Tocqueville 1593-01 PDF

democracy in america
Alexis de Tocqueville
DE MOC R AC Y
I N A M E R ICA
s4s4s4s4s4
Edited by Eduardo Nolla
Translated from the French by James T. Schleifer
volume 1
L
liberty fund
Indianapolis
This book is published by Liberty Fund, Inc., a foundation established to
encourage study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
L
The cuneiform inscription that serves as our logo and as the design motif
for our endpapers is the earliest-known written appearance of the word
“freedom” (amagi ), or “liberty.” It is taken from a clay document written
about 2300 b.c. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.
English translation, translator’s note, index, 䉷 2010 by Liberty Fund, Inc.

Foreword to this edition, 䉷 2012 by Liberty Fund, Inc.
The French text on which this translation is based is De la démocratie en
Amérique, première édition historico-critique revue et augmentée. Edited by
Eduardo Nolla. Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin; 6, Place de la Sorbonne; Paris, 1990.
Frontispiece: Portrait of Alexis de Tocqueville by Léon Noël,
reproduced with kind permission of the Beineke Library, Yale University.
Map of the United States appearing in the first edition of
Democracy in America (1835), reproduced with kind permission of
the Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
c 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
p 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Tocqueville, Alexis de, 1805–1859
[De la démocratie en Amérique. English]
Democracy in America/Alexis de Tocqueville;
edited by Eduardo Nolla;
translated from the French by James T. Schleifer.—[Student ed.]
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
isbn 978-0-86597-840-9 (set: pbk.: alk. paper)
isbn 978-0-86597-838-6 (v. 1: pbk.: alk. paper)
isbn 978-0-86597-839-3 (v. 2: pbk.: alk. paper)
1. United States—Politics and government. 2. United States—Social
conditions—To 1865. 3. Democracy—United States. I. Nolla, Eduardo.
II. Schleifer, James T., 1942– III. Title.
jk216.t713 2012
320.973—dc23 2011041363
liberty fund, inc.
8335 Allison Pointe Trail, Suite 300
Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684
democracy in america
Contents
Translator’s Note xxi
Key Terms xxvi
Foreword xxviii
Map xliv
Editor’s Introduction xlvii
Foreword to This Edition cli
DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA
(1835)
volume i
Introduction 3
Part I
chapter 1: Exterior Configuration of North America 33
chapter 2: Of the Point of Departure and Its Importance for

the Future of the Anglo-Americans 45
Reasons for Some Singularities That the Laws and Customs of the
Anglo-Americans Present 71
chapter 3: Social State of the Anglo-Americans 74

That the Salient Point of the Social State of the Anglo-Americans Is to
Be Essentially Democratic 75
ix
x contents
Political Consequences of the Social State of the Anglo-Americans 89
chapter 4: Of the Principle of the Sovereignty of the People

in America 91
chapter 5: Necessity of Studying What Happens in the

Individual States before Speaking about the Government of
the Union 98
Of the Town System in America 99
Town District 103
Town Powers in New England 104
Of Town Life 108
Of Town Spirit in New England 110
Of the County in New England 114
Of Administration in New England 115
General Ideas on Administration in the United States 129
Of the State 135
Legislative Power of the State 136
Of the Executive Power of the State 139
Of the Political Effects of Administrative Decentralization in the
United States 142
chapter 6: Of the Judicial Power in the United States and Its

Action on Political Society 167
Other Powers Granted to American Judges 176
chapter 7: Of Political Jurisdiction in the United States 179
chapter 8: Of the Federal Constitution 186

Historical Background of the Federal Constitution 186
Summary Picture of the Federal Constitution 191
Attributions of the Federal Government 193
Federal Powers 195
Legislative Powers 196
[Difference between the Constitution of the Senate and That of the
House of Representatives]
contents xi
Another Difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives 200
Of Executive Power 201
How the Position of the President of the United States Differs from That
of a Constitutional King in France 204
Accidental Causes That Can Increase the Influence of the Executive Power 209
Why the President of the United States, to Lead Public Affairs,
Does Not Need to Have a Majority in the Chambers 210
Of the Election of the President 211
Mode of Election 218
Election Crisis 222
Of the Re-election of the President 225
Of the Federal Courts 229
Way of Determining the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts 234
Different Cases of Jurisdiction 236
The Federal Courts’ Way of Proceeding 241
Elevated Rank That the Supreme Court Occupies among the Great Powers
of the State 244
How the Federal Constitution Is Superior to the State Constitutions 246
What Distinguishes the Federal Constitution of the United States of
America from All Other Federal Constitutions 251
Of the Advantages of the Federal System in General, and of Its Special
Utility for America 255
What Keeps the Federal System from Being within the Reach of All
Peoples; And What Has Allowed the Anglo-Americans to Adopt It 263
Part II
chapter 1: How It Can Be Strictly Said That in the United

States It Is the People Who Govern 278
chapter 2: Of Parties in the United States 279
Of the Remnants of the Aristocratic Party in the United States 287
chapter 3: Of Freedom of the Press in the United States 289
That the Opinions Established under the Dominion of Freedom of the
Press in the United States Are Often More Tenacious than Those That
Are Found Elsewhere under the Dominion of Censorship 298
xii contents
chapter 4: Of Political Association in the United States 302

Different Ways in Which the Right of Association Is Understood in
Europe and in the United States, and the Different Use That Is Made
of That Right 309
chapter 5: Of the Government of Democracy in America 313

Of Universal Suffrage 313
Of the Choices of the People and of the Instincts of American
Democracy in Its Choices 314
Of the Causes That Can Partially Correct These Democratic Instincts 318
Influence That American Democracy Has Exercised on Electoral Laws 322
Of Public Officials under the Dominion of American Democracy 324
Of the Arbitrariness of Magistrates under the Dominion of
American Democracy 327
Administrative Instability in the United States 331
Of Public Expenses under the Dominion of American Democracy 333
Of the Instincts of American Democracy in Determining the Salary
of Officials 340
Difficulty of Discerning the Causes That Lead the American Government
to Economy 343
[Influence of the Government of Democracy on the Tax Base and on the
Use of the Tax Revenues] 345
[Influence of Democratic Government on the Use of Tax Revenues] 346
Can the Public Expenditures of the United States Be Compared with
Those of France 349
Of the Corruption and Vices of Those Who Govern in Democracy;
Of the Effects on Public Morality That Result from That Corruption
and Those Vices 356
Of What Efforts Democracy Is Capable 360
Of the Power That American Democracy Generally Exercises over Itself 364
Of the Manner in Which American Democracy Conducts the Foreign
Affairs of the State 366
contents xiii
chapter 6: What Are the Real Advantages That American

Society Gains from the Government of Democracy? 375
Of the General Tendency of Laws under the Dominion of American
Democracy, and Of the Instinct of Those Who Apply Them 377
Of Public Spirit in the United States 384
Of the Idea of Rights in the United States 389
Of the Respect for the Law in the United States 393
Activity That Reigns in All Parts of the Political Body in the United
States; Influence That It Exercises on Society 395
chapter 7: Of the Omnipotence of the Majority in the United

States and Its Effects 402
How the Omnipotence of the Majority in America Increases the
Legislative and Administrative Instability That Is Natural to Democracies 407
Tyranny of the Majority 410
Effects of the Omnipotence of the Majority on the Arbitrariness of
American Public Officials 415
Of the Power Exercised by the Majority in America over Thought 416
Effect of Tyranny of the Majority on the National Character of the
Americans; Of the Courtier Spirit in the United States 420
That the Greatest Danger to the American Republics Comes from the
Omnipotence of the Majority 424
chapter 8: Of What Tempers Tyranny of the Majority in the

United States 427
Absence of Administrative Centralization 427
Of the Spirit of the Jurist in the United States, and How It Serves as
Counterweight to Democracy 430
Of the Jury in the United States Considered as a Political Institution 442
chapter 9: Of the Principal Causes That Tend to Maintain the

Democratic Republic in the United States 451
Of the Accidental or Providential Causes That Contribute to Maintaining
the Democratic Republic in the United States 452
Of the Influence of Laws on Maintaining the Democratic Republic in the
United States 465
xiv contents
Of the Influence of Mores on Maintaining the Democratic Republic in

the United States 466
Of Religion Considered as a Political Institution, How It Serves
Powerfully to Maintain the Democratic Republic among the Americans 467
Indirect Influence Exercised by Religious Beliefs on Political Society in the
United States 472
Of the Principal Causes That Make Religion Powerful in America 478
How the Enlightenment, Habits, and Practical Experience of the
Americans Contribute to the Success of Democratic Institutions 488
That Laws Serve More to Maintain the Democratic Republic in the
United States than Physical Causes, and Mores More than Laws 494
Would Laws and Mores Be Sufficient to Maintain Democratic Institutions
Elsewhere than in America? 500
Importance of What Precedes in Relation to Europe 505
chapter 10: Some Considerations on the Present State and
Probable Future of the Three Races That Inhabit the Territory of
the United States 515
Present State and Probable Future of the Indian Tribes That Inhabit the
Territory Possessed by the Union 522
Position That the Black Race Occupies in the United States; Dangers to
Which Its Presence Exposes the Whites 548
What Are the Chances for the American Union to Last? What Dangers
Threaten It? 582
Of Republican Institutions in the United States, What Are Their Chances
of Lasting? 627
Some Considerations on the Causes of the Commercial Greatness of the
United States 637
Conclusion 649
Notes 658
DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA
(1840)
volume ii
Foreword 690
Part I: Influence of Democracy on the

Intellectual Movement in the United States
chapter 1: Of the Philosophical Method of the Americans 697

chapter 2: Of the Principal Source of Beliefs among
Democratic Peoples 711
chapter 3: Why the Americans Show More Aptitude and Taste
for General Ideas than Their Fathers the English 726
chapter 4: Why the Americans Have Never Been as Passionate
as the French about General Ideas in Political Matters 737
chapter 5: How, in the United States, Religion Knows How to
Make Use of Democratic Instincts 742
chapter 6: Of the Progress of Catholicism in the United States 754
chapter 7: What Makes the Minds of Democratic Peoples
Incline toward Pantheism 757
chapter 8: How Equality Suggests to the Americans the Idea of
the Indefinite Perfectibility of Man 759
chapter 9: How the Example of the Americans Does Not Prove
That a Democratic People Cannot Have Aptitude and Taste for the
Sciences, Literature, and the Arts 763
chapter 10: Why the Americans Are More Attached to the
Application of the Sciences than to the Theory 775
chapter 11: In What Spirit the Americans Cultivate the Arts 788
chapter 12: Why Americans Erect Such Small and Such Large
Monuments at the Same Time 796
xv
xvi contents
chapter 13: Literary Physiognomy of Democratic Centuries 800
chapter 14: Of the Literary Industry 813
chapter 15: Why the Study of Greek and Latin Literature Is

Particularly Useful in Democratic Societies 815
chapter 16: How American Democracy Has Modified the

English Language 818
chapter 17: Of Some Sources of Poetry among

Democratic Nations 830
chapter 18: Why American Writers and Orators Are

Often Bombastic 843
chapter 19: Some Observations on the Theater of

Democratic Peoples 845
chapter 20: Of Some Tendencies Particular to Historians in

Democratic Centuries 853
chapter 21: Of Parliamentary Eloquence in the United States 861
Part II: Influence of Democracy on the

Sentiments of the Americans
chapter 1: Why Democratic Peoples Show a More Ardent and

More Enduring Love for Equality than for Liberty 872
chapter 2: Of Individualism in Democratic Countries 881
chapter 3: How Individualism Is Greater at the End of a

Democratic Revolution than at Another Time 885
chapter 4: How the Americans Combat Individualism with

Free Institutions 887
chapter 5: Of the Use That Americans Make of Association

in Civil Life 895
contents xvii
chapter 6: Of the Relation between Associations

and Newspapers 905
chapter 7: Relations between Civil Associations and

Political Associations 911
chapter 8: How the Americans Combat Individualism by the

Doctrine of Interest Well Understood 918
chapter 9: How the Americans Apply the Doctrine of Interest

Well Understood in the Matter of Religion 926
chapter 10: Of the Taste for Material Well-Being in America 930
chapter 11: Of the Particular Effects Produced by the Love of

Material Enjoyments in Democratic Centuries 935
chapter 12: Why Certain Americans Exhibit So Excited

a Spiritualism 939
chapter 13: Why the Americans Appear So Restless Amid

Their Well-Being 942
chapter 14: How the Taste for Material Enjoyment Is United,

among the Americans, with the Love of Liberty and Concern for
Public Affairs 948
chapter 15: How from Time to Time Religious Beliefs Divert

the Soul of the Americans toward Non-material Enjoyments 954
chapter 16: How the Excessive Love of Well-Being Can

Harm Well-Being 963
chapter 17: How, in Times of Equality and Doubt, It Is

Important to Push Back the Goal of Human Actions 965
chapter 18: Why, among the Americans, All Honest Professions

Are Considered Honorable 969
chapter 19: What Makes Nearly All Americans Tend toward

Industrial Professions 972
chapter 20: How Aristocracy Could Emerge from Industry 980

xviii contents
Part III: Influence of Democracy on

Mores Properly So Called
chapter 1: How Mores Become Milder as Conditions

Become Equal 987
chapter 2: How Democracy Makes the Habitual Relations of

the Americans Simpler and Easier 995
chapter 3: Why the Americans Have So Little Susceptibility in

Their Country and Show Such Susceptibility in Ours 1000
chapter 4: Consequences of the Three Preceding Chapters 1005
chapter 5: How Democracy Modifies the Relationships of

Servant and Master 1007
chapter 6: How Democratic Institutions and Mores Tend to

Raise the Cost and Shorten the Length of Leases 1020
chapter 7: Influence of Democracy on Salaries 1025
chapter 8: Influence of Democracy on the Family 1031
chapter 9: Education of Young Girls in the United States 1041
chapter 10: How the Young Girl Is Found Again in the Features
of the Wife 1048
chapter 11: How Equality of Conditions Contributes to

Maintaining Good Morals in America 1052
chapter 12: How the Americans Understand the Equality of

Man and of Woman 1062
chapter 13: How Equality Divides the Americans Naturally into

a Multitude of Small Particular Societies 1068
chapter 14: Some Reflections on American Manners 1071
chapter 15: Of the Gravity of Americans and Why It Does Not

Prevent Them from Often Doing Thoughtless Things 1080
contents xix
chapter 16: Why the National Vanity of the Americans Is More

Anxious and More Quarrelsome than That of the English 1085
chapter 17: How the Appearance of Society in the United States

Is at the Very Same Time Agitated and Monotonous 1089
chapter 18: Of Honor in the United States and in

Democratic Societies 1093
chapter 19: Why in the United States You Find So Many

Ambitious Men and So Few Great Ambitions 1116
chapter 20: Of Positions Becoming an Industry among Certain

Democratic Nations 1129
chapter 21: Why Great Revolutions Will Become Rare 1133
chapter 22: Why Democratic Peoples Naturally Desire Peace

and Democratic Armies Naturally Desire War 1153
chapter 23: Which Class, in Democratic Armies, Is the Most

Warlike and the Most Revolutionary 1165
chapter 24: What Makes Democratic Armies Weaker than

Other Armies while Beginning a Military Campaign and More
Formidable When the War Is Prolonged 1170
chapter 25: Of Discipline in Democratic Armies 1176
chapter 26: Some Considerations on War in

Democratic Societies 1178
Part IV: Of the Influence That Democratic Ideas and

Sentiments Exercise on Political Society
chapter 1: Equality Naturally Gives Men the Taste for

Free Institutions 1191
chapter 2: That the Ideas of Democratic Peoples in Matters of

Government Naturally Favor the Concentration of Powers 1194
xx contents
chapter 3: That the Sentiments of Democratic Peoples Are

in Agreement with Their Ideas for Bringing Them to
Concentrate Power 1200
chapter 4: Of Some Particular and Accidental Causes That End

Up Leading a Democratic People to Centralize Power or That Turn
Them Away from Doing So 1206
chapter 5: That among the European Nations of Today the

Sovereign Power Increases although Sovereigns Are Less Stable 1221
chapter 6: What Type of Despotism Democratic Nations

Have to Fear 1245
chapter 7: Continuation of the Preceding Chapters 1262
chapter 8: General View of the Subject 1278
Notes 1286
Appendixes 1295
appendix 1: Journey to Lake Oneida 1295
appendix 2: A Fortnight in the Wilderness 1303
appendix 3: Sects in America 1360
appendix 4: Political Activity in America 1365
appendix 5: Letter of Alexis de Tocqueville

to Charles Stoffels 1368
appendix 6: Foreword to the Twelfth

Edition 1373
Works Used by Tocqueville 1377
Bibliography 1396
Index 1431
Translator’s Note
This new translation of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America is intended to

be a close, faithful, and straightforward rendering of Tocqueville into con-
temporary American English. A second key goal is to present a smooth,
readable version of Tocqueville’s classic work. Part of my challenge has
therefore been to maintain the right balance between closeness and felicity,
between faithfulness and readability.
The translation scrupulously follows Tocqueville’s somewhat idiosyn-
cratic paragraphing and attempts to reflect the varied sentence structure
of the original. I have tried, where possible, to follow Tocqueville’s sen-
tence structure and word order. But in many cases this effort would be
inappropriate and untenable. It would not work for constructing sen-
tences in English and would obscure Tocqueville’s meaning. So some-
times I have shifted Tocqueville’s word order and rearranged, even totally
recast, his sentences. At times, for example, Tocqueville’s extraordinarily
long sentences, built from accumulated phrases, had to be broken to fit
English usage. Nonetheless, the translation tries to reflect Tocqueville’s
stylistic mix of long, complex sentences with short, emphatic ones. Oc-
casionally Tocqueville’s sentence fragments are retained; more often, I
have turned them into complete (though still very brief) sentences by in-
serting a verb.
As part of the effort to achieve a contemporary American English text,
I have avoided translating the French on as one; almost invariably, I have
used you (sometimes we or another pronoun, depending on context), or
have changed the sentence from active to passive. And with the goal of
closeness in mind, I have also used cognates where they fit and are appro-
priate.
Another basic principle for this translation has been consistency, espe-
xxi
xxii translator’s note
cially for key terms. But a rigid or narrow consistency can be a false and
dangerous goal, even a trap. Words often have many meanings and there-
fore need to be translated differently depending on context. There are sev-
eral good examples. Objet can mean object (the object of desire), subject
(the subject under consideration), matter (the matter under discussion), or
objective (the objective of a plan). Biens can mean property or goods, or
the opposite of evil(s): good, good things, or even, on a few occasions, ad-
vantages. And désert can mean wilderness, uninhabited area, or desert. The
reader will find other examples of such clusters of possible meanings in the
translation. But for the key terms used by Tocqueville, the principle has
been to be as consistent as possible. (See Key Terms.)
Finally, the translation follows these more specific principles: (1) words
referring specifically to France, to French institutions and history, such as
commune, conseil d’état, parlement, are usually left in French; (2) quotations
presented by Tocqueville from Pascal, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Guizot,
and many other French writers have been newly translated; (3) on a few
occasions, specific translator’s notes have been inserted; (4) the French De
at the beginning of chapter or section titles has been retained and translated
invariably as Of (eg. Of the Point of Departure . . .). The great exception,
of course, is the name of the book itself, Democracy in America, a title
simply too familiar in English to be altered; and (5) in cases where Tocque-
ville quotes directly and closely from an English-language source, the origi-
nal English text has been provided; but in cases where Tocqueville has
quoted an English-language source from a French translation, or has only
paraphrased or followed an English text very loosely, Tocqueville has been
translated.
The Nolla edition, on which this translation is based, presents an enormous

amount and variety of materials from the drafts and manuscript variants
of Tocqueville’s work, as well as excerpts from closely related materials such
as travel notes and correspondence, and several chapters or partial chapters
never included in the published text.
Within this collection of drafts, variants, and other materials there exists
an important, but not always clear, hierarchy of manuscript materials.
translator’s note xxiii
These layers largely reflect chronology, the development over time of

Tocqueville’s thinking from early notes and sketches, through successive
draft versions, to final text (still often overlaid with last-minute thoughts,
queries, and clarifications). But they also reflect the tangled paths of his
musings, including intellectual trials, asides, and dead ends.
And from these diverse materials comes a major challenge for the trans-
lator: to reflect the stylistic and chronological shifts from early to late, from
informal to formal, from rough to polished versions of Tocqueville’s book.
In some of the drafts, especially, the translation must try to reproduce
Tocqueville’s tentativeness and confusion, as reflected in incomplete, bro-
ken, or ambiguous sentences. Most important, the many layers of text need
to be translated in a way that maintains parallel phrasing, but at the same
time reflects key variations in wording as they occur in the unfolding de-
velopment of Tocqueville’s work. The various stages of manuscript variants
and the final text need to match, to be harmonious where they are more or
less the same, and to differ where Tocqueville has made significant changes
in vocabulary or meaning.
The very act of translation teaches a great deal about the author being trans-
lated. Tocqueville, like all good writers, had certain stylistic characteristics
and idiosyncrasies that a translator must grasp in order to render a faithful
translation.
In general, Tocqueville’s sentences are much more dense and compact
in volume I of Democracy than in volume II, where they are more abstract
and open. In the first volume, his sentences often seem stuffed with short,
qualifying phrases. This difference results from the more abstract and
reflective nature of the second volume, but it also arises from the more
detailed, concrete, and historical subject matter that takes up much of
volume 1.
Tocqueville often painted verbal pictures to summarize and to express
his ideas in a single image that he hoped would grab and even persuade
his readers. To create these images, he repeatedly used certain clusters of
related words. Among his favorite word pictures, for example, are images
of light and darkness, of eyes and seeing, of shadows and fading light;
xxiv translator’s note
images of movement, motion or stirring; dramatic images of rising flood-

waters or raging rivers; and such geometric images as the circle, the sphere,
and converging beams or roads. I have been careful to reproduce these
word pictures as faithfully as possible. Examples occur throughout the
Democracy.
A key to Tocqueville’s writing is his reliance on parallel structures: par-
allel or matched sentences, phrases, or even words. I have tried to retain
such parallels, because they reveal how Tocqueville thought habitually in
pairs, especially in contrasting pairs, a feature of his thinking that elsewhere
I have called “pairs in tension.”
Still another key to Tocqueville’s writing is its very deductive, even syl-
logistic nature. This is one of the defining characteristics of his thought.
In the Democracy, he frequently offers deductive sets of ideas, expressed in
chains of paragraphs or sentences, or even in chains of phrases within a
single, long sentence. Many segments of his book are essentially elaborate
syllogisms. In an attempt to carry the reader along by the sheer force of
logic, Tocqueville often presents his ideas as a tight logical sequence: since
. . . , and since . . . , so; or this . . . , moreover this . . . , therefore . . . . (Donc
and ainsi are two of his favorite words, especially in volume I.) Again, as
translator, I have attempted to retain this syllogistic flavor.
Acknowledgments
My work as translator has benefited greatly from the careful readings and
suggestions of several individuals: my initial reader, Alison Pedicord Schlei-
fer; my primary reader, Paul Seaton; the other members of the editorial
committee, Peter Lawler, Pierre Manent, Catherine Zuckert, Eduardo
Nolla, and Christine Henderson, Senior Fellow at Liberty Fund. I would
also like to thank Melvin Richter and David Bovenizer, who were involved
in the early phases of the project, and Emilio Pacheco, executive vice pres-
ident of Liberty Fund, who provided constant support throughout the pro-
ject. I extend my deepest appreciation to all for their insights, attention,
support, and good will along the way. This project has made us colleagues
and friends.
translator’s note xxv
The resulting translation is mine, and I take full responsibility for any
weaknesses or failings.
James T. Schleifer
New Haven 2007
Key Terms
Certain key terms used by Tocqueville present particular translation diffi-

culties. Some, for example, have no precise English equivalent (e.g., lu-
mières ); others are extremely abstract or have a variety of meanings, de-
pending on context. As translator, my goal was to choose the best alternative
and then to be consistent throughout the edition. The following terms
should be noted:
• état social—translated closely as social state, instead of social condition.
• idée mère—translated as either generative or main idea. The same principle
is used for pensée mère, passion mère, etc. But science mère is rendered as
mother science.
• inquiétude—usually translated as restlessness (and inquiet as restless ), but
sometimes it can be concern or worry. Earlier French dictionaries show that
traditionally the word meant primarily an inability to be at rest, or rest-
lessness; the more modern sense of worry or concern was not as important.
A closely related word, agitation, is almost always rendered as the cognate,
agitation, except occasionally when it is translated as constant motion or
constant movement.
• intérêt bien entendu—translated as interest well understood or well under-
stood interest, rather than interest properly understood, self-interest properly/
well understood, or enlightened self-interest, all of which are unnecessary
glosses on the meaning.
• liberté d’écrire—In English, for freedom of written expression, there is no
equivalent such as freedom of speech for freedom of spoken expression;
freedom of the press is a more specific term. So for liberté d’écrire, I have
simply used freedom to write. Related terms to note include liberté de penser,
freedom of thought, and liberté d’esprit, freedom of mind (in the sense of
intellectual freedom).
xxvi
key terms xxvii
• lumières—usually translated as enlightenment, occasionally as knowledge or

learning.
• mœurs—translated as mores, not an ideal word, but the best available option
in English.
• pouvoir d’un seul—translated as power of one man or, occasionally, power
of one man alone, rather than power of a single man, which is ambiguous.
In addition, the following less crucial, but still important words should
be noted:
• affaires—almost always translated as public affairs, unless clearly otherwise

(such as matters ).
• empire—translated as dominion, or a few times, as sway or rule.
• État—translated as State (upper case) when referring to the nation, the
general political body; otherwise, state (lower case) when referring to one
of the American states.
• fonctionnaire—translated as officer when related to the American town
(town officer); otherwise, official.
• intelligences—No good English equivalent exists; usually translated as
minds; sometimes the phrase is altered to use the adjective intellectual.
• la justice—In certain chapters of Tocqueville’s book the word means jus-
tice, but usually it means the judicial system or court system.
• législateur—translated as law-maker when Tocqueville is talking about the
maker of fundamental law, the constitution-maker; otherwise, legislator.
• patrie—translated as native land or country, rather than fatherland or
homeland.
• sauvage—either savage or wild, depending on the context.
• solitudes—closely related to désert(s) (see Translator’s Note, p. xxii); usually
translated as uninhabited (or empty ) places (or areas ), sometimes as wil-
derness, and once or twice as solitude or seclusion.
Foreword
“In this regard, you will pardon me, I hope, if I express a regret that I believe
is general. You have pushed too far a scruple, otherwise very laudable, of
not wanting to publish anything that had not absolutely received the final
touch of the author. I know well the conscientiousness that caused our
friend to present the expression of his thought to the public only after he
had brought it to the highest perfection that he felt capable of giving it;
but it is one thing to put a piece of writing aside in order to make it more
perfect and something else to want it suppressed when fate has decreed that
the process of perfecting it cannot take place. Even the rough drafts of a
thinker and observer like Tocqueville would be of inestimable value for
thinkers to come; and unless he opposed it while alive, it seems to me that
there would be no disadvantage in publishing his imperfect manuscripts
while presenting them only for what they are and scrupulously retaining all
the indications of an intention to go back to some piece and to submit its
ideas to a later verification.”1
In these words, following the publication of the complete works, John
Stuart Mill expressed his regret to the editor, Gustave de Beaumont, for
not having been able to read the whole body of Tocqueville’s unpublished
papers.
Within the framework of this edition, I wanted to revisit Beaumont’s
decision and in part to satisfy Mill’s desire. I have resolved not only to offer
to the reader the text of Democracy in America revised and corrected, but
also to give an important place to the notes, drafts, and materials of all kinds
that accompanied the period of its writing.
I have therefore chosen to present to the reader at the same time a new
1. The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1849–1873 (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1972. J. S. Mill Collected Works, XV), p. 719. [Note: Original is in French.]
xxviii
foreword xxix
edition of the Democracy and a different edition. This new Democracy is

not only the one that Tocqueville presented to the reader of 1835 and then
to the reader of 1840. It is enlarged, amplified by a body of texts that has
never existed in the form that I give it today. If the added pages that follow
are indeed from Tocqueville’s pen, most of them existed only as support,
as necessary scaffolding for the construction of the work. As such, they were
naturally meant to disappear from the final version.
Drawn out of obscurity, they are going to reappear in the middle of the
known text. These fragments, revived by the choice of the editor, appear
between brackets in the main text and in notes. They must be treated with
caution. Although they have been brought back to life here, it is advisable
not to forget that Tocqueville had condemned them to disappearance. If
they often lead to some interesting site, they also lead many times to a lab-
yrinth or to an impenetrable wall. Then we will be forced to agree with the
judgment that once relegated them to oblivion.
What interest does their presence have then? Above all that of vividly
highlighting the extraordinary complexity of the writing of the Democracy
and aiding in its comprehension by presenting a portion of the erasures
and over-writings, the prodigious “layering” of Tocqueville’s great work.
The reader will discover, for example, how Tocqueville, often hesitant, un-
certain about the direction to follow, asks for advice from his family and
friends, and how the latter guide his thought when writing some paragraphs
and sentences. He will better understand the reasons for certain additions
and deletions. He will also be able to note certain changes due to the criti-
cisms made by the first readers of the manuscript. Finally and above all, he
will see how Tocqueville proceeded with the elaboration of the main ideas
of his book.
Every text is unstable for a long time. When it has acquired a certain
coherence and the author judges it complete, it is printed. Every typo-
graphic reproduction leads, however, to adulteration, an adulteration as
necessary as it is inevitable. The printed book cannot convey either the
handwriting or the look of the manuscript. Only a facsimile, a perfect re-
production of the original, made on the same paper, damaged by time and
humidity, would manage to show to the reader Democracy in America in
all its complexity and liveliness. But it would be an illusory Democracy,
xxx foreword
entirely as hard to read and grasp as the original, and one whose intrinsic
value would be lost.
If the edition that is being presented today is careful to restore to the
Democracy part of its difficulties of composition, of its mistaken ideas, and
of its faltering efforts, it is not trying to and cannot in any way take the
place of the manuscript, any more than it can come close to being a fac-
simile. A good number of research projects will still have to return to the
unique object that the manuscript represents.2
The Manuscripts of Tocqueville

The preparation of the first edition of the complete works goes back to
1859, and comes just after the death of Tocqueville. The work of Gustave
de Beaumont, who held Tocqueville’s manuscripts from his widow, Mary
Mottley, was done with the aid of Louis de Kergorlay.
Beaumont knew Tocqueville’s obsession to publish nothing that had not
been read and reread a hundred times. Since the author was no longer there
to ensure the correction of his texts, Beaumont took charge of it. In so
doing, he doctored certain passages; he deleted certain others without in-
dication; and finally he destroyed an indeterminate number of documents
(perhaps in response to the demands of Tocqueville’s wife).
That first edition, which elicited considerable criticism, possesses almost
as many good qualities as failings. We know that the editorial practices of
the period differed markedly from ours, that mutilations and corrections
of all sorts did not as clearly give rise to condemnation. Some of the people
cited in the correspondence were still alive at the time of publication. Fi-
2. The working manuscript of Democracy in America is at the Beinecke Rare Book

and Manuscript Library of Yale University. It is divided among four boxes (with the
classification CVIa) and follows the order of chapters of the book. Only chapters 1, 18,
19, and 20 of the second part of the 1840 volume are missing. When, for this edition, I
refer to the manuscript, it is this text that I mean.
The Yale collection does not have the definitive version of the Democracy, the one
that Tocqueville had sent to the publisher, Charles Gosselin. This version, which George
W. Pierson believed that he had seen in France in 1930, was not found at the time of the
purchase of the manuscripts of the Democracy in 1954. Everything suggests that this final
version did not present perceptible differences from the first edition.
foreword xxxi
nally, the political situation of the Second Empire weighed on the decision
of the editor to make a certain number of modifications.
It is no less true that Beaumont provided an impressive work in a rela-
tively short time. Nine volumes appeared in the space of seven years.
Mary Mottley died in 1865. Since her relations with the Tocqueville fam-
ily were never good, she bequeathed all of her husband’s papers to Gustave
de Beaumont. The family of the latter possessed them until 1891. At that
time Christian de Tocqueville acquired them.
Not long after the end of the First World War, Paul Lambert White,
professor at Yale University, became interested in Tocqueville’s manuscripts.
He went to France, where he consulted and catalogued all of the manu-
scripts in the possession of the Tocqueville family. Moreover, he obtained
the authorization to have the manuscripts that concerned America copied.
M. Bonnel, the schoolteacher at Tocqueville, was charged with this work.3
At the death of Paul White, George W. Pierson, then a doctoral student
at Yale, went in turn to France with the encouragement of John M. S.
Allison. He proceeded to do a new catalogue of the manuscripts4 and ob-
tained the money necessary for the continuation of the work of copying.
In this way Bonnel continued to work and to send copies regularly to the
United States.
Several years after World War II, a new inventory revealed the disap-
pearance of most of the manuscripts copied for the American university
by Bonnel. Yale found itself from that time on in possession of invaluable
documents.
Little by little, the collection grew, augmented over the years by new
acquisitions and bequests. One of the most important contributions was
the purchase, over a period of about twenty years (from 1953 to 1973), of
the quasi-totality of the manuscripts of Gustave de Beaumont. In 1954,
Yale acquired the manuscript and the final drafts of Democracy in America.
3. White also gained permission to have copies made of certain documents in the
hands of Antoine Rédier who was then preparing his book, Comme disait Monsieur de
Tocqueville (Paris: Perrin, 1925). These copies were done by the secretaries of Abel Doysié,
responsible for copying for the Library of Congress documents belonging to the French
diplomatic archives.
4. Yale owns copies of all of the catalogues of Tocqueville’s manuscripts.
xxxii foreword
At that time, the American university became the sole depository of the
vast majority of the texts, notes, and correspondence relating to Tocque-
ville’s principal work.5
The collection holds original manuscripts as well as copies of lost
originals. In the work of this edition, the drafts and the manuscript called
the “working manuscript” of the Democracy have received particular
attention.
The greater part of the drafts of the second part of the Democracy, to
which the author gave the name “rubish”6 and which constitutes perhaps
the most interesting portion of the Yale collection, is unfortunately in very
bad condition. Insects and moisture have led to its deterioration, the hand-
writing is particularly hard to read, and the paper is crumbling into pieces.
A quantity of minuscule bits of paper remains at the bottom of the two
boxes that protect the Rubish.7
Other drafts of the second part of the book, and all those belonging to
the first part, exist only as copies (that all together number about 1,500 pages
divided into sixteen notebooks); they can be relatively trusted.8
To all of that, the notes written by Tocqueville during his journey to
America9 must be added, and a group of more than three hundred letters,
5. The other important collection of Tocqueville’s manuscripts is at the château de

