Chapter 1: Physical Configuration of North America

Tocqueville begins within almost poetic description of the geographical layout of North America. There are two regions, bordered on the north by the pole and on the south by the equator, and separated in the middle by the Great Lakes. The region more suitable for human habitation is the southern one because it has more natural divisions. The Mississippi River valley, still a largely uninhabited wilderness, "is the most magnificent habitation ever prepared by God for man." The areas east of the Alleghenies where the population is concentrated are much less suitable for agriculture. When settlers first went to America, it was not completely uninhabited. The native tribes had a unique social organization, which was rudimentary and coarse in comparison to Europe, but which had a particular dignity as well. Though they were ignorant, they were not servile like many of the poor in aristocratic countries. Remains of previous civilizations have been found, but no one knows anything about them. Because the Indians were hunters, they did not actually possess the land. One gains possession of land through agriculture. The area around the Mississippi and in the plains is so well-suited for trade and industry that civilized man was destined to build a society there.

Analysis

Although it is straightforward and mostly descriptive, this first chapter still provides a few insights into key themes of Tocqueville's philosophy. First of all, the notion of a divine plan guiding history‹a crucial underlying assumption of Tocqueville's thought‹is evident. Tocqueville speaks of the Mississippi valley as "prepared by God for man" and asserts that the European conquest of Indian territory was destined by Providence.

Some of Tocqueville's ideas about inequality and aristocracy also begin to surface when Tocqueville speaks about the Indians. He contrasts their simple dignity with the "coarseness of the common people" in civilized countries, explaining that this coarseness is exacerbated by contact with the upper classes. The reason for this phenomenon is that "where there are such rich and powerful men, the poor and weak feel themselves weighed down by their inferiority; seeing no prospect of gaining equality, they quite give up hope for themselves and allow themselves to fall below the proper dignity of mankind." On the other hand, though the Indians may be "poor and ignorant," they are also "equal and free." These comments point to Tocqueville's later, more developed analysis of the continual growth in equality of conditions, its benefits and drawbacks, and in particular its often problematic relation to freedom. These ideas are discussed at length in Volume II, Part II, but are constantly alluded to and almost taken for granted throughout the book.

Chapter 2: Concerning Their Point of Departure and its Importance for the Future of the Anglo-Americans

One needs to understand the origin of a nation in order to understand its social conditions and laws. America is the only great nation for which we can see the origins. This chapter is important because it "provides the germ of all that is to follow."

Immigrants to America all shared a common language. In addition, their English heritage provided them with the knowledge and experience of local self-government, and the idea of the sovereignty of the people was deeply rooted in the Tudor monarchy. Because of religious influences, the people had chaste mores.

The land in America is not suitable for aristocracy because it is too difficult to handle and not fertile enough to provide enough support for both a landlord and tenant. As result, a large middle class formed.

There are two branches of colonies: the South and the North. The South began with Virginian settlers who were in search of gold and profit. These settlers had generally low moral standards, and almost immediately established slavery. These factors explain the mores and social conditions in the South.

In the North, all the immigrants came from educated classes. They left the comforts of home because of their belief in Puritanism, which is not just a religious doctrine but also contains the most absolute democratic theories. The Pilgrims established an orderly society immediately upon landing in 1620, and the colony grew rapidly because of continued immigration. It was "a society homogeneous in all its parts," the most perfect democracy that ever existed.

The English government encouraged the colonists and was actually glad that they left England because they were seen as potential revolutionaries. The colonies enjoyed great internal freedom. The settlers did not deny England's rule, but they did not take their internal ruling power from England. They organized themselves independently.

Criminal law in New England was based on Biblical moral codes. The laws were extremely strict and invasive. However, these were self-imposed and freely agreed upon. The people's mores were even more austere than their laws.

The political laws were well ahead of their time, and included such features as participation of the people in public affairs, individual freedom, trial by jury, etc. There was almost perfect equality of wealth and intellect among the citizens. While the state was officially a monarchy, local independence flourished, and each township was organized as a republic.

The laws demonstrated great knowledge of advanced social and political theory. They included provisions for the poor and public education (on the grounds that ignorance is an ally of the Devil). In this way, the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom were combined. In the sphere of morality everything was absolute, but in the sphere of politics everything was open to debate. As a result, religion and political freedom mutually supported one another. Religion is better off if it gains support without state coercion, and political freedom is strengthened by religion because it helps to create and maintain good mores, which are necessary for the responsible use of freedom.

Reasons for Some Peculiarities in the Laws and Customs of the Anglo-Americans

One needs to distinguish between elements of Puritan origin and elements of English origin. There are some laws in America which do not seem to fit their ideology, but which are simply a result of English influence. Such laws provide a slight aristocratic element.

Analysis

This chapter provides an introduction to two of the central themes of the work: the extreme equality of conditions and its relation to political freedom, and the importance of religion for the maintenance of freedom.

Tocqueville believes that history progresses with the inevitable growth of equality of conditions, and he sees America as the furthest progression of this growth. The extraordinary level of equality can be both a help and a hindrance to freedom. On the one hand, one cannot have complete equality without complete freedom (see Volume II, Part II, Chapter II). Yet at the same time, Tocqueville recognizes that in almost every situation, freedom is endangered by an overly ardent passion for equality. The reason that freedom and equality have been able to coexist in America is the existence of deeply rooted local self-government, which provides the citizens with a means for exercising their freedom. The crucial importance of these local liberties is discussed in detail in Chapter 5, Volume 1.

Another key factor that has allowed America to maintain freedom is the influence of religion. Good mores‹or the habits, customs and values of a society‹are crucial especially in a democracy precisely because there is so much freedom and people tend to adopt a relativistic attitude. Religion is the best means of preserving wholesome mores and teaching people how to use their freedom well. As Tocqueville writes, "Freedom sees religion as the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle of its infancy, the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its rights. Religion is considered the guardian of mores, and mores are regarded as the guarantee of the laws and pledge for the maintenance of freedom itself." Tocqueville speaks at length about this idea in Chapter 9, Volume 1.

Tocqueville also briefly addresses the topic of separation of church and state. This separation is mutually beneficial for both the church and state. In Tocqueville's view, which he elaborates in The Old Regime and the French Revolution, the reason for the struggles between the church and state in France was precisely the unnatural combination of the two before the French Revolution.

Chapter 3: Social State of the Anglo-Americans

The Striking Feature in the Social Condition of the Anglo-Americans is that it is Essentially Democratic

The social state is the primary cause of most laws, and in America the social state is "eminently democratic." There was a high degree of equality among immigrants, and people are respected on the basis of intellect and virtue.

The South has rich landowners and slaves, but is not quite an aristocracy because there are no aristocratic privileges.

The laws of inheritance in America yielded the final advance of equality. If inheritance law requires equal sharing of property among the children, the land will be continually broken up and great landed fortunes will be nearly impossible to sustain. The connection between the land and the family name which exists when there are laws of primogeniture is eradicated. As a result, wealth circulates in America with great rapidity.

There is not only equality in wealth, but also equality in education. None are totally ignorant, and few are highly educated. There is no class with both the taste and leisure for intellectual pleasures. This state of affairs creates a "middling standard." There is no aristocratic element in the society.

Political Consequences of the Social State of the Anglo-Americans

For equality in the political sphere, either every citizen or no citizen can have rights. The passion for equality often overrides the desire for freedom; consequently people often surrender freedom for the sake of equality.

Analysis

This chapter essentially continues to explain the equality that exists in America and the tension between equality and freedom. A negative element of equality which Tocqueville mentions briefly is its tendency to act as a leveler, bringing down those who would, in a more aristocratic society, become outstanding individuals. While Tocqueville is saddened by this loss, he sees it as inevitable. The second, more serious danger of the democratic passion for equality is its tendency to be pursued at the cost of liberty. Tocqueville will speak later on in the book about the specific dangers of the tyranny of the majority and democratic despotism. (See Volume 1: Chapter 7; Volume 2: Part II, Chapter 1; Part IV, Chapter 6)

Chapter 4: The Principle of the Sovereignty of the People in America

The sovereignty of the people is recognized by both mores and laws in America. In the colonies, this principle spread secretly within the provincial assemblies. With the advent of the Revolution, the dogma of the sovereignty of the people took possession of the government and was coded into law. The upper classes acquiesced to this principle in order to gain the goodwill of the people and enacted legislation which strengthened it. Voting qualifications were progressively eradicated. In America, the people really do rule.

Analysis

Recognizing the sovereignty of the people is essential for a democratic government. The Americans have done this and followed this principle to its logical conclusions to an extraordinary degree, largely as a result of their strong passion for equality. This principle can become dangerous, however, in that it may lead to a tyranny of the majority.

Chapter 5: The Need to Study What Happens in the States Before Discussing the Government of the Union

The American System of Townships

There are really two separate governments in America, the state government and the federal government, even to the extent that there almost seem to be twenty-four little sovereign nations. Because of the limited and specific scope of action of the federal government, the state government is the normal authority. The states were the original center of power and the place where American political principles were formed.

There are three centers of power in the state: the township, the country, and the state. The township is rooted in nature and in man's natural sociability. But local freedom is rare, hard to establish and highly vulnerable to being lost. To survive, freedom needs to be entrenched in mores. This type of freedom is very elusive. No one in Europe understands it. Yet this freedom is absolutely essential and is the people's strength. The only means for a nation to have true freedom is through local institutions. New England is an excellent example because it has local liberties which are deeply rooted in tradition, law and mores.

Powers of the New England Township

The township is the place where the people most directly exercise power to rule. Administrative duties are in the hands of a few men, called "selectmen," elected on a yearly basis. Selectmen generally act on already established principles agreed upon by the majority. To change anything they need summon all the voters by calling a town meeting

Many other municipal officials are elected to perform the various town duties. There are nineteen main officials, and all citizens are bound to accept these positions if elected.

Life in the Township

In America the principles of sovereignty and equality of the people are supreme. An American obeys society because union with others is useful and he recognizes that authority is necessary for this union. But in personal matters a person does what he wants.

Municipality liberty derives from principle of sovereignty of the people. Just as a person is sovereign in all private matter, a township is sovereign in all matters only affecting the township.

Spirit of the Township in New England

The township has independence and power over its own sphere. Because of its power and strength it wins the affection of its inhabitants. Taking away this local self-governance will give a country docile subjects but not citizens. People are unwilling generally to work for matters that do not affect their private interest. As a result. few are willing to try for high government offices which are hard to get and which are out of direct sphere of personal interests. Therefore, since practical service is necessary to maintain patriotism, giving people the responsibility to govern in areas directly related to their interest is necessary for the fostering of a sense of civic duty. In the townships the government really emanates from the governed, so people are proud of and respect it. This practice of governing in the township acts as civic education, giving citizen clear ideas of duties and rights.

