added to the advantages to be derived from our example; why then should she always remain uncivilized? it is clear that the question is simply one of time; at some future period, which may be more or less remote, the inhabitants of south america will constitute flourishing and enlightened nations.

but when the spaniards and portuguese of south america begin to feel the wants common to all civilized nations, they will still be unable to satisfy those wants for themselves; as the youngest children of civilisation, they must perforce admit the superiority of their elder brethren. they will be agriculturists long before they succeed in manufactures or commerce, and they will require the mediation of strangers to exchange their produce beyond seas for those articles for which a demand will begin to be felt.

it is unquestionable that the americans of the north will one day supply the wants of the americans of the south. nature has placed them in contiguity; and has furnished the former with every means of knowing and appreciating those demands, of establishing a permanent connexion with those states, and of gradually filling their markets. the merchant of the united states could only forfeit these natural advantages if he were very inferior to the merchant of europe; to whom he is, on the contrary, superior in several respects. the americans of the united states already exercise a very considerable moral influence upon all the people of the new world. they are the source of intelligence, and all the nations which inhabit the same continent are already accustomed to consider them as the most enlightened, the most powerful, and the most wealthy members of the great american family. all eyes are therefore turned toward the union; and the states of which that body is composed are the models which the other communities try to imitate to the best of their power: it is from the united states that they borrow their political principles and their laws.

the americans of the united states stand in precisely the same position with regard to the peoples of south america as their fathers, the english, occupy with regard to the italians, the spaniards, the portuguese, and all those nations of europe, which receive their articles of daily consumption from england, because they are less advanced in civilisation and trade. england is at this time the natural emporium of almost all the nations which are within its reach; the american union will perform the same part in the other hemisphere; and every community which is founded, or which prospers in the new world, is founded and prospers to the advantage of the anglo-americans.

if the union were to be dissolved, the commerce of the states which now compose it, would undoubtedly be checked for a time; but this consequence would be less perceptible than is generally supposed. it is evident that whatever may happen, the commercial states will remain united. they are all contiguous to each other; they have identically the same opinions, interests, and manners, and they are alone competent to form a very great maritime power. even if the south of the union were to become independent of the north, it would still require the service of those states. i have already observed that the south is not a commercial country, and nothing intimates that it is likely to become so. the americans of the south of the united states will therefore be obliged, for a long time to come, to have recourse to strangers to export their produce, and to supply them with the commodities which are requisite to satisfy their wants. but the northern states are undoubtedly able to act as their intermediate agents cheaper than any other merchants. they will therefore retain that employment, for cheapness is the sovereign law of commerce. national claims and national prejudices cannot resist the influence of cheapness. nothing can be more virulent than the hatred which exists between the americans of the united states and the english. but, notwithstanding these inimical feelings, the americans derive the greater part of their manufactured commodities from england, because england supplies them at a cheaper rate than any other nation. thus the increasing prosperity of america turns, notwithstanding the grudges of the americans, to the advantage of british manufactures.

reason shows and experience proves that no commercial prosperity can be durable if it cannot be united, in case of need, to naval force. this truth is as well understood in the united states as it can be anywhere else: the americans are already able to make their flag respected: in a few years they will be able to make it feared. i am convinced that the dismemberment of the union would not have the effect of diminishing the naval power of the americans, but that it would powerfully contribute to increase it. at the present time the commercial states are connected with others which have not the same interests, and which frequently yield an unwilling consent to the increase of a maritime power by which they are only indirectly benefited. if, on the contrary, the commercial states of the union formed one independent nation, commerce would become the foremost of their national interests; they would consequently be willing to make very great sacrifices to protect their shipping, and nothing would prevent them from pursuing their designs upon this point.

nations, as well as men, almost always betray the most prominent features of their future destiny in their earliest years. when i contemplate the ardor with which the anglo-americans prosecute commercial enterprise, the advantages which befriend them, and the success of their undertakings, i cannot refrain from believing that they will one day become the first maritime power of the globe. they are born to rule the seas, as the romans were to conquer the world.