Tocqueville.
6. The English rubbish means debris, remnants, trash. Following Tocqueville, we spell
the word incorrectly throughout this edition. By the word, we mean either the drafts of
each chapter (rubish), or the whole body of the drafts of the second part (Rubish).
7. Some omissions could be filled in by consulting the microfilm done at the time of
the arrival of the manuscript at Yale and a partial copy of the Rubish in Bonnel’s hand.
8. The comparison of this copy of one part of the Rubish with the original shows
some differences and omissions, as well as a certain arbitrariness in the placement of the
text on the page. Bonnel also resorted, perhaps a bit too rapidly, to the expedient of
“illegible word,” although this type of abuse is more desirable in a copyist than is an
excess of imagination. I have corrected a number of obvious errors.
9. These notes have been published in the fifth volume of the Œuvres complètes pub-
lished by Gallimard. I have nonetheless preferred to refer to the Yale texts, given the
presence in that edition, on more than one occasion, of differences and omissions.
foreword xxxiii
some still unpublished. This involves Tocqueville’s and Beaumont’s cor-

respondence with Americans and the English during and after their visit to
the United States, and letters written to their families and to various French
correspondents.10
Other documents that are of interest for understanding the Democracy
include bibliographies, lists of questions posed by Tocqueville and Beau-
mont to the Americans they spoke to, and above all, numerous documents
in Beaumont’s hand for the writing of his novel, Marie, ou l’esclavage aux
États-Unis, and for that of his essay on Ireland.
Some Details Concerning the Present Edition

Theodore Sedgwick, a correspondent of Tocqueville, said jokingly that the
handwriting of the latter oscillated between hieroglyphics and cuneiform.11
The condition of notes meant by Tocqueville to be read only by himself
can be imagined.
Following a system frequently used at the time, the draft occupies
the right side of the folio and leaves the left side free for notes and vari-
ants.12 The text, nonetheless, often extends beyond the right side and suc-
cessively invades the left side, the margins, and the space between the lines.
Supplementary sheets are added at the end of each chapter, small pieces
of paper are glued over the original, and sometimes other papers are even
10. The letters sent by Beaumont to his family during the American voyage have been
published by André Jardin and George W. Pierson with the title Lettres d’Amérique (Paris:
PUF, 1973).
11. In a letter of 15 January 1856 (YTC, DIIa).
In a letter of 28 December 1856 to the countess de Grancey (OCB, VII, p. 424),
Tocqueville makes the Abbé Lesueur responsible for his bad handwriting: “He had the
singular idea of making me learn to write before teaching me spelling. Since I did not
know how to write my words, I muddled them as well as I could, drowning my errors
in my scribbling. As a result, I have never known how to spell perfectly, and I have
continued to scribble indefinitely.” We know, moreover, that Didot, the first publisher
of L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution, sent the manuscript back to the author twice in
succession because of illegibility.
12. In certain cases, I have reproduced the notes in pencil that are in Tocqueville’s
hand.
xxxiv foreword
stuck to the first ones. Crosses, x’s, ovals, circles, letters, and diacritical signs
are multiplied to indicate transfers and additions. It is clear that an exact
reproduction of the many minor changes in the text of the manuscript is
as unnecessary as it would be boring, and I have not bothered with it.
Notes in the margin testify to Tocqueville’s doubts about certain pas-
sages, his desire to review them, and sometimes his intention to ask for the
opinion of his friends or their criticisms. The fragments that he intended
to eliminate are generally circled.
At the point of finishing the composition of Democracy in America,
Tocqueville wanted his family and certain of his friends to be able to read
the manuscript, comment on it, and critique it. With this intention, in 1834,
he hired the services of a copyist.13 This copy of the manuscript, which
could have been sent to the publisher once definitively corrected, has been
lost except for a few loose sheets that are found with the manuscript. The
reading of these pages reveals the difficulties experienced by the copyist; it
is probable, from several notes in the manuscript, that Tocqueville himself
dictated a good part of the book.14
References made elsewhere give an idea15 of this copy, which contained
a certain number of errors, as did, we can assume, the copy that constituted
13. Perhaps Monsieur Parier, cited in note o of p. 384. A letter of Édouard to Alexis
de Tocqueville (CIIIb, 2, pp. 65–67, reproduced in note c of pp. 142–43) suggests the
idea that the copy was done in notebooks. Two notes in the drafts speak about the price
of the copies and the number of pages copied (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 17, and CVh, 2, p. 11).
In a letter to Beaumont of 23 October 1839 (Correspondance avec Beaumont, OC, VIII,
1, p. 389), Tocqueville refers to a copy of the second Democracy.
14. On the jacket of chapter VII of the fourth part of volume II, we read, for example:
twenty minutes. Is this an allusion to the time taken to read the chapter?
15. The commentaries from the Tocqueville family, from Gustave de Beaumont, and
from Louis de Kergorlay often reproduce the fragments to which they are referring. Most
of the commentaries of the first readers of Tocqueville’s book relate to details of writing,
style, and the vocabulary used. Of course, I have reproduced at the bottom of the page
only those criticisms that seemed of some theoretical interest.
foreword xxxv
the final version sent to the publisher. The printing process inevitably in-
troduced others.16
The editions that followed worked to correct the errors of the first edi-
tion, but added new ones. For his part, Tocqueville also made certain de-
letions and several additions.17
At the time of the preparation of this edition, I began by comparing the
most important French editions (those of 1835, 1838, 1840, and 1850). I dis-
covered a certain number of differences from one edition to another: cor-
rections by the author, modifications of punctuation, omissions, etc. After
recovering the missing passages, I then compared the whole text with the
manuscript and identified more than a hundred diverse errors. To those,
some errors made by Tocqueville had to be added. For the latter, I have
merely pointed out the error; I tried to correct it if possible, but I have not
in any way modified the text.
I then incorporated the fragments that I chose into the known text.18 To
do this, a meticulous selection of texts was made among the multiple var-
16. For example, where Tocqueville wanted to say that “aristocratic countries are full
of rich and influential individuals who know how to be self-sufficient and who are not
easily or secretly oppressed” (II, p. 1267), certain editions assert: “aristocratic countries
are full of rich and influential individuals who do not know how to be self-sufficient and
who are not easily or secretly oppressed” (my emphasis).
In chapter IV of the second part of the first volume (p. 306), the author maintains
that in 1831 the proposal of the partisans of the tariff circulated in a few days “due to
the power of the printed word,” while several editions attribute this fact to “the birth of
the printed word.” The editions in use contain more than a hundred errors of this type.
17. The reader will find in the notes the reasons that led to certain of these corrections.
For instance, the deletion of the allusion to John Quincy Adams (note k for p. 214).
The editors of the new edition of the complete works of Tocqueville, published by
Gallimard, preferred to produce the last edition corrected by Tocqueville, the thirteenth,
which dates from 1850. That edition nonetheless presents a good number of the errors
present in previous editions. It also introduced a certain number of new errors.
18. The writing of the fragments that I cite is not always, as you will see, at the level
of the published texts. The sometimes maladroit, sometimes frankly incorrect sentences
that are reproduced have clearly not received the attention accorded to the published
texts. You will find in particular certain stylistic and grammatical archaisms, as well as
certain errors in the use of tenses, moods, and prepositions that I have not tried to modify
in any way.
xxxvi foreword
iants and versions present in the manuscript; the selection was made for
obvious reasons of interest as well as placement. I have deliberately chosen
to concentrate the greatest portion of the additions in the chapters that
seem to me to have the most interest, and in particular in the second part
of the book. The additions to the main text appear between brackets; they
may be preceded and followed by various diacritical signs whose meaning
is set forth below.19
The notes consist of marginalia, of variants or versions predating the
final version, which belong to the drafts, travel notes, fragments of corre-
spondence, and criticisms put forth by friends and family. Their sources
have been carefully and systematically indicated. To these notes is added
the critical apparatus that I wanted to be useful as well as succinct.
Finally, at the end of the fourth volume, I have included in the form of
appendixes six texts of different types.20 The first two, Journey to Lake
19. The new fragments that this edition presents are reproduced as they can be read
in the manuscript. I have nonetheless made a certain number of corrections and mod-
ifications necessary for comprehension:
1. Punctuation and capitalizations have been added in almost all of the new
fragments.
2. Spelling errors, particularly those of foreign proper names, such as Massachusetts
or Pennsylvania, written indifferently in a correct or incorrect way, have always been
corrected. When the error is systematic, I have included the correct word in brackets.
3. In many cases, the manuscript includes several variants of the same fragment,
the same sentence, or the same word. I have chosen to present the version that seemed
to me the most appropriate. I have not always presented all the versions that exist in
the manuscript if they seemed to have nothing more than a philological interest.
Sometimes the gender or the number of the verb in the original agrees with only one
of the variants; in this case, I have reestablished the correct form of the verb.
4. I have completed some of the abbreviations used by Tocqueville in the
manuscript.
5. All of the italics are Tocqueville’s, with the exception of citations in the criticisms
by Tocqueville’s family and friends, and, sometimes, of titles of books. On this point
I have made modifications due to usage.
20. The thirteenth edition included for the first time as an appendix the report of
Tocqueville to the Académie des sciences morales et politiques on the book by Cherbuliez,
De la démocratie en Suisse, and Tocqueville’s speech of 27 January 1848 to the Chamber,
in which he foresaw the February revolution. Tocqueville’s intention had been as well
foreword xxxvii
Oneida and A Fortnight in the Wilderness, had been written by Tocqueville

during his journey in the United States. Everything suggests that they
would have constituted appendices to the Democracy if Beaumont had not
written Marie. We know in fact from the latter that Tocqueville had judged
the two narratives to be too close to his travel companion’s fictional venture
to consider publishing them.21
The two texts that follow are part of the drafts. Without the polish and
the quality of the two preceding ones, they still have a certain documentary
interest.
To include a certain number of ideas that will constitute the keystones
of Tocqueville’s political thought, I have added an unpublished letter from
the author, dating from 1830 and addressed to Charles Stoffels.
Finally, I believed it was good to recapitulate in appendixes the foreword
to the twelfth edition and all of the works cited by Tocqueville in his book
as well as in the drafts, in order to aid in the reconstruction of the “Tocque-
ville library.”
to include as an appendix a short work written in October 1847 and published with the
title “De la classe moyenne et du people” [“Of the middle class and the people”] (OC,
III, 2, p. 738–741), which he sent to Pagnerre (letter from Tocqueville to Pagnerre of 13
September 1850, at the National Assembly). Because of length, the present edition does
not reproduce the two appendixes of the 1850 edition.
21. See OCB, V, p. 27.
xxxviii foreword
Notes of Manuscript
the journey
Copy sent to
the editor BOOK
[lost] 1835
Correspondence 1840
Critiques of family
Marginal notes and variants
Copy [lost]
Unedited fragments
Rough drafts and friends
TEXT OF THIS
EDITION
[...]
EDITORIAL NOTES
foreword xxxix
Abbreviations and Symbols Used in This Edition

[. . .] Text not crossed out in the manuscript.
<. . .> Text circled or surrounded in pen (this generally concerns
fragments that Tocqueville wanted to delete, but the
presence of a circle around a word sometimes served solely
to draw the author’s attention: Is the use pertinent? Does
the word conflict phonetically with the one following?).
⫽. . .⫽ Word or text crossed out by one or several vertical or
diagonal lines.
{. . .} Word or text crossed out horizontally.
/ Sign placed at the end of the sentence to indicate that a
horizontal line separates it in the manuscript from the one
that follows.
.-.-.-.- Illegible for physical reasons. Generally due to the very
poor condition of the original.
[*] Note of Tocqueville, present in the manuscript but absent
from the published version.
* Note of Tocqueville, omitted in certain editions.
[ . . . (ed.)] Information given by the editor.
a, b, c, . . . Notes of the editor.
(A), (B), . . . Notes of Tocqueville that refer to the end of the volume.
1, 2, 3, . . . Notes of Tocqueville placed at the bottom of the page.
OC Edition of complete works published by Gallimard under
the direction of J. P. Mayer at first, and François Furet and
Jean-Claude Casanova afterward.
Œuvres complètes. Paris: Gallimard, 1951–:
t. I: De la démocratie en Amérique. 2 vols. (1951)
t. II: L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution. 2 vols. (1952, 1953)
t. III: Écrits et discours politiques.
vol. 1. (1962)
vol. 2 . (1985)
vol. 2 . (1990)
t. IV: Écrits sur le système pénitentiaire en France et à l’étranger.
2 vols. (1985)
t. V: Voyages.
vol. 1: En Sicile et aux États-Unis. (1957)
vol. 2: En Angleterre, Irlande, Suisse et Algérie. (1958)
xl foreword
t. VI: Correspondances anglaises.

vol. 1: Avec Henry Reeve et John Stuart Mill. (1954) [cité
comme Correspondance anglaise. ]
vol. 2: Correspondance et conversations d’Alexis de
Tocqueville et Nassau William Senior. (1991)
vol. 3: Correspondance anglaise. (2003)
t. VII: Correspondance étrangère d’Alexis de Tocqueville. 1 vol.
(1986)
t. VIII: Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et de Gustave de
Beaumont. 3 vols. (1967)
t. IX: Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et d’Arthur de
Gobineau. 1 vol. (1959)
t. X: Correspondance et écrits locaux. (1995)
t. XI: Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et de Pierre-Paul
Royer-Collard. Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et
de Jean-Jacques Ampère. 1 vol. (1970)
t. XII: Souvenirs. 1 vol. (1964)
t. XIII: Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et de Louis de
Kergorlay. 2 vols. (1977)
t. XIV: Correspondance familiale. (1998)
t. XV: Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et de Francisque de
Corcelle. Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville et de
Madame Swetchine. 2 vols. (1983)
t. XVI: Mélanges. (1989)
t. XVII: Correspondance à divers. Not yet published.
t. XVIII: Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville avec Adolphe de
Circourt et Madame de Circourt. 1 vol. (1984)
OCB Edition of complete works directed by Gustave de

Beaumont.
Œuvres complètes publiées par Madame de Tocqueville. Paris:
Michel Lévy Frères, 1864–1878:
t. I–III: De la démocratie en Amérique.
t. IV: L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution.
t. V: Correspondance et œuvres posthumes.
t. VI: Correspondance d’Alexis de Tocqueville.
t. VII: Nouvelle correspondance.
t. VIII: Mélanges, fragments historiques et notes sur l’Ancien
Régime et la Révolution.
t. IX: Études économiques, politiques et littéraires.
manuscript In the notes of the editor, the working manuscript of the
Democracy in America (YTC, CVIa, four boxes).
v: variant
foreword xli
YTC Yale Tocqueville Collection. Collection of manuscripts of

Yale University, belonging to the Beinecke Rare Book and
Manuscript Library. Sterling Library owns several
supplementary manuscripts.
YTC, BIIb In this classification: lists of questions meant for American
interlocutors.
YTC, CIIc In this classification: “Sources manuscrites,” alphabetic list,
drawn up by Tocqueville, of travel notes.
YTC, CVa–CVk In this classification: drafts of Democracy.
CVa “Bundle no. 8” “Notes that very probably have no place
to be used” (59 pp.)
CVb “Bundle no. 13” “Various documents on the system of
administration in America from which a note can be
done for the chapter titled Of Government and
Administration in the United States;” (34 pp.)
CVc “Bundle no. 6” “That equality of conditions is an
accomplished, irresistible fact, that breaks all those who
will want to struggle against it. Consequence of this
fact” (9 pp.)
CVd “Bundle no. 5” “Ideas and fragments that all relate more
or less to the great chapter titled: how the ideas and
sentiments that equality suggests influence the political
constitution” (53 pp.)
CVe “Bundle no. 17” (two copies of 13 and 17 pp.)
CVf “Bundle no. 4” “Notes, detached ideas, fragments,
criticisms, relative to my two last volumes of the
Democracy” (52 pp.)
CVg “Bundle no. 9” “Drafts of the chapters of the second
part of the Democracy” (partial copy in Bonnel’s hand,
three notebooks numbering a total of 416 pp. and two
boxes with the original manuscript). This is the so-
called “Rubish.”
CVh “Bundle no. 3, 1–5” “Notes, documents, ideas relative to
America. Good to consult if I again want to write
something on this subject” (five notebooks, 484 pp.)
CVj “Bundle no. 2, 1–2” “. . . detached . . . on the
philosophic method of the Americans, general ideas,
the sources of belief . . . to be put in the . . . and that
cannot be placed in the chapter” (two notebooks, 138
pp.)
CVk “Bundle no. 7, 1–2” “Fragments, ideas that I cannot
place in the work (March 1840) (insignificant
collection)” (two notebooks, 148 pp.)
xlii foreword
Note on the Manuscripts

In addition to the documents of Yale University, the editor quotes or re-
produces, with the kind permission of the libraries mentioned, the follow-
ing documents:
— Letter of Hervé de Tocqueville, 15 January 1827, Bibliothèque de

Versailles.
— List of questions on the situation of Blacks in the United States, library
of Haverford College, Pennsylvania (E. W. Smith, no. 955).
— Letter to Edward Everett, 6 February 1833 (Tocqueville, Alexis de. Letter
to Edward Everett, 6 February 1833. Edward Everett papers); letter to
Edward Everett, 15 February 1850 (Tocqueville, Alexis de. Letter to Ed-
ward Everett, 15 February 1850. Edward Everett papers); passages drawn
from the journal of Theodore Sedgwick (Sedgwick, Theodore III. Paris
journal, volume 3, November 1833–July 1834, pages 80–81, 85. Sedgwick
family papers), Massachusetts Historical Society.
— Review project (General Manuscripts, Miscellaneous, TI–TO); letter
to Basil Hall, 19 June 1836 (General Manuscripts [MISC] Collection,
Manuscripts Division, Department of Rare Books and Special Collec-
tions), library of Princeton University.
— Documents relating to the question of the indemnities (Dreer Collec-
tion), Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
— Letter to Sainte-Beuve, [8 April 1835]; letter of Sainte-Beuve to Beau-
mont, 26 November 1865, bibliothèque de l’Institut, Spoelberch de
Lovenjoul collection.
— Letter to Richard M. Milnes, 29 May 1844; letter to Richard M. Milnes,
14 April 1845; and letter to Richard M. Milnes, 9 February 1852, Trinity
College, Cambridge (Houghton papers, 25/200, 201 and 209).
foreword xliii
— Letter to the prefect, 3 December 1851 (Ms. 1070), bibliothèque histo-

rique de la ville de Paris.
— Letter to Charles Monnard, 15 October 1856, library of the canton and
university of Lausanne.
Acknowledgments
I very much want to extend my deep thanks to the Beinecke Rare Book
and Manuscript Library of Yale University, which continually put at my
disposal the innumerable manuscripts that I was able to consult. My thanks
go to the entire staff, and very particularly to two curators, Marjorie G.
Wynne and Vincent Giroud. I also thank the Beinecke Library for its kind
permission to quote and to reproduce the manuscripts and documents of
the Tocqueville collection.
Map of the United States appearing in
the first edition of Democracy in America (1835)
(with kind permission from Special Collections
Research Center, University of Chicago Library ).
Editor’s Introduction
“Man obeys first causes of which he is unaware, secondary

causes that he cannot foresee, a thousand caprices of his
fellows; in the end, he puts himself in chains and binds
himself forever to the fragile work of his hands.”
—Alexis de Tocqueville
“I have spoken and dreamed a great deal about what I have seen; I believe
that if I had the leisure after my return, I would be able to write something
passable on the United States. To embrace the whole in its entirety would
be foolishness. I am incapable of aiming at a universal exactitude; I have
not seen enough for that; but I already know, I think, much more than we
have ever been taught in France about it, and certain points of the picture
can be of great, even current interest.”22
Published in two parts, in 1835 and 1840 successively, republished more
than one hundred and fifty times and translated into fifteen languages, De-
mocracy in America has elicited an enormous interest since its appearance.
Elevated to the status of a classic of political philosophy and, as such, prob-
ably the last great text of that discipline, Tocqueville’s work continues to
attract readers, researchers, thinkers, and politicians, thanks to a modernity
that few works of the nineteenth century can claim.
Regarding Democracy, the question of its topicality is often discussed.
This is entirely appropriate if by it we mean that this exceptional work still
continues to be understood and studied.
22. Letter to Édouard de Tocqueville, Washington, 20 January 1832. This letter be-
longs to the Yale University collection of manuscripts (Yale Tocqueville Collection—
hereafter cited as YTC—classification BIa2). The reader will find in the Foreword a com-
plete list of the abbreviations and symbols used in this edition.
xlvii
xlviii editor’s introduction
With the perspicacity that was characteristic of him, Tocqueville envis-

aged the reception of his book in this way: “Some will find that at bottom
I do not like democracy and that I am harsh toward it; others will think
that I imprudently favor its development. I would be happier if the book
were not read, and perhaps that happiness will come.”23
Readers have not failed to multiply, but they have indeed divided as
the author forecast. It could not have been otherwise since this contradic-
tory interpretation coincides precisely with Tocqueville’s thinking and its
development.
I
Legacies
Alexis de Tocqueville belonged to an old Norman family, Clérel, which took
the patronymic de Tocqueville in 1661.24 In the following centuries, the fam-
ily, Clérel de Tocqueville, left their land from time to time to serve the
church or the crown, imitating in this their ancestor, Guillaume Clarel, who
had participated in the battle of Hastings.
The Revolution surprised a family firmly established on the Cotentin
peninsula, on good terms with its vassals, and honoring its seigniorial du-
ties. When the revolutionary tide reached Normandy, it carried away only
23. In a letter of the correspondence with Kergorlay [1835] (OC, XIII, 1, p. 374), but
probably addressed to someone else.
24. The village of Tocqueville and the château are about fifteen kilometers from
Cherbourg. On the origins of the Tocqueville family see G.-A. Simon, Les Clarel à
l’époque de la conquête d’Angleterre et leur descendance dans la famille Clérel de Tocqueville
(Caen: Société d’Impression de Basse Normandie, 1936); and Histoire généalogique des
Clérel, seigneurs de Rampan, Tocqueville, Clouay, Lignerolles, . . . (Caen: Imprimerie
Ozanne et Cie., 1954).
My intention here is to present the principal features of Tocqueville’s biography dur-
ing the years that preceded the Democracy. For more details, refer to R.-Pierre Marcel,
Essai politique sur Alexis de Tocqueville (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1910); Antoine Rédier, Comme
disait Monsieur de Tocqueville (Paris: Perrin, 1925); J.-P. Mayer, Prophet of the Mass Age:
A Study of Alexis de Tocqueville (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1939); André Jardin,
Alexis de Tocqueville (Paris: Hachette, 1984); Hugh Brogan, Alexis de Tocqueville: A Life
(New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2007).
editor’s introduction xlix
the dovecote of the château. It took from the Tocqueville family just the
privilege of raising pigeons.
Hervé de Tocqueville welcomed the revolution with a certain sympathy.
After a short stay in Brussels, disgust for the life of the émigré—the notes
of his son on the depravity of a powerless aristocracy are the direct echo
of the opinions of the father—led him to return to Paris, where he enlisted
in the national guard. On 10 August 1792, Hervé de Tocqueville was part
of a section of the national guard that, coming from the faubourg Saint-
Victor, was preparing to defend the Tuileries. Rallying to the opinion of
citizens met along the way, the men who made up the section decided to
march against the palace; following this sudden change of opinion Hervé
surreptitiously abandoned the section.
After several months in Picardy, Hervé returned to Paris in January 1793.
At the end of the month, he went to Malesherbes and, on March 12, married
Louise Le Peletier de Rosanbo, granddaughter of the famous Malesherbes.
The refuge at Malesherbes protected its inhabitants until the end of au-
tumn. The defender of Louis XVI was strongly urged to leave France, but
he stubbornly remained, intending perhaps to serve as the defender of the
Queen. On 17 and 19 December, two members of the revolutionary com-
mittee arrested all the inhabitants of the château. Hervé de Tocqueville, his
wife, the Peletier d’Aunay family, and the young Louis de Rosanbo owed
their lives only to 9 Thermidor. They would see Malesherbes, Madame de
Rosanbo, Jean-Baptiste de Chateaubriand, and his wife perish.25
The unpublished memoirs of Hervé de Tocqueville speak, not without
some melancholy, about moments spent in the company of Malesherbes
and other prisoners at Port-Libre (Port-Royal).26 The months that preceded
the trial and inevitable sentence of death for Malesherbes brought forth
within Hervé a boundless admiration for the noble old man who with dig-
nity mounted the scaffold following his daughter and granddaughter.
25. Monsieur de Rosanbo was guillotined on 20 April 1794; Malesherbes, Madame

de Rosanbo, Jean-Baptiste de Chateaubriand and his wife, the older daughter of the
Rosanbos, were guillotined the following day.
26. On the captivity and execution of Malesherbes, Édouard de Tocqueville published
one part of the memoirs of his father with the title “Episodes of the Terror,” Le contem-
porain, revue d’économie chrétienne, January 1861, republished as a brochure in 1901.
l editor’s introduction
Such events must have been evoked many times in the family, and Alexis
always saw in his great-grandfather, Malesherbes, an exemplary figure with-
out peer.27 At one time he would conceive the project of writing a book on
his ancestor. The idea would come to nothing, but the shadow of Males-
herbes hovers over many pages of Democracy.28 A bust of the President of
the Cour des Aides, placed on the worktable of the author, would preside
silently over the writing of many works.
Under the Empire, the Tocqueville family lived in Paris in the winter
and at Verneuil in the summer, where Hervé 29 accepted the more or less
symbolic position of mayor.30 The education of the children was entrusted
to the Abbé Lesueur, who had been Hervé’s private tutor and who did not
27. When Tocqueville was looking for a position, his father wrote him a letter of
recommendation in which he explained:
My last son Alexis de Tocqueville intends to pursue a career as a magistrate. He has
just completed his law degree with some success, and I beg the support of your ex-
cellency in opening this career to him. In his family there are examples that will im-
pose on him the obligation to follow it with zeal. Grandson by his mother of President
de Rosanbo and of M. de Malesherbes, if he cannot equal them in talent, he will at
least try to approach them in the qualities that distinguish a good magistrate. He
would be very happy to begin under your auspices.
Letter of 15 January 1827 to an unspecified recipient, with the kind permission of the
Bibliothèque de Versailles.
28. Tocqueville’s political career finished with a gesture worthy of President Males-
herbes. Arrested with many of his colleagues at the time of the coup of Louis-Napoleon
Bonaparte, Tocqueville in prison at Vincennes received an order to be set free. He im-
mediately wrote to the prefect: “I have just received an order setting me free. I had not
solicited it and I have authorized no one to solicit it; since it does not include all of my
colleagues detained for the same reason and in the same way in the same prison, I have
reason to believe that it has been addressed to me by mistake, and in any case, I cannot
benefit from it, since my intention is to leave here only with my colleagues.” Vincennes,
3 December 1851, with the kind permission of the Bibliothèque historique de la ville de
Paris.
29. According to André Jardin, Hervé could have been the secret agent of the Count
d’Artois during the Empire (Alexis de Tocqueville, p. 16). This book also devotes a chapter
to his career as prefect (pp. 18–39).
30. The father of Alexis seems to have fulfilled his duties with a zeal that was particular
to him, but not without presenting a certain resistance to the orders of the Emperor. In
1814, for example, he organized the mass marriage of young men about to be conscripted
into the army and posted decrees so high that it was impossible to read them. Antoine
Rédier, Comme disait Monsieur de Tocqueville, p. 34.
editor’s introduction li
hide his partiality for Alexis.31 Several documents attest to the anti-liberal
tendencies of Lesueur as well as to his position as an intransigent Catholic
monarchist; in this he seemed in better agreement with the ultra sympathies
of the Countess de Tocqueville than with the more conciliatory and intel-
ligent position of her husband.32
The days of the future author of Democracy were occupied by the
lessons of the Abbé, reading sessions with the family, composition ex-
ercises, and visits by relatives and friends.33 The private tutor believed
in a brilliant future for his pupil.34 Like his brothers and his intimate
31. Hippolyte, the eldest, was born on 1 October 1797, and began a military career on
1 July 1814. He participated in the Spanish expedition with the rank of captain and left
the army on 15 October 1830. Married to Émilie Evrard de Belisle, he would spend most
of his time developing his property of Nacqueville, in the Contentin.
Édouard, born in 1800, entered the army in 1816, but had to leave it in 1822 for health
reasons. In 1829, he married Alexandrine Ollivier, who owned a large property at Baugy,
in Oise. Tocqueville would feel particular affection for their sons, René and Hubert.
André Jardin, Alexis de Tocqueville, pp. 46–50.
Alexis was born in 1805.
32. In a letter from Lesueur to Édouard, 13 September 1822, we read regarding secret
societies:
It is more than time to deal with them. All of Europe is infected by this accursed race.
It seems impossible to destroy the germ, but vigorous means must be invented to
stop their contagion. There must be a pest house in the Siberian oceans in which the
leaders of the plague would be enclosed; there they would be forcibly quarantined
not for days, but for years. I am persuaded that not one would return from there.
They would poison each other, kill each other, consume each other (YTC, AIV).
33. The catalogue of the library of the Tocqueville château, established in 1818, in-
cludes, among other prestigious names, those of Montaigne, La Bruyère, Locke, Bacon,
Fontenelle, Pope, Morelly, Montesquieu, Thomas More, Buffon, Corneille, Racine,
Molière, Voltaire, Plutarch, Grotius, Hume, and Bossuet. YTC, AIe.
34. At the time of a family celebration in 1822, the Abbé Lesueur addressed to the
Countess de Tocqueville the following verse regarding her son:
As wise as a Demosthenes
is the youngest of your sons
going to appear in the arena:
to testify to his victory,
the name of the great Alexis
will be inscribed in the history [of the college].
lii editor’s introduction
friend, Louis de Kergorlay,35 the young Alexis considered a military

career.
We perhaps owe the abandonment of Alexis’s military plans to the Abbé
Lesueur’s insistence: “My dear Édouard,” wrote the Abbé in 1822, “you
must counsel him against becoming a military man. You know the draw-
backs better than we, and I am sure that he will rely more on his brothers
than on his father. That character, Louis de Kergorlay, put this idea in his
head. They are going to meet again, and indeed my plan is to ask M. Loulou
to leave us alone and to mind his own business.”36
A distant cousin, from a quite similar family background, Kergorlay had
established the bonds of a profound friendship with Tocqueville. They ex-
pressed it in an abundant correspondence that deals as much with Tocque-
Let us postpone our homage,

it is the wisest course,
and to regain our spirits,
let us wait until next year.
Next year, the Monarchy,
its foundations reestablished,
will see the liberals flee;
and our King on his throne,
finally master of his kingdom,
will want to cure all our ills.
Tune: When the oxen go two by two, the plowing goes better . . . (Letter from
Lesueur to Édouard de Tocqueville, 25 August 1822, YTC, AIV).
35. During the weeks that followed the July Revolution, Tocqueville would momen-
tarily regret not having followed his initial impulse, that of entering a military career: “I
regret more than ever not having followed the initial ideas of my youth and not entering
the army”—he confessed to his friend Charles Stoffels on 26 August 1830.
Those in the army are also humiliated, but they have a thousand occasions before
them to rise up again, and we do not. The thought of striking a saber blow for France,
if foreigners wanted to invade her territory for a third time, is the only one that rouses
me amid the disgust that surrounds me. Love of independence of our country, of
its external grandeur, is the only sentiment that still makes something in my soul
vibrate (YTC, AVII).
36. Letter from the Abbé Lesueur to Édouard de Tocqueville, 14 September 1822,
YTC, AIV. The same idea is found in a letter dated 16 September: “How sad it would
be to smother under a helmet a talent that promises so many distinctions.”
editor’s introduction liii
ville’s works as with books, parliamentary opinions, and the matrimonial

plans of Kergorlay; it also includes many commentaries and recommen-
dations of the latter on the writings of his friend.37 Kergorlay’s mark on
the pages of Democracy is clear and easy enough to spot.
With the Restoration, Hervé began a roving career as a prefect, begin-
ning in 1814 in Maine-et-Loire. Hervé afterward fulfilled the same functions
in Oise and in Dijon (1816). In 1817, he accepted the prefecture of Metz,
where he remained until 1823. He then moved to Amiens, and in 1826 was
finally back in Versailles. His nomination as a peer of France on 4 Novem-
ber 1827 forced him, for reasons of incompatibility of duties, to leave his
position in January 1828. The July Revolution would eliminate the peerage
and remove him forever from political life.38
The Countess Louise de Tocqueville, who seemed never to have been
able to recover from her months of detention, followed her husband in his
different posts until 1817, the moment that she settled definitively in Paris.
The family correspondence shows her prostrate, requiring the constant at-
tention of those around her. Alexis lived with her until 1820.
In April of that year, while his two brothers began their military careers,
Alexis rejoined his father in Moselle to complete his studies at the royal
college of Metz, which he finished in 1823.39 He then returned to Paris to
begin his studies in law.40
37. This correspondence is published in the two tomes of volume XIII of the Œuvres
complètes.
38. In 1829, Hervé de Tocqueville had published a brochure on the proposed mu-
nicipal law, entitled De la charte provinciale. On this point, the ideas of the son would
not be those of the father, but they would partially echo them. In 1847, Hervé de Tocque-
ville published Histoire philosophique du règne de Louis XV, in two volumes, and in 1850,
Coup d’œil sur le règne de Louis XVI. These two works continue to have a certain interest.
39. Two of his school compositions are preserved: “De Laudibus Demosthenes” and
“L’importance de l’éloquence chez l’homme.” A “Discours sur le progrès des Arts dans
la Grèce” had a certain effect. In 1822, Hervé presented his son with an edition of
Horace (Qvinti Horatii Flacci Opera. Londini Aeneis Tabulis incidit Iohannes Pine
MDCCXXXIII [MDCCXXXVII], 2 vols.) with this dedication: “Given to my son,
Alexis, on 5 September 1822, the day when he obtained the prize of honor in Rhetoric,
the first prize in Latin translation, the second prize in French composition, and four
certificates of merit. Metz, 5 September 1822. The Count de Tocqueville.” Bernard Quav-
liv editor’s introduction
At the end of 1826, his law studies finished, Tocqueville started on a

journey to Italy and Sicily in the company of his brother, Édouard. His
nomination as juge auditeur at Versailles, on 5 April 1827, precipitated his
return to Paris.
The Machine at Law

Tocqueville spent the first months at the prefecture of his father. Following
the latter’s resignation, he then shared an apartment with a new friend,
Gustave de Beaumont.41
The family Bonnin de La Bonninière originated in Touraine. It had
spread into the neighboring provinces and had recently acquired the pat-
ronymic de Beaumont. At the beginning of the century the Count Jules de
Beaumont, his wife, and their four children lived at the château de La
Borde, at Beaumont-la-Chartre, in Sarthe. Jules de Beaumont was the
mayor there during the Empire. It was in this setting, little different from
that of Verneuil, that Gustave had spent his childhood.
The Tocquevilles devoted afternoons to reading and conversation, in-
cluding among their visitors Chateaubriand, who profited particularly from
his visits to work on his Moı̈se. At the home of the Beaumonts, the family
read together and devoted itself to music, painting, and charitable works.42
itch, catalogue 1069, December 1986. I owe this information to the kindness of Marjorie
G. Wynne, librarian of Yale University.
40. He would gain his diploma after the presentation of two theses: “De usurpa-
tionibus aut de usucapionibus” and “L’Action en rescision ou nullité.” André Jardin,
Alexis de Tocqueville, p. 70.
41. George W. Pierson indicated the importance of the influence of Beaumont in
Tocqueville and Beaumont in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1938), and
even earlier in “Gustave de Beaumont: Liberal,” Franco-American Review 1 (1936–1937):
307–16. More recently, Seymour Drescher has insisted on the significance of Beaumont’s
texts for understanding Tocqueville in an interesting appendix to Tocqueville and Beau-
mont on Social Reform (New York: Harper, 1968), pp. 201–17, “Tocqueville and Beau-
mont: A Rationale for Collective Study.” See also Christine Dunn Henderson, “Beau-
mont y Tocqueville,” in Eduardo Nolla, ed., Alexis de Tocqueville. Libertad, igualdad,
despotismo (Madrid: Gota a Gota, 2007), pp. 73–99.
42. Rose Préau de la Baraudière had been called “La Providence” by the inhabitants
of Beaumont-la-Charte. On her tomb is written: “She was, while alive, the mother of
the poor.”
editor’s introduction lv
Even if the Beaumont family belonged to the minor provincial nobility

and could not include among its ancestors a Lamoignon de Malesherbes,
the family had, like the Tocqueville family, distinguished itself in arms and
was related to the Lafayette family.
In February 1826, Gustave de Beaumont was named substitut du pro-
cureur du roi at Versailles. Tocqueville struck up a friendship with him when
he assumed his responsibility as juge auditeur,43 in June 1827.
The future author of Democracy chose a legal career with some hesita-
tion. He was afraid of turning into a “machine at law.”44 His first weeks of
work as a magistrate showed him the deficiencies of his legal preparation
and revealed a certain trouble speaking in public that he would regret all
his life. He would attribute a large part of his failure in politics to this
difficulty.
Gustave de Beaumont placed him under his protection. It was the be-
ginning of a friendship that, Tocqueville would say, “was born already
old.” 45 Heine from his perspective would compare the two friends to oil
and vinegar.46 The first letter that still exists of their correspondence goes
back to the month of October 1828. It is devoted to a long reflection on A
43. A position without salary and with vaguely defined duties.