Administration in New England

The administration is almost invisible in America. Europeans think that weakening authority by taking away rights of society is the way to achieve liberty, but in America, through the division of power, authority is kept in check without diminishing its effectiveness. In the United States, the revolution was guided by mature desire for freedom. While the law has much force, no one person has extreme power. For example, in a small township there are nineteen officials, each with limited sphere of authority

The Americans solve the problem of making the elected officials obey the central government by making the official subject to the courts. Justices of the peace serve an administrative function, and the sheriff makes sure the township obeys laws of state. If an official commits a crime, he is tried in ordinary court.

The weakness in the system is that the administrative tribunal doesn't have the right to supervise officials, and must rely on reports of misconduct or negligence. The reasoning for this is that in America legislators appeal to private interest to ensure the execution of laws. The problem is that in some cases no one may be so directly effected as to want to complain.

General Ideas Concerning Administration in the United States

As one goes farther from New England one sees the diminishing power of the township and the increasing power of the county. The main governing principle that underlies the organization of the township and county is that each is the best judge of his own interest and is best able to provide for his own needs.

Tocqueville summarizes his description municipal government in America by stating: "Election of administrative officers, irremovability from office, absence of administrative hierarchy, and the use of judicial weapons to control secondary authorities are the chief characteristics of American administration from Maine to the Floridas". The most striking feature of the government is its decentralization.

Of the State

Tocqueville will speak only briefly on this subject because the constitution is based on familiar, simple, rational theory which most constitutional governments have in common.

Legislative Power of the State

There are two legislative bodies, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate exists to strengthen authority and the House to ensure representation of interests. The advantages deriving from a bicameral legislature are slowing down the movement of assemblies and providing a means for revision of laws. Americans are convinced that the division of powers is of utmost necessity.

The Executive Power of the State

The governor is the representative of executive power in the state. He is head of the military, and is responsible for keeping order and for seeing that laws are executed. Because his term in office is short, he is highly dependent on his constituents.

Political Effects of Administrative Decentralization in the United States

There are two types of centralization: governmental (dealing with nation-wide interests) and administrative (dealing with more specialized concerns). Combining the two results in extremely strong government, as in France under Louis XIV. Government centralization is necessary for the country, but administrative centralization diminishes civic spirit.

In the United States there is no administrative centralization but high government centralization. The strength of government centralization can be a danger because it can lead to a tyranny of the majority. Administrative decentralization is beneficial because the citizens are better able to handle their own affairs than the government, since the central power can not see all the small details of daily life. In contrast with France, uniform rules are absent but this absence is good because it allows for freedom. The problem in Europe is that people have no control over or no interest in management of local affairs. As a result they become dependent on the government to come to their aid for everything; they are subjects but not citizens.

The only solid and lasting foundation for a state's power is the free agreement of citizens, going forward toward the same goal. The two things that can provide such a consensus are religion and patriotism. Tocqueville admires the political effects of decentralization, because it makes people care personally about the country's interests.

In the United States, as opposed to Europe, the people do not obey men; they obey justice or law. Crime is almost always punished in America although power to investigate and to arrest is small, because people see crime as a public offense and all try to contribute to catching the criminal.

A country and its citizens need liberty in small matters in order to be able to exercise it in larger ones. The lack of these small liberties was a key factor in the failure of the French Revolution. The French Revolution had two tendencies, one toward freedom and the other toward despotism. Its centralizing tendencies made falling into tyranny easy.

While Americans disagree on almost everything, they are unanimous in their love of provincial freedom.

Analysis

This chapter is one of the most essential parts of the book for understanding Tocqueville's views on the nature of liberty and how to preserve it. Tocqueville's definition of liberty is highly ambivalent. On the one hand, there is his relatively straightforward characterization of liberty as the ability to govern oneself as much as possible through the administration of local affairs. Yet along this political definition of liberty there is always a mention of how mysterious and elusive freedom is, and how only a few noble souls can really appreciate freedom enough to make the sacrifices necessary to preserve it. This idea is brought to the forefront in The Old Regime and the French Revolution, a work which is thematically complementary to Democracy in America. In a striking passage of The Old Regime, Tocqueville writes about freedom's "intrinsic glamour," and calls it a "lofty aspiration which . . . defies analysis." He goes on to say that freedom is "something one must feel and logic has no part in it. It is a privilege of noble minds which God has fitted to receive it, and it inspires them with a generous fervor. But to meaner souls, untouched by the sacred flame, it may well seem incomprehensible." Keeping this passage in mind is helpful in understanding what Tocqueville really means when he states at the beginning of this chapter in Democracy in America that communal freedom "is seldom created, but rather springs up of its own accord. It grows, almost in secret, amid a semi-barbarous society." This freedom is difficult to establish and even more difficult to sustain over time.

The problem of maintaining freedom amidst the growing equality of conditions both in the United States and Europe is Tocqueville's central concern in Democracy in America. Indeed, it would not be too much to say that trying to resolve this problem was the primary goal of his life's work, both intellectual and political. His motivation for traveling to America was to study how this fledgling democracy maintained freedom although it had a high degree of equality. The key to this success, in Tocqueville's view, is the administrative decentralization which allows people to exercise their liberty through self-government in the townships: "Without local institutions a nation may give itself a free government, but it has not got the spirit of liberty." For this reason, although Tocqueville recognizes that administrative centralization may greatly increase the efficiency and uniformity of the government, he admires the decentralized American system because of its political effects in allowing the people to exercise their freedom. There is an implicit contrast here with France, where Tocqueville blames the loss of liberty and in particular the failure of the French Revolution to gradual erosion of local self-government in France throughout the nation's history since the Middle Ages. This idea is Tocqueville's main thesis in The Old Regime. Tocqueville also speaks more specifically (and more pessimistically) about the tension between liberty and equality in Volume II, particularly in Parts II and IV.

In this chapter, Tocqueville also mentions the need for the cultivation of proper mores in order to maintain freedom in a democracy. He speaks at length about this idea, and particularly about the importance of certain legal institutions and of religion as the basis of these mores, in Chapter Nine. But in this chapter one begins to see the emergence of this theme in several places, particularly in the statement that "until communal freedom has come to form part of mores, it can easily be destroyed."

Another idea that is only briefly addressed in this chapter but developed more fully in Chapter Seven and in Part IV of Volume II, is the danger that a democracy will degenerate into a tyranny of the majority or a "democratic despotism." When speaking in this chapter about governmental centralization, Tocqueville observes that "In America the legislature of each state is faced by no power capable of resisting it. Nothing can check its progress, neither privileges, nor local immunities, nor personal influence, nor even the authority of reason, for it represents the majority, which claims to be the unique organ of reason." This passage has an ominous sense to it, and it seems to act almost as a warning of the ease with which the government could become tyrannical. Tocqueville even tells the reader directly that he will elaborate on this subject in later chapters when he states that "far from being inadequately centralized, one can assert that the American governments carry it much too far; that I will demonstrate later. . . . It is because of its very strength, not its weakness that it [the social power] is threatened with destruction one day."

Chapter 6: Judicial Power in the United States and its Effect on Political Society

There are three general characteristics of judicial power: its role is to act as arbitrator, it rules on particular cases rather than general principles, and it can only act when called upon. American's do hold to these principles, but the judges there have an unusual amount of political power. The reason is that the courts can base decisions of the constitution, allowing them to override some laws.

In America, the constitution is changeable, but it is "the fount of all authority." The court power is checked by legislative ability to amend the constitution. Also, judges can only attack the law by refusing to apply. This action reduces a law's moral force, but only the legislature can repeal the law. The power of judicial review is one of the best barriers against tyranny of political assemblies. Additionally, the courts hold public officials accountable for their actions, because all officials are responsible before the courts.

Analysis

The courts are a great safeguard of that menace to freedom which Tocqueville at least alludes to in nearly every chapter: the tyranny of the majority. The reason is that the courts are in some ways a-political (the judges are appointed and have very long terms in office) and do not have to bow constantly to the whims of the electorate as politicians do.

Chapter 7: Political Jurisdiction in the United States

Sometimes it is necessary for the political representatives to have judicial power. In the United States, the House of Representatives has the right to prosecute and the Senate has the right to punish. The House must initiate the proceedings, and only public officials can be judged in this sort of trial

The United States differs from Europe in that political courts only have the power to remove from office, not to punish under criminal law. In Europe the political judgment is more of a judicial act, but in the United States it is more of an administrative measure. The reason is that in the United States, the main aim of political jurisdiction is to take power away from those who abuse it.

In Europe political jurisdiction is used only in extreme situations, because it clearly violates the division of power. In the United States, it is less of a danger to the division of power, and is used more frequently.

The laws regarding political crimes are extremely vague in America. This vagueness, combined with the mildness of the Senate's power to punish, makes political jurisdiction easier to use and thus more influential. The American system guards against a high degree of legislative tyranny, but makes mild legislative tyranny more likely.

Analysis

In this chapter one finds that, once again, Tocqueville's main concern is the tyranny of the majority. He sees that in the American system, the power of political jurisdiction does not extend to imposing penalties, making it rather mild. However, this mildness can itself be a danger, because there is less hesitancy to use the power. The system guards against harsh tyranny, but makes soft tyranny of the legislative branch‹which is most closely tied to the majority‹much more likely.

Chapter 8: The Federal Constitution

History of the Federal Constitution

After the Revolution, the thirteen colonies were torn by common interests which made them desire both unity and state autonomy. The first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, condemned the federal government to weakness. It is extraordinary that no bloodshed was necessary to remedy the problem. One of the great advantages the Americans had was that the leaders of the Revolution were still alive to draft the new constitution, and these were men of great intelligence and character.

Summary of the Federal Constitution

To resolve the problem of dividing powers between the federal government and states, the lawgivers carefully defined the federal powers and gave all other power to the state. In order to arbitrate disputes about this authority, they created a federal Supreme Court to ensure the maintenance of the proper division of power.

Prerogatives of the Federal Government

The federal government has the exclusive right of making war and peace, concluding commercial treaties, and raising armies. The Union is also responsible for the regulation of currency, the postal service, communication services and taxation. The federal government can intervene in the internal affairs of states in certain rare cases where the state's conduct is endangering the Union. In some respects the United States federal government has more power than European monarchies.

Legislative Powers

The creation of the House of Representatives and the Senate was a compromise between large and small states, as well as between the principle of state independence and the principle of the sovereignty of the people. "The principle of state independence prevailed in the shaping of the Senate, the dogma of national sovereignty in the composition of the House of Representatives." Because of the system's design, a minority of the nation dominant in the Senate could block the will of the majority represented in the House. For the most part, however, this does not happen.

