a social condition is commonly the result of circumstances, sometimes of laws, oftener still of these two causes united; but wherever it exists, it may justly be considered as the source of almost all the laws, the usages, and the ideas which regulate the conduct of nations; whatever it does not produce it modifies. it is therefore necessary, if we would become acquainted with the legislation and the manners of a nation, to begin by the study of its social condition.
the striking characteristic of the social condition of the anglo-americans in its essential democracy.
the first emigrants of new england—their equality—aristocratic laws introduced in the south—period of the revolution—change in the law of descent—effects produced by this change—democracy carried to its utmost limits in the new states of the west—equality of education.
many important observations suggest themselves upon the social condition of the anglo-americans, but there is one which takes precedence of all the rest. the social condition of the americans is eminently democratic; this was its character at the foundation of the colonies, and is still more strongly marked at the present day. i have stated in the preceding chapter that great equality existed among the emigrants who settled on the shores of new england. the germ of aristocracy was never planted in that part of the union. the only influence which obtained there was that of intellect; the people were used to reverence certain names as the emblems of knowledge and virtue. some of their fellow-citizens acquired a power over the rest which might truly have been called aristocratic, if it had been capable of transmission from father to son.
this was the state of things to the east of the hudson: to the south-west of that river, and in the direction of the floridas, the case was different. in most of the states situated to the south-west of the hudson some great english proprietors had settled, who had imported with them aristocratic principles and the english law of descent. i have explained the reasons why it was impossible ever to establish a powerful aristocracy in america; these reasons existed with less force to the south-west of the hudson. in the south, one man, aided by slaves, could cultivate a great extent of country: it was therefore common to see rich landed proprietors. but their influence was not altogether aristocratic as that term is understood in europe, since they possessed no privileges; and the cultivation of their estates being carried on by slaves, they had no tenants depending on them, and consequently no patronage. still, the great proprietors south of the hudson constituted a superior class, having ideas and tastes of its own, and forming the centre of political action. this kind of aristocracy sympathized with the body of the people, whose passions and interests it easily embraced; but it was too weak and too short-lived to excite either love or hatred for itself. this was the class which headed the insurrection in the south, and furnished the best leaders of the american revolution.
at the period of which we are now speaking society was shaken to its centre: the people, in whose name the struggle had taken place, conceived the desire of exercising the authority which it had acquired; its democratic tendencies were awakened; and having thrown off the yoke of the mother-country, it aspired to independence of every kind. the influence of individuals gradually ceased to be felt, and custom and law united together to produce the same result.
but the law of descent was the last step to equality. i am surprised that ancient and modern jurists have not attributed to this law a greater influence on human affairs. *a it is true that these laws belong to civil affairs; but they ought nevertheless to be placed at the head of all political institutions; for, whilst political laws are only the symbol of a nation's condition, they exercise an incredible influence upon its social state. they have, moreover, a sure and uniform manner of operating upon society, affecting, as it were, generations yet unborn.
a
[ i understand by the law of descent all those laws whose principal object is to regulate the distribution of property after the death of its owner. the law of entail is of this number; it certainly prevents the owner from disposing of his possessions before his death; but this is solely with the view of preserving them entire for the heir. the principal object, therefore, of the law of entail is to regulate the descent of property after the death of its owner: its other provisions are merely means to this end.]
through their means man acquires a kind of preternatural power over the future lot of his fellow-creatures. when the legislator has regulated the law of inheritance, he may rest from his labor. the machine once put in motion will go on for ages, and advance, as if self-guided, towards a given point. when framed in a particular manner, this law unites, draws together, and vests property and power in a few hands: its tendency is clearly aristocratic. on opposite principles its action is still more rapid; it divides, distributes, and disperses both property and power. alarmed by the rapidity of its progress, those who despair of arresting its motion endeavor to obstruct it by difficulties and impediments; they vainly seek to counteract its effect by contrary efforts; but it gradually reduces or destroys every obstacle, until by its incessant activity the bulwarks of the influence of wealth are ground down to the fine and shifting sand which is the basis of democracy. when the law of inheritance permits, still more when it decrees, the equal division of a father's property amongst all his children, its effects are of two kinds: it is important to distinguish them from each other, although they tend to the same end.
in virtue of the law of partible inheritance, the death of every proprietor brings about a kind of revolution in property; not only do his possessions change hands, but their very nature is altered, since they are parcelled into shares, which become smaller and smaller at each division. this is the direct and, as it were, the physical effect of the law. it follows, then, that in countries where equality of inheritance is established by law, property, and especially landed property, must have a tendency to perpetual diminution. the effects, however, of such legislation would only be perceptible after a lapse of time, if the law was abandoned to its own working; for supposing the family to consist of two children (and in a country people as france is the average number is not above three), these children, sharing amongst them the fortune of both parents, would not be poorer than their father or mother.