44. To Kergorlay, 23 July 1827, OC, XIII, 1, p. 108.
45. In a note from Tocqueville to Beaumont criticizing his oratorical style (YTC,
CIVa).
46. “It must be said in fairness about M. de Tocqueville, who reported, that he upheld
his convictions with energy; he is a man of the mind, who has little fervor and who,
beneath the frozen surface, follows the arguments of his logic; consequently his speeches
have a certain frigid brilliance, like sculpted ice. But what M. de Tocqueville lacks in
feeling, his friend, M. de Beaumont, possesses in superabundance; and these two insep-
arable companions, whom we see together everywhere, in their travels, in their publi-
cations, in the Chamber of Deputies, complement each other in the best possible way.
The one, the severe thinker, and the other, the man with smooth feelings, go together
like a bottle of vinegar and a bottle of oil.” Heinrich Heine, Allemands et Français (Paris:
Calmann Lévy, 1881), pp. 313–14.
Another contemporary noted: “Gustave de Beaumont was as lively as he was amiable;
he had solid qualities of the heart and a vivacity of spirit that gave rise to a great deal of
grace and gaiety. Tocqueville, in contrast, was cold, reserved, master of himself to the
point of calculating his actions as well as his relationships.” Louis Passy, Le marquis de
Blosseville, souvenirs (Évreux: Charles Hérissey, 1898), p. 107.
In the following pages, but above all in the pages of the Democracy, we will gain a
better idea of Beaumont’s decisive role in the work of his friend.
lvi editor’s introduction
History of England From the First Invasion by the Romans to the Commence-
ment of the Reign of William the Third, by John Lingard, which Tocqueville
shared with his “dear future collaborator.”47 The two friends shared read-
ings and together attended Guizot’s course on the history of civilization in
Europe.48
In September 1829, Beaumont was named substitut for the department
of Seine. The distance that separated him from his friend did not interrupt
their friendship. Beaumont came to Versailles as soon as his work allowed.
Tocqueville now shared his apartment with Ernest de Chabrol, who took
Beaumont’s place at the court of première instance at Versailles.
The July Revolution broke out soon after. It was going to change con-
siderably the life of the two young magistrates.
The July Days

Although they belonged to a milieu largely hostile to the French Revolu-
tion, Tocqueville and Beaumont were not contemporaneous with the event.
As such, their ideas, without being completely opposite to those of their
relatives, were inevitably different. They witnessed the July Revolutionwith
more disillusionment and sadness than hatred.
In a letter to Henry Reeve,49 Tocqueville admitted:
Some absolutely want to make me a party man and I am not; I am given
passions and I have only opinions, or rather I have only one passion, the
love of liberty and human dignity. In my view, all governmental forms are
47. Letter of 5 October 1828, Correspondance avec Beaumont, OC, VIII, 1, p. 71. A
year later, Tocqueville wrote to his friend: “We are now intimately bound, bound for
life, I think” (ibid., p. 89); and a little later:
Some good works on history can still emerge from our common efforts. It goes with-
out saying that we must develop the homme politique in us. And for that it is the
history of men and, above all, the history of those who have most immediately pre-
ceded us in the world that we must study (Letter of 25 October 1829, ibid., p. 93).
48. We have the notes of Tocqueville for the lectures given between 11 April 1829 and
29 May 1830, which deal with Charlemagne and feudal society. Tocqueville also knew
the contents of the other lectures.
49. Letter to Reeve, 22 March 1837, OC, VI, 1, pp. 37–38.
editor’s introduction lvii
only more or less perfect means to satisfy that holy and legitimate passion
of men. I am given alternately democratic or aristocratic prejudices; I
would perhaps have had one or the other, if I had been born in another
century and in another country. But the chance of my birth has made it
very easy for me to defend myself from both. I came into the world at the
end of a long Revolution that, after destroying the old state, had created
nothing lasting. The aristocracy was already dead when I was born, and
democracy did not yet exist; so my instinct could not carry me blindly
toward either the one or the other. I lived in a country that for forty years
had tried a bit of everything without settling definitively on anything, so
I wasn’t easily influenced regarding political illusions. As part of the old
aristocracy of my country myself, I had neither hatred nor natural jealousy
against the aristocracy, and since this aristocracy was destroyed, I did not
have any natural love for it either, for we are strongly attached only to what
is alive. I was close enough to it to know it well, far enough away to judge
it without passion. I will say as much about the democratic element. No
family memory, no personal interest gave me a natural and necessary in-
clination toward democracy. But as for me, I had received no injury from
it; I had no particular reason to love it or to hate it, apart from those pro-
vided by my reason. In a word, I was in such good equilibrium between
the past and the future that I felt naturally and instinctively drawn to nei-
ther the one nor the other, and it did not take great efforts for me to look
calmly at both sides.50
50. Beaumont expressed himself in nearly identical terms:

When I was born, a social order that was fifteen centuries old finally collapsed. [ . . . ]
Never had such a great ruin appeared before the eyes of peoples. [ . . . ] Never had
such a great reconstruction incited the genius of men. A new world arose on the debris
of the old one; spirits were restless, passions ardent, minds in labor; all of Europe
changed, [ . . . ] opinions, mores, laws, were swept along in a whirlpool so rapid that
new institutions could scarcely be distinguished from those that no longer existed.
[ . . . ] The origin of sovereignty had been displaced; the principles of government
were changed; a new art of war had been invented, new sciences created; men were
no less extraordinary than events; the greatest nations of the world took children as
leaders, while old men were expelled from public affairs [ . . . ] soldiers without ex-
lviii editor’s introduction
If Tocqueville exaggerated the coldness and disinterestedness with which

he observed the two opposing options, he was sincere in the idea that history
could just as easily have made him an ultra as a liberal.
Beaumont found himself in a quite similar situation. In Paris on 30 July
1830, he wrote in his memoirs: “All the men wore a tri-colored ribbon in
their button hole, or a cockade on their hat. I did not have one; no one said
anything to me. But when someone approached me yelling `Long live the
Charter’ in a demanding tone, I gave the same cry, and it didn’t cost my
conscience anything to do so.”51
perience triumphed over the most battle hardened groups; generals who had just
come out of school overthrew powerful empires [ . . . ] the rule of peoples was sol-
emnly proclaimed; and never were such strong and such glorious individuals seen.
Everyone rushed into an arena that fortune seemed to open to all (Marie, ou esclavage
aux États-Unis (Paris: Charles Gosselin, 1835), I, pp. 39–40).
51. Beaumont’s unpublished memoirs on the July Revolution (YTC, AV). Beaumont
summarized his thinking about the revolution as follows:
The middle class made the revolution that the people executed; but the republican
party, a party recruited from all classes, led it and determined its results. I will explain:
The industrialists, tradesmen, heads of companies, small proprietors, etc., irritated
by the Ministry and by the government of the king, knew that they did not want
that government, but did not know what they wanted in its place. They cried Vive
la Charte because the Charter was violated. They wanted what the government did
not want.
They said to the workers: “You will not work, which is to say, you will not live if
this illegal state of things continues.”
They said nothing more. That was indeed to say: overthrow it; and since force
alone could destroy it, that was also to say: even use force. But it was not in the mores
of peaceful tradesmen and tranquil industrialists to march at the head of the workers
in order to lead their assaults.
Then came the men who for ten years had established a new government for when
the government ended. The society, aide-toi, le ciel t’aidera, whose power burst forth
in the newspapers, in the elections, in attacks against public officials, appeared
stronger and bolder than ever. Composed in the majority of enlightened, enterprising
men who were inflexible in their principles and ready to sacrifice their lives for the
sanctity of their cause, they provided the leaders for the populace whose courage they
regularized; and when these leaders had led the populace to victory, they were its
masters; they were the masters of force from the beginning. This is how a monarchical
republic emerged from the triumph of a multitude set into motion by a class whose
impulse was toward the constitutional monarchy.
editor’s introduction lix
The following day, Tocqueville returned to the town hall of Versailles

the musket and ammunition that he had received the day before as a mem-
ber of the national guard and declared to Ernest de Blosseville: “There is
nothing more to be done; everything is finished. At the gate of Saint-Cloud,
I have just seen the convoy of the monarchy pass by, the King, the children
of France, the ministers are in carriages surrounded by body guards. And
well! Would you believe, the escutcheons of the royal carriages are hidden
beneath mud coverings.”52
From the time of the appointment of the Polignac government on 8
August 1829,53 Tocqueville and Beaumont expected an event of this type.
A partisan of the Bourbons, Tocqueville owed a certain loyalty to his social
origins, but the accomplished deed of the change of dynasty led him in
fact to discover a great fidelity to France.54 It was far from the intention of
Tocqueville and Beaumont to qualify themselves as liberals in 1830. None-
theless, the fact of putting the honor of France as well as the principles of
the Charter and of liberty before the Bourbons put them closer to liberal
positions than they (and Tocqueville in particular) believed.
This loyalty to the nation rather than to the Bourbons nevertheless iso-
lated them from their milieu. Friends and relatives withdrew from public
life as the possibility of overturning the monarchy seemed more unreal, in
particular after the month of August, when all officials were asked to swear
an oath of loyalty to Louis-Philippe. At that moment Hippolyte de Tocque-
ville and Louis de Kergorlay left the army, and Hervé lost his title of peer
of France.55
52. Louis Passy, Le marquis de Blosseville, p. 130.

53. This is Beaumont’s opinion in his unpublished memoirs. Tocqueville wrote the
same to his brother, Édouard. André Jardin, Alexis de Tocqueville, pp. 83–84.
54. Tocqueville would describe his feelings in this way: “Tied to the Royalists by the
sharing of a few principles and by a thousand family bonds, I see myself in some way
bound to a party whose conduct seems to me often not very honorable and almost always
extravagant. I cannot help suffering immensely from their faults, all the while con-
demning them with all my power.” Letter to Ernest de Chabrol, 18 October 1831, YTC,
BIa2.
55. Hervé seemed to fear that the new government, suspecting his loyalty to the Bour-
bons, had his mail opened. During his journey in America, Tocqueville asked his sister-
in-law, Alexandrine, to assure his father that his letters arrived punctually and sealed.
Letter to Madame Édouard de Tocqueville, 18 October 1831, YTC, BIa2.
lx editor’s introduction
For their part, Tocqueville and Beaumont were confronted with a dif-
ficult choice: swear an oath to the new king or abandon their judicial ca-
reers. Tocqueville swore an oath, and justified his decision by the fear of
anarchy:
I swore an oath to the new government. I believed that by acting in this
way I have fulfilled the strict duty of a Frenchman. In our current state,
if Louis-Philippe were overthrown, it would certainly not be to the profit
of Henry V, but of the republic and of anarchy. Those who love their
country must therefore rally openly to the new power that is arising, since
it alone can now save France from itself. I despise the new king; I believe
his right to the throne less than doubtful, and yet I will support him more
firmly, I think, than those who smoothed the way for him and who will
not take long to be his masters or his enemies.56
When Henrion, a friend of aristocratic origin, criticized Tocqueville’s

decision, the latter responded in words that leave no doubt about his
position:
The morning of the ordinances I declared before the assembled tribunal
that henceforth resistance seemed legitimate to me and that I would resist
in my narrow sphere. When the movement went so far as to overthrow
the dynasty, I hid from no one my opposition to this measure. I said that
I would wage civil war if it took place. Once it was an accomplished fact,
I continued to believe what I had always believed, that the strictest duty
was not toward a man or a family, but toward country. The salvation of
France, at the point where we were, seemed to me to be in maintaining
the new king. So I promised to support him, without hiding the fact that
I did not do it for him. I protested that I did not intend an oath that bound
me forever to any cause other than to the interest of our country, and I
56. Letter to Charles Stoffels, 26 August 1830, YTC, AVII. Tocqueville swore the oath
for the first time on 16 August 1830.
The conduct of Beaumont testifies to his desire to move beyond the quarrels of the
moment. Thus, he opposed the policy of not applying the principle of amnesty to those
who pillaged Paris on 27, 28, and 29 July, and he decided not to go forward with trials
brought about by facts that seemed to him covered by the amnesty. He wrote a report
on the question and defended it before the king on 14 September 1830. YTC, AV.
editor’s introduction lxi
did not hide the fact that the moment that the new dynasty became in-
compatible with that interest, I would conspire against it.57
It was out of these precise circumstances that the idea of the journey to
America was born.58 The plan and its realization did not take much time.
On 31 October 1830, six days after Tocqueville took the oath a second time,
following his nomination to the post of juge suppléant, the two magistrates
presented to the government a proposal for a mission whose purpose was
to study the American penal institutions.59
It involved describing and understanding the advantages and disadvan-
tages of the two systems in use in the United States. The Pennsylvania
system provided for incarceration in solitary confinement night and day as
well as individual work by each person in his cell. The Auburn system, in
the state of New York, provided for imprisonment in solitary confinement
and work in common, but under the strict law of silence.
About his American plans, Tocqueville gave the following argument that
he confided to his friend Stoffels:
My position in France is bad on all points, at least as I see it; for either the
government will consolidate itself, which is not very probable, or it will
be destroyed.
57. Draft of a letter to Henrion, 17 October 1830, YTC, AVII.

58. See OCB, V, pp. 15–16. Young Tocqueville had perhaps spoken to Chateaubriand
about his American projects. In a letter to Charles Stoffels of 26 August 1830 (YTC,
AVII), he commented on them in this way: “If I am forced to leave my career, and if
nothing necessarily keeps me in France, I have decided to flee the idleness of private life
and to take up the busy existence of the traveler again for a few years. For a long time I
have had the greatest desire to visit North America. I will go there to see what a great
republic is. The only thing I fear is that, during that time, one will be established in
France.” The study of the penitentiary system is “a very honorable pretext that makes
us seem particularly to merit the interest of the government, whatever it may be, and
that assures us its good will upon our return.” Letter of 11 October 1831 to Charles Stoffels,
YTC, AVII.
59. See Note sur le système pénitentiaire et sur la mission confiée par M. le Ministre de
l’Intérieur à MM. Gustave de Beaumont et Alexis de Tocqueville (Paris: H. Fournier,
1831).
lxii editor’s introduction
In the first case, my situation is not very pleasant and will not be for a
long while. I do not want advancement, because that would tie me to men
whose intentions I suspect. So here I am, an obscure juge suppléant, having
no way to make myself known, even in the narrow sphere in which I am
enclosed; for if I become part of the opposition, as a member of the public
prosecutor’s office, I do not even have the honor of being removed from
office; they will be content to keep me quiet by preventing me from
working in court. If I support those men, I am doing something that is
in accord with neither my principles nor my position. So there I am
necessarily reduced to the role of a neutral, which is to say to the most
pitiful role of all, especially when you occupy a lower grade. To all of
that, add that the future is until now so obscure that it is impossible to
say which party we should, in the interest of our country, desire to have
the definitive victory.
Now, suppose that this government is overthrown; amid the disruption
that will follow, I have no chance to make myself known, for I am starting
too low. I still have done nothing to attract public attention. In vain would
I try to do my best; this revolution would find me too young or too ob-
scure. I would certainly warmly embrace the banner of the party that ap-
peared to me the most just, but I would serve in its lowest ranks, which
would scarcely suit me.
There is my future in France; I sketched it without exaggeration. Now,
suppose that, without ceasing to be a magistrate and still maintaining my
rights of seniority, I go to America; fifteen months go by; the parties be-
come clear in France; you see clearly which one is incompatible with the
grandeur and tranquility of your country; you then return with a clear and
decided opinion and free of any engagement with whomsoever in the
world. This journey, all by itself, has drawn you out of the most common
class; the knowledge that you have acquired among so celebrated a people
finally brings you out of the crowd. You know just what a vast republic
is, why it is practical here, impractical there! All the points of public ad-
ministration have been successively examined. Returning to France, you
feel, certainly, a strength that you did not have when you left. If the mo-
ment is favorable, some publication can alert the public to your existence
and fix the attention of the parties on you. If that does not happen, oh
well! Your journey at least did you no harm, for you were as unknown in
America as you were in France, and returning to your country you are
editor’s introduction lxiii
entirely as suited to advance as if you had remained there. There, I think,

is a plan that is not in all ways absurd.60
It is therefore understood that initially the book on the United States

was considered a means: that of opening the doors of a political career for
its author. But the publication that Tocqueville is referring to in the cited
passage still lacked a name and substance. Moreover, the initial intention
of Tocqueville and Beaumont was to publish a shared text on the political
institutions and mores of the North Americans. So we are a long way from
the birth of Democracy in America and Marie, ou l’esclavage aux États-Unis.
The reasons that Beaumont had for leaving France for a time were not
very far from those of Tocqueville. In Marie, he gave the following ro-
mantic version that he put in the mouth of the protagonist:
Toward the year 1831, a Frenchman resolved to go to America with the
intention of settling there. This plan was inspired by various causes. A
recent revolution had revived in his country political passions that were
believed to be extinct. His sympathies and his convictions carried him
toward one party; his family ties kept him in another. Thus placed between
his principles and his feelings, he constantly felt some conflict; to follow
the movements of his heart, he would have to stifle the voice of his reason;
and if he remained faithful to his beliefs, he would offend his dearest
affections.61
It could also be that Beaumont had refused to remove two compromising

documents relating to the trial of the Baroness de Feuchères, and it has
been suggested that the government sent him to the United States with the
60. Letter to Charles Stoffels, 4 November 1830, YTC, AVII. But, in a letter probably
dating from 1835 (OC, XIII, 1, p. 374), Tocqueville affirmed on the contrary: “I did not
go there with the idea of doing a book, but the idea of a book came to me there.”
Tocqueville’s letters must be used with certain precautions. The author very clearly
takes into account the person who is to receive his letters. Thus, he sometimes writes to
his correspondents what they expect, hiding certain information from his most intimate
friends, while sharing it with acquaintances, etc.
61. Beaumont, Marie, I, pp. 2–3.
lxiv editor’s introduction
intention of removing him from the matter.62 The Baroness de Feuchères

was, we recall, an adventuress of English origin. She was accused of having
murdered her lover, the old Prince de Condé. The person who undoubtedly
profited the most from the death of the latter turned out to be Louis-
Philippe himself, since his son was the direct heir of the largest portion of
the wealth of the last Condé. If it is incorrect that the French government
sent Beaumont to the United States for the purpose of removing him from
the trial, it remains true that it was bent on including a magistrate of aris-
tocratic origin in a trial in which the king could be implicated. By pro-
ceeding in this way, the government shielded itself from the suspicions of
the legitimists and, if the judgment ever implicated the conduct of the
monarch,63 it could always turn against a lawyer who did not have the rep-
utation of being favorable to the new regime.
America
Tocqueville and Beaumont left for America on April 2, 1831. Their baggage
included dozens of letters of introduction and a few works on the United
States: those of Volney and of Cooper, a history of the United States, and
the book by Basil Hall. They did not need them very much. All the infor-
mation that they were curious about was to be provided on site. It seemed
to them that the book they planned to write upon their return had to con-
cern America as much as democracy, and they were very impatient to know
both.
During the crossing of the Atlantic, they translated one part of Basil
Hall’s work64 as preparation for their research on the prisons; they learned
about the history of the United States and discussed the Cours d’économie
politique of Jean-Baptiste Say.
62. Louis André, La mystérieuse Baronne de Feuchères (Paris: Perrin, 1925), pp. 261–
62. On the Feuchères affair, we can also consult Marjorie Bowen, The Scandal of Sophie
Dawes (New York: Appleton, 1935); and Emile Lesueur, Le dernier Condé (Paris: Alcan,
1937).
63. The Beinecke Library holds, under the classification CIf, some of Beaumont’s
letters to his superiors on the matter of the Baroness de Feuchères.
64. A few pages of notes remain in YTC, BIf 2.9.
editor’s introduction lxv
On the afternoon of 9 May, they reached Newport. They were in New

York the next day. They would remain in the United States until 20 Feb-
ruary 1832.65
Upon their arrival, Tocqueville and Beaumont discovered that the pub-
licity that their official mission had received in the American press opened
every door to them.66 So the official study of the penitentiary system and
the unofficial research on that new form of government called democracy
seemed to look very promising.
Concerning democracy, the greatest difficulty was found not in America,
but in France.
Once first impressions had passed, the two friends realized that their
eagerness to know and understand American society required above all a
real knowledge of French society, which they lacked. The purpose of their
journey became more precise. It would concern a double and simultaneous
intellectual journey whose subject would be France as well as America. “I
will admit to you that what most prevents me from knowing what is hap-
pening on this point in America,” wrote Tocqueville to his friend Blosse-
ville, “is being almost completely ignorant of what exists in France.”67 This
observation is found many times in his correspondence.
It then became imperative to contact colleagues, friends, and relatives in
order to obtain the information necessary for understanding America by
way of understanding France.
On this point, Tocqueville began by asking his father, Chabrol, and Blos-
seville for information about the French administration:
65. This is not the place to reconstitute the American itinerary in detail. Moreover,
it is impossible in this matter to improve on what George W. Pierson said in Tocqueville
and Beaumont in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1938). I use the mention
of this work to express my deep acknowledgment to Mr. Pierson for the time that he
devoted to my questions and for the encouragement that he constantly lavished on me
during my work.
66. “It is true that the newspapers, which deal with everything, have announced our
arrival and expressed the hope that we will find active assistance everywhere. The result
is that all doors are open to us and that everywhere we receive the most flattering wel-
come.” Letter from Tocqueville to his mother, 29 April–19 May 1831, YTC, BIa2.
67. Letter of 30 October 1831, YTC, BIa2.
lxvi editor’s introduction
You must [ . . . ] provide another [service] to Beaumont and to me—he

wrote to Ernest de Chabrol—which is, perhaps you’re going to laugh, to
instruct us as fully as possible on what people think at home about this
country. Since we left France, we have lived with Americans, either on the
ship that carried us, or since our arrival here; as a result, we have become
accustomed by degree, and without abrupt transitions, to the new order
of things in the midst of which we live. We have already largely lost our
national prejudices about this people. And yet you sense how necessary it
is for us to know the opinions that prevail at home if we want to modify
them and even if we desire to study particularly here what can be useful
for enlightening minds.
About twenty questions followed concerning French ideas on American

political institutions, on the national character, on the different classes of
society, on the commercial situation, the future of the country, its position
in religious matters, etc.
To what cause do you attribute the prosperity of this nation? Is it political
institutions or material and industrial causes? [ . . . ] Do you think there
are political parties in the United States? How far do you think the spirit
of equality is pushed here? Is it in the mores or in the laws? What form
do you think it takes?68
In order not to influence the responses of his informants, Tocqueville

decided not to share with them his impressions about America except by
chance. The first letter to his family contained a long description of the
journey and of the arrival in America, but reflections about American so-
ciety had to wait until the letter to Édouard dated 28 May:
We are very truly in another world here; political passions are only at the
surface; the profound passion, the only one that deeply moves the human
heart, the passion of every day, is the acquisition of wealth, and there are
a thousand ways to acquire it without disturbing the State. You would have
to be blind, in my opinion, to want to compare this country to Europe
68. Letter to Ernest de Chabrol, 18 May 1831, YTC, BIa2. Tocqueville asked him to
give the same questions to Élie de Beaumont. He also asked that the lectures of Guizot
on Roman society and the Middle Ages be sent to him.
editor’s introduction lxvii
and to adopt in one what works in another; I believed it before leaving

France; I believe it more and more examining the society in the midst of
which I now live; they are a people of merchants who occupy themselves
with public affairs when their work leaves spare time. I hope that on our
return to Europe, we will be able to say something good on this subject;
perhaps no one is better placed to study a people than we are.69
A letter to Ernest de Chabrol, a few days after that one, returned to the
same idea:
Imagine, my dear friend, if you can, a society composed of all the nations
of the world: English, French, Germans . . . , everyone having a language,
a belief, opinions that are different; in a word, a society without common
prejudices, sentiments, ideas, without a national character, a hundred
times happier than ours. More virtuous? I doubt it. There is the point of
departure. What serves as a bond for such diverse elements, what makes
all of that a people? Interest. There is the secret. Particular interest that
pokes through at every instant, interest that, moreover, arises openly and
calls itself a social theory.70
Only the exceptional physical conditions of the United States seemed

to justify the survival of the republic and allow the free exercise of interest:
“America finds itself, for the present, in such a favorable physical situation
that particular interest is never contrary to general interest, which is cer-
tainly not the case in Europe.”71
69. YTC, BIa2. The passage refers to Chateaubriand. In 1825, Tocqueville had written
a few pages criticizing an article of Chateaubriand that had appeared in the Journal des
débats of 24 October, and in which the latter recommended to the French the model of
the American democracy. “The only task worthy of genius would have been to show us
the difference that exists between American society and us,” wrote Tocqueville, “and not
to abuse us with a false likeness.” Quoted by Antoine Rédier, Comme disait Monsieur de
Tocqueville, p. 93.
70. Letter of 9 June 1831, YTC, BIa2. Tocqueville copied this passage into his alpha-
betic notebook A. This letter contains several key ideas of the book. Chabrol is also the
recipient of a letter dated 26 November 1831 that contains very precise information about
the American judicial system. YTC, BIa2.
71. Tocqueville added in the same letter: “This people seems to be a company of
merchants, gathered for business; and the further you dig into the national character of
the Americans, the more you see that they have sought the value of everything only in
lxviii editor’s introduction
At the beginning, as we see, Tocqueville was above all recalling Bodin

and Montesquieu.72 We must wait until the end of the journey to see cli-
matic theories given a less important place. The final versions of the manu-
script of Democracy still emphasize the decisive importance of the physical
setting on American democracy, however.73
Tocqueville also thought that it was the exceptional physical conditions
of the United States that allowed the Americans to get along without public
power.74 If a public career was closed to ambition, a thousand others were
open to the Americans. In America “the entire world seems [ . . . ] a mal-
leable material that man turns and shapes as he wills.”75
The element that thwarted the harmful effects of the unlimited desire
for money soon appeared clearly; it was religion. At the end of June Tocque-
ville wrote to his family: “Never have I felt so much the influence of religion
on the mores and the social and political state of a people than since I have
been in America, and it is impossible here to ignore the necessity of this
force for motivating and regulating human actions.”76
Before the multitude of sects and doctrines, the author had no doubt
about the one that was suitable for democracy:
I have always believed, you know, that constitutional monarchies would
arrive at the republic; and I am persuaded as well that Protestantism will
necessarily end up at natural religion. What I am saying to you is felt very
deeply by many religious souls here; they are revolted at the sight of this
consequence of their doctrines, and the reaction throws them into Ca-
the answer to this single question: how much money will it make?” Letter of 9 June 1831
to Ernest de Chabrol, YTC, BIa2.
72. See the letter to Ernest de Chabrol of 26 July 1831, YTC, BIa2; James T. Schleifer,
The Making of Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1980), pp. 45, 52–53; and George W. Pierson, Tocqueville and Beaumont
in America, p. 126.
73. See, for example, pp. 76–77.
74. “Here, there is no public power and, truly speaking, there is no need for it.” Letter
of 9 June 1831 to Ernest de Chabrol, YTC, BIa2. In another letter to Chabrol on 16 June
1831, Tocqueville wrote: “As for the government, we are still looking for it. It doesn’t
really exist” (YTC, BIa2).
75. Letter of 9 June 1831 to Ernest de Chabrol, YTC, BIa2.
76. Letter to Édouard, 20 June 1831, YTC, BIa2.
editor’s introduction lxix
tholicism, whose principle is very questionable, but where, at least, every-

thing is linked together.77
Exceptional physical conditions, private interest, religion, in that it puts

a brake on the inordinate taste for material wealth—these are, from the first
weeks of the American journey, the three elements that profoundly marked
Tocqueville’s arguments.
In the months that followed, natural conditions would no longer cover
physical circumstances strictly speaking, but would also include the point
of departure and the origin of the United States; interest would take various
forms: individualism, monotony, love of material enjoyments, manufac-
turing aristocracy, industrialization of art and of life; religion would also
be called patriotism, honor, and general ideas. But, added to a certain theory
of history, the three initial elements—physical conditions, interest and re-
ligion—would continue to form the framework of the entire system of
Democracy.
The journey led Tocqueville and Beaumont from New York to Albany
and Buffalo; it let them briefly see the great wilderness beyond Detroit, at
Pontiac and Saginaw; it took them to the Great Lakes and to Canada in
order to bring them back afterward to New England and New York. From
there, the travelers went to the west and the south. They saw Philadelphia
and Baltimore; they passed through Philadelphia again in order to see next
Cincinnati, Louisville, Nashville, Memphis, and New Orleans.78 They re-
turned to the north by Montgomery, Norfolk, Washington, and finally
New York.
All of this allowed scarcely any leisure. As Tocqueville wrote to Louis de
Kergorlay: “What categorizes a traveler are his questions, his research, and
77. Letter to Ernest de Chabrol, 26 October 1831, YTC, BIa2. This letter contains a
long reflection on religions in the United States.
78. Their knowledge of the south of the Union was consequently very limited.
Tocqueville recognized this in a letter to Édouard: “I am leaving America after using my
time there wisely and pleasantly. I have only a superficial idea about the South of the
Union, but in order to know it as well as the north it would be necessary to have remained
there six months. In general, two years are necessary to develop a complete and exact
picture of the United States. I hope, however, that I have not wasted my time.” Letter
of 20 January 1832, YTC, BIa2.
lxx editor’s introduction
not the degree of facility with which he expresses himself in the national
language.”79 The two magistrates, transformed into indefatigable question-
ers, interrogated, took notes, read and observed.80 Tocqueville made rough
notebooks in which he noted the result of his research. Beaumont did the
same and carefully recorded each of their interviews.81
Tocqueville’s notes are not truly a travel diary, nor do they constitute the
only material out of which his theory is going to emerge.82 Reading them
provides little information about his principal ideas. If you are unaware of
the theoretical presuppositions of the author, the notes are sometimes un-
interesting, even insignificant. The fragments of conversations, various re-
marks, and interviews only make some sense on the condition that they be
considered not as the beginning of reflections on the United States but as
stages in an intellectual process predating the American journey.
It is not by chance, or by some peculiar mental skill, that the whole book
is already found in the first impressions about America.83 Even if he wrote
the opposite to some of his correspondents,84 Tocqueville was in America
as much to observe the facts that would allow him to write Democracy as
79. Letter to Kergorlay, 4 July 1837, OC, XIII, p. 460.