Another Difference Between the Senate and the House of Representative

Members of the House are elected directly, while senators are elected by the state legislatures. Representatives serve two-year terms, and senators serve six-year terms. Treaties must be ratified by the Senate.

The Executive Power

In order to make the President powerful enough to be effective yet not too powerful, the legislatures cannot act directly to counter executive power, but they can supervise the President's actions in many ways. The Senate has to approve of presidential appointments and treaties with foreign powers. In addition, Congress could enact laws that would encroach on presidential power. The President has veto power, but the legislature can still overturn a veto with a two-thirds majority.

How the Position of the President of the United States Differs From That of a Constitutional King in France

External signs of power are unimportant and deceptive. Because the government in the United States is federal‹divided between the Union and the States‹not national, power of the executive is limited. The President has no real legislative power, as a monarch does, but only executes the law. The President cannot choose the members of the legislative body and he cannot dissolve it.

The King of France is equal in power to the legislature, but the President of the United States has less power than the legislature. The President's executive actions are under supervision and he is answerable to the Congress for his actions. In both the United States and France, the real directing power is public opinion.

Accidental Causes That May Increase the Influence of the Executive Power

Circumstances have kept the exercise of the executive power weak. The executive power shows itself mainly in foreign relations and especially in times of international crises.

Why the President of the United States Has No Need, in Order to Direct Affairs, of a Majority in the Two Houses

The reason that the executive power can act without the support of the legislature is that he is obliged to execute the laws in spite of his disagreement, and there is little the he does independently. As a result, the government still functions when there is division between the President and the Legislature.

Election of the President

The elective system for executive power is always dangerous because of the tendency for people to want to gain power at all costs. The dangers are greater in proportion to the amount of power the executive has. In the United States, there is little danger because the executive power is so weak, and the term of power is relatively short. One of the problems of the system in elective states is that when an election is approaching, the outgoing President has no incentive to do anything new, and the whole nation is focused only on the election, not actually on present governance. When a new President is elected there is always a period of instability. Yet since the powers of the executive are relatively small, this problem is not fatal.

The President has complete freedom to choose his ministers, with the supervision of the Senate. This system can be a hardship for ministers, since power changes hands every four years. However, this difficulty is not so bad because it is fairly easy for former ministers to find other positions.

The more perilous a nation's position in foreign affairs, the more necessary it is to have a stable executive power, and the more dangerous the elective system becomes to the national security. Fortunately for America, it is relatively isolated from the rest of the world and is not threatened externally.

Mode of Election

The aim of American lawgivers was to find a mode of election which expressed the will of the people, by simple majority, without fear of delays in tabulating the votes or in gaining a simple majority. For this reason, the electoral powers were delegated, increasing the chance of getting a majority and easing the tabulation. The policy was that each state would nominate a certain number of electors, equal to the number of members it sent to Congress, to elect the President. If none of the candidates obtained a majority in the election, the House would elect the President from among the three candidates who had received the most votes. The United States has only needed to resort to this last measure twice: for the elecion of Jefferson in 1801 and Quincy Adams in 1825.

Crisis of Election

The time of Presidential election can be considered a time of national crisis, because all are completely focused on the election, and factions tend to flare up and become even more passionate than usual in lobbying for their causes. After the decision has been made, however, "the river which momentarily overflowed its banks falls back to its bed," and all is calm once again.

Concerning the Reelection of the President

While at first consideration it seems natural that Presidential reelection ought to be allowed, the practice is dangerous because the President may then make reelection, not caring for the government of the country, his primary consideration. In the United States, the desire for reelection dominates the President's thought. Therefore the principle of reelection increases the corrupting influence of elective governments.

The lawgivers of American were wise in making the President independent of the whims of factions and caprices of the people, while still subject to the general will of the majority. The principle of reelection, however, undermines this independence. Thus the President of the United States is completely under control of the people's whims.

The Federal Courts

To gain the obedience of the governed, governments can either use physical force or moral force. The courts are generally the vehicles through which laws are given moral force. The judiciary needs to be separate from the other powers, but it is still necessary that federal laws be under the jurisdiction of federal, not state, courts, since the states are often in opposition to the federal government. The judicial power of the union was concentrated in the Supreme Court, but other lower federal courts were added to handle issues of lesser importance. The members of the Supreme Court were appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, and they were irremovable to make them independent.

Means of Determining the Competence of the Federal Courts

The Supreme Court was given the power to decide all questions of competence, regarding disputes over whether the case was one of federal or state jurisdiction. This power seems to threaten the sovereignty of the states, but in practice it really does not.

Different Cases of Jurisdiction

The subject matter and the party involved were the two bases of federal competence. For example, cases in which one of the parties is an ambassador automotically fall under federal jurisdiction, as do cases in which the parties are from different states. Some of the cases which automatically fall under federal jurisdiction because of their subject matter are cases dealing with foreign trade or with the constitutionality of a law. The rules determining which courts have jurisdiction in which cases are simply an extension of the principles of federalism in general, giving the central government enough power to be effective and maintain national unity, while allowing the states independence in their own sphere.

Procedure of the Federal Courts

Justice is weaker in federal states because sovereignty is divided. But, with great wisdom, the Constitution arranged matters so that courts deal directly with individual, without the intermediary of the states. When the federal courts want to overturn a state law, they do so indirectly, through suits brought on by individuals who are harmed by the new law. The Supreme Court can also judge disputes between states. It may be difficult, however, to make an entity as powerful as a state submit to the ruling.

High Standing of the Supreme Court Among the Great Authorities in the State

The Supreme Court has higher standing than any court in any country. It is uniquely responsible for the interpretation of laws and treaties and for questions dealing with international law. In addition, unlike courts in Europe, the Supreme Court can try states as well as individuals.

The court's power is immense so long as people respect the law and obey it. The judges therefore need to understand the spirit of the age and the limits of what popular opinion will accept. If the Supreme Court acts rashly, the whole country is threatened. This danger is inherent in the nature of federal government, because it requires a strong judicial authority.

The Superiority of the Federal Constitution Over That of the States

The main cause of the Federal Constitution's superiority is the character of its writers, all of whom were remarkably enlightened and patriotic. Their foremost concern was the preservation of liberty.

Through the representative, bicameral legislative system and especially through the formation of the Senate, they helped to guard against the tyranny of the majority.

Democracies have a tendency to concentrate power in the legislative branch, but such action yields the "despotism of the majority." While the states' constitutions succumbed to this tendency, the Federal Constitution did not.

The executive in the states has almost no power, but in the federal government it has enough power to be effective. The states also fail to give the judiciary its proper independence

The two main dangers that threaten the existence of democracies are (1) "the subjection of the legislative power to the will of the electoral body," and (2) "concentration of all other powers of government into the hands of the legislative power." The states have succumbed to these dangers, but the federal government has not.

What Distinguishes the Federal Constitution of the United States of America from All Other Federal Constitutions

The United States Federal Government is much more powerful than that of European countries with similar constitutions, because the United States Constitution made the federal government in charge of not only dictating but also executing the laws.

The problem in other countries is the confusion of a federal government and an incomplete national government. This was the problem the United States had under the Articles and remedying that problem was what allowed the country to survive.

Advantages of the Federal System in General and Its Special Usefulness in America

Small nations are often a cradle of liberty because they offer little attraction for ambition and despotism. When they become larger such nations tend to lose that liberty. There is no large nation in history which has remained a republic. In large nations there is more ambition to take power, and there is less ability for public resistance.

Large states do, however, have advantages. There tends to be a greater flow of ideas and more intellectual centers. They are more secure in a war. Small nations may be happier but they are too weak to be secure.

The federal system is an attempt to combine the advantages of small and large states. Local liberties provide a perfect education in republican government which can then be applied to the whole nation. The limitation of federal sovereignty also mitigates the ambition for power. "The Union is free and happy like a small nation, glorious and strong like a great one."

Why the Federal System is Not Within Reach of All Nations and Why the Anglo-American's Have Been Able to Adopt It

One of the defects of a federal system is its complication and the tension between state and federal sovereignty. The government of America is only sustainable with a population well-educated in political science.

The second defect is the weakness of the federal government. It is a danger that in a clash between the federal government and a state or between the Supreme Court and a state, the state will refuse to obey. The Union has the power of military and economic force, but the states have more support from the people. For the confederation to last, people must have a fairly homogeneous civilization and common needs.

The weakness of a confederation is shown in war, when, as in the War of 1812, the militia refuses to obey the President. America has not dissolved because it has no great wars to fear.

Analysis

In examining the United States Constitution, Tocqueville is looking specifically for the ways in which the United States has guarded itself against the ever-present danger of the tyranny of the majority, which can take two forms: (1) "the subjection of the legislative power to the will of the electoral body," or (2) "concentration of all other powers of government into the hands of the legislative power."

The United States has succeeded in protecting itself, at least so far, from the tyranny of the majority mostly through the checks and balances of the system. To avoid the first form of tyranny, a bicameral legislature was formed in which the Senate, while still responsible to the people, has much more independence from popular whims. Avoiding the second form involves both the executive and judicial branches. The President has veto power and control of the military, giving him some ability to check the power of the legislature. Yet Tocqueville recognizes that the legislature is definitely more powerful than the President alone. The judiciary, however, has great ability to prevent Congressional tyranny through its ability to declare certain laws unconstitutional. The judiciary is also extremely independent of popular opinion, allowing it to act without needing to worry about re-election.

One specific provision of the Constitution which worries Tocqueville is the ability for Presidential re-election. He fears this provision because it "makes the corrupting influence of elective governments spread wider and more dangerous. It tends to degrade the political morality of the nation and to substitute craft for patriotism." Allowing the President to be re-elected diminishes his independence from the caprices of the majority. Tocqueville argues that if the President were not reeligible, his responsibility toward the people would not diminish, "but the people's favor would not have been so necessary to him that he must in everything bend to its will."

All things considered, Tocqueville believes that through a combination of Constitutional wisdom, embedded local liberties, and accidental factors such as geography and the composition of the populace, the United States has done a remarkable job in creating a democratic government which is relatively stable and safeguards liberty.

Chapter 1: Why It Can Strictly Be Said That the People Govern in the United States

The people both make and execute the laws in the United States, by electing their representatives and serving on juries. "The majority rules in the name of the people."