but the law of equal division exercises its influence not merely upon the property itself, but it affects the minds of the heirs, and brings their passions into play. these indirect consequences tend powerfully to the destruction of large fortunes, and especially of large domains. among nations whose law of descent is founded upon the right of primogeniture landed estates often pass from generation to generation without undergoing division, the consequence of which is that family feeling is to a certain degree incorporated with the estate. the family represents the estate, the estate the family; whose name, together with its origin, its glory, its power, and its virtues, is thus perpetuated in an imperishable memorial of the past and a sure pledge of the future.
when the equal partition of property is established by law, the intimate connection is destroyed between family feeling and the preservation of the paternal estate; the property ceases to represent the family; for as it must inevitably be divided after one or two generations, it has evidently a constant tendency to diminish, and must in the end be completely dispersed. the sons of the great landed proprietor, if they are few in number, or if fortune befriends them, may indeed entertain the hope of being as wealthy as their father, but not that of possessing the same property as he did; the riches must necessarily be composed of elements different from his.
now, from the moment that you divest the landowner of that interest in the preservation of his estate which he derives from association, from tradition, and from family pride, you may be certain that sooner or later he will dispose of it; for there is a strong pecuniary interest in favor of selling, as floating capital produces higher interest than real property, and is more readily available to gratify the passions of the moment.
great landed estates which have once been divided never come together again; for the small proprietor draws from his land a better revenue, in proportion, than the large owner does from his, and of course he sells it at a higher rate. *b the calculations of gain, therefore, which decide the rich man to sell his domain will still more powerfully influence him against buying small estates to unite them into a large one.
b
[ i do not mean to say that the small proprietor cultivates his land better, but he cultivates it with more ardor and care; so that he makes up by his labor for his want of skill.]
what is called family pride is often founded upon an illusion of self-love. a man wishes to perpetuate and immortalize himself, as it were, in his great-grandchildren. where the esprit de famille ceases to act individual selfishness comes into play. when the idea of family becomes vague, indeterminate, and uncertain, a man thinks of his present convenience; he provides for the establishment of his succeeding generation, and no more. either a man gives up the idea of perpetuating his family, or at any rate he seeks to accomplish it by other means than that of a landed estate. thus not only does the law of partible inheritance render it difficult for families to preserve their ancestral domains entire, but it deprives them of the inclination to attempt it, and compels them in some measure to co-operate with the law in their own extinction.
the law of equal distribution proceeds by two methods: by acting upon things, it acts upon persons; by influencing persons, it affects things. by these means the law succeeds in striking at the root of landed property, and dispersing rapidly both families and fortunes. *c
c
[ land being the most stable kind of property, we find, from time to time, rich individuals who are disposed to make great sacrifices in order to obtain it, and who willingly forfeit a considerable part of their income to make sure of the rest. but these are accidental cases. the preference for landed property is no longer found habitually in any class but among the poor. the small landowner, who has less information, less imagination, and fewer passions than the great one, is generally occupied with the desire of increasing his estate: and it often happens that by inheritance, by marriage, or by the chances of trade, he is gradually furnished with the means. thus, to balance the tendency which leads men to divide their estates, there exists another, which incites them to add to them. this tendency, which is sufficient to prevent estates from being divided ad infinitum, is not strong enough to create great territorial possessions, certainly not to keep them up in the same family.]
most certainly it is not for us frenchmen of the nineteenth century, who daily witness the political and social changes which the law of partition is bringing to pass, to question its influence. it is perpetually conspicuous in our country, overthrowing the walls of our dwellings and removing the landmarks of our fields. but although it has produced great effects in france, much still remains for it to do. our recollections, opinions, and habits present powerful obstacles to its progress.
in the united states it has nearly completed its work of destruction, and there we can best study its results. the english laws concerning the transmission of property were abolished in almost all the states at the time of the revolution. the law of entail was so modified as not to interrupt the free circulation of property. *d the first generation having passed away, estates began to be parcelled out, and the change became more and more rapid with the progress of time. at this moment, after a lapse of a little more than sixty years, the aspect of society is totally altered; the families of the great landed proprietors are almost all commingled with the general mass. in the state of new york, which formerly contained many of these, there are but two who still keep their heads above the stream, and they must shortly disappear. the sons of these opulent citizens are become merchants, lawyers, or physicians. most of them have lapsed into obscurity. the last trace of hereditary ranks and distinctions is destroyed—the law of partition has reduced all to one level. [footnote d: see appendix, g.]
i do not mean that there is any deficiency of wealthy individuals in the united states; i know of no country, indeed, where the love of money has taken stronger hold on the affections of men, and where the profounder contempt is expressed for the theory of the permanent equality of property. but wealth circulates with inconceivable rapidity, and experience shows that it is rare to find two succeeding generations in the full enjoyment of it.