80. Six lists of questions exist: 1. List of forty-two questions on criminal justice. 2.
List of seven questions on education. 3. Six questions on political questions. 4. Twelve
questions on town rights. 5. Three questions on roads. 6. Other questions on town prob-
lems. YTC, BIIb.
81. We have the travel notes of Tocqueville, but nearly all of Beaumont’s notes are
lost. The few rare notes that remain show observations that are more wide-ranging and
more detailed, but less theoretical in nature than those of Tocqueville. They would have
been of great interest for the reconstruction of the intellectual journey of the two friends.
82. The notes of the journey to America have been published in Voyages en Sicile et
aux Etats-Unis, OC, V, 1.
83. For example, in a letter of 29 June 1831 to Louis de Kergorlay, OC, XIII, 1, pp. 225–
36.
84. If I ever do something [blank] about America, it will be in France, and with the
documents that I am bringing back, that I will try to undertake it. I will leave America
able to understand the documents that I have not been able to study yet: that is the
clearest result of the journey. Moreover, on this country, I have only notes without
order or coherence: detached ideas that only I have the key to, isolated facts that
editor’s introduction lxxi
to give body and substance to a certain idea of Democracy that he already

had in mind before the American journey.85
The theory began to take shape by bits and pieces in the letters sent to
France. “Keep this letter, I beg of you,” wrote Tocqueville to his mother,
“it contains details that I do not have the time to note and that I will find
again later with pleasure.”86 This request was found in all of his travel
correspondence.
remind me about a host of others. What I am bringing back of most interest are two
small notebooks in which I have written word for word the conversations that I had
with the most notable men of this country. This sum of paper has an inestimable
value for me, but only for me who can sense the value of the questions and answers.
The only, somewhat general ideas that I have expressed about America until now are
found in some letters addressed to my family and to a few people in France. Even
then, these were written hastily, on steamboats, or in some hole where I had to use
my knees as a table. Will I ever publish anything about this country? In truth, I do
not know. It seems to me that I have some good ideas; but I still do not know yet in
what framework to put them, and public attention frightens me (letter of Tocqueville
to his mother, 24 October 1831, YTC, BIa2).
Compare the passage quoted with this fragment from a letter to Édouard of 20 June
of the same year:
In France no one doubts what America is, and we find ourselves in an excellent po-
sition to give an account of it. We come here after very serious study that has made
our minds aware of or put them on the track of many ideas. We come here together
so that there is a constant clash of minds. [ . . . ] No matter what happens, we lack
neither ardor nor courage, and if some obstacle does not stop us, I hope that we will
finish by bringing forth the work we have thought about for a year (YTC, BIa2).
85. In a letter published in the correspondence with Kergorlay, but perhaps addressed
to Eugène Stoffels, as André Jardin has pointed out, Tocqueville confessed: “For nearly
ten years, I have been thinking about part of what I explained to you just now. I was in
America only to enlighten myself on this point. The penitentiary system was a pretext;
I took it as a passport that would enable me to penetrate everywhere in the United States.”
Correspondance avec Kergorlay, OC, XIII, 1, p. 374.
Also see the letter to Charles Stoffels, 21 April 1830, reproduced in Appendix V of
the second volume, which already advances the theory of history that is present in
Democracy.
86. Letter of 26 April–19 May 1831, YTC, BIa2. The remark is found again in the
letters addressed to his friends. Thus, in the letter to Kergorlay of 29 June 1831 (“Keep
this letter. It will be interesting for me later.”), OC, XIII, 1, p. 236; or in that of 16 July
1831, to Ernest de Chabrol (“Do not forget to keep my letters.”), YTC, BIa2.
lxxii editor’s introduction
We must not forget, however, that Tocqueville did not travel alone. If,
in the end, the two friends each offered to the public his own version of
democracy, it is no less true that until their return to France the notion of
a great work on democracy in America was elaborated in concert, in the
“duel of minds” that Tocqueville mentioned several times. It is difficult in
these conditions to decide on the paternity of an idea, or the origin of a
citation. The final result would forever obliterate the daily debates of the
two travelers.
As has sometimes been said, Beaumont had more than the effect of a
catalyst on Tocqueville. He drew Tocqueville’s attention to many phenom-
ena in American society. He collaborated with energy on the writing and
revision of Democracy. Finally he produced an admirable social novel meant
to accompany the work of his friend. Beaumont’s notes could have given
an idea of the intellectual debate with Tocqueville. In their absence, Beau-
mont’s criticisms of the manuscript of Democracy, the drafts of his own
books, and the reading of his publications bring clearly to light an intel-
ligence that was only slightly inferior to that of Tocqueville.
It is difficult to pinpoint the moment when the book project ceased to
be shared. The first news from America sent by Beaumont spoke of “our
great work.”87 In a letter to his mother dated 7 October, he mentioned for
the first time “my plans,” and the expression was found again in the cor-
respondence that follows.88 Between May and October, Beaumont discov-
ered, then got to know more closely the American Indians, and as George
W. Pierson noted, perhaps this is what explains the abrupt change in his
plans.89
If family correspondence spoke with enthusiasm about the brilliant fu-
ture that their works on America were to bring to the travelers, the letters
addressed to colleagues remained nonetheless quite vague:
87. Gustave de Beaumont, Lettres d’Amérique, pp. 28, 45, 48, 66, and 92.
88. Ibid., p. 159; “my work,” in a letter of 26 October; and “the great work that is
going to immortalize me,” in a letter of 8 November.
89. In a letter of 1 August 1831, to his father and in another of 2 August, addressed
to Ernest de Chabrol, Beaumont already announced his interest in the fate of the Indians.
Ibid., pp. 105 and 110.
editor’s introduction lxxiii
You speak to me about what could be written about America, noted

Tocqueville to an unknown recipient, and I do not know at all if I will
ever have the occasion to publish the least thing on this subject; the general
tableau of English America is an immense work absolutely beyond my
strength, and from another perspective, if I abandon the idea of the whole,
I no longer know to which details to pay particular attention. So I have
limited myself until now to gathering a host of diverse documents and
partial observations. I enjoy this work, and it interests me deeply; but will
it ever be useful to me for anything? I assure you that the further I go, the
more I doubt it.
But, as you say, there would be piquant new insights to present about
this country. Except for about ten people in Paris who, like you, are not
absorbed by the politics of the day, America is as unknown as Japan; or
rather, people talk about it as Montesquieu did about Japan. The Amer-
icans argumenti causa are made to say and do a host of things, in honor
of true principles, that the poor fellows are very innocent of, I swear.90
Tocqueville was obviously not interested in disclosing to his superiors

that what most interested him in America was not the project officially
announced, but writing about the American republic. Only Le Peletier
d’Aunay seemed to have been let in on the secret: “I expected a good work
from you,” wrote d’Aunay to Tocqueville in August 1831, “and this field of
your observations makes me certain of it. You will show us this America
much more exactly than all the other travelers, beginning with Liancourt
and Volney. Nothing will escape, I am sure, from the observation of your
solid intelligence. On your return, give the government the report prom-
ised. But save, for your reputation, your glory, the full journey to that
country.”91
Beaumont and Tocqueville in America had different interests, but their
intention was to publish their books simultaneously, as two parts of the
same work. In 1831, and for some time after, their books constituted the
two sides of the same coin. They would become distinct only later. The
90. In a draft of a letter written in Philadelphia, November 1831 (YTC, BIa2). He

also hid his plans from Ernest de Chabrol (letter of 24 January 1832, YTC, BIa2).
91. Letter of Le Peletier d’Aunay, 16 August 1831, YTC, BId.
lxxiv editor’s introduction
first edition of Système pénitentiaire still announced a joint work on Amer-

ica by Gustave de Beaumont and Alexis de Tocqueville, with the title Ins-
titutions et mœurs américaines. A month after the publication of Système
pénitentiaire, a letter from Tocqueville to Edward Everett still suggested a
collaborative work: “We are now busy, M. de Beaumont and I, composing
a more general work on America.”92
On 20 February 1832, Tocqueville and Beaumont left New York to return
to France.
Tocqueville hardly considered any longer taking up the duties that he
had at Versailles. He entertained other plans that he revealed in confidence
to Ernest de Chabrol: “I do not know if I must withdraw entirely,” he
confessed, “as I am often tempted to do, or try to advance; what I see clearly
at least is that I will not put on the robe of juge suppléant again. I will no
longer be seen at Versailles, or I will be seen with another title. This point
is decided (but between us).”93
The Penitentiary System

After returning to France at the end of March, Beaumont rejoined his fam-
ily in Sarthe, while Tocqueville remained in Paris.
Beaumont began to write the report on the penitentiary system and met
Tocqueville in Paris in mid-April in order to ensure his collaboration.
Weeks passed. As Beaumont moved ahead preparing the report on the pris-
ons, Tocqueville was plunged into a great despondency from which he did
not want to emerge for work on any intellectual endeavor.94 He seemed
incapable of adapting to the idleness that followed the year of feverish ag-
itation spent in North America. He accepted visiting the prison of Toulon,
92. Letter to Edward Everett, 6 February 1833, with the kind permission of the Mas-
sachusetts Historical Society (Tocqueville, Alexis de. Letter to Edward Everett, 6 Feb-
ruary 1833. Edward Everett papers).
93. To Ernest de Chabrol, 24 January 1832, YTC, BIa2.
94. Letter of 4 April 1832 to Beaumont, OC, VIII, 1, pp. 111–12.
editor’s introduction lxxv
then those of Geneva and Lausanne in May and June, but the largest part
of the work of writing the report fell to Beaumont.95
Before these journeys, Tocqueville came to the aid of his friend, Louis
de Kergorlay, implicated in the adventure of the Duchess de Berry. On 9
March, for the first and last time, Tocqueville exercised his profession as a
lawyer. He defended Kergorlay who, acquitted, was soon set free.96
The defense of one of the prisoners of the Carlo Alberto must not suggest
that Tocqueville had changed his position about the subversive efforts to
overthrow the July Monarchy. If he preferred the Bourbons, if his friend-
ship for Kergorlay was unshakable, he remained clearly opposed to the vi-
olent expulsion of the reigning monarch. The American letters already re-
vealed the fear of a precipitous return to Europe in case of the overthrow
of the monarchy97 and the fear of seeing the “hothead,”98 Hippolyte, in-
volved in such an overthrow.
As for his opinion about the ultras, it can be clarified by a letter in which,
sensing that his older brother was tempted to take some radical decision
against the July Monarchy, Tocqueville expressed himself in these terms:
Amid the chaos in which we find ourselves, I seem to see one incontestable
fact. For forty years we have made immense progress in the practical un-
derstanding of the idea of liberty. Peoples, like individuals, need to be-
come educated before they know how to act. I cannot doubt that our
people advance. There are riots in the large cities, but the mass of the
95. You know what Beaumont’s publications are; but there is a detail that perhaps
you do not know. The first work that we published together, M. de Beaumont and
I, on the American prisons, had as the sole writer, M. de Beaumont. I only provided
my observations and a few notes. Although our two names were attached to that book
which was, I can say more easily now, a true success, I have never hidden from my
friends that M. de Beaumont was so to speak the sole author (letter of 26 June 1841,
supporting Beaumont’s candidacy to the Académie des sciences morales et politiques,
very probably addressed to Mignet, YTC, DIIa).
96. His plea appears in OC, XIII, 1, pp. 321–27.
97. The idea of an exile in the United States also crossed their minds. See note j of
p. 1302 of the second volume.
98. In his letter to Édouard, on 20 June 1831, Tocqueville exhorted his brother to have
the utmost patience (YTC, BIa2). Also see the letter to Kergorlay of 21 June 1831, OC,
XIII, 1, pp. 235–36.
lxxvi editor’s introduction
population calmly obeys the laws; and yet the government is useless. Do
you think as much would have happened forty years ago? We are har-
vesting the fruit of the fifteen years of liberty that we enjoyed under the
Restoration. Aren’t you struck to see the extreme left protest that it wants
to proceed only by legal measures and, at the same time, to hear the roy-
alists declare that they must appeal to public opinion, that public opinion
alone can give strength to the throne, that it must be won over before
anything else? Amid all the miseries of the present time and the fit of high
fever that gave us the July Revolution, don’t you find reasons to hope that
we will finally reach a settled social state? I do not know if we are made
to be free, but what is certain is that we are infinitely more capable of
being so than forty years ago. If the Restoration had lasted ten years longer,
I believe we would have been saved; the habit of legality and constitutional
forms would have entirely gotten into our mores. But now, could things
be put back in their place; could a second Restoration take place? I see
many obstacles. The greatest of all without question is found in the per-
sonnel of the royalist party that would triumph. Never will you make the
most active portion of the royalist party understand that there are con-
cessions without which they cannot hope to govern, that to be lasting the
legitimist monarchy must be national, must ally itself with the ideas of
liberty or be broken by them. If the Bourbons ever regain the throne, they
will make use of force, and they will fall again. Perhaps in France we have
what is needed to create a government that is strong because of military
glory, but not a government that is strong solely because of right. Right
can indeed help to maintain a government if it is skillful, but not to protect
it from its own failings.
In any case, it seems to me that the behavior of the royalists is well
conceived. I am pleased to see them stand on the ground of legality, to see
them work to win the majority and not to make the minority triumph by
force. That fact augurs well. If they had always acted like this, they would
have spared themselves and France great misfortunes. Moreover, by adopt-
ing in this way what is reasonable in the ideas of liberty, they assume in
everyone’s eyes a tacit commitment to respect those ideas, if they are ever
the masters. Many among them become convinced by their own words,
without expecting to. They acquire the habit of associating, of appealing
to public opinion, all the free and constitutional habits that they never
had. This spectacle reassures me a bit about the future. I hope that after
editor’s introduction lxxvii
so many conflicts we will succeed in saving ourselves from anarchy and

despotism.99
The pages of a plan for a review100 that Tocqueville and Beaumont at

one time intended to establish with the participation of Blosseville, Cha-
brol, Montalembert, and a few others put clearly in view the political con-
victions of the future editors:
They [the editors of the review] do not feel prejudices in favor of the
government created by the July Revolution; they do not want to destroy
it. They place themselves neither against it nor within it, but next to it,
and they want to try to judge its acts without passion and without weak-
ness. If the free expression of the national will brought the elder branch
of the Bourbons back to the throne, if a restoration could take place while
assuring the nation of the rights that are its due, the editors of the review
would see the event with pleasure; they would consider it as a favorable
measure of future social progress. But they want a restoration only on
those conditions; and if it must take place in a totally other way and lead
to opposite results, they would regard it as a duty to oppose it.101
The plan was soon abandoned, probably at the end of the summer of 1833.
99. Letter to Hippolyte, 4 December 1831, YTC, BIa2. In contrast, in a rough copy
of a letter of August 1831, probably addressed to Dalmassy, Tocqueville noted: “Some-
thing tells me that we will not escape from civil war.” YTC, BIa2.
100. See the correspondence exchanged on this subject by Tocqueville and Beaumont
in OC, VIII, 1, pp. 119–30.
101. With the kind permission of the Library of Princeton University (General Man-
uscripts [MISC] Collection, Manuscripts Division. Department of Rare Books and Spe-
cial Collections), reproduced in OC, III, 2, pp. 35–39. The same idea is found again in
a letter to Mary Mottley:
As I had foreseen and you announced a few days ago, civil war has begun in the west.
The royalists will perhaps have some temporary successes, but I predict to you again
that they will be crushed. How much loyal and honorable blood is going to flow! I
have already read in the newspaper the name of a brave young man that I knew. He
has just been miserably killed. So explain to me why in all times honor and incom-
petence seem to go hand in hand. Who were more brave, more loyal, and at the same
time, more clumsy and more unfortunate than your Jacobites? Our French royalists
are following their track exactly (3 June 1832, YTC, CIb).
lxxviii editor’s introduction
When he was not yet finished with his report and not thinking only
about the creation of a review, Beaumont was again faced with the shadowy
affair of the Baroness de Feuchères. This time it concerned a trial for def-
amation by the baroness against the Rohan family, descendants of the
Prince de Condé. Beaumont refused to take charge of it and explained that
he knew nothing about the question, that he was working on his report,
that the eighteen-month leave that had been granted to him had not yet
ended.102 The response was not long in coming. On 16 May 1832, he was
removed from his duties.
Little satisfied by a profession that weighed on him, uncertain of his
qualities for exercising it, Tocqueville found in the dismissal of Beaumont
the pretext for honorably abandoning the legal career. As soon as he learned
the news in Toulon, he presented his resignation.103
Once the work of drafting the report on the penitentiary system was
finished, Tocqueville reviewed the text written by Beaumont, collaborated
actively on the introduction, and wrote part of the notes. The two mag-
istrates submitted their report on 10 October. Du système pénitentiaire aux
États-Unis et de son application en France appeared in January 1833.
The First Democracy

The work on the penitentiary system was generally well received. Reviews
noted with satisfaction the full account of the question and the impartial
presentation of the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems in use
in the United States. If the authors seemed to lean toward the system used
in Pennsylvania, they did not seem to forget either the high cost of the
construction of a penitentiary of this type or the danger of keeping the
prisoners isolated in their cell night and day. In August, the Académie des
sciences morales et politiques awarded the Montyon prize to Système
pénitentiaire.
Tocqueville and Beaumont had planned to complete their American
journey with a visit to England. They thought that England would offer
102. In a letter of 18 April 1832, YTC, CIf.

103. On 21 May 1832, YTC, CIc.
editor’s introduction lxxix
an image of the Americans before their departure for the United States as
well as that of a society midway between aristocratic France and democratic
America. They also thought that England was at the dawn of a revolution
that would lead to democracy. The cholera epidemic that broke out at the
end of 1831 had precipitated their return to France. Once the prison report
was published, Tocqueville went to England from August 3 to September
7, 1833.104
“By going to England, I wanted [ . . . ] to flee for a time from the insipid
spectacle that our country presents at this moment. I wanted to go to relieve
my boredom a bit among our neighbors. And besides! Some claim that they
are definitely going to begin a revolution and that one must hurry to see
them as they are. So I hastened to go to England as to the final performance
of a beautiful play.”105
A few days spent on the other side of the Channel enlightened Tocque-
ville about his error. England was not on the eve of a revolution. Unlike
the French aristocracy, the English aristocracy was open; it continued to
exercise ancestral duties and the inferior classes of society could attain ar-
istocracy by money.106
“The English aristocracy,” wrote Tocqueville in his notes, “belongs very
much by its passions and its prejudices to all the aristocracies of the world,
but it is not based on birth, something inaccessible, but on the money that
everyone can acquire; and this single difference allows it to resist, when all
the others succumb either to peoples or to kings.”107
A week after his arrival in London, he wrote to Beaumont: “In short, I
do not recognize in anything here our America.”108 If, following these ob-
servations, England did not serve strictly speaking as a reference point for
the American and French situations, it was no less one of the keys for un-
derstanding America. It is evoked throughout Democracy.
104. The notes of the journey to England in 1833 are published in Voyages en Angle-
terre, Irlande, Suisse et Algérie, OC, V, 2, pp. 11–43.
105. Letter to the Countess de Pisieux, 5 July 1833, YTC, CIf.
106. OC, V, 2, p. 36.
107. OC, V, 2, pp. 29–30.
108. Letter to Beaumont, 13 August 1833, OC, VIII, 1, p. 124.
lxxx editor’s introduction
Upon his return to Paris, Tocqueville began writing his book.109 To do

this, he settled into the attic of his parents’ house, on rue de Verneuil. Beau-
mont, for his part, made a short journey to the Midi where his book began
to take the double form of a novel and a social commentary.
In a later letter to his wife, Tocqueville would evoke the first months
spent writing his book as follows:
When I wrote Democracy in America, I had none of the advantages [no-
tably a librarian at his disposal], but I had the youth, ardor, faith in a cause,
and hope that allowed me to do without the kindness of librarians and
the favor of archivists. Cuvier created in a garret the admirable works that
earned him a beautiful house in which he set up a beautiful special room
intended for the study of each of the subjects that interested him. It was
a whole series of apartments each of which was as if impregnated with
the particular idea that the author wanted to treat. From the moment
when he was so admirably aided in his work, he did hardly anything con-
siderable; and perhaps he sometimes came to regret the garret. But he
would have found it old and cold. Those who want to return to the garret
in which they passed the years of an intense and fruitful youth cannot do
so. My own garret was a small room on the rue de Verneuil, where I worked
in deep obscurity on the work that would bring me out of that obscurity.
You are part of that memory, like all of those memories in my life that
deserve to be remembered. The day was occupied by my work. Nearly
every evening was spent near you.110
Provided with his notes on the United States, publications brought back
from America, an ample correspondence with Americans and Frenchmen,
his own letters, and a list of the subjects of his notes,111 Tocqueville drew
up the initial plan of his book.
109. James T. Schleifer has reconstructed in detail the writing of the most important
chapters of Democracy in The Making of Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America.”
110. Letter of Tocqueville to his wife, with the only citation as “Sunday morning,”
YTC, CIb.
111. “Sources manuscrites. Subjects that can be of some interest to treat.” YTC, CIIc.
The list includes more or less the same questions as the first plan of the book.
editor’s introduction lxxxi
The first outline included three categories: “Political society (relations

between the federal and particular governments and the citizen of the
Union and citizen of each state), civil society (relations of the citizens with
each other), religious society (relations between God and the members of
society, and of the religious sects with each other).”112
Tocqueville continued by specifying what should be found under each
division:
Political society.
In political society there are two principles to which all the others are
connected; the first, sovereignty of the people, democracy, whose principle
divides and dissolves; the second, federation, whose principle unites and
preserves.
He then noted, in two columns, the ideas that correspond to each

principle:
Sovereignty of the people.
Democracy, no counter-balance. Tyranny of the majority—no aris-
tocracy; difficulty of an aristocracy in America. Gentlemen farmers.
Government of the majority; public opinion; stubbornness of the ma-
jority once formed—formation and working of parties.
Public offices (administrative officials particularly enforce the laws be-
tween the State and individuals—judicial officials more especially the laws
between individuals; the first belong to political society, the second to civil
society). Public offices are small matters.—Why? Municipal administra-
tion—Presidency of the United States—Army—Finances.
Elections—binding mandates.
Town meetings.
Convention.
Freedom of the press—ways and effects.
Public instruction.
Laws—Their mobile character.
Militia (perhaps should be carried to the other side).
Obedience to laws. Oath
112. YTC, CVh, 1, p. 23.

lxxxii editor’s introduction
(Everything that precedes is nothing more than the means that the ma-
jority uses to express and to maintain itself, and those that are put to use
by the minority to attack or to defend itself.)”
Under the word federation, we read the following:

Federation.
Causes for the weakness of all federal governments—especially for the
United States—future of the Union—diverse interests—multiplication—
Centralization—distinguish between that of the federal government and
that of the states themselves—almost non-existent—the lack of central-
ization already felt—however less dangerous than it will become. Causes
that will make it more dangerous.
Federal tax—tariff.
Canals.
Roads.
Banks of the United States.
Land sales.
Indians.
Maritime commerce, free trade.
Patents.
Show how the various Presidents since Jefferson have successively

stripped the federal government of its attributions—concessions to de-
mocracy—that is to say, to the principle on the opposite side.113
The section with the theme society included in turn:

Civil society.
Entry. The appointment of magistrates is the work of the political
powers, but since their duties are principally for the purpose of regulating
the relations and the rights of citizens with each other, they belong to civil
society.
Jurisdiction.
Common law.
113. YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 23–25.

editor’s introduction lxxxiii
Civil laws: Slavery, equality—Negroes

Civil state—inheritances—paternal power.
Criminal laws: Duel—gambling—drunkenness—
fornication—etc.
Jury—public prosecutor’s office—lawyers.
Commercial laws: Bankruptcy.
Interest on money.
Mores: American character.
Association—commerce—industry.
To make money.
Washington—costume of the Lyceums.114
Finally, religious society:

Religious society.
Nomenclature of the various sects—From Catholicism to the sect that
is farthest removed from it.
Quakers, Methodists—Point out what is antisocial in the doctrines of
the Quakers, Unitarians.
Relations of the sects with each other.
Freedom of religion—Toleration: from the legal aspect; from the aspect
of mores.
Catholicism.
Place of religion in the political order and its degree of influence on
American society.115
Certain ideas outlined in this first sketch would not be found again in
the definitive version. The canals, roads, gambling, etc. were so many ele-
ments that would be abandoned in the process of writing.116 Others would
114. YTC, CVh, 1, p. 26.

115. YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 26–27.
116. At the head of the bundle of drafts that bears the number 3 (copied in notebook
CVh, 1) appears the following note:
Diverse and important notes. The (illegible word) must be found here. Two or three
new chapters to put I do not know where.
1. Of the great men of America and in particular of Washington.
2. Of American patriotism.
lxxxiv editor’s introduction
be joined to the second part, such as the army, paternal power, Catholicism,
the desire to make money.
The fundamental idea of the entire book, the keystone on which
Tocqueville’s whole theory rests, the idea for understanding the struggle
between aristocracy and democracy, between a principle that divides and a
principle that unites, was already evident.
Once the general lines of the work were drawn, Tocqueville attacked the
work of writing in the strict sense. For this, he followed a singular system
that he described in this way to Duvergier de Hauranne:
I think what is best for me to do is to follow the method that I have already
followed for writing the book that just appeared [Old Regime ], and even
for the Democracy. I am going to tell you about it, although it is disagree-
able to talk for so long about oneself, because, knowing it, you will perhaps
be able to give me some good advice. When I have whatever subject to
treat, it is quasi-impossible for me to read any books that have been written
on the same matter; contact with the ideas of others agitates and disturbs
me to the point of making the reading of these works painful. So I refrain,
as much as I can, from knowing how their authors have interpreted the
facts that occupy me, the judgment that they have made of them, the
diverse ideas that these facts have suggested to them (which, parentheti-
cally, exposes me sometimes to repeating, without knowing it, what has
already been said). It requires of me, on the contrary, an unbelievableeffort
to find the facts by myself in the documents of the time; often in this way
I obtain, with immense labor, what I would have easily found by following
another path. Once this harvest is gathered so laboriously, I withdraw into
myself, as if into a very closed space; in a general review, I examine with
an extreme attention all the notions that I have acquired by myself; I com-
pare them, I link them, and then I make it a rule to explicate the ideas
that came spontaneously to me from this long work without any consid-
3. Of the non-physical bonds of society in America.

4. Of public officials.
5. Of the different ways to understand the republican regime.
6. That the absolute goodness of laws {must not always be judged} by the respect
that they are given by those who vote for them.
7. (Illegible word) on the influence of manufacturing on democratic liberty (YTC,
CVh, 1, p. 1).
editor’s introduction lxxxv
eration whatsoever for the consequences that these men or those men can
draw from them. It is not that I am not extremely sensitive about the
opinion of different readers; but experience has taught me that, as soon
as I wanted to write with a preconceived viewpoint, to uphold a thesis, I
absolutely lost all true talent, and that I was not able to do anything of
value, if I did not limit myself to wanting to make clear what was most
real in my impressions and in my opinions.117
If Beaumont informed Tocqueville in a summary way about the works

that appeared on the United States, the author went forward alone and
scarcely consulted any books on America, with the exception perhaps of
the book by Chevalier.118
The writing moved ahead at a good pace. In November 1833, Tocqueville
thought he would finish the part devoted to the institutions of the United
States (what now constitutes the first part of the first volume of this edition)
before the first of January 1834, and at one moment had the idea of pub-
lishing the first volume before the second.119
This plan was abandoned, and Tocqueville buckled down immediately
to writing the second part, which little by little increased to an extent be-
yond what the author had foreseen. In addition, the part devoted to the
American political institutions was reviewed and corrected several more
times and, before being completed, required the aid of several collaborators.
Even as he worked relentlessly on his book, Tocqueville helped Beau-
mont with the writing of his.120 Their collaboration continued throughout
117. Tocqueville to Duvergier de Hauranne, 1 September 1856, OCB, VI, pp. 332–33.
118. It is possible that he knew about several letters by Chevalier published in the Revue
des deux mondes. See volume II, p. 898 of this edition and OC, VIII, 1, pp. 176, 202–3.
Moreover, Tocqueville read Basil Hall’s book during the crossing. He does not seem to
have consulted Society in America by Harriet Martineau.
119. Remember that the Democracy of 1835 was published in two volumes.
120. The collaboration of Tocqueville on Beaumont’s novel probably dated from the
first moments of its development. In the manuscript of Marie, concerning the plan of
the novel, this note is found in Tocqueville’s handwriting:
Plan./
It involves portraying a man such as he often becomes after great revolutions,
whose desires are always beyond his capacities (but there must not be any ridicule,
that is to say, that the one you want to portray really has a great soul, a remarkable
lxxxvi editor’s introduction
the whole following year, in Paris and in Sarthe. The influence of Tocque-
ville on the writing of Marie is difficult to measure. Beaumont’s manu-
scripts bear the trace of conversations and of comments by Tocqueville,
but the small number of available manuscripts does not allow us to assess
the true extent of his influence.121 Beaumont consulted his friend about
certain passages of his book and even at the last moment asked for his opin-
ion about certain fragments that were too reminiscent of Chateaubriand.122
spirit, but he aims higher than the humanity of his time); a man who, never content
with his lot, has an exaggerated picture of human happiness in this world, and who,
reaching the point of seeing his errors and discerning what dose of happiness life can
really present, has become incapable of obtaining it and has become unsuited to
society. He then looks hard and calmly at himself; convinced that he would not be
able to attain the first goal of his desires, no longer capable of feeling the pleasure of
reaching another one, he withdraws into the wilderness without passions, without
despair, with the serenity of a strong soul that judges the greatness of its misfortunes
and submits.
Perhaps here you would need a rapid and oratorical recapitulation of the reality
of the things of this world and of the impossibility that he, who sees things as they
are, but who has found them better in his imagination, finds of submitting . . .
You must not have him attempt love in Europe. He reconnects with love in Amer-
ica as to a plank of salvation, and still he misses it . . . (YTC, CIX, and OC, VIII, 1,
p. 131).
121. In the margins of the manuscript of Marie, there are comments by Tocqueville,
written in pencil. The latter particularly pointed out unfortunate similarities to Atala:
“You cannot close your eyes to the fact that this has a great deal of similarity with Atala”
(vol. II, p. 136 of Marie ); “Here again you have to be careful about father Aubry. Perhaps
I am wrong. Think about it” (vol. II, p. 151 of Marie ); “Again, be careful here of Atala”
(vol. II, p. 156 of Marie ).
122. Thus this note from Beaumont meant for Tocqueville that is found in the manu-
script of the novel:
Note for Tocqueville.
There are two passages that are reminiscent of Chateaubriand despite all the efforts
that I have made to avoid it. They are at page 6 and 20. Here I am giving the passages
of Chateaubriand so that you can see if it is possible to leave mine:
“The reverie of a traveler is a kind of fullness of heart and blankness of mind that
allows you to enjoy your whole existence at peace. It is by thinking that we disturb
the felicity that God gives us; the soul is peaceful, the mind is restless. (See Voyages,
t. 6, p. 112.)
“I went from tree to tree, to the right and to the left indiscriminately, saying to
myself: here no road to follow, no cities, no narrow houses, no presidents, republics,
editor’s introduction lxxxvii
At the beginning of the year 1834, Tocqueville hired an American living

in Paris, Francis Lippitt,123 to help him in the compilation of the docu-
ments that he brought back from the United States. At the house of the
author’s parents, Faubourg St. Germain, Lippitt compiled books and bro-
chures, newspaper clippings and diverse documents.
Theodore Sedgwick, another American whom Tocqueville contacted
when he still needed information about the United States, but whom he
did not hire, seems to have played a more important role. His journal bears
the traces of several interviews with Tocqueville that would exercise a clear
influence on several points of Democracy.124
Once the writing of the principal part of the work was finished (only
the last chapter of the second part was missing), Tocqueville had a copy of
his manuscript made and circulated. In this way his brothers and his father,
Gustave de Beaumont, and Louis de Kergorlay read the quasi-totality of
the work. A few passages were read aloud at the evening gatherings of Ma-
dame Ancelot.125
kings.” (See Essai historique sur les Révolutions, t. 2, p. 417, YTC, CIX and OC, VIII,
1, p. 145.)
123. See note a of p. 84.
124. Sedgwick met Tocqueville in the offices of the American delegation to Paris and
pointed out several books that could be useful to him. His journal for the months of
November and December 1833, of January and February 1834, refers several times in
succession to Tocqueville (pp. 28, 29, 32, 79, 85, 98). See Sedgwick, Theodore III. Paris
journal, volume 3, November 1833–July 1834, pp. 80–81, 85. Sedgwick family papers,
Massachusetts Historical Society.
On 20 January 1834, for example, Sedgwick indicated that Tocqueville found that
“Russia and the United States [ . . . ] were the only powers which presented an avenir [a
future]. Both are aggrandizing—the others are stationary or diminishing” (pp. 80–81).
You find on p. 85 (Friday, 24 January 1834): “Either this day or the day before went
with Tocqueville over to the legation and show [sic ] him the books there which might
assist him.” On p. 98 (8 February 1834): “Tocqueville called about 11 for more infor-
mation about the États-Unis.” With the kind permission of the Massachusetts Historical
Society.
Tocqueville also counted on the collaboration of two other American residents in
Paris: Edward Livingston, head of the American representation in Paris, and Nathaniel
Niles, secretary of the delegation.
125. See OC, VIII, 1, p. 141, and Madame Ancelot, Un salon de Paris, de 1824 à 1864
(Paris: Dentu, 1866), p. 79. Did Guerry, a friend of Beaumont, read part of the manu-
lxxxviii editor’s introduction
When Édouard, on 15 June, wrote to his brother to share his observations

critiques, only the revision of the second part remained to be done in order
to complete the work. Tocqueville worked on the revision during the month
of July, striking out a great deal and in some places retaining only one out
of three pages of the initial draft. The same month, he contacted the pub-
lisher, Charles Gosselin, who committed to publishing the text in Novem-
ber. He planned a printing of five hundred copies.
On 14 August 1834, Tocqueville left Paris for the château de Gallerande,
in Sarthe, and there joined Beaumont. The two friends spent their days
hunting and making final corrections on their texts.
Once the work was finished, a title remained to be found.
In 1833 the book by Tocqueville and Beaumont had been announced
with the title American Institutions and Mores.126 Once Beaumont’s project
became differentiated from that of Tocqueville, the latter, in March 1834,
announced to Senior the publication of a book on “American institu-
tions.”127 Beaumont kept the term “American mores.” In July, at the time
of Tocqueville’s arrangements with his publisher, the treatise on American
institutions received the title “The Dominion of Democracy in the United
States”;128 in a perhaps later note announcing the publication and con-
tained in the drafts of the first part, we find “The Dominion of Democracy
in America,” while a first version of the same announcement mentioned
“The Dominion of Democracy in the United States.” In mid-October,
script? The jacket that contains the chapter on the point of departure and the one that
contains the chapter on the social state bear this comment: “The copy has been sent to
Guerry.”
126. Tocqueville gave a very similar title to Sparks. Letter of 30 August 1833, YTC,
CId.
127. Correspondence and Conversations of Alexis de Tocqueville with Nassau William
Senior (London: H.S. King and Co., 1872), I, p. 2. In his prologue to Marie (p. viii),
Beaumont echoes the original title of the joint work and declares: “M. de Tocqueville
described the institutions; I myself tried to sketch the mores.”
128. “G[osselin] asked me what the title of the work would be. I had only lightly
considered it, so that I was quite embarrassed. I answered, however, that my idea was to
title the book: The Dominion of Democracy in the United States. Since then I have thought
about it, and I find the title good. It expresses well the general idea of the book and puts
it in relief. What does my judge say about it?” OC, VIII, 1, p. 141.
editor’s introduction lxxxix
with the book in proofs, the publisher wrote to the author to ask him the
title of his book. That is when Tocqueville chose Democracy in America.129
In the Courier Français of 24 December 1834,130 Léon Faucher an-
nounced the publication of the work and reproduced a few passages from
Democracy in America. The text appeared with this title in January 1835.131
The Reception of Democracy