Chapter 2: Parties in the United States

"Parties are an evil inherent in free government." Great parties are those which are attached to lofty principles rather than private interest, and their action can often cause a revolution. Small parties are pettier and only agitate and corrupt society. America used to have great parties, but it no longer does. After the Revolution, there were two great parties, one of which‹the Federalists‹wanted to restrict popular power and the other of which‹the Republicans‹wanted to extend it. The Federalists had power only until Jefferson was elected, but this period was extremely important for America because during that time they worked against the negative tendencies of democracy, and when the Republicans gained power they adopted many of the Federalist's ideas. As a result, there are no longer any great political parties in the United States. Still, beneath the petty differences of the parties there is the underlying battle between restricting and extending public power.

Remains of the Aristocratic Party in the United States

The rich are somewhat excluded from government, and their can often even be a disadvantage in trying to gain political power. As a result, they close in on themselves and go about pursuing their own private interests. They act as if they support republican government, but in reality they "have a great distaste for their country's democratic institutions."

Analysis

The key point in this chapter once again revolves around the dangerous democratic tendency to fall into tyranny of the majority. The Federalist party's ability to gain power was crucial precisely because the Federalists wanted to restrict public power, and as a result they began a tradition which acted as a moderating influence on the demands of the majority.

Chapter 3: Freedom of the Press in the United States

Freedom of the press is necessary because the only real alternative to it is complete despotism. Especially in a society where the people are sovereign, censorship would be inherently contradictory to the overriding societal principles.

The press has less power in the United States than it does in France, because attacking existing laws in the United States is not revolutionary; in fact it is perfectly acceptable. The force of the press is also lessened because freedom of the press is not a novelty in the United States, it is decentralized, and the people tend not to react passionately to anything that does not affect their material interests. Decentralization has particularly strong effects. It prevents people from being unified by a single current of opinion, but it also tends to result in poor journalism because there is an excessive number of papers and not enough talented journalists. Recognizing the lack of journalistic competence, the people generally do not take the journalists' opinions seriously, but simply focus on the facts. Still, the power of the press is immense simply because it allows all people to remain informed about politics.

People in America tend to stubbornly stick to their own opinions, simply because they chose them. So many opinions are floating about that people tend to distrust all of them, and end up focusing mostly on tangible, material interests.

Analysis

The press can clearly be a means both of keeping liberty alive and of fostering the tyranny of the majority. It maintains liberty by keeping the people informed of politics and thereby encouraging political activity and the exercise of freedom. It can, however, foster the tyranny of the majority by influencing vast numbers of people at once. The decentralization of the American press, however, makes this unifying and all-encompassing influence unlikely.

Two other democratic tendencies are also brought out in this brief chapter: materialism and relativism. Toqueville notices that people are concerned primarily about their material interests. In addition, the people superficially adopt an opinion and cling to it not because they are convinced it is true but because they do not think they can discover what is true, and consider most opinions to be generally equal. Volume 2 addresses these issues in more detail.

Chapter 4: Political Association in the United States

Americans use the right of assembly more frequently and effectively than anywhere else in the world. The right of association is related to the freedom to write, but associations are more powerful than the press. Political associations can become extremely powerful, even dangerously so. While freedom of the press is "the constitutive element in freedom" and therefore cannot be limited, the freedom of association may have to be limited. In America, however, there are no limitations. Its danger has been seen already, however, in the nullification crisis South Carolina. Yet in spite of the danger, unlimited freedom of association is good in the United States because it is a guarantee against the tyranny of the majority.

Association is natural to human beings, and is therefore an inalienable right. In the United States, as opposed to Europe, associations are primarily peaceful and use legal means, precisely because they know that such means can indeed have an effect. Universal suffrage is perhaps the best guarantee against the violence of political associations in the United States, because no association can claim to represent a majority. It is obvious that association represent only a minority, and thus their moral force is diminished.

Analysis

While they can be dangerous in some situations and political climates, associations are highly beneficial in the United States, because they guard against the tyranny of the majority and are not inclined to violence or revolution. Tocqueville writes that "the omnipotence of the majority seems to me such a danger to the American republics that the dangerous expedient used to curb it is actually something good." In a sense, this dynamic is quite ironic, because it demonstrates how, at least in this case, "extreme democracy forestalls the dangers of democracy."

Chapter 5: Government By Democracy In America

Universal Suffrage

All the states in the Union have universal suffrage (as defined by the times).

The People's Choice and the Instincts of American Democracy in Such Choices

In the United States the common people generally have more good qualities than the rulers. The level of intelligence of a society as a whole is limited by the amount of leisure that the people have. Because the lower classes have little leisure they often lack the education to discern who will be the best person to rule in their interests. In addition, the people may not always want to elect the person with the highest merit, because, with their dominant passion for equality, superiority annoys them. The Americans do not hate the higher classes, but simply keep them from power. At the same time, men of distinction of repelled from political power because they feel cheapened by being up for election.

Elements Which May Provide a Partial Corrective to These Instincts of Democracy

In times of great distress, great virtue is often brought to the fore in people. Thus, in the time of the American Revolution and immediately following it, great leaders rose up.

Mores are also an important means of correcting democracy's negative tendencies. In New England, where liberty and morality are well-established in the habits of the people, the citizens tend to make better choices in electing their leaders. In other areas the situation is much worse.

The House of Representative is filled with people of "vulgar demeanor," while the Senate is filled with eloquent and well-educated statesmen. The reason for this dichotomy is that Representative are directly elected while Senators are indirectly elected. Perhaps the Americans will need to modify their system to use indirect election more frequently.

Influence of American Democracy Upon Electoral Laws

Rare elections expose the state to the danger of violent crisis, but frequent elections result in a state of inconstancy and agitation. Americans have chosen the latter danger over the former, and as a result their laws are often highly unstable and incoherent.

Public Officers Under the Rule of American Democracy

Public officials have no external signs of their power, such as uniforms, and all officials receive salaries so that the lower classes have access to all positions. Yet while all citizens are eligible for office, not many desire it because it is an inherently unstable and unpredictable occupation. Ambitious men generally avoid public office to pursue private wealth. Thus, those who run for office do so because they do not think they can manage their own private affairs successfully. This problem is another cause responsible for the "large number of vulgar men holding public positions."

The Arbitrary Power of Magistrates Under the Sway of American Democracy

In democracy the people are confident of their ability to take power away from the magistrates, and consequently are not concerned about allowing to have a great amount of arbitrary power.

Administrative Instability in the United States

Few historical records exist in the United States; the only source is newspapers. The administrations are unstable, and do not bother to keep records or look to past records to decide how to act.

Public Expenses Under the Rule of American Democracy

Expenses in free states are always greater than in despotic ones. Every society will different economic classes ranging from the rich to the poor. The economic laws depend on which class is in power. If the middle class rules, the laws will be the most economical. However, in countries with universal suffrage, generally the poor make the laws, because they are in the majority, and the poor will have a tendency to spend too much, because very few taxes fall upon them.

Democracies also tend to spend a lot because they have a constant and feverish desire for improvement and innovation, both of which are costly. Its expenditures can also be unproductive because people change their minds often and projects may remain uncompleted.

The Instincts of American Democracy in Fixing the Salaries of Officials

High officials generally are given low salaries, because those who vote to fix the salaries have little chance of ever receiving that position. Secondary officials, however, are relatively well paid because the people consider them more on their level, and are more sympathetic to them. "Democracy gives little to the rulers and much to the ruled." In aristocracies, the case is the opposite.

Can the Public Expenditure of the United States Be Compared with That of France?

To judge the extent of public expenditure one needs to know both the national wealth and the proportion of it which is used for state expenses. A nation's wealth is composed of real property and personal property. The value of property is extremely difficult to judge. Yet even judging the amount of taxation is not an easy task, because each individual township has its own separate expenses. Therefore one cannot really compare either the expenditure or the wealth of the United State and France.

Yet by observing other external factors one can get a sense of which country taxes a larger proportion of its citizens' income. It is clear that America has much lower taxes than France. France, however, needs more money because it needs maintain a large army.

In spite of the fact that taxes are lower in America, it is still possible that the country is not economical, because it seems that a lot of money is wasted. In addition, a lot of money is spent to help the lower classes, a good but expensive practice. Therefore the government of America is not an inexpensive one.

Corruption and Vices of the Rulers in a Democracy and Consequent Effect on Public Morality

In aristocracies, rulers are much more likely to attempt to use their influence and wealth to bribe the governed, but in democracies the rulers themselves are much more corruptible. This tendency can be dangerous because it gives people the example that immorality may result in success and honor. "There comes about an odious mingling of the conceptions of baseness and power, of unworthiness and success, and of profit and dishonor."

The Efforts of Which Democracy is Capable

It is difficult to tell how much sacrifice a democracy can impose on itself, because there has not been a great war in America since the War of Independence. In that war, people made great sacrifices at the beginning but toward the end stopped giving money and volunteering for the army. There is no conscription in America.

Democracies are not well-suited for waging wars, because the people are more inclined to quick bursts of enthusiasm than sustained effort. There is less glamour to warfare in a democratic country than in an aristocracy. In addition, a democracy cannot pull together its resources as quickly as an aristocracy.

American Democracy's Power of Self-Control

Democracy is endangered by the people's shortsightedness and their tendency to choose momentary pleasures over long-term gain. They only obey laws of which they see the utility. An example is that, although most crimes are the result of drunkenness, legislators are afraid to impose a tax on alcohol for fear of a revolt. It takes democracies a long time to see reason, because they cannot come to the truth merely intellectually; they need to experience it.

How American Democracy Conducts the External Affairs of the State

Washington and Jefferson have set the course for American foreign policy. Washington directed the country to steer clear of foreign alliances and never to get involved in the internal quarrels of Europe. American foreign policy is more a matter of abstention than action.

In general, democratic governments are inferior in their control of foreign affairs. Democracies have little patience to plan out and sustain a great undertaking as is necessary in foreign affairs. Aristocracies are excellent in directing foreign affairs, and it almost always the case that in such matters the interests of the aristocrats are the same as the interests of the people. Democracies tend to abandon long-term, well-thought out plans in favor of momentary passions and sympathies.

Analysis

In this chapter, Tocqueville brings out a lot of the weaknesses of democracies. At the root of these weaknesses is the inability of democratic peoples to make well-reasoned, dispassionate choices. This weakness is due for the most part to the tendency of democratic peoples to be swayed more by whims and passions than by reason. The results of the people's whimsical nature is evident in several areas: the election of government officials, the inefficient use of money, and the lack of skill in conducting foreign affairs.

In choosing government officials, democracies have a double problem: the people tend to choose poorly because their passion for equality makes them dislike those who are superior, and those who have the capacity to rule do not want the position it is unstable and has few rewards. The means of counteracting this problem is, for the most part, good mores, formed especially by good education in virtue and the experience of local liberties. New England is exemplary in this regard. Institutionally, the problem can be solved by using indirect election.