this picture, which may perhaps be thought to be overcharged, still gives a very imperfect idea of what is taking place in the new states of the west and south-west. at the end of the last century a few bold adventurers began to penetrate into the valleys of the mississippi, and the mass of the population very soon began to move in that direction: communities unheard of till then were seen to emerge from the wilds: states whose names were not in existence a few years before claimed their place in the american union; and in the western settlements we may behold democracy arrived at its utmost extreme. in these states, founded off-hand, and, as it were, by chance, the inhabitants are but of yesterday. scarcely known to one another, the nearest neighbors are ignorant of each other's history. in this part of the american continent, therefore, the population has not experienced the influence of great names and great wealth, nor even that of the natural aristocracy of knowledge and virtue. none are there to wield that respectable power which men willingly grant to the remembrance of a life spent in doing good before their eyes. the new states of the west are already inhabited, but society has no existence among them. *e
e
[ this may have been true in 1832, but is not so in 1874, when great cities like chicago and san francisco have sprung up in the western states. but as yet the western states exert no powerful influence on american society.—-translator's note.]
it is not only the fortunes of men which are equal in america; even their requirements partake in some degree of the same uniformity. i do not believe that there is a country in the world where, in proportion to the population, there are so few uninstructed and at the same time so few learned individuals. primary instruction is within the reach of everybody; superior instruction is scarcely to be obtained by any. this is not surprising; it is in fact the necessary consequence of what we have advanced above. almost all the americans are in easy circumstances, and can therefore obtain the first elements of human knowledge.
in america there are comparatively few who are rich enough to live without a profession. every profession requires an apprenticeship, which limits the time of instruction to the early years of life. at fifteen they enter upon their calling, and thus their education ends at the age when ours begins. whatever is done afterwards is with a view to some special and lucrative object; a science is taken up as a matter of business, and the only branch of it which is attended to is such as admits of an immediate practical application. in america most of the rich men were formerly poor; most of those who now enjoy leisure were absorbed in business during their youth; the consequence of which is, that when they might have had a taste for study they had no time for it, and when time is at their disposal they have no longer the inclination.
there is no class, then, in america, in which the taste for intellectual pleasures is transmitted with hereditary fortune and leisure, and by which the labors of the intellect are held in honor. accordingly there is an equal want of the desire and the power of application to these objects.
a middle standard is fixed in america for human knowledge. all approach as near to it as they can; some as they rise, others as they descend. of course, an immense multitude of persons are to be found who entertain the same number of ideas on religion, history, science, political economy, legislation, and government. the gifts of intellect proceed directly from god, and man cannot prevent their unequal distribution. but in consequence of the state of things which we have here represented it happens that, although the capacities of men are widely different, as the creator has doubtless intended they should be, they are submitted to the same method of treatment.
in america the aristocratic element has always been feeble from its birth; and if at the present day it is not actually destroyed, it is at any rate so completely disabled that we can scarcely assign to it any degree of influence in the course of affairs. the democratic principle, on the contrary, has gained so much strength by time, by events, and by legislation, as to have become not only predominant but all-powerful. there is no family or corporate authority, and it is rare to find even the influence of individual character enjoy any durability.
america, then, exhibits in her social state a most extraordinary phenomenon. men are there seen on a greater equality in point of fortune and intellect, or, in other words, more equal in their strength, than in any other country of the world, or in any age of which history has preserved the remembrance.
political consequences of the social condition of the anglo-americans
the political consequences of such a social condition as this are easily deducible. it is impossible to believe that equality will not eventually find its way into the political world as it does everywhere else. to conceive of men remaining forever unequal upon one single point, yet equal on all others, is impossible; they must come in the end to be equal upon all. now i know of only two methods of establishing equality in the political world; every citizen must be put in possession of his rights, or rights must be granted to no one. for nations which are arrived at the same stage of social existence as the anglo-americans, it is therefore very difficult to discover a medium between the sovereignty of all and the absolute power of one man: and it would be vain to deny that the social condition which i have been describing is equally liable to each of these consequences.
there is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. this passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom. not that those nations whose social condition is democratic naturally despise liberty; on the contrary, they have an instinctive love of it. but liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol: they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty, and if they miss their aim resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing can satisfy them except equality, and rather than lose it they resolve to perish.
on the other hand, in a state where the citizens are nearly on an equality, it becomes difficult for them to preserve their independence against the aggressions of power. no one among them being strong enough to engage in the struggle with advantage, nothing but a general combination can protect their liberty. and such a union is not always to be found.
from the same social position, then, nations may derive one or the other of two great political results; these results are extremely different from each other, but they may both proceed from the same cause.
the anglo-americans are the first nations who, having been exposed to this formidable alternative, have been happy enough to escape the dominion of absolute power. they have been allowed by their circumstances, their origin, their intelligence, and especially by their moral feeling, to establish and maintain the sovereignty of the people.