If it is true that the workers in the print shop had shown Tocqueville’s book
particular attention and interest, the dazzling success of the Democracy was
no less totally surprising to its author.
Tocqueville thought that the recent political tension with the United
States would not fail to increase interest in and curiosity about the American
continent and could therefore create a favorable situation for the success of
the Democracy. But readers seem to have been attracted immediately by
something far beyond the simple effect of timeliness. Moreover, if the in-
demnity affair—indemnities that the Americans had demanded from the
French since the Napoleonic period—could be profitable to Tocqueville in
France, such was not the case in America, where the publication of the
Democracy was delayed until 1838.132
The appearance of the Democracy was unanimously acclaimed. Cha-
teaubriand, Lamartine, Guizot, and Royer-Collard never tired in their
praise. Very few publications met its appearance with silence. The reviews
129. Letter of 18 October 1834, copied in CVh, 2, pp. 55–56: “We do not have the
title of your work, and I forgot yesterday to ask you about it. We cannot set the pages
without the title.”
130. Léon Faucher, “Democracy in the United States, by M. Alexis de Tocqueville
(unpublished),” Courier français, 358, 24 December 1834.
131. On the 23rd, 27th, or 31st of the month, depending on the sources.
132. This is the opinion of Jared Sparks in his letter of 6 June 1837 to Tocqueville
(YTC, CId). Sparks had contracted with a publisher in Boston for the preface and notes
of an American version of the Democracy. He would abandon the project when he
learned of the imminent appearance of another edition.
xc editor’s introduction
of Salvandy133 and Sainte-Beuve134 alone were enough to consecrate the

author.135
“Not one of the chapters of this book,” wrote Sainte-Beuve, “fails to
testify to one of the best and most assured minds, to one of those minds
most appropriate for political observation, a field in which we find so few
striking and solid strides since the incomparable figure of Montesquieu.”136
The name of the great légiste also appeared from the pen of Salvandy who,
in the Journal des débats,137 proposed for Democracy the subtitle “The Spirit
of American Laws.”138
Among the number of discordant voices, the following can be cited:
It is with a very particular predilection that this author offers for the ad-
miration of the peoples of Europe a republic in which are found three
colors, one color who are the masters, two other colors; a country of tri-
133. Narcise-Achille de Salvandy, “Democracy in America,” Journal des débats, 23

March and 2 May 1835.
134. Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve, “Alexis de Tocqueville. De la démocratie en
Amérique,” Le temps, 7 April 1835. The first one to be astonished by the good reception
of the work, Tocqueville wrote to Sainte-Beuve the next day:
Allow me, Sir, to place even more importance on something other than on the judg-
ment that you have made of the American democracy, that is seeing the relationship
that has been established between us continue and become more frequent. I cannot
keep from believing that there are many points in common between us and that a
sort of intellectual and moral intimacy would not take long to prevail between you
and me, if we had the occasion to know each other better (letter with the sole com-
ment “Wednesday morning” [8 April 1835], with the kind permission of the Institut
de France, Collection Spoelberch de Lovenjoul).
135. On the last day of March, Gosselin asserted to the author: “But it seems that you
have created a masterpiece” (Letter to Beaumont, 1 April 1835, OC, VIII, 1, p. 151). The
second edition was published in June, and the third at the end of the year. The fourth
and fifth date from 1836. The sixth was published the following year, and the seventh in
1839.
136. Le temps, 7 April 1835.
137. Journal des débats, 23 March 1835.
138. Le semeur noted: “Either we are very wrong, or M. de Tocqueville greatly studied
Montesquieu before studying America” (4, no. 9 [4 March 1835]: 65–68, p. 65).
The commentaries of the entire French press agreed on the point. Le national de 1834,
on 7 June 1835, described the text as “a work whose high level will be felt by all those
who meditate on the current state of society in Europe, and on the future that is in store
for it.”
editor’s introduction xci
colored humanity in which the red men who are the natural masters find
themselves being exterminated by the white men who are the usurpers; in
which the Black men are sold jumbled together with animals in the public
square. A touching example of equality, admirable evidence of indepen-
dence that it is currently stylish to take as the model in Europe, to see as
the standard for true perfectibility!139
American readers, for their part, downplayed certain critical observa-

tions of the author about American society,140 but would acknowledge the
impartiality of the work and particularly its clear superiority over the com-
mentaries of English travelers.
Foreign publications did not spare compliments. The English found in
Tocqueville an abundance of arguments against the American republic141
and recalled in reviews the precarious character of the experiment.142 The
London and Paris Courier of 14 January 1836 asserted on its part: “Much,
indeed, has been written by Englishmen respecting America, and a good
deal by visitants from the continent of Europe. But with the solitary ex-
ception of the Démocratie en Amérique, by M. de Tocqueville, nothing ab-
solutely has been written by a foreigner which approaches to an accurate
delineation of our political organization.”
When, in December, the Moniteur du commerce mentioned “this excel-
lent book that everyone has known and judged for a long time,” the remark
139. Gazette de France, 3 and 13 February 1835. The passage quoted is found in the
issue of 3 February.
140. For example, the review in American Quarterly Review, 19, March 1839, pp. 124–
66.
141. See Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, 37, no. 230 (1835): 758–66. The commen-
tary of the Atheneum is particularly critical: “rational, at times, even to dullness [ . . . ] a
dislike of its ambitious style—its reduction of everything to theory—and its over-
arrogant aim at uniting the sentenciousness of Montesquieu to the florid description of
the Comte de Ségur” (394, 16 May 1835, p. 375). In a letter of 6 June 1837 (YTC, CId),
Jared Sparks informed Tocqueville that the English reviews that mention the passages
against democracy in Tocqueville’s work had been reproduced in American publications,
and that, in his opinion, this fact might diminish the desire for a quick translation of
Democracy.
142. Among the English critiques, that of John Stuart Mill stands clearly apart.
Tocqueville wrote to him, “You are [ . . . ] the only one who has understood me entirely”
(Letter of 7 December 1835, OC, VI, 1, p. 302). Mill’s commentary had been published
in the London Review 30, no. 2 (1835): 85–129.
xcii editor’s introduction
did not seem exaggerated. Democracy was in fashion, and the Académie des
sciences morales et politiques ratified the public’s interest with the Mont-
yon prize, which bestowed on the author twelve thousand francs.
For its part, the publication of Marie, ou l’esclavage aux États-Unis143
brought a success in no way inferior to that of Democracy.144 Between 1835
and 1842, there would be five editions of the novel by Gustave de Beau-
mont. It would fall afterward, and very wrongly, into oblivion. Its reception
was generally warm, though measured, although the Quarterly Review did
not hesitate to declare it “the most interesting [book] that has ever yet been
published on the subject of American society and manners by a native of
the European continent.”145 Francisque de Corcelle wrote the review for
the Revue des deux mondes.146
The principal failing of the book was proclaimed immediately. Marie
had the peculiarity of being a novel and a social commentary at the same
time. As such, it did not succeed in satisfying either those who love theo-
retical works, who preferred the Democracy by far, or those who read novels.
The author of the review in the Journal des débats147 saw this correctly when
he wrote:
There are two books in [the] book. That is its failing perhaps. The large
public that wants to be amused is always afraid that it is being instructed.
The rare public that seeks instruction fears being interested and moved.
The readers of M. de Beaumont are indeed exposed to this double danger.
He teaches the most frivolous. He captures, carries away, touches the most
unsentimental and the coldest. The whole of American society is brought
to life in this work that is so true that I dare not call it a novel; that is so
143. Marie, ou l’esclavage aux États-Unis, tableau des mœurs américaines. Paris: Charles
Gosselin, 1835. 2 vols.
144. Beaumont’s novel appeared in Brussels in 1835. It was translated into Spanish in
1840 and republished in 1849, and translated into Portuguese in 1847. An abridged edition
was published in Germany in 1836. The second French edition dates from 1835, the third
from the following year, the fourth from 1840, and the fifth and last from 1842.
145. Quarterly Review 53, no. 106 (1835): 289.
146. Francisque de Corcelle, “De l’esclavage aux États-Unis,” Revue des deux mondes,
4th series, 6, 1836, pp. 227–46.
147. Journal des débats, 6 December 1835.
editor’s introduction xciii
clothed in the richest and most intense colors of the imagination that I
cannot call it a treatise.”
Shortly after the publication of Marie, Beaumont abandoned the plan

for a second part (announced in the notice).148 Two years later, when he
was writing Irlande, he seemed to care so little about his novel that he wrote
to Tocqueville: “My book is my great and only passion, even more than
yours is for you; I am not doing a second book, it is the first; and I am afraid
of missing the mark, although I am full of zeal.”149
England and the Second Democracy

Tocqueville had begun the writing of a book on America with the intention,
no matter how unhelpful it might be, of making himself known for the
purpose of a political career. His friend Blosseville had even used the op-
portunity of his review of the Democracy to assert, “Such books should
open the way to the parliamentary tribune.”150
But in March 1835, Tocqueville was not thinking so much about the
career of a politician as about profiting from the extraordinary reputation
that the appearance of his book had just given him. If the Democracy had
not yet opened the doors of the Chamber of Deputies, it had earned him
the friendship of a few prominent individuals who were going to play an
important role in the writing of the second part of his book. They were
Jean-Jacques Ampère, Royer-Collard, with whom Tocqueville was going
to begin a profound and determinant intellectual relationship, and Corcelle.
Beaumont, Kergorlay, and Édouard de Tocqueville would form the prin-
cipal trio of critics of the manuscript of the second part of the Democracy.
The text would as well, here and there, bear the imprint of Ampère and
Corcelle.
At the beginning of the year 1835, Tocqueville worked on the writing of
148. Marie, I, p. iii.

149. Letter from Beaumont to Tocqueville (15 July 1837?), OC, VIII, 1, p. 209.
150. L’écho français, 11 February 1835.
xciv editor’s introduction
a report on pauperism151 and planned a new journey to England. When

Tocqueville and Beaumont were at the point of making important personal
and professional decisions, the two friends crossed the Channel.152
What changes had taken place during the last two years? Was the English
aristocracy capable of resisting the advance of democracy? Such were the
questions that Tocqueville and Beaumont asked themselves. Their first ob-
servations concerned a strong tendency toward centralization. The point
was important, and Tocqueville recognized the necessity of speaking about
it in the second part of Democracy.153 John Stuart Mill, Lord Minto, and
Henry Reeve confirmed his impressions on this subject,154 but it was Nassau
W. Senior above all who, on the occasion of two long conversations, gave
him the most detailed arguments on centralization.
Senior tells me: The Bill for Reform of the Poor Laws is not only a bill of
social economy, but is above all a political bill. Not only does it cure the
plague of pauperism that torments England, but also it gives to the aris-
tocracy the most fatal blow that it could receive. [ . . . ] The law has cen-
tralized the administration of the poor law; and armed with this principle,
the government, to enforce the law, has appointed a certain number of
commissioners or central agents who have full power in this matter in all
the parishes of England. These commissioners traveled through the ter-
ritory and, in order to kill the local influences that had to be centralized,
151. “Mémoire sur le paupérisme,” Mémoires de la Société académique de Cherbourg,

1835, pp. 293–94. It is impossible to indicate the precise reason for the writing of this
work, which was inspired by the work of Villeneuve-Bargemont, Économie politiquechré-
tienne, and which will be mentioned again elsewhere. Tocqueville had promised a second
part that he never wrote.
152. The notes and drafts of L’Irlande allow us to follow in a precise way the journey
of Beaumont and Tocqueville to England and Ireland in 1835. Tocqueville and Beau-
mont left Paris on 21 April, reached Calais on the 22nd and were in London on the 24th,
where they lodged at the Ship-Hotel. The next day they went to the opera to see Anna
Bolena. They began their visits in the English capital, continuing until 24 June. From 7
July to 9 August, they visited Ireland. On the latter date, Beaumont left to visit Scotland
and Tocqueville went to Southampton. On the 18th he crossed the Channel. On 23
August he was again in Cherbourg.
153. Voyages en Angleterre, Irlande, Suisse et Algérie, OC, V, 2, p. 49. There is also a
long, unpublished conversation with Sharp (YTC, CXIb.1). Beaumont’s notes contain
other unpublished conversations.
154. Ibid., pp. 49, 52–54.
editor’s introduction xcv
united ten or fifteen or twenty parishes into a single administrative cir-

cumscription, that they called a union. [ . . . ] These unions have already
been established in this way in two thirds of England, and before long
they will be established everywhere. [ . . . ] The Bill transfers, as you see,
the administration of the poor law from the aristocracy to the middle
classes. And then, there you are, central administrations organized over
the whole kingdom, central administrations composed of citizens, set into
motion, not by the local aristocracy, but indeed by the central power—
and this is serious not only for granting to the central power and to the
municipal administration called a union the power to govern England,
but above all for organizing in the country an administrative power
whose center is the government and for which the justices of the peace,
prin[cipal] and essential elements of the aristocracy, are not the agents.
[ . . . ] I note that the result of this is, above all, that the aristocracy is
stripped to the profit of the central power; for the guardians of the poor, as
they are constituted, are agents chosen it is true by the middle class, but
essentially subordinate even in this choice and in their action to the will
of the commissioners of the government.155
155. YTC, CX.

Tocqueville explained the success of the democratic principle in England in this way:
General idea.
Tocqueville said yesterday [the note is in Beaumont’s hand]:
Two elements in English society.
The Saxon principle
and the Norman principle.
The Saxon principle—democratic.
Everything that is democratic in English society dates from this time. The orga-
nization of the parish and the county—the hundreds—the representation of com-
munal interests . . . The Normans came, which threw a layer of absolute power over
this democratic base.
Combination of these two elements in English society.
For a long time, the Norman fact prevailed, without destroying the Saxon prin-
ciple, which just hid and submitted.
Today the awakening of this principle which predominates over the Norman fact
and which particularly showed itself to be superior to its adversary the day the Reform
Bill passed in Parliament (YTC, CX).
xcvi editor’s introduction
But the centralizing movement and the rise to power of the middle
classes did not, for all that, imply revolution and the destruction of the
aristocracy. As Tocqueville had already observed during his journey of 1833,
England was very far from a revolution. At the time of this new journey,
Mill confirmed his judgment:
Revolution./
[In the margin: Why no chances of violent revolution.]
I doubt that a quick and violent revolution is happening among us. All
classes are very steady and know too well how to defend themselves. They
are also enlightened, used to fighting and to yielding when necessary.
Moreover, there is an obstacle here to general innovations and to the im-
pulses of reform. Reform never strikes a great number of matters at once.
Since everything in this country is in bits and pieces, you can only change
one thing at a time, and with each change, you only attack a small number
of interests. For the same reason, you excite only a small number of pas-
sions. It is rare to proceed by the path of general reform because there are
few things to which you can apply the same principle in England. ( J. S.
Mill).156
From the time of his first journey to England, Tocqueville had shared
this sentiment: in that country, the poor man aspires to occupy the place
of the rich and can sometimes succeed. “The French spirit is to want no
superior. The English spirit is to want inferiors.” 157
156. YTC, CX. Cf. OC, V, 2, p. 47.

157. Voyage en Angleterre, OC, V, 2, p. 47.
Mill explained the same idea in this way:
Aristocracy in the mores./
Aristocratic spirit./
Spirit of equality, aristocratic spirit.
[In the margin: The Whig who attacks the Lord honors him as a rich man.]
Here you often find allied two sentiments that at first view seem contradictory;
these are a very intense hostility toward the aristocracy and an infinite respect for the
aristocrats. The privileges of the Lords are attacked, but you cannot believe what
consideration there is for them as individuals, so that you see the most ardent dem-
ocrat rant with an extreme exaggeration against the abusive power of an oligarchic
minority and bow with humility before the Count or the Marquis of X, solely because
editor’s introduction xcvii
In Social and Political State of France, Tocqueville would note that the
difference between the French aristocracy and the English aristocracy con-
sists in the fact that only the English one is truly an aristocracy, that is to
say a tiny part of society, having “qualities” such as blood, intelligence,
money, culture, etc. In France, on the other hand, the sole quality of the
aristocracy is birth, which makes it impossible for anyone to attain it. In
the second part of Democracy, this idea would force Tocqueville to give full
attention to the process of administrative centralization, inasmuch as it is
the first and most powerful effect of the democratic revolution, and is ca-
pable of making its effects felt even on the English aristocracy.158
For Beaumont there was a totally different discovery. He who so vig-
orously defended the cause of the Indians and Blacks was struck by the
situation of the Irish. He noted regarding them:
Moral—History.
I do not believe that the murder of nations is more legitimate than that
of individuals.
I declare that in covering the history of peoples, when I see the victors
and the vanquished, I can very much admire the conqueror whose value
shines before my eyes; but all the sympathies of my heart are for the con-
quered country. As long as a subject people exists, as long as it has not
entirely disappeared under conquest, I make wishes for it, I nourish hopes,
I have faith in its instincts of nationality; and in my dreams I see it shaking
off the chains of servitude and cleansing itself of tyranny in the blood of
its tyrants. If one day I learn that this people has expired with glory, I
remain faithful to it, and I weep on its tomb. For to pardon a crime because
he is a Count or Marquis. Here we work hard to abolish privileges, but we respect those
who possess them; we find that they are clever, because they have reached the goal
that everyone targets. No one has the idea of blaming them for taking a place that is
due not to morality and justice, but to their privileged position. For in English society,
everything is privilege ( Jh. Mill, 19 May. London). (Beaumont’s note. YTC, CX).
158. During their journey, which took them to several large cities of England,
Tocqueville and Beaumont observed the terrible effects of industrialization, which they
could already have done in part during the journey to the United States. On this subject,
they knew about the book by J. B. Say and about the treatise by Villeneuve-Bargemont.
The famous description of Manchester is found in Voyage en Angleterre, OC, V, 2,
pp. 79–82.
xcviii editor’s introduction
it is successful is an odious and despicable action. It is a despicable action,

commonly done.
(30 January 1836).159
The two friends divided subjects. To Tocqueville, America; to Beau-

mont, England,160 and Beaumont intended to devote a book to the Irish
cause. In 1837, he went to England for a second time and visited Ireland in
order to complete his research on site. L’Irlande, sociale, politique et religieuse
would be published in 1839.161
The manuscript of Beaumont’s book contains criticisms in Tocqueville’s
hand. That of Tocqueville would be considered attentively by Beaumont
before its publication. Their collaboration continued to include innumer-
able exchanges of ideas.162
The press gave L’Irlande a reserved reception, but the book received the
approbation of English intellectuals. In October 1839, John Stuart Mill
wrote to Beaumont:
159. YTC, CX.

160. Tocqueville explained this point in a letter of 5 May 1835 to his father. André
Jardin, Alexis de Tocqueville, p. 229.
161. The second and third editions saw the light of day in 1839; the seventh and last,
in 1863. The English translation appeared in 1839. The English translator took care to
eliminate several passages critical of England; he summarized and altered a certain num-
ber of Beaumont’s arguments.
162. Beaumont noted this idea of Tocqueville:
Brittany. Ireland.
Remarkable parallel between the province of Brittany in France and Ireland.
—Same origin.—Celtic population.
—Similarity in mores and in social state.
—Small farms in the two countries. Small-scale farming.
—Absence of luxury and no idea of material well-being; no efforts to gain it.
Miserable hut in which the family pig grunts as a table companion.
—Eminently religious population, faithful—but not enlightened.
—Brittany is only separated by a river from Normandy where the taste for material
well-being is so developed. In France we have England and Ireland in Normandy and
Brittany.
—There is the similarity.
But differences—The Irishman is merry and fickle—The Breton melancholic and
stubborn.
(Shouted by Tocqueville)
22 December (YTC, CX).
editor’s introduction xcix
I hardly know how to express to you the degree of my estimation of your

book, in as measured terms as a sober man likes to use in expressing a
deliberate judgment—but this I may say, in the confidence of being rather
within than beside the mark—that the book not only displays a complete
and easy mastery over all the social elements and agencies at work in Ire-
land, over the whole great period of Irish history and Irish civilization;
but that it also manifests a degree of clear comprehension and accurate
knowledge of the far more complicated and obscure phenomena of En-
glish society, never before even approached by any foreigner whom I know
of, and by very, very few Englishmen.163
Like Marie, L’Irlande would be only a half-success. This second book

was also the last. At one time pushed by Tocqueville to become interested
in Austria, Beaumont would cease all important intellectual work following
the death of one of his sons.
The Second Democracy

On 26 October 1835, Tocqueville married Mary Mottley, thus formalizing
a relationship that was already several years old. Beaumont and Kergorlay
were witnesses.
In 1828 or 1829, at Versailles, Tocqueville had met this English woman
of bourgeois origin who lived with her aunt, Mrs. Belam.164 The corre-
spondence of Tocqueville and his wife has almost totally disappeared. The
documents that remain attest to a certain discomfort, in the family as well
as among a few friends, about a marriage judged disappointing.
On 15 November the couple went to Baugy, near Compiègne, close to
Édouard de Tocqueville. That is where Alexis began to work on the second
part of Democracy. His first plan was to divide the third volume into two
parts:
163. Letter of J. S. Mill to Beaumont, 18 October 1839, YTC, CIe.

164. Concerning Mary Mottley, few things are known. See Antoine Rédier, Comme
disait Monsieur de Tocqueville, pp. 122–28, and André Jardin, Alexis de Tocqueville, pp.
50–56.
c editor’s introduction
Two great divisions.

1. Influence of democracy on ideas.
2. Id. on sentiments.165
Then the outline became complicated:

Division to do perhaps.
Effects of democracy
1. On thought.
2. On the heart.
3. On habits.166
Little by little, the work took on its definitive form:

Plan of the second volume.
Sociability, sympathy, mores becoming milder, susceptibility, p. [blank]
and dignity. All of that comes easily after individualism in order to dem-
onstrate the types of relationships that can exist in a democratic society
despite egoism.
The citizen, patriotism, the master and the servant, master and farmer,
master and worker. All of that again comes easily after the introduction
because it is principally individualism that modifies the relationships of
all those people with each other.
Father, son, wife, woman, good morals. The mind is prep[ared] by what
precedes to enter into families. Moreover, individualism again greatly
modifies the relationships of those people.
Tone, manners, conversation, monotony of life, gravity, vanity. The
chapters relating to the family have prepared the mind to descend easily
into the small details of the social existence of the Americans.
Honor, ambition, revolution, military spirit, conquests, armies, per-
haps a chapter that summarizes. These chapters, which perhaps I have not
placed in the relative order that they should have vis-à-vis each other, el-
evate the mind of the reader and end the book on a high level.
There are three chapters that remain, and I do not know where to place
them: Respect that is attached to all conditions, lack of susceptibilities,
sentiment of dignity.
165. YTC, CVa, p. 6.

166. YTC, CVa, p. 6.
editor’s introduction ci
I believe, however, that they come after sociability./

Where to place equality—slavery?167
Individualism, which opened the book, would finally be placed at the

beginning of the second part of the third volume. The idea of speaking
again about slavery remained only a plan, but the principal ideas of the
whole work were already present. The work of writing, with several inter-
ruptions,168 would take four years (from November 1835 to November
1839).
In January 1836, following a division of family properties due to the
death of his mother, Alexis received the château de Tocqueville and the title
of count that came with it, although he would always refuse to use the title.
He appeared hardly inclined in the beginning to spend much time in a cold
and damp château. Various renovations that his wife would have done
would be necessary before Tocqueville decided to live there for long periods.
Many pages of the second Democracy would see the light of day there,
sometimes under the critical eye of Corcelle, Beaumont, Kergorlay, or Am-
père, regular guests at the château.
A large part of the first section of the book seemed finished when, in
July, after the marriage of Gustave de Beaumont with Clémentine de La-
fayette, Tocqueville and his wife left for Baden, in Switzerland. In Novem-
ber they returned to Baugy.169 There, Tocqueville worked daily from 6:00
to 10:00 o’clock in the morning. The writing went well. Only one thing
167. YTC, CVa, pp. 28–30.

168. During their journey to England, Mill had begged the French visitors to con-
tribute to the London and Westminster Review by writing articles on France and the
United States. In 1836, Tocqueville sent Mill a first and only article on the social and
political state of France before and after the Revolution, which was meant to be an in-
troduction to a series of publications on France. “Political and Social Condition of
France,” London and Westminster Review, 25, 1836, pp. 137–69 (reproduced in OC, II, 1,
pp. 33–66). The similarity between the first paragraphs of the article and the chapter on
the philosophical method of the Americans is clear and enlightening.
169. The long stays of Tocqueville at Baugy make it difficult to measure the influence
exercised by Édouard.
cii editor’s introduction
was missing for the author: “a good instrument of conversation, I needed

you [Beaumont] or Louis.”170
During the following months, Tocqueville took careful note of all the
information, of every conversation that could be useful for his work. He
interviewed Thiers on the problem of centralization, Kergorlay on the
army, Charles Stoffels on literature. He also met an American named Rob-
inson and a number of other people.171
From mid-July to mid-August the Corcelles stayed at Tocqueville. At
the end of July, the Beaumonts joined the small set. In the intellectual circle
thus constituted by Tocqueville only one member was missing, Louis de
Kergorlay, whom he did not hesitate to call his master.172
In January 1838, at Baugy, Tocqueville reviewed the chapter on honor.
March and April were devoted to the question of centralization, to the army
and to the preparation of the fourth and last part of the book. On 15 May,
170. Letter of 22 November 1836 to Beaumont, OC, VIII, 1, p. 174. The same month,
Tocqueville wrote to Kergorlay in very similar terms: “I feel the importance of this sec-
ond work, which will find criticism wide-awake and will not be able to take the public
by surprise. So I want to do my best. There is not a day so to speak that I do not feel
your absence. [ . . . ] There are three men with whom I live a bit every day, Pascal, Mon-
tesquieu and Rousseau. I miss a fourth who is you.” Letter of 10 November 1836, OC,
XIII, 1, p. 418.
171. He found the time to think about the continuation of his work on pauperism
and asked Beaumont to bring him all available information about the savings banks and
the English pawnshops. There is a list of questions from Tocqueville for Beaumont in
YTC, CXIb.13. Cf. OC, VIII, 1, pp. 185, 191, 193, 196, and 200. He did not find the time
to choose some unpublished excerpts from Democracy for the London and Westminster
Review as Mill had requested (OC, VIII, 1, p. 187).
Tocqueville also dedicated his efforts to two bids, one to enter the Chamber of Dep-
uties in November and a second to get himself elected to the Académie française. These
two attempts failed. Entry to the Académie des sciences morales et politiques was seen
by Tocqueville only as a consolation prize that would make his entry to the Académie
française more difficult. He would enter there on 24 December 1841. He published, in
addition, two letters on Algeria, on 23 June and 22 August 1837, in La presse de Seine-et-
Oise.
172. “For, after all, and without giving a useless compliment, I believe you are my
master.” Letter to Kergorlay, 4 September 1837, OC, XIII, 1, p. 472. Cf. Kergorlay’s an-
swer, 30 September, ibid., p. 477. Alexis was then working on the chapters on good
morals. In September, he laid down the foundations of the chapter on American
manners.
editor’s introduction ciii
Corcelle and Ampère were present for a reading of the chapter on revo-
lutions. In July, August, and September, the last chapters took their defin-
itive form. The last two chapters on centralization and the idea of equality
grew in length and purpose. The only thing remaining was to revise the
chapter on the philosophical method of the Americans and the one on
general ideas.
On 19 October 1838, Tocqueville would write to Beaumont: “I have just
written, my dear friend, the last word of the last chapter of my book.”173
The revision of the whole book would occupy all of the following year.
Kergorlay, who spent most of the autumn at Tocqueville [the village], came
to help the author who worked to revise the first part of his book. Unsat-
isfied, Tocqueville had burned it.
In January 1839, Tocqueville read part of his manuscript to Chateau-
briand, but confessed to Beaumont that he did not think he would be able
to advance much in the revision of the whole book before the month of
March. The work stretched until mid-November, the date when Tocque-
ville returned to Paris with a copy of his manuscript in order to have it read
and approved a final time by Beaumont and Kergorlay.
Tocqueville had spoken to his correspondents about a book on “Amer-
ican manners.” The title that tempted Tocqueville was: “The Influence of
Equality on the Ideas and the Sentiments of Men.” The book appeared in
April 1840, however, with the same title as that of 1835.
The reception of the second part was not as unanimously laudatory as
what had accompanied the appearance of the first volume. More theoretical
and less descriptive, the second Democracy found a public little prepared
for the reading of a philosophical work of such length and ambition. The
criticism that appeared in this regard in The Examiner reflected the tone.174
Hunt’s Merchant Magazine noted: “In our deliberate judgment, it is the
most original, comprehensive, and profound treatise that has ever appeared
regarding our republic.”175 The prestigious Blackwood’s Edinburgh Maga-
173. OC, VIII, 1, p. 321.

174. The Examiner, 17 May 1840.
175. Hunt’s Merchant Magazine, 3 July 1840, p. 443.
civ editor’s introduction
zine, acknowledging that the second part did not merit the unconditional
approval given to the first, added: “It is a superstructure of theorizing with-
out any base to support it.”176
If favorable reviews were many—and in particular the one of John Stu-
art Mill must be pointed out177—the same judgment was found just about
everywhere in the English press: “too great a disposition to theorize,”178 or
again: “Perhaps this method of generalizing facts is occasionally pushed too
far.”179 The verdict seemed definitive. Tocqueville’s contemporariesseemed
little inclined to accept this philosophy of democracy that the author was
offering to their understanding. The appearance of the first volume of the
Democracy had elicited nearly seventy commentaries; that of the second
brought forth scarcely half that number.
In the months immediately following the publication, Tocqueville
wrote little and so to speak made no allusion to his book. Elected deputy
on 2 March 1839, he intended to concern himself more with his new
duties.
“Nothing has been and remains more contrary to my tastes than to ac-
cept the condition of author in this world,” he wrote to Royer-Collard in
1839, explaining:
That is entirely contrary to my way of seeing what is desirable in this life.
So my firm wish, after finishing this book and whatever its fate, is to work
for myself and to write no longer for the public, unless a very important
and very natural occasion presented itself, which is not probable. I am
pushed to this determination not only by the desire to set myself apart
from authors strictly speaking, but also by a certain pride that persuades
me that I will find no subject as grand as the one that I have just treated
and that, consequently, I would be demeaning myself by taking up the
pen again.180
176. Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine 48, no. 298 (1840): 463–78, p. 463.
177. Edinburgh Review 145 (1840): 1–25.
178. Dublin University Magazine 16, no. 95 (1840): 544–63, p. 563.
179. The New York Review 7, no. 13 (1840): p. 234.
180. Letter to Royer-Collard, 20 November 1838, OC, XI, p. 74. Cf. the letter to
Corcelle, 25 June 1838, OC, XV, 1, pp. 100–101.
editor’s introduction cv
The occasion would not present itself before 1852, when, forced to aban-
don all political activity following the coming to power of a person of
whom he highly disapproved, Tocqueville decided to take up the pen again
in order to remind the French of the events that had brought them liberty.
That was the beginning of work on L’Ancien régime et la révolution.
cvi editor’s introduction
II181
To Understand the Revolution
“Since, like Perrin Dandin, I am driven by the desire to judge without the
power to do so, I need to keep going.”182 Tocqueville’s identification with
the main character of the Plaideurs can probably be shared by an entire
generation of judges who, following the revolutions of 1789 and 1830, had
to devote themselves to finding a new equilibrium for society. As Ortega
remarked, the solution to the political question was above all an eminently
personal problem for Tocqueville and his contemporaries.183 Ultras and lib-
erals, 1789 and 1793, aristocracy and democracy, liberty and equality, mon-
archy and republic, these were so many opposites that required a choice to
be made.
In this context, where to place the author of Democracy? The question
continues to be asked.184 The intellectual conversation has refined his
thought and made his adjectives more nuanced; that does not prevent the
labels from remaining very close to those of 1835. Tocqueville is in turn
called a conservative, a liberal, a conservative liberal, a liberal conservative,
a Burkean conservative, a liberal despite himself, a liberal aristocrat, a strange
liberal—in short, the confusion about his work continues.
For it to be otherwise would be difficult. The Democracy, which sets forth
as well one of the most fascinating interpretations of the French Revolution
181. The interpretation I am offering here is necessarily limited.