Democracies tend to waste a lot of money because the people, governed more by impulse than by reason, embark on a wide range of projects and explore every possible innovation, most of which are impractical and many of which are never even finished because people tire of an idea when it ceases to become a novelty. The poor, being in the majority, are the ones who can have the largest influence on laws. As a result, taxes tend to be high because the poor are exempt from them and receive the greatest benefit from government services.

Conducting foreign affairs well requires patience, reason, and fortitude, but in democracies "the people feel more strongly than they reason; and if present ills are great, it is to be feared that they will forget the greater evils that perhaps await them in case of defeat." On a personal level, the citizens tend have little capacity for sustained self-sacrifice, a necessary requirement for winning a war.

There may, however, be an ever more profound danger lurking in this democratic tendency to follow the passions rather than reason. The passions and whims of the people cloud their ability to see the truth and realize which laws would actually be in their best interests. They cannot come to the truth without a long experience of trial and error which brings them eventually to find the best course of action. Tocqueville writes that "a democracy cannot get at the truth without experience, and many nations may perish for lack of the time to discover their mistakes." America was fortunate to have time to fix its mistakes because there was no immediate danger threatening it. Yet this inability to see the truth may be a problem hurts society internally in the long run.

Chapter 6: The Real Advantages Derived by American Society From Democratic Government

The General Tendency of Laws Under the Sway of American Democracy and the Instincts of Those Who Apply Them

The defects of democracy are obvious, but the advantages can only be seen in the long run. Laws in America "are often defective or incomplete." Democracy's laws tend toward the good of the greatest number, but an aristocracy is much more skilled in legislation. Democracy's lack of skill is not fatal, however, because mistakes are retrievable. In addition, the people keep watch on the actions of their legislators and make sure that they are not deviating from the public interest. Legislators may not be highly skilled, but they will never pursue aims hostile to the majority.

Public Spirit in the United States

There are two types of patriotism. One type stems from an instinctive love, based on feeling rather than reason, and is often ephemeral. The other is a more rational and lasting patriotism, "engendered by enlightenment," and "mingled with personal interest." The best way to promote this more steady patriotism is to make people take a personal interest in their country's fate by giving them a share in government. This is what the United States has done, and the result is that Americans are extremely patriotic.

The Idea of Rights in the United States

Rights are absolutely essential for a cohesive and prosperous society. In America, because everyone has some sort of property, all recognize the right of property in principle. Likewise, the democratic government "makes the idea of political rights penetrate right down to the last citizen." A moral and religious conception of rights seems to be disappearing; therefore it is absolutely essential to link the idea of rights to personal interest. America has been able to do this by giving people political rights from the beginning, but in other countries it may be difficult to extend political rights because, having been deprived of rights for so long, the people may use them unwisely.

Respect for Laws in the United States

Giving the people a part in lawmaking can result in a lower quality of legislation but also can give the laws greater moral strength. In America people have a personal interest in obeying the laws, even laws which they disagree with, because they know that at some point they will share the opinion of the majority and will want the minority to follow the law as well. While the rich may often be in the minority, their discontent is not dangerous because their wealth makes breaking the law too risky.

Activity Prevailing in All Parts of the Political Body in the United States; the Influence Thereby Exerted on Society

The rush of political activity always present in the United States is remarkable. There are always people calling for reform, lobbying for a cause, or expressing some concern. The American's greatest pleasure comes from talking about and taking a hand in the government of society. These habits of freedom are a great guard against despotism.

While the people may not manage public affairs well, it is good for society anyway because taking responsibility for government broadens people's concerns beyond their own interests and makes them care for society at large. Things may not be done well, but many things are accomplished because of the extraordinary amount of political energy and activity. Democracy does not engender great virtue or nobility, but it also lessens the number of great crimes and increases general well-being.

Analysis

This chapter expands on some of the previous chapters ideas about the generally poor quality of American legislation, but also point out many of the advantages of the democratic method. One advantage is that while the laws in a democracy may not be crafted with the utmost skill, they are at least not positively dangerous or aimed against the well-being of the majority, as they very well might be in an aristocracy. Furthermore, the popular origin of laws gives them greater moral force. In addition, allowing people to have a role in the government of the nation makes them see the nation's interests as their and be more patriotic. The most important effect of the people's ability to take part in making the laws, however, the strong public spirit and practice in freedom which such activity provides. Because the people have had political rights from the beginning in America, the habits of freedom are deeply entrenched. Tocqueville writes that "if despotism ever came to be established in the United States it would find it even more difficult to overcome the habits that have sprung from freedom than to conquer the love of freedom itself."

In discussing the benefits of America's deep-rooted habits of political freedom, Tocqueville makes a very significant comment in relation to the nature of freedom and the difficulty of acquiring and maintaining it. He states: "It cannot be repeated too often: nothing is more fertile in marvels than the art of being free, but nothing is harder than freedom's apprenticeship. The same is not true of despotism. Despotism often presents itself as the repairer of all the ills suffered, the support of just rights, defender of the oppressed, and founder of order. Peoples are lulled to sleep by the temporary prosperity it engenders, and when they do wake up, they are wretched. But liberty is generally born in stormy weather, growing with difficulty amid civil discords, and only when it is already old does one see the blessings it has brought." This statement is crucial in that it reveals one of the most pressing dilemma's which Tocqueville faces, especially in regard to his desire to improve the political situation in France. Tocqueville realizes that the French lack the "apprenticeship" in liberty which the Americans have had, and that it is very difficult to make people appreciate freedom enough to make the sacrifices necessary to attain it. Tending to be short-sighted, people will see that despotism can bring great stability, order, and even prosperity to the country, and so may be willing to surrender their freedom. Tocqueville elaborates on this idea, especially with regard to the tension between liberty and equality, in Volume II, Part II, Chapter 1.

The idea that democracy has a "middling effect" on the people is also explained more fully in this chapter. Tocqueville had mentioned this tendency briefly earlier in the book, but here he speaks about it more at length. He observes that democracies do not tend to produce men of great heroism or virtue, but rather mild, average characters. "If you think it profitable to turn man's intellectual and moral activity toward the necessities of physical life and use them to produce well-being, if you think that reason is more use to men than genius, if your object is not to create heroic virtues but rather tranquil habits, if you would rather contemplate vices than crimes, . . . then it is good to make conditions equal and to establish democratic government." Significantly, however, Tocqueville notes that whatever a person may think is best actually does not matter, because forces beyond human control are naturally leading to an ever-increasing equality of conditions. The only way to react is simply to make the best of the situations, trying to enhance democracy's strengths and minimize its weaknesses.

Chapter 7: The Omnipotence of the Majority in the United States and Its Effects

The essence of democratic government is the sovereignty of the majority's will. The Americans want their legislators to be elected directly and to serve short terms in office so that the people have more chances to exert their influence. The legislature is also the most powerful branch of the government. In some states, even the judges are elected by majority vote.

The moral authority of the majority stems from "the theory of equality applied to brains"‹that is, since everyone's opinion is of equal worth, the best opinion must be the opinion of the majority. The majority's authority is further strengthened by the idea that the interest of the greater number should take precedence over that of the lesser number.

These ideas have not created class antagonisms in the United States because most colonial settlers were already relatively equal in status, wealth and education. In addition, most people support the rights of the majority because the hope one day to profit from them.

How in America the Omnipotence of the Majority Increases the Legislative and Administrative Instability Natural to Democracies

The vices of democracy increase with the growing power of the majority. For instance, legislative instability plagues the United States, because the legislative power‹the power most influenced by the will of the majority‹is sovereign. As a result, American laws have an extremely short duration, and execution of the laws is unstable as well. The public easily becomes impassioned to fight for certain causes, but when achieving goals require patience and tenacity, they quickly give up.

Tyranny of the Majority

Justice places boundaries on the will of the majority. If a single person can abuse authority against his adversaries, a majority can do the same against a minority. For a society to function, it is necessary to have some social power superior to all others, but that power is dangerous when there is no obstacle to restrain and moderate it.

The biggest problem with the democratic government of the United States is not its weakness but its overwhelming strength, and "the shortage of guarantees against tyranny." There is no one to whom a person can turn if has suffered injustice, because everything is controlled by the majority. The fact that America has not yet fallen into this tyranny of the majority is due not to its governmental institutions or laws but to its mores.

Effect of the Omnipotence of the Majority on the Arbitrary Power of the American Public Officials

The majority allows the magistrates to have a large amount of arbitrary power because it knows that they are constantly under its supervision. "It treats them as a master treats his servants if, always seeing them under his eyes, he could direct or correct them at any moment."

The Power Exercised by the Majority in America over Thought

Control of public thought is the most complete form of tyranny. In America, once the majority's opinion has been pronounced, no one contradicts it. There is extremely little independence of mind and freedom of discussion. People who disagree with the majority have no other power to whom they can resort for help, because the majority is the sole authority and source of strength. This control extends over writing as well as speech. There may be no official restrictions on writing, but if a person challenges the opinion of the majority all doors‹professionally and socially‹are shut to him. In democratic republics, tyranny "leaves the body alone and goes straight for the soul." This tyranny of the majority is the reason for the lack of literary genius in America, because great writers need freedom of spirit. Right now the power of the majority is well-used, because mores are good, but it may not always be so.

Effects of the Majority's Tyranny on American National Character; the Courtier Spirit in the United States

The rareness of outstanding politicians in America is due to the despotism of the majority. In democracies the temptation to live off of one's passions is much greater than in monarchies or aristocracies, and the result is that standards of conduct in general are lowered.

When speaking to people in private one finds that their opinions differ and that they may criticize the government, but in public everyone seems to be of one mind. Politicians in the United States are of such poor quality because they are the flatterers of the majority and have submitted themselves to its tyranny in order to gain power.

The Greatest Danger to the American Republics Comes from the Omnipotence of the Majority

The power directing society in a democracy may be unstable, but it is extremely strong. America thus has to fear tyranny much more than anarchy, and if anarchy comes about it will be the result of tyranny driving the minority to desperation. Tocqueville quotes Jefferson, who writes that it is necessary "Œto guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part,'" and that "Œthe tyranny of the legislature is the most formidable dread at present.'"

Analysis

Always concerned with the maintenance of freedom in a nation, Tocqueville is especially troubled by the tendency of democracies to succumb to the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny no less real and no less terrible than an autocratic tyranny. In the United States, where the principle of the sovereignty of the people reigns supreme, the force of the majority is overpowering. While so far the omnipotence of the majority has only resulted in small inconveniences such as legislative incompleteness, "the consequences of this state of affairs are fate-laden and dangerous for the future." Omnipotence in human hands is always dangerous; "only God can be omnipotent without danger, because His wisdom and justice are always equal to His power." The rule of the majority in America is living proof that majority's power is well out of proportion with its wisdom and justice.