182. Letter from Tocqueville to the Countess de Pisieux, 5 July 1833, YTC, CIf.
183. “Tocqueville y su tiempo,” in Meditación de Europa, Madrid. (Revista de Oc-
cidente, 1966), pp. 135–41.
184. There are dozens of books devoted to Tocqueville’s thought, but I limit myself
to pointing out those of Jean-Louis Benoı̂t, Tocqueville moraliste (Paris: Honoré Cham-
pion, 2004); Luis Dı́ez del Corral, El pensamiento polı́tico de Tocqueville (Madrid: Alianza
Editorial, 1989); Jean-Claude Lamberti, Tocqueville et les deux démocraties (Paris: PUF,
1983); Pierre Manent, Tocqueville et la nature de la démocratie (Paris: Julliard, 1982); Ni-
cola Matteucci, Alexis de Tocqueville (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1990); the brief introduction
to the abridged edition of Democracy by Dalmacio Negro (Madrid: Aguilar, 1971); and
Sheldon S. Wolin, Tocqueville Between Two Worlds (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2001).
editor’s introduction cvii
ever made, attempts indeed, by using the American “mirror,”185 to create

a political philosophy capable of explaining (and producing) revolution
and counter-revolution.186
“Placed in the middle of a rapid river,” writes Tocqueville, “we obsti-
nately fix our eyes on some debris that we still see on the bank, while the
torrent carries us away and pushes us backward toward the abyss.”187 Amid
this dangerous revolutionary turbulence, there is a pressing need to find a
path and a bedrock somewhere; and this is what forces the author to seek
an explanation for the Revolution from the very first pages of the Democ-
racy.188 If we must await L’Ancien régime et la révolution for Tocqueville to
give a fuller and more detailed interpretation of the great historical up-
heaval, it is no less true that the principal lines of his theory of revolution
are already present in the two Democracies.
Tocqueville’s point of view can be somewhat roughly summarized by
asserting that for him the French Revolution was neither a true revolution,
nor a French revolution.
The Revolution was not a true revolution because authentic revolutions
take place at the level of mentalities, ideas, beliefs, habits of the heart, of
185. “I did not want to do a portrait, but to present a mirror,” Tocqueville confessed
to Ampère. Jean-Jacques Ampère, “Alexis de Tocqueville,” Correspondant 47 (1859):
p. 322.
186. “The Revolution that reduced to dust the aristocratic society in which our fathers
lived is the great event of the time. It has changed everything, modified everything,
altered everything.” I, p. 690, note c.
Not by chance did Tocqueville choose as a matter of fact to publish the chapter on
revolutions separately, before the second volume. The chapter on revolutions undoubt-
edly constitutes the axis around which the whole book turns; cf. Alexis de Tocqueville,
“Des revolutions dans les sociétés nouvelles,” Revue des deux mondes, XXII, 1840, pp.
322–34.
187. I, p. 514, note o. Cf. I, p. 12, note r.
188. The unpublished texts of this edition tend to erase a certain number of differ-
ences between Democracy and L’Ancien régime et la révolution. Tocqueville is an author
who treats a very small number of subjects that he considers and studies many times in
each of his writings, while keeping them all interrelated, like the chapters of the same
book. So in a way we have something of a Democracy that extends from 1835 to 1859.
cviii editor’s introduction
all the things that, using once again the meaning of the word mores,189 he
designates by the term mœurs.190
Every historical change necessarily begins, according to Tocqueville, at
the level of ideas. In turn, the latter transform and are transformed by the
social and material conditions of a society. These, according to Tocqueville,
constitute the social state of a society.191
Political societies are not made by their laws, but are prepared in advance
by the sentiments, beliefs, ideas, the habits of the hearts and minds of the
men who are part of them, and by what nature and education have made
those men. If this truth does not emerge from all parts of my book, if it
does not in this sense constantly bring readers back to themselves, if it
does not point out to them at every moment, without ever blatantly dis-
playing the pretension of teaching them, the sentiments, ideas, mores that
alone can lead to prosperity and public liberty, the vices and errors that
on the contrary inevitably push prosperity and public liberty away, I will
189. The whole body of the ideas and the mores of a people form its character, and
on this point Tocqueville recalls Montesquieu:
⫽There is indeed in the bent of the ideas and tastes of a people a hidden force that
struggles with advantage against revolutions and time. This intellectual physiognomy
of nations, which is called their character, is found throughout all the centuries of
their history and amid the innumerable changes that take place in the social state,
beliefs and laws. A strange thing! What is least perceptible and most difficult to define
among a people is at the same time what you find most enduring among them. Ev-
erything changes among them except the character, which disappears only with na-
tions themselves⫽ (I, p. 344, note y).
190. “So by this word I understand the whole moral and intellectual state of a people”
(I, p. 466).
Montesquieu in fact remarks: “The customs of a people in slavery are part of its
servitude; those of a free people are part of its liberty.” De l’esprit des lois, book XIX, ch.
XXVII, Œuvres complètes (Paris: Pléiade, 1951), II, p. 382. For Tocqueville, the mores of
a people constitute nearly its entire liberty.
191. Tocqueville did not believe that he had resolved the question of knowing if ideas
are the result or the cause of the social state. “Is the social state the result of ideas or are
the ideas the result of the social state?” II, p. 748, note f. Ideas will act, alternately, as
effect and as cause.
editor’s introduction cix
not have attained the principal and, so to speak, the only goal that I had
in view.192
The social state in turn shapes the political state.193 (Today we would
speak about society and state.) This explains why, in France as in the United
States,194 the people are sovereign, for if the French do not live in a con-
dition of liberty strictly speaking, they have already learned to think of
themselves as equals.195 The material and intellectual conditions of a society
modify and are changed by ideas and sentiments; and once the social state
has been changed, the legal and political institutions adapt little by little.
192. Letter to Corcelle, 17 September 1853, OC, XV, 2, p. 81. This is so true that a
change in the law (the abolition of slavery, for example) is useless and even negative if
it is not accompanied by a change in the intellectual world (the idea that the Black man
is henceforth equal to the white man). In this sense Tocqueville can say that, if he had
the power, he would not immediately decide on the abolition of slavery. He was con-
vinced that, without a previous radical change in the mores, the situation of the free
Black would probably be worse than the situation of the slave.
193. This term reappears from time to time (II, p. 1262, note b).
With this supposition, Tocqueville places himself at the origin of the modern social
sciences. If his work attracts sociologists as well as historians, critics, and political sci-
entists, it is because in his work the classic elements of political philosophy are beginning
to separate and take form as sociology, history, or the political sciences. In the same way,
if Democracy, and especially the second part, has not sufficiently gained the attention of
researchers in the political sciences, it is undoubtedly because it requires the latter to go
beyond the position of historians of ideas in order to be political philosophers for a time.
194. In the United States, the dogma of the sovereignty of the people is not an isolated
doctrine that is attached neither to the habits nor to the ensemble of dominant ideas;
you can on the contrary envisage it as the last link in a chain of opinions that envelops
the entire Anglo-American world. Providence has given to each individual, whatever
he is, the degree of reason necessary for him to be able to direct himself in the things
that interest him exclusively. Such is the great maxim on which in the United States
civil and political society rests: the father of the family applies it to his children, the
master to his servants, the town to those it administers, the province to the town, the
state to the provinces, the Union to the states. Extended to the whole of the nation,
it becomes the dogma of the sovereignty of the people.
[⫽So the republican principle of the sovereignty of the people is not only a political
principle, but also a civil principle.⫽] (I, p. 633)
195. II, p. 1033, note 1. Did Tocqueville participate in Beaumont’s plan to present an
essay on the influence of laws on mores and of mores on laws for the Montyon com-
petition in 1830? See YTC, CXIb6.
cx editor’s introduction
“In the long run, political society cannot fail to become the expression and
the image of civil society.” Sovereignty of the people is born as public
opinion.196
That is why the true revolution took place largely before 1789, accelerated
by a change that was above all European in nature,197 that began with the
Reformation, continued with Bacon and Descartes, and then gave the En-
lightenment universal ideas, applicable in all periods and to all parts of the
world.
“[The Revolution] was just a violent and rapid process by the aid of
which the political state was adapted to the social state, facts to ideas, and
laws to mores,”198 Tocqueville will repeat in the Ancien Régime. It was noth-
ing more than the abrupt adaptation of the real to the ideal, or more pre-
cisely to an abstract philosophy formed from theories that had not been
refined, called into question, or confirmed by political practice.
The Old Regime wanted to ignore social changes and, by preventing the
slow adaptation of the political to the social, had created the conditions for
its own downfall. The revolutionaries, removed from the political practice
that would have led them to test and adapt their theories to the material
and social circumstances of France, tried for their part to make the legal
and political world conform to abstract and universal principles that were
far from the social state.
A difficulty unfailingly appears, however. If the Revolution indeed had
as its point of departure an intellectual movement that predated it, the vast
changes whose arrival it marked cannot be completed as long as differences
exist between the social and political ideas of the French and their legal and
196. “What is the sovereign rule of public [v: national] opinion to which all the En-
glish of the last [century (Ed.)] constantly declared that you must submit, if not a still
obscure notion of the democratic dogma of the sovereignty of the people?” II, p. 1033,
note e.
197. “The French Revolution, in my eyes, is a European event, and everything that
happened in the same period in Europe, principally in Germany, interests me nearly as
much as what [took (Ed.)] place among us” Letter to Charles Monnard, 5 October 1856.
With the kind permission of the Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire de Lausanne.
198. L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution, OC, II, 1, p. 66.
editor’s introduction cxi
social institutions.199 This raises the following question: can the Revolution
end? Are France and Europe condemned to an eternal cycle of revolutions
and counter-revolutions? How can you stop a revolution that is constantly
unfolding?
Tocqueville observed again in 1850:
Our country is calm and more prosperous than we could believe after such
violent crises. But confidence in the future is lacking and although sixty
years of Revolution have made this feeling of instability less prejudicial
to social progress and less painful to us than it would be to other peoples,
it has nonetheless very unfortunate results. This great nation is entirely in
the state of mind of a sailor at sea or a soldier in the field. It does as little
of the work of each day as possible, without worrying about tomorrow.
But such a state is precarious and dangerous. Moreover, it is not peculiar
to us. In all of continental Europe, except Russia, you see society in labor
and the old world finally falling into ruins. Trust that all the restorations
of old powers that are being made around us are only temporary happen-
ings that do not prevent the great drama from following its course. This
drama is the complete destruction of the old society and in its place the
creation of I do not know what human fabric whose form the mind cannot
yet clearly see.200
Such are the circumstances surrounding Tocqueville’s project of creating

a new political science that would succeed in explaining the past and the
199. Tocqueville noted that Napoleon, not wanting to give democratic political laws
to France, had agreed to a body of social laws much more democratic than American
laws and thus, very unwillingly, had accelerated the arrival of democracy. For the same
reason, the primacy of the social over the political, Tocqueville asserted: “I would believe
the future of liberty more assured with a government that would have many political
rights and few civil rights than with a government that would have few political rights
and many civil rights.” (II, p. 1230, note p).
200. Letter to Edward Everett, 15 February 1850, Massachusetts Historical Society.
The preface to the 1848 edition of Democracy (II, p. 1373) repeats the same idea.
“There is only a single [revolution], a revolution always the same across various for-
tunes and passions, that our fathers saw begin and that, in all probability, we will not
see end” Souvenirs, OC, XII, p. 30.
cxii editor’s introduction
future, the old regime and the new, or, to reuse his terminology, aristocracy
and democracy.201
“There is a country in the world,” we read in the introduction to the
first volume, “where the great social revolution that I am speaking about
seems more or less to have reached its natural limits; it came about there in
a simple and easy way, or rather it can be said that this country sees the
results of the democratic revolution that is taking place among us, without
having had the revolution itself.”202
Tocqueville intends to determine whether American society offers the
sole example in the world of an exceptional situation in which the ideal
easily shapes the real, in which the social state coincides with the political
state, in which the entire world is “a malleable material that man turns and
shapes as he wills.”203 On this strange continent, it seems that the dream
of the French and of the Europeans can be realized without the need for
a revolution,204 and that their abstract, rational, and theoretical principles
are real, concrete, and inductive there.
But, if the exceptional physical and intellectual conditions of America
alone explain the success of democracy, there is no hope that Europe could
ever know the democratic state without continual revolutions.
The first impressions of the United States, especially of the West, con-
firm the existence of an America that does not need revolution. The Amer-
ican frontier, the great wilderness that extends to the Pacific Ocean, offers
a space in which ideas transform reality without encountering obstacles and
201. Tocqueville’s two books thus answer the desire to elucidate first the new regime
and the Revolution (Democracy ), then L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution.
202. I, p. 27. The same idea appears, for example, at the beginning of the second
volume: “The Americans have a democratic social state and a democratic constitution,
but they have not had a democratic revolution. They arrived on the soil that they occupy
more or less as we see them. That is very important.” II, p. 708.
203. To Ernest de Chabrol, letter of 9 June 1831, YTC, BIa2.
204. “The Americans seemed only to have carried out what our writers had imagined;
they gave the substance of reality to what we were busy dreaming” L’Ancien Régime et
la Révolution, OC, II, 1, p. 199.
editor’s introduction cxiii
in a transparent way, so to speak.205 Tocqueville will perfect and complicate

his theory as his journey moves ahead, but the pioneer of Democracy es-
pecially announces the democratic man described at length in the second
volume of the work.
“Everything that is good and evil in American society is found in such
relief [in the West] that you would say it was one of those books published
in large type to teach children to read,” already notes the traveler in a letter
to his mother. “Everything there is jarring and exaggerated. Nothing has
yet taken its definitive place. [ . . . ] In the west no one has been able to make
himself known or has had the time to establish his credit. Consequently
democracy, without this final barrier, appears with all of its distinctive char-
acteristics, its fickleness, its envious passions, its instability and its restless
character.”206
The pioneer is, necessarily, occupied entirely by the search for a mini-
mum of commodities. Withdrawn from the rest of the world, isolated in
his cabin, his only concern is the yield of his field on which his family’s
subsistence depends. Each of his movements is dictated by the necessity of
the survival and the protection of his small world. His generosity toward
the stranger who appears at his door is nothing more than the fruit of cal-
culation; it comes from reason and not from the heart; it is an investment.207
Obsession with material well-being, individualism, and interest well un-
derstood define, apparently accidentally and temporarily, life on the fron-
tier, but they run the risk of becoming permanent conditions for the citizen
of every democratic country.
So if North America does not need revolution, it is because the process
of adaptation and struggle among philosophy, social state, and political
condition is non-existent. Ideas and reality coincide; reason appears covered
only by the clothing of the present. In order to be free and happy, it is
enough for the American to want to be so.208 No need for struggle or con-
frontation, no need for the complex interpenetration, necessarily slow, of
205. The first thing that the pioneer does is to clear his property, to chop down the
trees, to open up his view. The first symbol of civilization is the absence of trees.
206. Letter of 6 December 1831, YTC, BIa1, pp. 54–56, and OCB, VII, p. 90.
207. II, p. 1289.
208. I, p. 276.
cxiv editor’s introduction
ideas with habits and laws; nowhere are there ruins, the past, and signs of
the past. “The Union . . . profits from the experience of the old peoples
of Europe, without being obliged, like them, to make use of the past and
to adapt the past to the present; it is not forced, as they are, to accept an
immense heritage handed down by its fathers, a mixture of glory and mis-
ery, of national friendships and hatreds.”209
The United States has the privilege therefore of being able to enjoy the
results of European thought without being encumbered by the heavy bag-
gage of history. “In America,” notes Tocqueville, “society seems to live from
day to day, like an army in the field.”210
Tocqueville comments on the uncommon position of the New World,
which anchors it in an eternal present: “⫽For the American, the past is in
a way like the future: it does not exist. He sees nowhere the natural limit
that nature has put on the efforts of man; according to him what is not, is
what has not yet been tried.⫽”211
The pioneer is, in a way, the last link in an historical chain that begins
in Europe and ends in the American wilderness, where he inhabits a present
209. I, p. 369.
“For him [the American] the possible has hardly any limit. To change is to improve;
he has constantly before his eyes the image of indefinite perfection that throws deep
within his heart an extraordinary restlessness and a great distaste for the present” (II,
p. 935, note b).
210. I, p. 331.
211. I, p. 643, note n.
The American inhabits a land of wonders, around him everything is constantly
stirring, and each movement seems to be an improvement. So the idea of the new is
intimately linked in his mind to the idea of the better. Nowhere does he see the limit
that nature might have put on the efforts of man; in his eyes what is not is what has
not yet been attempted (I, p. 643).
Tocqueville specifies about the frontier:
In whatever direction you looked, your eye searched in vain for the spire of a Gothic
church tower, the wooden cross that marks the road, or the moss-covered doorway of
the presbytery. These venerable remnants of ancient Christian civilization have not
been carried into the wilderness; nothing there yet awakens the idea of the past or of
the future. You do not even find places of rest consecrated to those who are no more.
Death has not had the time to reclaim its sphere or mark out its field (II, p. 1346).
editor’s introduction cxv
without limit.212 In the American West the principal characteristics of so-

ciety are also missing: “The new states of the West already have inhabitants;
society still does not exist,”213 writes Tocqueville. In the West, the only com-
mon ideas and the sole bond between the most immediate past and the
present are found in the weak intellectual network created by the mail and
newspapers.214
Is the destiny of democratic man to inhabit a world without social ex-
changes, an eternal cycle of death and emptiness, such as the American
forest or the ocean,215 a definitive present? You could think so. The pioneer
clears an opening in the forest, cuts down the trees and in his field leaves
the trunks that he does not take the trouble to uproot. He builds himself
a cabin and marks with a subtle trace of history the woods that surround
him. As soon as he disappears, nature takes back its domain. Then nothing
more remains of the passage of man except “a few remnants falling into
rot that in a bit of time will have ceased to exist.”216
Is this the price to pay in order to live in a world without revolution?
212. The Indians find themselves in a quite similar situation. Beaumont writes about
them: “Focused on the necessity of the present and fears of the future, the past and its
memories have lost all their power over them” (Marie, II, p. 297). Citing Clark and Cass,
Tocqueville repeats the same idea: “He [the Indian] easily forgets the past, and is not
interested in the future.” I, p. 527, note 7. The same thing can be said about the Black
race, which has left its history in another continent.
213. I, p. 86.
214. “The only historical monuments of the United States are newspapers. If an issue
happens to be missing, the chain of time is as if broken: present and past are no longer
joined.” I, p. 331.
215. A Fortnight in the Wilderness, II, p. 1339.
Also “rivers . . . are roads that respect no trails.” II, p. 1353.
216. Journey to Lake Oneida, Volume II, p. 1301.
Sometimes man moves so quickly that the wilderness reappears behind him. The
forest has only bent under his feet; the moment he passes, it rises up again. It is not
unusual, while traveling through the new states of the West, to encounter abandoned
dwellings in the middle of the woods; often you find the ruins of a cabin in the deepest
solitude, and you are amazed while crossing rough-hewn clearings that attest simul-
taneously to human power and inconstancy. Among these abandoned fields, over
these day-old ruins, the ancient forest does not delay growing new shoots; the animals
retake possession of their realm; nature comes happily to cover the vestiges of man
with green branches and flowers and hastens to make the ephemeral trace of man
disappear. (I, p. 461).
cxvi editor’s introduction
The question is posed in these terms. So the new political science that
Tocqueville imagines and develops in Democracy in America is going to have
as its first objective man’s return to society and to history.217
The Theoretician of History

It is undoubtedly difficult to find a period when the question of history
attracted more attention than in the first half of the nineteenth century.
Uncertainty about the future forces minds to look back: you had to try to
place the Revolution in history, to assimilate it as the past, to understand
it. In order to do this, liberals, like conservatives, court Clio. Politicians
make history and write it; poets and novelists who claim to be historians
capture imaginations and, at times, get involved in politics; all offer the
world an uncommon example of political practice and political theory.
While Burke and the conservatives explain that the French Revolution
was nothing more than an aberration that, far from history, broke its
rhythm, the liberals concentrate their efforts on demonstrating the inevi-
table character of history. At first view, Tocqueville places himself on this
side because he seems to follow the liberal theory of the inevitability of
history and particularly the historical interpretation of Guizot.
There is no qualifying term that has been more often associated with
Tocqueville, the historian-politician, than that of fatalist. Certain critics
have spoken about determinism218 or providentialism; others have sought
reasons of a pedagogic nature in his use of the idea of the inevitable move-
ment toward equality of conditions.219 How can Tocqueville, who hates all
forms of fatalism, who speaks of liberty as an almost holy thing, who asserts
217. Ampère said with a great deal of wisdom about Democracy: “In short, at the core
of the whole book stirs the question of time” (Correspondance avec Ampère, OC, XI,
p. xvi).
218. Jean-Claude Lamberti, La notion d’individualisme chez Tocqueville (Paris: PUF,
1970).
219. Marvin Zetterbaum, Tocqueville and the Problem of Democracy (Stanford: Stan-
ford University Press, 1967), p. 17. Cf. I, pp. 10–12, note q.
editor’s introduction cxvii
that the goal of his book is to reveal very clearly that “whatever the ten-
dencies of the social state, men can always modify them and ward off the
bad tendencies while appropriating the good,”220 how can this same
Tocqueville talk at the same time about an “irresistible movement” of de-
mocracy and make it a “providential fact”?
At once simple and complex, his answer consists of saying that inevi-
tability concerns only the arrival of social equality. With him, and with
a certain number of others, this fact receives the name democracy. In the
sense that, in the long run, social equality produces legal and political
equality, Tocqueville’s theory can be called deterministic, and the arrival
of democracy is inevitable. Once intellectual equality is proclaimed (each
man has the same faculties for attaining truth as another), the transfor-
mation of social and political conditions is no more than a question of
time; in terms of Tocqueville’s thought, it is inevitable and even desired
by God.
Once you eliminate all secondary causes, Tocqueville continues, all the
revolutions in the world have been and are made for the sole purpose of
increasing or decreasing equality, which is the foundation or the gener-
ating fact of the revolutionary motor. Revolutions have always consisted
and still consist of setting the rich against the poor and the poor against
the rich.
But this determinism, which is as much logical as historical, is in no way
incompatible with the passionate defense of liberty, because, for Tocque-
ville, the movement toward equality is independent of the development of
liberty. The latter is the true human element of historical change. In other
words, the inevitability of democracy, understood as the adaptation of the
political state to the social state, does not determine the historical evolution
of liberty: equality is as good an ally of despotism as of liberty.
So the presumption of attaining equality of social and political condi-
tions makes the classical typology of political regimes meaningless. Whether
it takes the form of public opinion or whether it presents itself as it is,
220. I, p. 694, note m.

cxviii editor’s introduction
sovereignty of the people makes possible only two types of regimes: the
republican (or liberal) regime or the despotic regime, liberty or despotism.
In the face of this alternative, it is man who chooses and not destiny that
imposes.
This understanding of history, as Marx remarked, puts Tocqueville
closer to Bossuet than to Guizot.221 Like the bishop of Meaux, Tocqueville
believes that all the facts of history obey a divine plan, the meaning of
which escapes us, but one that men can predict and whose general tenden-
cies they can discover.222
The action of man, says Tocqueville, always takes place within a narrow
circle. It has no meaning if it is situated outside this space. Even if man is
incapable of imagining what is going to follow, of reading the plans of
Providence, he can, within the domain reserved to him, recognize a law of
the evolution of history and of intelligence.
The final stage, that of equality, closes the cycle of history. At the be-
ginning of history, man, isolated and savage, is equal to his fellows in bar-
barism. He has no need of government.
There are few peoples who can do without government in this way. Such
a state of things has never been able to subsist except at the two extremes
of civilization. The savage man, who has only his physical needs to satisfy,
counts only on himself. For the civilized man to be able to do the same,
he must have reached the social state in which his enlightenment allows
him to see clearly what is useful for him, and in which his passions do not
prevent him from acting on it.”223
So the absence of government and equality are found only at the two
ends of civilization: “Savages are equal among themselves because they are
221. The Anglophile attitude of Guizot bothered Tocqueville, who was incapable of
accepting that the model of the English revolution was applicable to France. These dif-
ferences of opinion did not pass unnoticed. After the publication of the Democracy of
1840, Guizot wrote to his former student: “Why don’t we think alike? I do not find any
good reason.” Roland-Pierre Marcel, Essai politique sur Alexis de Tocqueville (Paris: Félix
Alcan, 1910, p. 319). Also see Aurelian Craiutu, Liberalism Under Siege (Lanham, Mary-
land: Lexington Books, 2003).
222. See Bossuet, Discours sur l’histoire universelle, part III, section II, entitled: “The
revolutions of empires have particular causes that princes must study.”
223. Voyage, pp. 89–90.
editor’s introduction cxix
all equally weak and ignorant. Very civilized men can all become equal be-
cause they all have at their disposal analogous means to attain comfort and
happiness.”224
For Tocqueville, as we see, history is neither the progressive, rational,
and necessary development of the idea of liberty, nor the advance, im-
possible to contain, of the middle classes, as Guizot thought. The author
of Democracy notes a form of liberty appropriate to each period and
each country.225 Liberty understood in this way is therefore as ancient,
as Madame de Staël calls it, as it is modern, as Benjamin Constant de-
scribes it. So post-revolutionary liberty is not and cannot be that of the
Old Regime.226 In the same way, a form of despotism corresponds to each
period.
The novelty of Tocqueville’s theory is to assert that in order to reach the
final stage of history, the point at which true equality and liberty coincide,
the aristocratic stage is absolutely necessary as an intermediate moment. If
“it is in losing their liberty that men acquired the means to reconquer it,”227
true liberty always requires passing by way of servitude.
This constitutes a first way to put face to face the Old Regime and de-
mocracy, to make aristocracy an inevitable moment of history, and then to
move beyond it. If, in the state of barbarism, men cannot become civilized
224. “Mémoire sur paupérisme,” republished in Commentaire, 30, 1985, p. 633.

225. “I would regard it as a great misfortune for humankind if liberty, in all places,
had to occur with the same features.” I, p. 513.
226. Guizot had, however, distinguished between two forms of liberty: 1. Liberty as
independence of the individual, who has only his own will as law. This is the barbaric
and anti-social liberty of the childhood of nations, natural liberty. 2. Liberty as inde-
pendence from any will that is different and contrary to reason. Moral liberty or liberty
by right. The survival of society demands the submission of all individuals to a common
rule that cannot exist if natural liberty subsists to its full extent. Journal des cours publics
de jurisprudence, histoire et belles-lettres (Paris: au bureau du journal, 1821–1822), I,
pp. 248–52, lecture 23.
227. “I ⫽{think that it is in losing their liberty that men acquired the means to re-
conquer it}⫽ that it is under an aristocracy or under a prince that men still half-savage
have gathered the various notions that later would allow them to live civilized, equal and
free.” II, p. 879, note f.
cxx editor’s introduction
as long as they are equal,228 it is aristocracy that, by creating a class free to

dedicate itself to the works of the mind, can invent the general and uni-
versal ideas that will lead to its own destruction and to the appearance of
democracy (understood as equality of conditions).
The first step toward equality was taken in the Middle Ages when peoples
began to travel, to enter into contact with each other, to imitate each other.
Each nation little by little lost confidence in its particular laws and in its
own organization; the idea of rules common to everyone occurred to men.
France placed itself at the head of these intellectual, moral, and political
changes, even if the impulse that gave them birth was more European than
specifically French.
If the course of history follows the change in mentalities which is, in
turn, the effect and the cause of the social state,229 and if the latter little by
little transforms the political state, that is to say, laws and institutions, then
it is not surprising that Tocqueville devotes the first pages of Democracy to
philosophy.
A Philosophy of Action
Perhaps the word philosophy is not totally accurate when applied to the
theory of Tocqueville, who said that he had a horror of philosophy and
who wrote: “Philosophy is in fact only the complete exercise of thought
separate from the practice of action.”230
Tocqueville’s very principle is to draw everything out of himself. He does
the work of a researcher and does not neglect brochures, reports, collections
of laws. But the list of works consulted in the writing of Democracy in
America does not include books of philosophy.231
228. “If nations had begun with democratic government, I doubt they would ever
have become civilized.” I, p. 332.
Even industry follows this general law of evolution. The manufacturing aristocracy
is the equivalent of the landed aristocracy. II, p. 980, note b.
229. Economic conditions are part of the social state, and Tocqueville judges them
to be of secondary interest.
230. II, p. 739, note c.
“For no one is less philosophical than I, who preaches to you.” OCB, VI, p. 370.
231. See Volume II, pp. 1377–95.
editor’s introduction cxxi
Tocqueville does not like philosophy. He calls it the “essence of all gib-
berish,”232 and a “voluntary torment that man consented [cf. note 242 be-
low] [ . . . ] to inflict on himself.”233
The matter is clear from the beginning of the work of writing the in-
troduction to Democracy. “The author of this work,” we read in a draft,
“wanted to write a book of politics and not of philosophy.”234
The imperatives of the history of France forbid Tocqueville, as politician
and as the author of Souvenirs, to forget the practical side of politicaltheory.
Thought separated from action is philosophy. For Tocqueville, reflection
joined to practice constitutes the nature of what he calls his “political sci-
ence.”235 This does not prevent him, however, from falling into the trap of
the celebrated aphorism of Pascal: “To mock philosophy is truly to
philosophize.”236
The philosophic aspect of Tocqueville’s thought appears in the form of
anti-positivism.237 “⫽In all human events,” he writes, “there is an immense
portion abandoned to chance or to secondary causes that escapes entirely
from forecasts and calculations.⫽”238
Tocqueville’s certitude about an impenetrable divine plan and his reli-
gious beliefs prevent him from falling into the sensual philosophy of the
period and into positivism.239 He accepts the existence of absolute ideas as
232. Draft of a letter to Le Peletier d’Aunay, 8 November 1831, YTC, BIa2.

233. To Charles Stoffels, 22 October 1831, YTC, BIa1, and OCB, VII, pp. 83–84. See
OCB, VI, p. 370.
234. YTC, CVk, 1, p. 73.
235. Tocqueville thinks that Thomas More would not have written Utopia if he had
been able to change the government of England. He also thinks that the Germans do
philosophy because they cannot generalize their ideas in politics (II, p. 727, note b).
236. Pensée 513 (Ed. Lafuma). Cited by Luis Dı́ez del Corral, El pensamiento politico
de Tocqueville, p. 42.
237. The predilection of Tocqueville for Plato is symptomatic: “I consider him a poor
politician, but the philosopher has always appeared to me superior to all others and his
aim, which consists of introducing morality as much as possible into politics, admirable.”
Correspondance avec Kergorlay, OC, XIII, 1, p. 41. Cf. Correspondance avec Beaumont,
OC, VIII, 1, p. 292.
238. I, p. 574, note b.
239. “There is nothing so difficult to appreciate as a fact.” I, p. 343.
“The world is a book entirely closed to man.” I, p. 383, note m. Also see I, p. 574.
cxxii editor’s introduction
well as their unknowable character.240 A first conclusion results: every sys-

tem, every man that claims to discover absolute truth is, for that reason
alone, in error; you can advance only hypotheses.
There is no man in the world who has ever found, and it is nearly certain
that none will ever be met who will find the central ending point for, I am
not saying all the beams of general truth, which are united only in God
alone, but even for all the beams of a particular truth. Men grasp fragments
of truth, but never truth itself. This admitted, the result would be that
every man who presents a complete and absolute system, by the sole fact
that his system is complete and absolute, is almost certainly in a state of
error or falsehood, and that every man who wants to impose such a system
on his fellows by force must ipso facto and without preliminary exami-
nation of his ideas be considered as a tyrant and an enemy of the human
species.241
If absolute truth existed, the constant, complex interconnections of the

elements of the motor of history would cease. The consequence of this
provisional nature of all intellectual study is doubt, which Tocqueville con-
siders characteristic of man, and in particular of philosophy.242
On this point, he summarizes his thought in this way for Charles
Stoffels:
240. “Of all beings, man is assuredly the one best known; and yet his prosperity or
miseries are the product of unknown laws of which only a few isolated and incomplete
fragments come into our view. Absolute truth is hidden and perhaps will always remain
hidden.” I, p. 263.
We again see the imprint of Pascal in this attitude of Tocqueville: “The final step of
reason is to recognize that an infinite number of things surpass it. It is weak only if it
does not go far enough to know that.” Ed. Lafuma, pensée 373.
241. “The great Newton himself resembles an imbecile more by the things that he
does not know than he differs from one by the things that he knows.” II, p. 715, note f.
242. “I consider this doubt as one of the greatest miseries of our nature; I place it
immediately after illnesses and death. But because I have that opinion of it, I do not
understand why so many men impose it on themselves without cause and uselessly. That
is why I have always considered metaphysics and all purely theoretical sciences, which
serve for nothing in the reality of life, as a voluntary torment that man consented to
inflict on himself.” Letter to Charles Stoffels, 22 October 1831, YTC, BIa1 and OCB, VII,
pp. 83–84.
editor’s introduction cxxiii
When I began to think, I believed that the world was full of demonstrated
truths; that it was only a matter of looking carefully in order to see them.
But when I applied myself to considering things, I no longer saw anything
except inextricable doubts. [ . . . ] I ended by convincing myself that the
search for absolute, demonstrable truth, like the search for perfect happi-
ness, was an effort toward the impossible. Not that there are no such truths
that merit the entire conviction of man; but be assured that they are very
few in number. For the immense majority of points that are important
for us to know, we have only probabilities, only approximations. To de-
spair about this is to despair about being a man; for that is one of the most
inflexible laws of our nature.243
The creator of an idea, Tocqueville also believes, is always more uncer-

tain of its truth than his disciples. He knows its defects; he knows the ele-
ments that can invalidate its existence. But very few men in democratic
times can devote their life to the search for great intellectual truths; and if
they do so, they are very much required nonetheless to use general ideas to
guide their conduct.244 It follows that the best way to avoid absolute and
excessively general ideas is to force each man to occupy himself with ideas,
with thinking, with feeling his way, and: “when, tired of looking for what
makes his fellows act, he [man] tries hard at least to untangle what pushes
himself, he still does not know what to believe. He travels across the en-
tire universe and he doubts. He finally comes back toward himself, and
obscurity seems to redouble as he approaches and wants to understand
himself.”245
As this conviction about the absence of absolute, demonstrable truths
becomes deeper with Tocqueville, it seems to impose its own logic on the
243. Ibid., pp. 82–83.

244. “So general ideas are only means by the aid of which men advance toward truth,
but without ever finding it. You can even say that, to a certain extent, by following this
path they are moving away from it.” II, p. 728, note c.
245. II, p. 840, note v.
“There is no being in the world that I know less than myself. For me, I am constantly
an insoluble problem. I have a very cold head, and a reasoning, even calculating mind;
and next to that are found ardent passions that sweep me along without persuading me,
mastering my will, while leaving my reason free.” Letter to Eugène Stoffels, 18 October
1831, OCB, V, p. 422.
cxxiv editor’s introduction
writing of Democracy: “You know that I do not take up the pen with the
settled intention of following a system and marching at random toward a
goal,” he observes; “I give myself over to the natural movement of my ideas,
allowing myself to be led in good faith from one consequence to another.
The result is that, as long as the work is not finished, I do not know exactly
where I am going and if I will ever arrive.”246 The rhythm of the book
becomes in fact more and more staccato; the brief chapters of the second
Democracy turn into [ricordi, Italian for “souvenirs”; reference to Machi-
avelli’s Ricordi. ] thoughts, almost as if the presentation of a theory without
solution required a brief and fragmentary form of writing.
So Tocqueville’s philosophic ideal is the man who is feeling his way, who
judges himself to be incomplete and makes doubt his natural state, while
the democratic ideal is the man who can change everything because he has
a blind faith in reason and in the philosophic method.
Regarding himself, the author will note for example:
I do not need to travel across heaven and earth to find a marvelous subject
full of contrast, of grandeur and infinite pettiness, of profound obscurities
and singular clarity, capable at the same time of giving birth to piety, ad-
miration, contempt, terror. I have only to consider myself. Man comes
out of nothing, passes through time, and goes to disappear forever into
the bosom of God. You see him only for a moment wandering at the edge
of the two abysses where he gets lost.247
Tocqueville does not, however, share the anti-rationalism of conservative

theories. What he fears in democracy is not reason, but anti-rationality.
Later he will blame the philosophes for the same thing: “Truly speaking,
some of these philosophes adored human reason less than their own reason.
Never did anyone show less confidence in common wisdom than those
men.”248
For Tocqueville, in contrast to Guizot, the rise of the middle classes is
not the arrival of political reason, but of rational individualism, which in
246. Letter to Mill, 19 November 1836, OC, VI, 1, p. 314.

247. II, p. 840.
248. L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution, OC, II, 1, p. 306. We could say that Tocqueville
fears that the men of democracies are being transformed into little philosophes.
editor’s introduction cxxv
the end equates with the absence of reason. The philosophes understood
nothing more than the voice of individual reason. As for democratic man,
he runs the danger of believing that he is following his own reason when
he is only blindly obeying the opinion of the majority.
The best way to avoid excesses in the matter of general ideas, the pre-
dominance of thought separated from action, is to force men to enter into
practice. That is the advantage of true democracy. It forces each citizen to
occupy himself in a practical way with government and moderates the ten-
dency to create the general ideas in politics that equality produces; it pro-
vokes uncertainty in this way.
Tocqueville fears in fact that history will pass from the total predomi-
nance of action, which is characteristic of barbaric peoples who know only
the practice of politics, to the triumph of theory separated from all forms
of practice.249
But criticism of philosophy is not just a matter of methodology; it does
not consist solely of blaming philosophy for a lack of connection with prac-
tice. In the drafts of Democracy there is a detailed reflection on the birth
of general ideas.
For Tocqueville, the attempt of democracies to seek general ideas in the
domain of politics arises out of an unwarranted application of the method
of Descartes and Bacon to matters for which those methods are not made;
249. And more especially, from a simplistic philosophy characteristic of an inter-

mediate period that wants to explain everything with a single principle and that is em-
bodied as much in the fatalism of the theories of democratic historians as in adminis-
trative centralization.
Simplicity of means in politics is a product of human weakness. Tocqueville wants
men to be able to combine a large number of means to reach an end. According to him,
beauty is not in simplicity of means, but in complexity, which is nothing more than
imitating God, who creates with a multiplicity of agents and places “the idea of grandeur
and perfection not in executing a great number of things with the help of a single means,
but in making a multitude of diverse means contribute to the perfect execution of a
single thing.” II, p. 740, note d.
“Centralization is not at all the sign of high civilization. It is found neither at the
beginning nor at the end of civilization, but in general in the middle.” II, p. 799, note
e. The idea of unity is appropriate to a middle state. The echo of Pascal and of multi-
plicity in unity is clear.
cxxvi editor’s introduction
the attempt arises out of an extension of the presumption of rationality,

foreseeability, and recurrence to matters that do not have these qualities.
That is especially dangerous in the case of equality. The lack of debate
about the principle of equality (which is the principle par excellence since
it comes down to the principle of identity) ends up by imposing a structure
in which reason and confrontation are lacking. Aggravated, the individual
mind kills reason and its relation to practice, and with it liberty and political
confrontation.
The exaltation of individual reason can break the bond between ideol-
ogy, social condition, and political organization, and lead to the immobility
of the social system and ultimately to the end of history. For this reason,
far into the second volume and once the foundations of his criticism of
democratic thought have been explained, Tocqueville can declare that what
he most fears in democracies is not revolutions, but apathy.250
When the tendency to create philosophical systems that are separated
from practice becomes general, there is also the danger that theory will not
find reality adaptable; it will become always more removed from action and
more utopian, and will end up by taking the place of political reality; and
men, tired of facing the difficulties of action, will take refuge in theory.251
In this case, political theory can little by little come to resemble a religion,
a doctrine applicable to all individuals and all nations, because it has con-
sidered man in an abstract way and has studied his general political rights
and duties in all periods and all countries.252 The dream of reason lives
250. II, p. 1150, note x.

251. This is an idea that has a very important place in the explanation of the impor-
tance of intellectuals during the Revolution, but that already appears in Democracy. See
II, p. 727, note b.
252. The French Revolution created a body of independent ideas that were easy to
transmit. Tocqueville observes that “it formed, above all particular nationalities, a com-
mon intellectual country in which the men of all nations could become citizens.”
L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution, OC, II, 1, p. 87. He also asserts that the Revolution was
a religious revolution because it developed a corpus of doctrines that, like a religion, can
be applied indiscriminately to all men and to all peoples, because it considered man in
the abstract, like all religions, and his general political rights and obligations. Ibid., pp.
88ff.
editor’s introduction cxxvii
outside of time, and when it coincides with the predominance of equality

over liberty, it ends up by enclosing man within the solitude of his own
heart:253 “So each person withdraws narrowly into himself and claims to
judge the world from there. . . . Since they [the Americans] see that they
manage without help to solve all the small difficulties that their practical
life presents, they easily conclude that everything in the world is explicable,
and that nothing goes beyond the limits of intelligence.”254
Democratic man is completely immersed in tasks of a practical type,
because democracy takes him away from theory and confines his activities
to the economic domain; he no longer believes in anything except his own
reason. This tendency, combined with the search for material well-being,
takes him away from political activity and predisposes him naturally to ac-
cept the opinion of the majority.
Tocqueville notes:
As citizens become more equal and more similar, the tendency of each
blindly to believe a certain man or a certain class decreases. The disposition
to believe the mass increases, and more and more it is opinion that leads
the world. . . . In times of equality, men, because of their similarity, have
no faith in each other, but this very similarity gives them an almost un-
limited confidence in the judgment of the public; for it does not seem
likely to them that, since all have similar enlightenment, truth is not found
on the side of the greatest number. When the man who lives in democratic
countries compares himself individually to all those who surround him,
he feels with pride that he is equal to each of them; but, when he comes
to envisage the ensemble of his fellows and to place himself alongside this
great body, he is immediately overwhelmed by his own insignificance and
weakness. This same equality that makes him independent of each one of
his fellow citizens in particular, delivers him isolated and defenseless to the
action of the greatest number.255
253. “Thus, not only does democracy make each man forget his ancestors, but it hides
his descendants from him and separates him from his contemporaries; it constantly leads
him back toward himself alone and threatens finally to enclose him entirely within the
solitude of his own heart.” II, p. 884.
254. II, p. 701.
255. II, p. 718.
cxxviii editor’s introduction
America, Tocqueville also says, has escaped these problems for the most
part, thanks to exceptional circumstances, the intellectual influence of En-
gland, and the strength of religion.
The unusual physical conditions of the Americans, which place them in
a universe that is malleable and can be transformed at will, often allow them
to avoid the intellectual tensions of European societies. An American who
is not satisfied with his position can always leave his home and go to the
West where he can easily create a new life for himself. That is how an idea
easily transforms reality, and why the forces that resist that transformation
are weak.
The intellectual influence of England serves to assure the general de-
velopment of thought. Tocqueville observes that, strictly speaking, the
Americans do not have a literature and an intellectual class, but he does not
see that condition as necessarily peculiar to democracy. How can a democ-
racy be intellectual if the example of the United States proves the opposite?
Because the Americans find their ideas and their books in Europe, just like
their philosophy and their religion. They put all of that into practice in the
New World. The American intellectual class is found therefore on the other
side of the Atlantic. The Americans are only the part of the English popu-
lation that works on the conquest of America:256 “I consider the people of
the United States as the portion of the English people charged with ex-
ploiting the forests of the New World, while the rest of the nation, provided
with more leisure and less preoccupied by the material cares of life, is able
to devote itself to thought and to develop the human mind in all aspects.”257
Thus, the United States forms the non-intellectual part of a European
people and constitutes a society composed solely of representatives of the
middle class. Aristocracy remains on the European shore. In this way
Tocqueville connects theory and practice, while avoiding having the Amer-
256. American society depends therefore on the intellectual situation of England. It

follows that during its formative years, democracy in the United States does not have
the following ingredient necessary for social change: the production of new ideas.
257. II, p. 768. And more particularly of the middle class: “⫽America forms like one
part of the middle classes of England⫽” II, p. 767, note f. Also see II, p. 805, note j.
editor’s introduction cxxix
icans serve as an example of the pernicious effects of democracy that his

book announces.258 The United States certainly does not innovate in phi-
losophy, in literature, or in the aesthetic domain, but this situation is not
due to the fact that the Americans belong to a democratic society, writes
Tocqueville; the reason is that they devote themselves exclusively to busi-
ness,259 or again, that they are showing only the interests and faults of the
middle class.
Tocqueville believes, however, in the existence of man’s natural taste for
things of the mind: “The mind of man left to itself leans from one side
toward the limited, the material and the commercial, the useful, from the
other it tends without effort toward the infinite, the non-material, the great
and the beautiful.”260
Within the American framework, it is not impossible that an educated
and free class will come about, a class that, having the necessary time and
money, will be able to devote itself to intellectual work, to encourage and
promote literature and the arts.261
Religion, the last element peculiar to the American democratic situation,
prevents the Americans from falling into the error of trying to apply the
principles of rationalist philosophy to matters that are not suited to such
principles.262 For Tocqueville, philosophy is liberty, all that the individual
discovers thanks to his own efforts; religion, which covers all that is accepted
without discussion, is servitude.263 Excess of the first leads straight to in-
tellectual individualism and to a state of permanent agitation that opens
onto anarchy. Religion, which becomes more and more necessary as phi-
losophy develops, can, by its excessive character, lead to intellectual dog-
matism and immobility.
258. Thus, in the case of America, the tension between aristocracy and democracy at
the level of general principles also occurs, a mechanism that we will return to. Tocqueville
needed England to explain how the American model combines democratic and aristo-
cratic principles.
259. II, pp. 786–87, note p.
260. II, p. 769, note g. We see that here, too, Pascal is not far away.
261. II, p. 772.
262. In the intellectual world, the rivalry between religion and philosophy (authority/
liberty) is a variant of the opposition aristocracy/democracy. See II, p. 711, note b.
263. II, p. 724, note s.
cxxx editor’s introduction
But even if that seems paradoxical at first glance, religion, precisely for
this reason, is the necessary condition for man to be able to devote himself
to practical works.264
“For me,” declares Tocqueville, “I doubt that man can ever bear com-
plete religious independence and full political liberty at the same time; and
I am led to think that, if he does not have faith, he must serve, and, if he
is free, he must believe.”265 So if religious beliefs place man in relative ser-
vitude, they enclose him in the circle within which he is able to exercise his
reason; and, by limiting the action of his mind to the practical circle within
which it must function, they force him into action and free his intelligence
by reducing his dependence on the general ideas of the majority:266
A religion is a power whose movements are regulated in advance and that
moves within a known sphere, and many people believe that within this
sphere its effects are beneficial, and that a dogmatic religion better manages
to obtain the desirable effects of a religion than one that is rational. The
majority is a [illegible word] power that moves in a way haphazardly and
can spread successively to everything. Religion is law, the omnipotence of
the majority is arbitrariness.267
264. “Man needs to believe dogmatically a host of things, were it only to have the
time to discuss a few others of them. This authority is principally called religion in aris-
tocratic centuries. It will perhaps be named majority in democratic centuries, or rather
common opinion.” II, p. 720, note p.
265. II, p. 745.
266. “During centuries of fervor, men sometimes happen to abandon their religion,
but they escape its yoke only to submit to the yoke of another religion. Faith changes
objects; it does not die.” I, p. 485. Tocqueville fears in this sense that the opinion of the
majority will someday become a cult.
267. II, p. 721, note r.
Religion is an authority (illegible word) to humanity, but manifested by one man
or one class of men to all the others, who submit to it. Common opinion is an au-
thority that is not prior to humanity and that is exercised by the generality of men
on the individual.
The source of these two authorities is different, but their effects come together.
Common opinion, like religion, gives ready made beliefs and relieves man from the
unbearable and impossible obligation to decide everything each day by himself. These
editor’s introduction cxxxi
In the context of these ideas, Tocqueville asks himself whether Cathol-

icism is the religion that suits democratic times. He is convinced that Ca-
tholicism can be proved by the philosophical method of the eighteenth
century.268 But he needs to assure the reader that the multiplication of re-
ligions is not going to lessen the importance of religious ideas and of their
relation to liberty. Otherwise, it would be impossible for religion to fulfill
the limiting role that Tocqueville gives it. That approach produces a dif-
ficulty however: religion is accepted rationally, as philosophy, and not as
religion; it is not the result of an act of faith. Only the idea, rather unjus-
tified, that solely “minds of the second rank” will apply to religion the prin-
ciples of the philosophy of Descartes (and this will above all be the case of
Protestantism269), seems to save Tocqueville from a clear misconception in
his explanations.270
The intellectual anarchy that you could think is the necessary result of
the daily use of the Cartesian method is, on the contrary, more character-
istic of periods of revolution than of those in which democracy reigns.271
Reason, by definition majoritarian, in the end produces characters and
opinions that coincide in a certain way.
beliefs were originally discussed, but they are no longer discussed and they penetrate
minds by a kind of pressure of all on each (II, p. 720, note p).
268. All the American sects have a core of common ideas. I, pp. 472–73.
269. “I have always believed, you know, that constitutional monarchies would arrive
at the republic; and I am persuaded as well that Protestantism will necessarily end up at
natural religion.” Letter to Ernest de Chabrol, 26 October 1831, YTC, BIa2.
270. Tocqueville speaks of a convention that checks the spirit of innovation at the
doors of religion. This idea is the result of a personal reflection, but at the beginning of
the second Democracy he notes: “if you look very closely, you will see that religion itself
reigns there much less as revealed doctrine than as common opinion.” II, p. 720. There-
fore the foundations of religion are not religious, but philosophic, in the sense that the
author gives to that word.
“The moral dominion of the majority is perhaps called to replace religions to a certain
point or to perpetuate certain ones of them, if it protects them. But then religion would
live more like common opinion than like religion. Its strength would be more borrowed
than its own.” Ibid., note p.
271. II, p. 708, note t.
cxxxii editor’s introduction
Here Tocqueville seems to find in democracy a reason for optimism that

does not well fit the aristocratic vision that is sometimes imputed to him.
In order for the intellectual anarchy that he believes is revolutionary to dis-
appear, the majority of citizens must exercise their reason. But the author
himself recognizes that the power that directs the mass will always be aris-
tocratic because, as he says repeatedly, it is impossible for all men to have
the time and leisure necessary to occupy themselves with works of the
mind.
This way of seeing allows Tocqueville to avoid the eclecticism of Cousin.
Eclecticism is the government of the middle class introduced to philosophy.
The ideas of Tocqueville do not combine well with this philosophy of the
juste milieu. But if Tocqueville’s aristocratic nature pushes him to reject
philosophic eclecticism, it does not prevent him from constructing a phi-
losophy of the middle (milieu ) that is his own. He places this principle of
“life in the middle” between the two excesses of reason that in his view are
represented by Heliogabalus and Saint Jerome.272
Here it was a matter of restoring man to history and society; now it is
going to be a matter of restoring him to reason.
The Reign of Total Reason

In democracies, equality reaches and penetrates every aspect of life.273
Equality of minds, equality of conditions and sovereignty of the people
272. See II, p. 960, note k, and p. 1281, note e.

273. When Tocqueville speaks about the existence of equality in America, he means
the sentiment of not being inferior to anyone and not the equal division of wealth or
power. In an interesting commentary on American equality, placed in travel notebook
E and from which we can quote only an extract, he explains this difference: “Men, in
America as with us, are ranked according to certain categories in the course of social life;
common habits, education and, above all, wealth establishes these classifications; but
these rules are neither absolute, nor inflexible, nor permanent. They establish temporary
distinctions and do not form classes strictly speaking; they give no superiority, even of
opinion, to one man over another.” YTC, BIIa, and Voyage (OC, V, 1), p. 280.
The explanation of the sentiment of equality that Beaumont gives in a note in Marie
(I, pp. 383–90) seems equally clear on this point. But certain historians have seen in
Tocqueville the model of an egalitarian society. See particularly Edward Pessen, Jack-
editor’s introduction cxxxiii
are its three constituent elements. But the reign of total reason, in which
tyranny of public opinion, the pursuit of well-being, and political apathy
combine and toward which the democratic regime seems to go, does not
cease to frighten Tocqueville.
That is because what emerges there is a world without society, an indi-
vidual without individuality, an omnipotent state that separates citizens
from each other and that promotes the absence of shared ideas and senti-
ments;274 in other words, a new form of despotism that, if it still lacks a
name, has all the characteristics of a new state of nature.275
In this new despotism, society disappears and loses its power as a creator
of change and protective filter of state action. The individual finds himself
isolated in the face of the action of the political power that, as the expression
of the social state, is also his master and his guardian. This political power,
by destroying every center of resistance, finishes by coinciding with society
and occupying its place,276 until we are confronted only by either the iso-
lated individual or individuals as an entire group: “In democracy you see
only yourself and all.” 277
This despotism is not a type of government with its own form, as
Montesquieu thought. For Tocqueville, it is the negation of all politi-
cal and social forms. In this, the author recognizes his debt to Rous-
sonian America: Society, Personality, and Politics (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey, 1969); “The
Egalitarian Myth and the American Social Reality: Wealth, Mobility and Equality in the
‘Era of the Common Man,’” American Historical Review 76, no. 4 (1971): 898-1034; and
“Tocqueville’s Misreading of America, America’s Misreading of Tocqueville,” Tocque-
ville Review 4, no. 1 (1982): 5–22; Irving M. Zeitlin, Liberty, Equality and Revolution in
Alexis de Tocqueville (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971), 57–62.
274. “Sentiments and ideas are renewed, the heart grows larger and the human mind
develops only by the reciprocal action of men on each other.” II, p. 900.
275. Referring to Hobbes, Tocqueville wonders: “what is a gathering of rational and
intelligent beings bound together only by force?” I, p. 389.
276. “Despotism would not only destroy liberty among these people, but in a way
society.” II, p. 889, note f.
277. II, p. 718, note m. Here we see Rousseau’s man divided between himself and
society.
cxxxiv editor’s introduction
seau278 and diverges from the main current of classical liberalism by put-
ting historical linearity in doubt. The state of nature is found as much in
a final phase of history as in a pre-historic moment; it is at once pre- and
post-social.
But this new condition that we have compared to the state of nature is
different from the latter in an important way. By recognizing only the ca-
pacities of individual reason alone, man falls into individualistic rational-
ism; but at the same time, he has total confidence in common opinion,
because he is pushed by the need for dogmatism that is inherent in his
existence:279 “Faith in common opinion is the faith of democratic nations.
The majority is the prophet; you believe it without reasoning. You follow
it confidently without discussion. It exerts an immense pressure on indi-
vidual intelligence.”280
278. Here [in despotism] is the final outcome of inequality, and the extreme point
that closes the circle and touches our starting point. This is where all individuals again
become equal, because they are nothing, and where, since the subjects have no other
rule than the will of the master and the master has no other rule than his passions,
the notions of good and the principles of justice disappear yet again. Everything here
leads to the law of the strongest alone and consequently to a new state of nature
different from the one where we began; the first was the state of nature in its purity,
and the second is the fruit of an excess of corruption. Yet there is so little difference
between these two states, and the contract of government is so dissolved by despo-
tism, that the despot is the master only as long as he is the strongest; and as soon as
the despot can be driven out, he has no grounds to protest against violence. The riot
that ends by strangling or dethroning a sultan is an act as lawful as those by which
the day before he disposed of the lives and goods of his subjects. Force alone main-
tained him; force alone overthrows him.
J.-J. Rousseau, Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité, in Oeuvres complètes
(Paris: Pléiade, 1964), III, p. 191. See below, I, p. 231, note z.
279. If man was forced to prove to himself all the truths that he uses every day, he
would never finish doing so; he would wear himself out with preliminary demon-
strations without advancing; as he has neither the time, because of the short span of
his life, nor the ability, because of the limitations of his mind, to act in this way, he
is reduced to holding as certain a host of facts and opinions that he has had neither
the leisure nor the power to examine and to verify for himself, but that those more
clever have found or that the crowd adopts. On this foundation he builds himself
the structure of his own thoughts. It is not his will that leads him to proceed in this
manner; the inflexible law of his condition compels him to do so. II, p. 714.
280. II, p. 720, note p.
editor’s introduction cxxxv
The common sense of the democrat operates in the narrow field in which
he has some knowledge and where he is able to put that knowledge into
practice. But, in the areas where men are not involved, they accept general
ideas that they have not thought of themselves; and in this way, the world,
except for the narrow field in which each man is enclosed, “ends up being
an insoluble problem for the man who clings to the most tangible objects
and who ends up lying down on his stomach against the earth out of fear
that he, in turn, may come to miss the ground.”281
Democratic despotism is therefore the exaltation of the individual and
of society. It is a double state of nature in which men enter into relation
with each other almost exclusively through the mathematical power of in-
terests and through the most faithful expression of that power, which is
money; in this double state of nature, society imposes its opinions on its
members with a completely unheard of force.
From another perspective, the logic of reason invades the heart of man,
eliminating many of his passions and modifying certain of his sentiments,
transforming for example his egoism into individualism,282 or his generosity
into interest well understood. The State, for its part, by making use of the
first rational principle, which is that of unity—the expression of the prin-
ciple of identity that is contained in the idea of equality—and that of cen-
tralization, imposes its forms and opinions with a speed and effectiveness
previously unknown.
Democratic despotism thus takes men away from political practice
by leading them exclusively toward the pursuit of material well-being,
which tends to separate them more and more from each other.283 In the
281. II, p. 1370.

282. “Egoism, vice of the heart. Individualism, of the mind.” II, p. 882, note d.
283. Tocqueville learned from Guizot that the barbarians of the IVth century acted
in the same way: “It is not by exterminating the civilized men of the IVth century that
the barbarians managed to destroy the civilization of that time. It was enough for them
to come between them so to speak and by separating them to make them like strangers
to one another.” II, p. 896, note c.
“There is a society only when men consider a great number of objects in the same
way; when they have the same opinions on a great number of subjects; when, finally,
the same facts give rise among them to the same impressions and the same thoughts.” I,
p. 598. Also see note y on the same page.
cxxxvi editor’s introduction
end, “men are no longer tied together except by interests and not by
ideas.”284
By separating man from his fellows, this new form of despotism brings
about a clear break in the flow of the ideas and opinions that nourish society
and history. For “the circulation of ideas is to civilization what the circu-
lation of blood is to the human body”;285 and despotism, by interrupting
this movement, creates a society that is no longer composed of anything
except solitary social molecules.
“In a society of barbarians equal to each other,” recalls Tocqueville,
“since the attention of each man is equally absorbed by the first needs and
the most coarse interests of life, the idea of intellectual progress can come
to the mind of any one of them only with difficulty.”286
The old despotism was realistic. Facts were its foundation, and it made
use of them. It oppressed the body, but the soul escaped its tyrannical en-
terprise. The new despotism has the perfidious principle of leaving the body
free and oppressing the soul.287 While the legal and political tyranny of the
majority is the modern version of the old despotism, the new despotism is
the mental and social tyranny of the majority, which affects the social state,
habits, and mores. Thus the damage caused by the tyranny of opinion is
much greater, because this new type of despotism touches on the sources
of the movement of history and society, as well as on what is most proper
to the individual.
284. II, pp. 708–9.

“Don’t you see, on all sides, beliefs giving way to reasoning, and sentiments, to cal-
culation?” I, p. 391.
There is, however, a profound change from one Democracy to the other relating to
one passion, that of well-being. If Tocqueville asserts in 1835 that “there, ambition for
power is replaced by the love of well-being, a more vulgar, but less dangerous passion”
(I, p. 261), he will reveal all of its malignity in the 1840 part.
285. II, p. 887, note c.
286. II, p. 879, note f.
287. The new despotism has the same relation to the old as the slavery of antiquity
has to the enslavement of American Blacks. The Americans of the South “have, if I may
express myself in this way, spiritualized despotism and violence.” I, p. 579. Ancient slav-
ery bound the body and left the mind free; modern slavery prevents instruction and
controls the mind. Thus the enormous importance of liberty of the press in democracies.
See I, pp. 290–94, and II, p. 908.
editor’s introduction cxxxvii
In the end man could end up by no longer belonging to anything except

a quasi-society of barbarians equal to each other, thus closing the cycle of
history with a despotic regime that has become permanent.
Tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of the electoral voice described in
the first Democracy, is already the triumph of individualism, that is to say
the triumph of man without individuality and personality.288 The moment
of election forces the abandonment of what is specific and particular to the
individual and forces him for a moment to become a unit, or, if you want,
an abstraction (one man ⳱ one voice). In this way, the new form of des-
potism is entirely compatible with election. Men emerge from servitude to
elect their tyrants and return there immediately after.289
In 1840, Tocqueville combines with the practical and legal tyranny of
the majority the spiritual and intellectual oppression of the opinion of all,
which leads in the last resort to a situation of permanent immobility and
unity. If, as he remarks, “sentiments and ideas are renewed, the heart grows
larger and the human mind develops only by the reciprocal action of men
on each other,”290 then common action and vitality will disappear in
democracies:
Do you not see that opinions are dividing more quickly than patrimonies,
that each man is enclosing himself narrowly within his own mind, like
the farm laborer in his field? . . . That sentiments become more individual
each day, and that soon men will be more separated by their beliefs than
they have ever been by inequality of conditions?291
288. By saying that tyranny of the majority is the equivalent of the state of nature,
Tocqueville also repeats Madison. I, p. 425.
289. This explains why readers have been able to find in Tocqueville a critique of
communist totalitarianism as well as mass society. The interest in Tocqueville’s work
owes a great deal to the fact that democratic despotism is more social than political, and
is, in large measure, independent of the political form. The distinction between the social
and the political is, however, debatable and not very clear, even if we cannot blame
Tocqueville for a lack of clarity concerning a dichotomy that we are not able to express
more clearly at the present time.
290. II, p. 900.
291. II, p. 1272, note t.
cxxxviii editor’s introduction
The inhabitant of America is forced, like every inhabitant of a new coun-

try, to acquire rapidly the habit of governing himself,292 but this habit must
be prevented from being pushed beyond its natural limits and thereby tak-
ing the form of servitude:
Will I dare to say it amid the ruins that surround me? What I dread most
for the generations to come is not revolutions.
If citizens continue to enclose themselves more and more narrowly
within the circle of small domestic interests and to be agitated there with-
out respite, you can fear that they will end by becoming as if impervious
to these great and powerful public emotions that disturb peoples, but
which develop and renew them. When I see property become so mobile,
and the love of property so anxious and so ardent, I cannot prevent myself
from fearing that men will reach the point of regarding every new theory
as a danger, every innovation as an unfortunate trouble, every social pro-
gress as a first step toward a revolution, and that they will refuse entirely
to move for fear that they would be carried away. I tremble, I confess, that
they will finally allow themselves to be possessed so well by a cowardly love
of present enjoyments, that the interest in their own future and that of
their descendants will disappear, and that they will prefer to follow feebly
the course of their destiny, than to make, if needed, a sudden and energetic
effort to redress it.
You believe that the new societies are going to change face every day,
and as for me, I fear that they will end by being too invariably fixed in the
same institutions, the same prejudices, the same mores; so that humanity
comes to a stop and becomes limited; that the mind eternally turns back
on itself without producing new ideas, that man becomes exhausted in
small solitary and sterile movements, and that, even while constantly mov-
ing, humanity no longer advances.293
Revolutions disrupt the activities of society; they suddenly make move-

ment and social changes easy and unpredictable; finally they destroy per-
sonal wealth. It seems then that only the poor, who have nothing to lose,
can court a revolution. Democracies seek the opposite, since they need a
tranquil and peaceful atmosphere in which their members can concentrate
292. I, p. 650, note l.

293. II, p. 1151.
editor’s introduction cxxxix
all their activity on the pursuit of their individual well-being and that of
their family.294
In democracies, Tocqueville notes,
since men are no longer attached to each other by any bond of castes,
classes, corporations, families, they are only too inclined to become pre-
occupied solely with their particular interests, and are always too ready to
consider only themselves and to withdraw into a narrow individualism in
which every public virtue is suffocated. Despotism, far from struggling
against this tendency, makes it irresistible, because despotism removes
from citizens every common passion, every natural need, every need to
cooperate, every occasion to act together; it walls them, so to speak, within
private life. They already tended to separate themselves; it isolates them;
they grew cold toward one another; it turns them into ice.295
So democratic despotism finishes by producing the greatest stability in so-

ciety, but this stability is not desirable because it announces the immobility
of death.
Equality of conditions, giving individual reason a complete indepen-
dence, must lead men toward intellectual anarchy and bring about con-
tinual revolutions in human opinions.
This is the first idea that presents itself, the common idea, the most
likely idea at first view.
By examining things more closely, I discover that there are limits to this
individual independence in democratic countries that I had not seen at
first and which make me believe that beliefs must be more common and
more stable than we judge at first glance.
That is already doing a great deal to lead the mind of the reader there.
But I want to aim still further and I am going even as far as imagining
that the final result of democracy will be to make the human mind too
immobile and human opinions too stable.
294. “Great revolutions are not more common among democratic peoples than
among other peoples; I am even led to believe that they are less so. But within these
nations there reigns a small uncomfortable movement, a sort of incessant rotation of
men that troubles and distracts the mind without enlivening or elevating it.” II, p. 780.
cxl editor’s introduction
This ideas is so extraordinary and so removed from the mind of the

reader that I must make him see it only in the background and as an
hypothesis.296
Tocqueville clearly perceives the radical nature of such an idea and notes
in a draft:
This idea that the democratic social state is anti-revolutionary so shocks
accepted ideas that I must win over the mind of the reader little by little,
and for that I must begin by saying that this social state is less revolutionary
than is supposed. I begin there and by an imperceptible curve I arrive at
saying that there is room to fear that it is not revolutionary enough. True
idea, but which would seem paradoxical at first view.297
With this last turn, Tocqueville’s thought has for its part completed its
own revolution.
Dialectic of Ideas
If democratic apathy can be worse than revolutionary disorders, then the
political problem abruptly changes aspect. It becomes necessary to reintro-
duce into society change, the circulation of ideas, intellectual movement,
which does not mean revolution. It is in fact no less necessary to try to avoid
revolutions, even if, in Tocqueville’s eyes, temporary anarchy is preferable
to permanent order.298
The author distinguishes between legislative instability, which concerns
secondary laws, and the instability that affects the foundations of the con-
stitution. The latter produces revolutions and causes breaks in society;299
the former, on the other hand, is the sign of intellectual vitality. So how is
296. II, p. 1144, note q.