The dangerous effects of the omnipotence of the majority are already evident in the lack of free thought in America. While, in principle and by law, everyone can say, think or write whatever he likes, in reality the opinion of the majority becomes an unquestionable dogma. "Formerly," write Tocqueville, "tyranny used the clumsy weapons of chains and hangmen; nowadays even despotism, though it seemed to have nothing more to learn, has been perfected by civilization." Tyranny in democracies goes straight to the soul. It is all the more dangerous precisely because it is hidden and exercises no external physical constraints; thus hardly anyone is able to recognize and no one reacts against it. Besides, a majority of the people are benefiting from it, and consequently will not want to oppose it. Therefore the tyranny of the majority is a great danger to all nations in which the ideals of equality and sovereignty of the people are paramount. The ways to combat this fatal tendency have been touched upon in previous chapters‹for instance, local liberties, good mores, an independent executive, and a strong judiciary‹but they will be systematically discussed in the following chapter.

Chapter 8: What Tempers the Tyranny of the Majority in the United States

Absence of Administrative Centralization

While America is highly centralized governmentally, its administration is very decentralized. As a result, "the majority, though it often has a despot's tastes and instincts, still lacks the most improved instruments of tyranny." The central government operates only within a limited sphere, and consequently the tyranny of the majority is limited to that small sphere as well. In addition, the majority does not have the administrative ability to enforce its will everywhere.

The Temper of the American Legal Profession and How it Serves to Counterbalance Democracy

Lawyers act as an aristocratic class, tempering the negative effects of democracy. From their studies, lawyers derive a taste for order and formalities, and a dislike for the whims and passions of democracy. Lawyers' knowledge also makes them a somewhat privileged class, and their common profession provides a common link among them. "Hidden at the bottom of a lawyer's soul one finds the tastes and habits of an aristocracy." Lawyers love order above all, and as a result they are conservative and supportive of authority.

In a democracy lawyers' are especially able to gain political power, because they step into the place that the rich and the nobles would occupy in an aristocracy. The people do not dislike lawyers because they come from among their own ranks. They therefore have a unique capability to mingle an aristocratic element into a democracy.

The aristocrat element in lawyers is due not only to their knowledge but also to the type of laws that exist in the United States. Because laws are often founded on precedent, it is difficult for the common people to follow them on their own. Where laws are all simply written out, as in France, lawyers are not needed as much and are not respected as highly.

For the most part, lawyers and judges influence democracy through the courts. Laws diminishing judicial power, especially making judges elected officials and subjecting them to frequent reelection, are extremely harmful to a democracy. The influence of lawyers can be seen in that while political laws are constantly changing, civil laws‹over which lawyers have great influence‹have changed so little that they are practically outdated.

Even beyond its official powers, the laws influence spreads out into all areas of political life. Legal language is often used, and most public officials are or have been lawyers and retain their legal habits. The power of lawyers is inconspicuous yet highly effective; it enwraps the whole of society, penetrating each component class and constantly working in secret upon its unconscious patient, till in the end it has molded it to its desire."

The Jury in the United States Considered as a Political Institution

Judicially speaking, the effectiveness of the jury system is contestable, since the members of juries often lack the expertise necessary to make good decisions. Yet its principle importance and its benefits can be seen in considering the jury as a political institution. The idea of a jury is an eminently republican one, because it places control of society directly into the hands of the people. The jury system is a direct consequence of the sovereignty of the people.

Juries are excellent for inculcating good mores into the minds of the people. They instill "habits of the judicial mind," which are necessary for the proper use of freedom, and they teach people to be equitable and to take responsibility for their own actions. Furthermore, juries force citizens to pay attention to the affairs of others, thereby combating individualism. Juries are therefore "the most effective means of popular education."

Analysis

After last chapter's dismal predictions, this chapter provides a few rays of hope, and explains why the tyranny of the majority is not absolutely overwhelming in America.

The first mitigating factor is the lack of administrative centralization, an attribute of American democracy which Tocqueville discusses in more detail in chapter five. In a place like France, where the administration is highly centralized, there would be no obstacles to the tyranny of the majority, but in America, even "if the laws were oppressive, liberty would still find some shelter from the way the law is carried into execution, and the majority would not know how to enter into . . . the puerilities of administrative tyranny."

Lawyers and the judiciary branch of the government in general also provide a necessary aristocratic force which tempers the despotic tendencies of democracy. In chapters six and seven Tocqueville describes the judiciary and hints at its importance, but here he shows clearly how it counteracts some of democracy's defects. Tocqueville writes that "it is at the bar or the bench that the American aristocracy is found. The more one reflects on what happens in the United States, the more one feels convinced that the legal body forms the most powerful and, so today, the only counterbalance to democracy in the country." This counterbalance comes in just where democracy needs it, to provide a healthy sense of order and rationality when the people tend to be easily swayed by their whims. Tocqueville observes that "when the American people get intoxicated by their passions or carried away by their ideas, the lawyers apply an almost invisible brake which slows them down and halts them."

Tocqueville also has a unique and highly insightful view on the importance of the jury system. Its benefit does not lie at all in its ability to render just judgments. In fact, Tocqueville thinks that a judge with more legal expertise would do a much better job. Yet the jury system is highly beneficent in the political sphere, because it is a powerful tool for public education, particularly in teaching people how to use their freedom responsibly, a lesson which is extremely crucial for the well-being of a democracy. As Tocqueville remarks, the jury system "should be regarded as a free school which is always open and in which each juror learns his rights, comes into daily contact with the best-educated and most-enlightened members of the upper classes, and is given practical lessons in the law, lessons which the advocate's efforts, the judge's advice, and also the very passions of the litigants bring within his mental grasp. I think that the main reason for the practical intelligence and the political good sense of the Americans is their long experience with juries in civil cases." Juries thus provide a way both to allow the people to exercise their freedom and to teach them how to use it well.

Chapter 9: Causes Tending to Maintain a Democratic Republic in the United States

Accidental or Providential Causes Helping to Maintain a Democratic Republic in the United States

America has no powerful nations and consequently no great wars. There is no great capital in the country that has an influence over the whole land, and this situation helps to maintain the local liberties which are so important for freedom. The land itself has helped America to remain strong because it gave the people the ability to remain equal and free, and provided the means for general prosperity which aids government stability.

The western migration is an extraordinary phenomenon, in which people band together in search of fortune. The restless spirit which drives people to move west is very good for the country, because it prevents the population from being concentrated in only a few places. Material concerns are what really move the American people, driving them to action and exerting a strong influence over their opinions.

Influence of the Laws upon the Maintenance of a Democratic Republic in the United States

It is not necessary to repeat all the details about American laws found in other chapters, but there are three main factors in these laws that help to maintain a democratic republic in the United States: the federal form of government, the communal institutions which moderate the despotism of the majority, and the organization of judicial power.

Influence of Mores upon the Maintenance of a Democratic Republic in the United States

Tocqueville uses the word mores to mean "the whole moral and intellectual states of a people." Mores are one of the great causes helping to maintain American democracy.

Religion Considered as a Political Institution and How it Powerfully Contributes to the Maintenance of a Democratic Republic Among the Americans

Religion and politics go hand in hand in America, because the Christianity of the settlers was highly democratic and republican in character. There have also been many Catholic immigrants that came to America. Catholicism is actually very favorable to equality of condition, because the same standards and ideas apply to everyone. While the Catholics are very obedient on articles of faith, political ideas are believed to be open to debate, and consequently they are very independent citizens. Therefore all religious ideas in the United States are quite to conducive to democratic and republican institutions.

Indirect Influence of Religious Beliefs upon Political Society in the United States

It is very important for society that its members should profess some religion, because it provides a common morality. America is one of the most religious countries, and religious beliefs have a powerful influence in directing mores. Women tend to be more influenced by religion than men, and women also have a very important role in shaping mores through their domestic work. In morality, everything in America is certain and absolute, but in politics everything is up for debate. Religion is thus the primary political institution in that it teaches people how to use their freedom wisely. Even those who are not very religious realize religion's importance for the maintenance of republican institutions.

The Main Causes That Make Religion Powerful in America

Eighteenth-century philosophers were incorrect when they said that enlightenment would replace religion, because in America one finds that the most free and enlightened people are also the most religious. The main reason for religion's strength in America is the separation of church and state. In America the clergy never hold public office and are not politically active. While the power of religion seems diminished without an alliance with political power, it is actually stronger. Religion is natural for the human person, and widespread irreligiousity only comes about in unnatural circumstances. Political power is by nature ephemeral, and thus if religion wants to have lasting influence it is best for it to remain independent of politics. In addition, in a democratic country it is extremely important that religion remain apolitical because the political sphere is constantly in a state of flux and is always changing according to public opinion.

The two dangers which religion faces are schism and indifference. In the case of schism, beliefs are modified but do not die. But when religion is slowly undermined by doctrines that assert its falseness without offering another belief in its place, people lose their belief without even being completely aware of it. In such a situation, unbelievers still consider religion useful and often do not proclaim their unbelief, while believers are not afraid to manifest their beliefs. Religion is therefore still honored publicly.

In France this analysis does not apply because the close union of religion and politics has created an unnatural state of vehement unbelief.

How the Enlightenment, Habits and Practical Experience of the Americans Contribute to the Success of Democratic Institutions

The American spirit is highly pragmatic. They are few highly learned people, but also extremely few uneducated people. Public education is a great contribution to the maintenance of a democratic republic, especially when education also teaches proper mores. Americans have gained most of their knowledge of government from experience‹from taking a share in legislation. Education in the United States is directed toward political life.

The Laws Contribute More the Maintenance of the Democratic Republic in the United States Than Do the Physical Circumstances of the Country, and Mores Do More Than the Laws

The United States is the only democracy which has been able to maintain itself without violence. This situation is not due only to geography, because in South America the people have not even been to maintain any sort of stable government. American legislation, as a whole, has also contributed to the success of democracy. But the greatest factor allowing the United States to maintain a democracy is mores.

Elsewhere Than in America, Would Laws and Mores Be Enough to Maintain Democratic Institutions?

If one just transplanted the Anglo-Americans, with their particular ideas and mores, to Europe in its present state, they would to modify their laws to live there. But perhaps in Europe one could have a democratic society with more centralized national strength. Americans have many of the same negative democratic passions as Europeans, such as a uniquely democratic envy expressed toward anyone who seemed to place himself above the level of others. But Americans have combated some of democracy's weaknesses, opposing "the idea of rights to feelings of envy" and balancing "the stability of religious morality to the constant changes in the world of politics."

The Importance of the Foregoing in Relation to Europe

The reason so much time has been spent discussing these matters is that they are relevant to the whole world. The barriers holding tyranny back in most of Europe are gone, particularly the loss of religion and the degeneration of mores. European nations will soon either become tyrannies or democracies. The gradual development of good mores and democratic institutions is therefore the only way to remain free. While democracy has its faults and imperfections, it is preferable to despotism.

Analysis

Living in the wake of the French Revolution and witnessing the turmoil and instability of his nation, Alexis de Tocqueville was confronted first-hand with the problem of how religion and the state should relate. In comparing and contrasting the general political and social situations in America and France, Tocqueville found two highly disparate configurations of the church-state relationship and was able to observe the ramifications of those configurations in society as a whole. Tocqueville's observations led him to argue in both Democracy in America and The Old Regime and the French Revolution that religion is one of the main factors necessary for the maintenance of democratic society. When church and state are separate, democracy and religion complement each almost perfectly, although tensions do exist between the two. In Democracy in America, Tocqueville argues that religion corrects many of the prominent flaws of democracy‹individualism, materialism, lack of stability, and the tendency to misuse or undervalue liberty‹while the separation of church and state helps religion to maintain and even increase its influence in society.

In contrasting America and France, the one all-important factor that Tocqueville sees as creating a salutary religious situation in America as opposed to France is the separation of church and state. Tocqueville believes that the discarding of religion was one of the main reasons for the French Revolution's failure and for the huge social and political turmoil which ensued. The revolutionaries did not realize that Christian beliefs were actually in line with their principles and could have aided their cause. Tocqueville remarks: "By a strange concatenation of events, religion for the moment has become entangled with those institutions which democracy overthrows, and so is it is often brought to rebuff the equality which it loves and to abuse freedom as its adversary, whereas by taking it by the hand it could sanctify its striving" (Introduction)

During Tocqueville's travels in America, he found that "the main reason for the quiet sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state." Upon investigating the situation, Tocqueville was surprised to find that priests "held no public appointments," that "most of [the clergy] seemed voluntarily to steer clear of power," and that "they were careful to keep clear of all parties." To an eighteenth-century Frenchman, accustomed to the political interference of the Church, the attitudes of the clergy in America must have indeed seemed strange. Yet what was even more striking to Tocqueville was that "by diminishing the apparent power of religion one increased its real strength." What he came to understand was that religion is not an accidental phenomenon which must be forced upon a people by the power of the government. On the contrary, "Religion . . . is only one particular form of hope, and it is as natural to the human heart as hope itself. It is by a sort of intellectual aberration, and in a way by doing violence to their own nature, that men detach themselves from religious beliefs; an invincible alienation draws them back. Incredulity is an accident; faith is the only permanent state of mankind." As a result of this natural religious inclination in man, separating the church from the state does not in any way reduce religion's force but actually tends to increase its strength in society.

Political power is by nature transient and ephemeral; even the most permanent and stable governments are not immune to changes in laws or even complete revolutions. "The powers of society are all more or less transitory," posits Tocqueville, "and there has never been a government supported by some invariable disposition of the human heart or one founded upon some interest that is immortal." Religion, on the other hand, is a timeless and eternal force in the heart of man. If it connects itself to earthly powers, religion will suffer the misfortune of being dragged down by the vicissitudes of politics: "Alone, [a religion] may hope for immortality; linked to ephemeral powers, it follows their fortunes and often falls together with the passions of a day sustaining them." This idea is especially true in democratic nations, where the sway of opinion can so easily change the social and legal arrangements. Therefore it is particularly important that America has kept religion completely separate from the political sphere. As Tocqueville asserts, "If the Americans, who change the head of state every four years, elect new legislators every two years and replace provincial administrators every year, and if the Americans, who had handed over the world of politics to the experiments of innovators, had not placed religion beyond their reach, what could it hold on to in the ebb and flow of human opinions?" While religion in America may not have the same powerful, external force that it does in nations where the church is connected to the state, "its influence is more lasting" because it has not tied itself to the transitory earthly regime.

Tocqueville's experiences clearly demonstrate that religion will fare much better in a society where church and state are separate, but now the question is whether society itself fares better as a result of religion's influence. The answer from Tocqueville is a resounding yes, especially for democratic republics. In fact, religion is one of the most powerful forces working for the maintenance of democratic society. As a result of their excessive love for equality and their misunderstanding of and lack of appreciation for liberty, democracies are in danger of degenerating into individualistic, unstable, materialistic, and even despotic societies. Religion is among the most effective and important counters to these maleficent tendencies of democratic nations.

These tendencies are discussed much more in Volume Two, but in this chapter Tocqueville focuses on how religion fulfills the essential role of teaching people to use their liberty well. One of the most important ways in which religion performs this task is through its influence on women. While with the many temptations prompted by ambition and greed "religion is often powerless to restrain men," "it reigns supreme in the souls of women, and it is women who shape mores." Women's vehicle for shaping mores is their influence in domestic life. Tocqueville observes that "of all countries in the world America is the one in which the marriage tie is most respected." The societal significance of strong and happy marriages is not to be underestimated. As Tocqueville points out, "In Europe all the disorders of society are born around the domestic hearth and not far from the nuptial bed." The problem is that when domestic life is unsettled, disorderly and unstable, these tendencies carry over into political life as well. On the other hand, "when the American returns from the turmoil of politics to the bosom of the family, he immediately finds a perfect picture of order and peace. . . . And as the regularity of life brings him happiness, he easily forms the habit of regulating his opinions as well as his tastes." Even beyond helping to temper his passions, domestic life provides the American with "that love of order which he carries over into the affairs of the state."

The laws in democratic societies are relatively lenient, and there are few restrictions on the types of new legislation that can be enacted. This leniency can be dangerous, for it can lead to the enactment of laws which may ostensibly be for the benefit of society but which in fact can lead to tyranny. Thanks to the prominence of Christian moral principles, however, "no one in the United States has dared to profess the maxim that everything is allowed in the interests of society, an impious maxim apparently invented in an age of freedom in order to legitimize every future tyrant." Religion therefore acts as a powerful force to prevent Americans from abusing their freedom in order to gain power at the cost of their countrymen's liberty. As Tocqueville asserts, "While the law allows the American people to do everything, there are things which religion prevents them from imagining and forbids them to dare." It is for the reason that Tocqueville makes the rather bold claim that religion "should therefore be considered as the first of their political institutions, for although it did not give them the taste for liberty, it singularly facilitates their use thereof." Tocqueville's warning to the French revolutionaries who would like to eradicate religion from their country is particularly relevant in this context. He writes that "despotism may be able to do without faith, but freedom cannot. Religion is much more needed in the republic they advocate than in the monarchy they attack, and in democratic republics most of all. How could society escape destruction if, when political ties are relaxed, moral ties are not tightened? And what can be done with a people master of itself if it is not subject to God?"

What Tocqueville's analysis‹both in this chapter and in Volume Two‹demonstrates is that religion is one of the key forces that tends to the preservation of democratic societies. Indeed, considering his lengthy and detailed treatment of it and his constant praise for its benefits, it is not too much to claim that in Tocqueville's opinion religion is the important and most necessary element in any democracy. It buoys up and corrects democratic societies at their weakest points, helping society to run more smoothly in both political and private matters, and helping individuals within society to leader happier and more fulfilling lives.

Chapter 10: Some Considerations Concerning the Present State and Probably Future of the Three Races That Inhabit the Territory of the United States

In the United States, the European, the Negro and Indian coexist uneasily, with the Europeans dominating the other races tyrannically. The situation of the negroes has led them to a state of submission and demoralization, while the Indians have remained independent but their civilization has split up and has consequently degenerated.

The Present State and the Probably Future of the Indian Tribes Inhabiting the Territory of the Union

The Indian tribes are gradually disappearing from America as a result of pressure from the white man and encroachment on their land by settlers. The situation has led to great misery and hardship for the Indian peoples. The Indian race seems doomed to perish because they do not want to assimilate themselves and are not strong enough to prevent the European's takeover. The Indians are equally intelligent, but simply have a different social state and way of life incompatible with European civilization. Both the states and the Union treat the Indians cruelly and pitilessly.

Situation of the Black Race in the United States; Dangers Entailed for the Whites by Its Presence

The presence of blacks is the greatest danger threatening the United States. Abolishing slavery will be extremely difficult because they will not be able to blend easily with the rest of the population. Even in areas where legal barriers are coming down, prejudices seem immovable. Slavery was abolished in the North only because it was not profitable there. Even if they wanted to, the southerners would have difficulty abolishing slavery because they are afraid of the high proportion of blacks in the South.

The only possibility for the future is that blacks and whites must completely mingle or completely separate. The first possibility seems nearly impossible. Some whites have tried to bring the blacks back to Africa by establishing the country of Liberia, but the project has been unsuccessful. To solve the problem the southerners need either to free the slaves and accept them as equal members of society or to keep them in slavery as long as possible. The situation in the South is terrible but is the natural consequence of slavery. In the end the blacks will either e freed or seize freedom themselves, but the consequences for the whites do not look promising.

What Are the Chances That the American Union Will Last? What Dangers Threaten It?

Will it may seem that the government of the Union is stronger than that of the states because of its powers to handle exclusively national concerns such as foreign relations, the states actually have a larger portion of sovereignty. Local and state governments carry out the activities which have a much more direct effect on citizens and the citizens tend to have more attachment to it. The federal government is thus rather feeble in its powers and requires the free support of the governed to be effective. In battles between states and the federal government, the states so far have always gotten their way.

Currently the Union is useful for the states but not necessary for them. They could easily separate if they wanted to. Yet for economic and security it is much better for the states to remain united. Furthermore, the people in general want to remain united because of similar feelings and opinions, and agree about the general principles of government and morality. Slavery does not create conflicting interests between the North and South, but it does create a strong difference in mores. Perhaps the greatest danger threatening the Union is its prosperity, because certain areas are growing rich more rapidly and others, especially the South may be envious and distrustful of the growing power of the North.

The Americans' biggest fear is against too much centralization of power, but they ought to fear the opposite. The Union has been strengthened by increased communication, mingling of the population, and commercial interdependence, but at the same time now that America has become stable and prosperous the people do not feel the need for a strong union to provide stability and security. An example of the weakness of the Union is the attempt nullification in South Carolina in 1832. Although the Union held together, it conceded to South Carolina the tariff reductions that it had asked for.

Concerning the Republican Institutions of the United States and Their Chances of Survival

The republican nature of America is deeply rooted and will survive even if the Union doesn't. In order to destroy the republican institutions in America it would be necessary to destroy all the laws and substantially change the people's mores at the same time. America will never become a monarchy or an aristocracy because the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people is paramount. Still, the instability of laws and administrative procedures does endanger the future of republican government because it may be seen as ineffective. In general, however, the present trend is toward ever-increasing democracy.

Some Considerations Concerning the Causes of the Commercial Greatness of the United States

America has the best and most secure ports of any nation in the world. American sailors, with their innovative and adventurous nature, are taking the upper hand in international trade. One day America will probably be the leading naval power of the globe.

Analysis

As much of its ideas and observations are now basically obsolete, this chapter does not provide many insights into the book's main themes, which are timeless in their relevance. It is interesting to see, however, that in this pre-Civil War era Tocqueville recognizes the danger of the Union's breaking up as a result of a conflict over state's rights. Though he does not see slavery as a key factor in the conflict, he does predict that resolving the issue will be highly problematic for the southerners.

In this chapter we also find a brief reiteration of the deep-seated, powerful and lasting influence of republican institutions, particularly local liberties, on the America people.

Conclusion

The Union is bound to expand beyond its current boundaries to take over the land currently in Spanish control. Even if the Union were to dissolve or the republic were to degenerate into a tyranny, the American people are destined to expand throughout the whole continent. All sharing in a common English ancestry, there is no foreseeable time when equality of conditions will cease to exist in America. There are two great nations currently in existence: America and Russia. While their government and national character are extremely diverse, "each seems called by some secret design of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world."

Part I: Influence of Democracy on the Intellectual Movements in the United States

Chapter I: Concerning the Philosophical Approach of the Americans

The American people pay little attention to philosophy, yet they all think according to the same method. Most people rely on individual effort and judgment for their decisions. There is a distaste for accepting anything on the basis of authority, and they think that everything can be explained by human intelligence. As a result they have an aversion to the supernatural. Basically, the Americans are following Descartes's method perfectly, allowing all traditional ideas to be open for attack. This method can only take root in a society where there is a high degree of equality.

Why is it that the French apply the Cartesian method more strictly than the Americans although the Americans have more liberty? The first reason is the peculiar power of religion in America. Religion is believed without discussion, because it has set its own limits so that laws and politics can change without affecting beliefs. The second reason is that there was no democratic revolution in America, and consequently no anarchy extreme social animosities to upset all traditional ideas.

Chapter 2: Concerning the Principal Source of Beliefs Among Democratic Peoples

Societies needs at least some dogmatic beliefs‹that is, opinions taken on trust without discussion‹because without common ideas common action is impossible, and without common action society cannot exist, much less prosper. Even individually, man needs dogmatic beliefs because there is simply not enough time in life to examine and prove all the truths which he makes use of in daily life. Anyone who refused to accept anything without proving it himself would never be firmly convinced of anything. Therefore authority also plays a part in intellectual and moral life.

Equality tends to give make men overestimate the power of human reason, and generally look to themselves or those around them for the truth. People are very unlikely to believe in the ideas of any one man or class, but are very willing to trust public opinion. Since all are considered to be equally capable of knowing the truth, people assume that truth must lie with the majority. Even the strength of religion is based mostly on public opinion.

Equality can have two results: inducing men to think innovatively, or leading him to stop thinking entirely, completely bound by the will of the greatest number.

Chapter 3: Why the Americans Show More Aptitude and Taste for General Ideas Than Their English Forefathers

In aristocratic societies where there is much inequality, people are so different that there is little incentive to make generalizations about humanity. In democracies, however, people tend to think that truths applicable to one person are applicable to all. Until the coming of Jesus Christ, the idea that all people are equal was unheard of. In times of equality people tend to generalize because there is little time to think and generalizing saves them the time needed to analyze particular cases.

Chapter 4: Why the Americans Have Never Been as Eager as the French for General Ideas About Political Affairs

The Americans have much more practical experience in political affairs than the French. The democratic institutions which force each citizen to take a hand in the practical realities of government force them to look at particular cases rather than general political theories.

Chapter 5: How Religion in the United States Makes Use of Democratic Instincts

Almost every human action results from some general conception of God and the duties one owes to one's fellow man. These ideas are therefore extremely important. Yet, preoccupied by the daily duties, people often lack the time to think these matters over seriously. Religion provides the answers to the necessary questions of life. Even if the religion is not true, it greatly contributes to man's happiness and dignity.

When a people's religion is destroyed people despair of finding the answers to the ultimate questions of human existence. This state debilitates the soul and prepares a people to hand over their freedom in search of some sort of stability.

Religion is especially important to combat the negative results of egalitarianism, such as materialism and egoism. Since religion is so crucial in democracies, it is important for religion to confine itself to its proper sphere; otherwise the antipathy to dogmatic beliefs will lead to complete loss of faith. In a sense, however, democracy can be helpful to Christian beliefs because people naturally accept the unity of God and the moral law because such ideas are consistent with equality.

The taste for well-being is the most dominant passion of democratic peoples, and consequently a religion which attempts to completely detach people from the goods of this world would be doomed to fail. Rather, religion needs moderate the excessive taste for well-being and encourage the use of honest means for its pursuit. In addition, all matters that are not essential articles of faith religion needs to acquiesce with the majority's opinion, because the opinion of the majority rules. The American clergy are aware of these needs and act accordingly. As a result, religion is very strong in America both from its own power and from the support of public opinion.

Chapter 6: Concerning the Progress of Roman Catholicism in the United States

In America Roman Catholicism seems to be growing in popularity, because the people are attracted by Catholicism's discipline and unity.

Chapter 7: What Causes Democratic Nations to Incline Toward Pantheism

The concept of unity is very attractive to the democratic mentality, and thus pantheism, which includes God and the universe in one great whole, has been growing in popularity.

Chapter 8: How Equality Suggests to the Americans the Idea of the Indefinite Perfectibility of Man

In democratic nations where all are equal, laws and ideas are always changing, and new truths are constantly discovered, people tend to think that there is an unlimited capability for progress and human perfectibility.

Chapter 9: Why the Example of the Americans Does Not Prove That a Democratic People Can Have No Aptitude or Taste for Science, Literature, or the Arts

There were special circumstances which gave the Americans a distaste for the arts, such as their religion, their ambitious drive for wealth. In addition, they were able to simply to take theoretical knowledge from Europe rather than having to think of it themselves.

In general, however, democracy ought to favor the increase of enlightenment in its own way. Since all legal inequalities are abolished, the only source of disparity in fortunes will be natural talents and intellect. Therefore people will begin to appreciate the value of knowledge since they see that it yields prosperity.

Chapter 10: Why the Americans Are More Concerned With the Applications Than With the Theory of Science

Americans concern themselves only with the practical side of science, because theoretical, abstract knowledge requires deep thought and meditation, for which democratic society is not conducive. People in democratic nations tend to be involved in continual activity, which does not allow time to reflect deeply on the basis of their ideas before acting upon them. Democratic people are always concerned primarily with bettering their lot, and consequently are only interested in practical methods and innovations which will allow to increase their material prosperity. While the danger of this attitude is not immediately apparent, it could lead to a dwindling away of civilization if people become so preoccupied with the material and practical that they forget the basic principles altogether.

Chapter 11: In What Spirit the Americans Cultivate the Arts

Democratic peoples tend to have a taste for the useful more than a love of beauty. Since all people want access to as many goods as possible, they are willing to sacrifice the quality of those goods in order to be able to afford them. "Quantity increases; quality goes down." People are concerned more with appearances than with reality.

Chapter 12: Why the Americans Erect Some Petty Monuments and Others That Are Very Grand

Individuals are very divided and weak in a democracy, but the state which represents them all is very strong. As a result, public monuments are conceived on a grand scale.

Chapter 13: Literary Characteristics of Democratic Centuries

Americans have no real literature of their own; they always read English works. The true American writings are in journalism. In democracy people will tend to pursue literature only as a form of relaxation or entertainment. As a result, they will not tend to produce works of great depth or erudition.

Chapter 14: The Industry of Literature

In democracies, literature tends to take on an industrial spirit and writers look at it as a trade by which to earn a living, rather than as a passionate intellectual endeavor.

Chapter 15: Why the Study of Greek and Latin Literature is Useful in Democratic Societies

Greek and Latin literature is excellent for democracies because it emphasizes precisely those qualities which democratic literature tends to lack and provides an antidote to its defects.

Chapter 16: How American Democracy Modified the English Language

The restlessness and constant change prevalent in democracies affects language as all else. Many new words are created, especially for purposes of industry or politics. Rules of style and formalities of expression tend to vanish.

Chapter 17: On Some Sources of Poetic Inspiration in Democracies

Democracies are not concerned about the past, but the future can be a great source of poetic inspiration for them. They will also focus mostly on humanity, with its passions, doubts, and fortunes.

Chapter 18: Why American Writers and Speakers are Often Bombastic

Since most of the time democratic people are thinking of petty individual concerns, when they think of grander subjects they tend to take them entirely out of proportion.

Chapter 19: Some Observations on the Theater Among Democratic Peoples

Drama is the most natural of all literary tastes for democratic peoples because it requires the least study and effort. Dramatic and literary conventions are entirely ignored, and drama generally appeals to the emotions. The theater is still not very popular, however, because of the Puritan abhorrence for it.

Chapter 20: Some Characteristics Peculiar to Historians in Democratic Centuries

Democratic historians tend to downplay the influence of individuals and relate everything to great general causes. They also tend to exhibit a certain fatalism, making them doubt free will entirely and question the ability of individual actions to have any impact on the course of events.

Chapter 21: Of Parliamentary Eloquence in the United States

Democratic representatives think more about their constituents than about their party. As a result, congressmen tend to speak often simply to prove to their constituents that they are fighting for their interests.

Analysis

The philosophical tendencies of the Americas may be a great danger to their liberty. The Americans' sense of equality leads them to doubt any sort of authoritative claims and at the same time to confidently assert that "everything in the world can be explained and that nothing passes beyond the limits of intelligence," placing extreme faith in the abilities of human reason. At the same time, it is clear that "since life is too short . . . and human faculties are too limited [to prove all truths for oneself], man has to accept as certain a whole heap of facts and opinions which he has neither leisure nor power to examine and verify for himself." Therefore, the combined influence of equality, the exaltation of human reason, and the need accept some truths on authority, leads to the establishment of public opinion as the absolute arbiter of truth. This philosophical tendency only amplifies the political tendency leading toward tyranny of the majority. As Tocqueville writes, "If democratic peoples substituted the absolute power of a m