297. Ibid.
298. See II, p. 1191, note b.
299. I, pp. 635–37.
“The small shake-ups that public liberty imparts constantly to the most settled so-
cieties recall everyday the possibility of reversals and keep public prudence awake.”
L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution, OC, II, 1, p. 197. In this way, small revolutions prevent
great ones.
editor’s introduction cxli
it possible to create this first type of instability while avoiding the second?
How can we bring about the circulation of ideas and sentiments that are
debated and shared at the same time?
To invite men to communicate, to see each other, to exchange ideas, such
is the main task of political philosophy: “So the great object of law-makers
in democracies must be to create common affairs that force men to enter
into contact with each other. . . . For what is society for thinking beings,
if not the communication and connection of minds and hearts?”300
The struggle between opposing principles produces heat and the move-
ment of ideas. It sometimes produces disorder, but it assures the circulation
of the ideas and sentiments that nourish society.
Tocqueville wrote to Kergorlay:
I compare man in this world to a traveler who is walking constantly toward
an increasingly cold region and who is forced to move more as he advances.
The great sickness of the soul is cold. And to combat this fearful evil, he
must not only maintain the lively movement of his mind by work, but
also maintain contact with his fellows and with the business of this world.
Above all at this time, we are no longer allowed to live on what has already
been acquired, but must try hard to continue to acquire and not rest upon
ideas that would soon enshroud us as if we were asleep in the grave. But
we must constantly put into contact and into conflict the ideas that we
adopt and those we do not, the ideas that we had in our youth and those
suggested by the state of society and the opinions of the period that has
arrived.301
This movement and confrontation of ideas is at risk of drowning in ap-

athy, individualism, and the obsession with well-being, first results of
democracy.
300. II, p. 891, note k.

301. Letter to Kergorlay, 3 February 1857, OC, XIII, 2, p. 325.
During the last years of his life, when he was working on Ancien Régime, Tocqueville
wrote: “I am more and more attached to my lands and my great fields, to my ocean above
all, and to its serious beaches, and I feel that only there do I live happily. But even there,
to be happy, some great occupation must animate my mind, and only through ideas do
I see, so to speak, the physical beauties that surround me.” Letter to Freslon [?], 8 October
1856, YTC, DIIIa.
cxlii editor’s introduction
The “democratic monster” that occupies so many pages of Democracy

is the one that has made only half a revolution, that has forgotten the prin-
ciple of liberty, and that has been entirely captivated by the rational char-
acter of the abstract principle of equality.302 This democratic monster pro-
duces a political philosophy based precisely upon the social, material, and
political conditions that work to promote and to ensure the existence of
such a philosophy, but it does not offer the possibility of denying such a
philosophy, that is to say, by political practice.
So Tocqueville aspires, in a certain way, to completing the French Rev-
olution, to finishing it, without forgetting that fraternity is the fruit of lib-
erty and equality, as well as of a constant tension between the two, as had
been the case in 1789.
Tocqueville remarks in the Ancien Régime:
It is 89, time of inexperience, undoubtedly, but of generosity, enthusiasm,
virility and grandeur, time of immortal memory, toward which the view
of men will turn with admiration and respect, when those who saw it and
we ourselves will have long disappeared. Then the French were proud
enough of their cause and of themselves to believe that they could be equal
in liberty. So everywhere in the middle of democratic institutions, they
placed free institutions.303
For the exceptional moment represented by 1789, a momentary and

magnificent combination of liberty with equality, Tocqueville shows and
seems to have shown all his life a quasi-religious respect, a sort of faith never
denied. In this regard, Sainte-Beuve shares with Beaumont the following
anecdote:
I have always had great difficulty speaking about Tocqueville, you will have
noticed it yourself; not that I do not place him very much apart and very
high, but because he did not, in my opinion, completely fulfill the whole
302. See II, p. 1209. See Correspondence and Conversations of Alexis de Tocqueville with
Nassau William Senior from 1834 to 1859, edited by M. C. M. Simpson (London: H. S.
King, 1872), II, pp. 92–94.
“Democracy is liberty combined with equality.” Roland-Pierre Marcel, Essai politique
sur Alexis de Tocqueville, p. 168.
editor’s introduction cxliii
idea that his friends are allowed to have and to give of him. And then,
there was always between him and me, from the beginning and long before
the most recent events, a certain kernel of separation; he was of a believing
nature, that is to say that, even in the realm of ideas, he had a certain
religion, a certain faith. One day, at a dinner at Madame Récamier’s, I saw
him not being pleased with a joke about something concerning 89. I took
good note of it. That form of mind impressed me, I admit, more than it
attracted me, and despite friendly advances, I always remained with him
on a footing more of respect than of friendship.304
History, according to Tocqueville, is defined as a struggle between the

abstract and the concrete; thus the opposition between liberty and equality.
The objective of political science is consequently to maintain these two
existing principles in constant tension in such a way that no monopoly
exists of equality over liberty, which would lead to despotism, and that
equality does not run the risk of being carried away into anarchy by the
excesses of liberty. In this sense, it is a matter of prolonging 1789.
For Tocqueville, liberty is a passion,305 changing and impossible to de-
fine.306 It belongs to the order of the heart. Equality, to use Pascal’s distinc-
tion, reigns in the order of the mind.
When he writes to John Stuart Mill, “I love liberty by taste, equality by
instinct and by reason,”307 Tocqueville is only expressing in another way
the principal elements of his thought. The taste for equality is always of a
rational, mental nature. Liberty, in contrast, is a passion, a sentiment.308
304. Letter to Beaumont, 26 November 1865. With the kind permission of the Bib-
lothèque de l’Institut, Spoelberch de Lovenjoul.
305. “Only liberty is able to suggest to us those powerful common emotions that carry
and sustain souls above themselves; it alone can throw variety into the midst of the
uniformity of our conditions and the monotony of our mores; it alone can distract our
minds from small thoughts and elevate the goal of our desires.” Discours de réception at
the Académie française. OCB, IX, p. 20.
306. “Do not ask me to analyze this sublime taste; it must be experienced.” L’Ancien
Régime et la Révolution, OC, II, 1, p. 217.
307. Letter to John Stuart Mill, June 1835 (Correspondance anglaise, OC, VI, p. 293).
Also see Voyages en Angleterre, Irlande, Suisse et Algérie, OC, V, 2, p. 91.
308. “For democratic institutions I have a taste from the head, but I am aristocratic
by instinct.” Quoted by Antoine Rédier, Comme disait Monsieur de Tocqueville, p. 48.
cxliv editor’s introduction
Liberty is an individual, particular sentiment, impossible to communi-

cate; it represents the human because it is indefinable, incomplete, always
in process, always being defined, by wagering, risking, making mistakes,
and beginning again. Liberty must be lived as you live your life, never ceas-
ing to invent. Authentic democracy is the equal participation of citizens in
the definition of liberty, a definition that is always complicated, disorderly,
and risky. God marks out the road toward equality, but liberty is a path that
man opens and that crosses always different countries.
Equality is abstract, rational, always identical to itself; it is deductive,
while liberty is inductive, as within reach and clear as liberty is complicated
and fleeting.
The despotic democratic regime produces an unbearable and unlimited
predominance of the mind over the heart, of equality over liberty. Liberty
then disappears in the face of what can be defined and what is definite, in
the face of equality; the principle of equality is allowed to reign alone. That
is what philosophy must avoid at all cost. That is also what constitutes the
ultimate objective of Democracy, as Tocqueville notes in a draft: “Danger
of allowing a single social principle to take without objection the absolute
direction of society. General idea that I wanted to emerge from this
work.”309
If, in the plan of history, the principle of liberty must be introduced as
a counterbalance to that of equality, in the political world strictly speak-
ing310 the struggle of ideas takes place between two great universal prin-
ciples that, for Tocqueville, are called democracy and aristocracy;311 the one
309. II, p. 740, note d.

“Do not adopt one social principle alone however good it seems. Do not use one form
of government alone. Stay away from unity.” II, p. 1266, note j.
In the same way, Tocqueville claims that views expressed in the French parliamentary
debates have become less elevated since the victory of the liberal party and the disap-
pearance of the opposition. I, p. 284, note c.
310. If men create laws, women create mores. A good reader of Rousseau, Tocqueville
claims therefore that in America the women are superior to the men (for mores create
laws). See I, p. 482, note u. Woman represents the indefinite, liberty, passions, while
man represents equality, the defined, the rational.
311. The democratic social state and the aristocratic social state appear with very
defined features in the letter of 1830 to Charles Stoffels. The text will be found in
appendix V.
editor’s introduction cxlv
seeks to concentrate public power, the other to scatter it.312 Once the sen-
timent of liberty has disappeared or is in serious danger of doing so,
Tocqueville is forced to imagine institutions that can produce the condi-
tions necessary for liberty to exist; the hope is that they will give rise to the
sentiment and passion that are otherwise in danger of disappearing. In the
future, liberty, according to him, will be a product of political art. Thus,
if the social state moves men away from each other, the political state must
unite them;313 if society destroys the passions and tends no longer to pro-
mote anything except interest, the political state must work to maintain
passions314 and to turn away from economic well-being.315
312. I, p. 286.
I find that, with rare sagacity, you have indicated the conditions under which great
parties, well disciplined, can exist in a free country. As you say, each of them must
be the representative of one of the two great principles that eternally divide human
societies, and that, to be brief, can be designated by the names aristocracy and de-
mocracy (I, p. 281, note a).
313. “The social state separates men, the political state must draw them closer./
The social state gives them the taste for well-being [v: inclines them toward the earth],
the political state must raise them up by giving them great ideas and great emotions.”
II, p. 1262, note b.
314. In a letter to Corcelle of 19 October 1839 (OC, XI, 1, p. 139), Tocqueville asks:
“So will we never see the wind of true political passions rise again, my dear Corcelle,
those violent, hard, sometimes cruel, but great, disinterested, fruitful passions; those pas-
sions that are the soul of the only parties that I understand and to which I would feel
myself willingly disposed to give my time, my fortune and my life?” Also see the speech
on the question of the right to work (OCB, IX, p. 542).
315. There are many examples of opposition. Political liberty, we have said, implies
religious beliefs:
In the moral world, therefore, everything is classified, coordinated, foreseen, decided
in advance. In the political world, everything is agitated, contested, uncertain; in the
one, passive though voluntary obedience; in the other, independence, scorn for ex-
perience and jealousy of all authority. Far from harming each other, these two ten-
dencies, apparently so opposed, move in harmony and seem to offer mutual support
(I, p. 70. Also see note in the same place).
Tocqueville wants to develop the sciences in aristocratic societies and the moral sci-
ences in democracies, in order, in both cases, to counter the tendencies of the social state
(II, p. 962, note n) and he wishes to promote spiritualism to stop democratic materialism:
cxlvi editor’s introduction
The opposition of the social power to the force of the state, the oppo-
sition of society to the political power must also exist. For Tocqueville, as
we know, the ideal instrument for achieving this situation is associations,316
organizations of an aristocratic character that oppose the omnipotence of
the majority that characterizes democracy.
Tocqueville’s ideal is not the mixed regime, however. A predominating
principle will always exist because men will always try to order society and
the state according to the same principle.317 Nonetheless, in order to avoid
falling into despotism and omnipotence, that is to say, into the ultimate
tyranny of equality (one ⳱ one), the opposite principle must always exist.
The classical mechanisms of liberalism, such as the separation of powers,
the idea of rights, liberty of the press, and federalism, serve Tocqueville
only to the degree that they can be used to that end.
The author of Democracy wants democracies to oppose a strong legis-
lative power with a power elected for a longer period (or put in place in a
permanent way, as in monarchy); this recalls the mechanism of balance and
counterbalance inspired by Montesquieu. But Tocqueville demands that,
within each power, concentration be balanced by an action of dispersal. If
If I had been born in the Middle Ages, I would have been the enemy of superstitions,
for then the social movement led there.
But today, I feel indulgent toward all the follies that spiritualism can suggest.
The great enemy is materialism, not only because it is in itself a detestable doctrine,
but also because it is unfortunately in accord with the social tendency (II, p. 956,
note d).
316. “Sentiments and ideas are renewed, the heart grows larger and the human mind
develops only by the reciprocal action of men on each other. I have demonstrated that
this action is almost nil in democratic countries. So it must be created there artificially.
And this is what associations alone are able to do.” II, p. 900.
317. Four types of regimes (that can be despotic or free) exist: 1. Democratic social
state (social equality) and democratic political state (political equality): democracy. 2.
Democratic social state combined with an aristocratic political state. This regime tends
toward and will arrive at democracy, for the political state finishes by being the reflection
of the social state. 3. Social inequality and political equality (this is, according to Tocque-
ville, a chimera). 4. Social inequality and political inequality: aristocracy.
editor’s introduction cxlvii
the first chamber is elected by universal suffrage, the second must be formed
by indirect election. If the political power must be centralized, the admin-
istration must be decentralized to the same degree. The jury does wonders
for the education of the people, but it must be guided by the judge’s hand.
The excesses of the majority, a constant danger in democracies, are opposed
by the creation of an aristocracy of associations. And in the same way,
against the associations of owners, there are the associations of workers;
against the state, the society, etc.
The examples of opposition multiply throughout the book and extend
from the purely political field to all aspects of intellectual life. “The most
favorable moment for the development of the sciences, of literature and
of the arts,” Tocqueville specifies in this regard, “is when democracy begins
to burst into the midst of an aristocratic society. Then you have movement
amid order. Then humanity moves very rapidly, but like an army in battle,
without breaking ranks and without discipline losing anything to ardor.”318
The author of Democracy found this idea in Montesquieu;319 the idea
of the opposition of the three powers ends up by amounting to the op-
position between the legislative power and the executive power, which in
Tocqueville is the confrontation between democracy and aristocracy.320
Nonetheless, the problem for Montesquieu, like that for all of political
philosophy before him, was purely political despotism, while Tocqueville
318. II, p. 810, note q.

The sixteenth century had formed many of those fine, proud and free minds whose
race was entirely lost in the theatrical splendor of the following century. Also you
must have noted the superiority of the writers of the first period of the reign of Louis
XIV over those of the second. The first were formed in that very short time in which
feudal independence was allied for a moment with modern art and taste; the one gave
grandeur, and the others the finish of details and the harmony of the whole (YTC,
CIb (thoughts collected by Mary Mottley). See II, p. 1146, note l, in which the same
idea is found again.)
319. As Luis Dı́ez del Corral pointed out, Tocqueville could have had this idea from
the very mouth of Guizot (El pensamiento polı́tico de Tocqueville, pp. 285–86, 315, 377–
79). But differing from Guizot, Tocqueville does not believe that the result of the struggle
between the forces of society and those of the individual is the bourgeois mentality.
320. Book XI, chapter VI of Esprit des lois. Also see book I, chapter 2.
cxlviii editor’s introduction
points out for the first time a new form of tyranny that does not have a
name, but that spreads from the political power to ideas, habits and
thoughts, invading all of private and public life.321
There are no recipes or definitive solutions; no formula allows us to go
beyond this system of opposition. The terms are in continual tension,
changeable and alive. Tocqueville advances in this way between two abysses
with the talent of a Malesherbes or of a Royer-Collard,322 by adopting what
is best in each condition, by maintaining a precarious equilibrium, by going
along in doubt and uncertainty.
* * * * *
The objective of political philosophy is to produce among the citizens those
passions that can destroy or save society, to produce that dialectic of ideas,
of the abstract and the concrete, of liberty and equality, of reason and of
passion, that causes small, continual revolutions.323
According to Tocqueville, liberty certainly cannot be defined in a neg-
ative way by obedience to laws that are the result of the compromises and
struggles of two permanent and equally strong parties. The author of De-
mocracy lives in a world in which one of the two powers can disappear
completely and in which the best laws are capable of coexisting with a social
condition similar to that of the state of nature, in which legal liberty can
go hand in hand with political and intellectual despotism.
For Tocqueville, man is above all a participant in history. He is part
of a vast project that he himself must work on each day. The pilot of a
boat, even if he does not determine either the winds or the waves, can
hoist or lower the sails; he guides his ship. He is a man who looks at the
past and the future, but who cannot learn very much from history.
321. This sets him apart from Rousseau. See I, p. 406, note g, pp. 407 and 413.
322. See Luis Dı́ez del Corral, El pensamiento polı́tico de Tocqueville, pp. 158–59, and
OCB, VI, p. 445.
323. “As I grow older, I have more regard, I will almost say respect, for the passions.
I love them when they are good, and I am not even sure about detesting them when they
are bad. They are power, and power, wherever it is found, appears at its best amid the
universal weakness that surrounds us.” Letter to Ampère, 10 August 1841, OC, XI, p. 152.
Also see OCB, VI, p. 407.
editor’s introduction cxlix
The past does not offer rules of conduct or solutions for the present;
it gives sentiments, but not reasons; it creates passions and faith, but
not laws; it develops tendencies, it calls for prudence, but does not offer
judgments.
Nor does the history of peoples offer solutions for the present, just as
Democracy in America does not claim to give to the French or to Europeans
a theory of democracy. It is not a matter of imitating America, Tocqueville
says in substance; it is a matter of understanding America. For the rest, the
destiny of man is still, and is forever, in his own hands.
Eduardo Nolla
Universidad San Pablo-CEU
Madrid
Foreword to This Edition
“The greatest effort of the government must tend toward

teaching citizens the art of doing without its help.”
—II, p. 900, note n.
Tocqueville is a classic, an author who meets Sainte-Beuve’s definition of

a classic, by providing “a conversation for every instance, a friendship that
does not fail and will never desert you, and that offers that familiar sensation
of serenity and amenity which reconciles us, as we frequently need, with
other men and ourselves.”1 As befits his status as a classic author, hundreds
of books and articles have been published in recent decades about Tocque-
ville, and dozens of editions of Democracy in America are printed and re-
printed in the world every year.
How do you read a classic?
Stendhal defined a novel in The Red and the Black as “a mirror that is
strolled along a main road.” The same can be said of great books in general.
They provide a new reflection of ourselves every time we read them, and
they accompany us as we move forward in life. Tocqueville himself always
traveled with the books he considered the greatest: works by Pascal, Rous-
seau, and Montesquieu, classics he read and read again all his life.
His favorite authors were few and old. He wrote to a friend:
Not being able to bring my library here to keep me company, I have
had me sent at least one volume from each of the great authors I like. I
1. C.-A. Sainte-Beuve. Causeries du lundi. Monday, 21 October 1850. Third edition.

(Paris: Garnier Frères, [1857]), III, p. 55.
cli
clii foreword to this edition
think they are no more than twenty-five. They all fit in a very small shelf.
Almost none of them were written less than a century ago.2
Tocqueville had little patience for the books written by his contemporaries
and maintained that he could find in a “small number of excellent books
that . . . keep good company,”3 and within himself, all he needed to generate
his own works.4
Democracy in America is arguably Tocqueville’s greatest and most en-
during work. Drawing on his nine-month journey with Beaumont to the
United States and influenced by the “classic” authors he carried with him
as well as by his own vision, Tocqueville constructed a unique portrait of
America. The very first paragraph of the working manuscript’s introduc-
tion calls attention to his project’s novelty:
The work that you are about to read is not a travelogue, <the reader can
rest easy>. I do not want him to be concerned with me. You will also not
find in this book a complete summary of all the institutions of the United
States; but I flatter myself that, in it, the public will find some new docu-
mentation and, from it, will gain useful knowledge about a subject that is
more important for us than the fate of America and no less worthy of
holding our attention.5
Rejecting the form of a travelogue, Tocqueville also wrote to his friend

Ampère that he did not want to write a description of America, but rather
2. Letter to Madame de Circourt, January 11, 1854, OC, XVIII, pp. 141–42.
In another letter, he explains: “I have had sent to me from Paris some books I should
have read a long time ago but haven’t, because when I’m in good health I’m a very bad
reader [liseur], particularly of new books. I must be ill or convalescing in order to pay a
lot of attention to the books of my contemporaries.” To Adolphe de Circourt, December
2, 1858, OC, XVIII, p. 509.
An explanation of abbreviations and symbols used in this edition is included in I, pp.
xxxix-xli.
3. In a letter to Madame de Circourt, OC, XVIII, pp. 43–44: “Books are like intel-
ligent people with no moods, no whims, no need to talk about themselves, no regrets in
hearing good things being said about others; to conclude, intelligent people whom one
can abandon and pick up as one wishes.” Idem.
4. Scholars are still surprised by the small number of theory books quoted or used
by Tocqueville in Democracy in America. In II, pp. 1377–95, the reader will find the list
of works used by Tocqueville in the writing of his book.
5. In I, pp. 3–4.
foreword to this edition cliii
a mirror—perhaps the mirror Stendhal describes—in which the readers

might see themselves.6
For more than a century and a half, Americans and Europeans have been
observing their own shifting images in Tocqueville’s mirror.7 The image is
repeatedly distorted, and the aim of the exercise is far from being disinter-
ested. We are continually rereading Democracy in America, never quite
reaching final conclusions about it, or about Tocqueville’s position.8 With
each reading, we find something new and valuable in the book, and with
each reading, we continue to recognize ourselves anew in its pages.
Ortega y Gasset claimed that great books have the qualities of simul-
taneously being deficient and exuberant.9 As a means of understanding the
author and his intentions, they are always something of a failure, as we can
never truly say we wholly comprehend either the writer or the writer’s mind.
At the same time, they seem to be an inexhaustible treasure trove in which
we always find something that we hadn’t stumbled upon before and that
the author was unaware of having had the intention to say. It is in this sense
that classic books are never completed, finished, or fully read, since they
always seem to have something new to say.
Over a century and a half after Democracy in America ’s publication, this
non-travelogue continues to captivate us, and we continue to travel down
the main road of modern democracy with Tocqueville’s book in our
hands.10
Traveling, roads, and trips; these are all very Tocquevillian things.11
6. See I, p. cvii, note 185.

7. “Caution: objects in this mirror may be closer than they appear!” Jean Baudrillard.
Amérique (Paris: Grasset, 1986), p. 9.
8. For instance, the endless discussions about whether Tocqueville is a classic liberal
or a conservative, an aristocrat or a democrat.
9. José Ortega y Gasset. “Comentario al Banquete de Platón,” in Obras completas (Ma-
drid: Taurus and Fundación Ortega, 2009), IX, pp. 729–57.
10. Symptomatically, Tocqueville’s book was condemned to the flames in Hitler’s
Germany, and translations of Democracy in America have been published in many of the
former European Communist countries since 1989.
11. See I, cxli.
cliv foreword to this edition
Tocqueville enjoyed traveling, but did it in his own peculiar way. Beau-
mont writes about Tocqueville:
A day lost or a day poorly spent were a bad day. The smallest waste of time
annoyed him. He brought this passion in his travels up to the point that
he never arrived in a place without previously having secured the means
to leave it, which made one of his friends say that he always left before he
had arrived.12
When Tocqueville could not travel, his favorite pastime was reading travel
books, particularly if they had pictures or maps.13 His interest in travel and
travel literature is not entirely surprising; the images of travel—the journey,
roads, movement, rivers, intersections—are frequently employed by
Tocqueville.
He understood history as a sort of voyage, the inexorable advance of
equality of conditions. Yet, equality could assume two guises: an equality
consistent with freedom, or an equality compatible with despotism. Amer-
ica showed the promise of the first road, as well as the dangers of the second.
When Tocqueville wrote his book, both paths seemed possible for France.
“One has to be at the breaking point, as we find ourselves,” he explains
to his friend Beaumont about the epoch they lived in, “in order to see both
roads distinctively.”14
If travel was one of Tocqueville’s preoccupations, liberty was another.
He wrote to John Stuart Mill in June 1835: “I love liberty by penchant, and
equality by instinct and reason. These two passions that so many fake, I
believe I really feel within myself, and I am ready to make great sacrifices
for them.”15
It is not surprising that he also viewed liberty as a kind of voyage or
12. OCB, V, p. 23.

13. “I very much love good travel books and what makes you learn about the different
regions of the world. But there are few books of this kind published in French, and
English books are difficult to obtain and very expensive. I am particularly curious about
the new discoveries in Africa. Anything related to East Asia, Siberia, and the new con-
quests of Russia in the Pacific interests me much. I would very much enjoy good travel
books on Siberia, with good maps.” Letter to Adolphe de Circourt, OC, XVIII, p. 509.
14. In a letter dated March 23, 1853. OC, VIII, 3, p. 95.
15. OC, VI, pp. 293–94.
foreword to this edition clv
journey. Liberty is as much a process as a condition; it is the result of a

never-ending process of discussion, debate, redefinition, movement, and
change. No fixed or stable definition of it will ever be possible, and although
the many manifestations of freedom share certain characteristics, freedom
can never be completely uniform, for it is shaped by its context and by the
individuals who exercise it. As Tocqueville observed, “I would regard it as
a great misfortune for humankind if liberty, in all places, had to occur with
the same features.”16
Significantly, it is while traveling, while sailing aboard the Havre to
America that Tocqueville finds a perfect example of liberty.
At sea, if you don’t want to quarrel, one must be the best of friends to
everyone. There is no in-between. . . . The obligation of living one on top
of the other and of seeing each other closely establishes a lack of discretion
and a liberty for which there is no idea on land. Here, everyone acts in the
middle of the multitude as if one were alone. Some read in loud voice,
others play, others sing. Some write, as myself right now, while next to me
a neighbor dines. Everyone drinks, eats, or cries as he wishes. Our rooms
are so narrow that we exit them to dress, and except for ostensibly getting
in our briefs, I don’t know what part of our dressing up doesn’t take place
in the face of Israel. In a word, we live here on the public square, as the
ancients. This is the real country of liberty, but it can only take place be-
tween four planks. That’s the problem.17
Recreating liberty on land poses more difficulties, but liberty remained

the ultimate value for Tocqueville. He did not, however, believe he could
simply present American democracy as a model to be imitated elsewhere.
Equality was the same all over the world, but liberty had many facets.
The greatness and enduring worth of Democracy in America lies, to a
large extent, in the fact that Tocqueville understood that the movement
that carried the modern world toward democratic regimes was a universal
trend not limited by continents or traditions. Thus, it would be wrong to
16. II, p. 513. See a detailed discussion of Tocqueville’s idea of liberty in I, pp. cxliii–
cxlviii.
17. In a letter to his mother written on board the Havre, dated April 26, 1831. YTC,
BIa2.
clvi foreword to this edition
think that he was simply writing about nineteenth-century America and

France.18
That general process of equality’s movement linked the two shores of
the Atlantic. Tocqueville asserted that America was not a new country, and
he realized that Europe itself simultaneously became a continent when
America developed into one.19 They were both different sides of the same
reality. Tocqueville writes:
I cannot agree to separate America from Europe, despite the Ocean that
divides them. I consider the people of the United States as the portion of
the English people charged with exploiting the forests of the New World,
while the rest of the nation, provided with more leisure and less preoc-
cupied by the material cares of life, is able to devote itself to thought and
to develop the human mind in all aspects.
[<⫽So I think that democracy must no more be judged by America than
the different nations of Europe by one of the commercial and manufac-
turing classes that are found within them.⫽>]20
This is why Tocqueville refused to say that the United States was a new
society. On the contrary, it was old and had all the advantages of experience
and history without the burdens and difficulties of infancy. “In the United
States, society has no childhood; it is born in manhood,”21 he wrote. Amer-
ica had existed long before the first pilgrims had arrived on its shores. It
was an idea, a project, before it became a continent:
It was not necessity that forced them [the Puritans] to abandon their coun-
try; there they left a social position worthy of regret and a secure livelihood.
Nor did they come to the New World in order to improve their situation
or to increase their wealth; they tore themselves from the comforts of their
homeland to obey a purely intellectual need. By exposing themselves to
18. “America was just my framework, democracy was the theme.” In a letter to John
Stuart Mill, November 19, 1836. OC, VI, p. 315.
19. Little has been written about Tocqueville’s idea of Europe, but he was one of the
first to understand events in France as part of trends that were, properly speaking, either
European or universal movements. See I, p. cx, note 197, for example.
20. III, p. 768. And in a side note in a first version of the chapter: “America forms
like one part of the middle classes of England.” III, p. 767, note f.
21. I, p. 291.
foreword to this edition clvii
the inevitable hardships of exile, they wanted to assure the triumph of an

idea.22
What set apart the Europeans in America from the Europeans in Eu-
rope 23 was that, on the American continent, ideas could swiftly become
real and possible.24 Americans were able to bring to life the Europeans’
dreams. The inhabitants of America traveled lightly toward the future,
while Europeans advanced slowly because they had to carry with them their
heavy past. As Tocqueville put it: “Admirable position of the New World
where man has only himself as an enemy. To be happy and free, he only
has to want to be.”25
This explains why Americans had arrived first, before the rest of the
world, at the final stage of the development of equality; that is, democ-
racy.26 Only the combination of the uncommon origin of the Americans,
their high degree of intellectual development, their lack of aristocracy, the
power of local government and associations, and the exceptional geograph-
ical conditions, among others, allowed for the existence of this ultimate
form of political organization.
Had American democracy been exclusively the result of some excep-
tional and unrepeatable physical conditions, Europe would have had no
22. Tocqueville’s emphasis. I, p. 54.

Another Frenchman, Crèvecœur, had thus described the Americans:
He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and man-
ners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new gov-
ernment he obeys, and the new rank he holds. . . . The Americans were once scattered
all over Europe; here they are incorporated into one of the finest systems of popu-
lation which has ever appeared.
J. Hector Saint John de Crèvecœur. Letters from an American Farmer (New York: Pen-
guin Classics, 1981), p. 70.
23. Writing to his friend Francisque de Corcelle in 1836, Tocqueville blithely ex-
plained: “In my quality as an American, I have developed a great disdain for the federal
constitution of Switzerland.” OC, XV, 1, p. 70. His emphasis.
24. See I, p. lxviii, note 75, and I, p. cxii, note 204.
25. I, p. 276.
26. “⫽Dem[ocratic (ed.)] government, the chef-d’œuvre of civilization and enlight-
enment.⫽” II, p. 332, note b.
clviii foreword to this edition
chance to move toward democratic regimes and perhaps the American ex-
ample would have been less interesting to Tocqueville.27
With these circumstances not existing in Europe, there the actions of
intellectuals, mores, and laws were going to be crucial in bringing about
and maintaining democracy and in educating citizens.28 Yet, as is well
known, the advance of democratic equality did not mean that America and
Europe were necessarily moving toward a free democracy. In fact, many
signs told Tocqueville that liberty might not be the obvious result of the
democratic revolution.29
All this adds to the difficulty of reading Tocqueville.
We find in Democracy a confusing mix of America, Europe, France,
United States, the ideal of a free democratic system, and the description
of democratic despotism. It’s not easy to find out when Tocqueville is re-
ferring to one or the other. This is why it is possible to make Tocqueville
say all kinds of different and opposite things and frequently be misquoted.30
Democracy in America contains all of the institutional, historical, and
theoretical elements that we associate with and expect in classic liberalism,
such as division of powers, rights, freedom of the press, and sovereignty
of the people. But it would be a mistake to look in the book for an organized
and perfectly structured set of theoretical and institutional solutions for a
liberal democracy. Tocqueville himself consciously attempted not to write
that way. As he explained to a friend:
I believe that the books that have made men think the most and have had
the greatest influence on their opinions and actions are those in which the
author hasn’t attempted to tell them dogmatically what had to be thought,
but rather those where he has placed their minds on the road that goes
27. “If laws and mores could do nothing without the geographical position, we are
[v: we would be] lost.” YTC, CVh, 4, p. 11.
28. “In order for democracy to rule there must exist citizens, people interested in
public affairs, with the ability to deal with them willingly; this is a main point to which
one must always return.” YTC, CVe, p. 65.
29. “⫽If men could remain equal only by staying free, I would have no fear for lib-
erty.⫽” YTC, CVK, 2, p. 4.
30. Or even inventing quotes that sound Tocquevillian, like the ubiquitous—and
fake—“America is great because America is good. . . .”
foreword to this edition clix
toward the truths, and has made them find these, as if it were, by
themselves.31
Approach Democracy in America keeping in mind that its author’s aim

was to require the reader to add and complete his book, as all classic books
require, to carry it with you as a kind of travel mirror.
Read Tocqueville as Flaubert recommended reading in general to Ma-
demoiselle de Chantepie: “Don’t read as children read, to amuse yourself;
or how ambitious people do, for your instruction. No. Read to live.”32
Eduardo Nolla
Madrid, April 2011
Note on Volumes and Pagination

Although this English edition is printed in two volumes and the Liberty
Fund bilingual edition comprises four, page numbers in both editions are
identical.
The Spanish translation published by Trotta in Madrid in one volume
also uses the same pagination.
E. N.
31. In a letter to Corcelle, OC, XV, 2, p. 80.

32. Gustave Flaubert: Letter to Mademoiselle Leroyer de Chantepie, dated June 6
[1857]. Correspondance (Paris: Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 1980), II, p. 731.
Dilthey would later write, in a very Tocquevillian tone: “We give up constructing,
we love research, but we are skeptical of the machines of systems. [. . .] We are contented
dying as walkers.” Wilhelm Diltheys Gesammelte Schriften (Leipzig: Teubner, 1924), V, p.
xiv. Quoted by Luis Dı́ez del Corral, a self-professed captive of Tocqueville’s thought,
in The Rape of Europe (London: Allen and Unwin, 1959), p. 295. My translation.
s4s4s4s4s4
volume 1
(1835)
2f2f2f2f2f
s4s4s4s4s4
DEMOCRACY
IN AMERICAa
a. The drafts contain the following note, probably meant to announce the publication
of the book:
Explanatory note about my position and the principal ideas that form the heart of
the work./
In 1831, Messrs. Beaumont and Tocqueville received a mission from the French
government for the purpose of going to the United States to study the penitentiary
system there. They remained nearly one year in the United States. After returning in
1832, they published a work entitled: Of the Penitentiary System in the United States
and Its Application to France. Since then, this work has been translated in its entirety
in the United States and in Germany; a portion has been translated in England. The
French Academy believed that its authors should be awarded the annual grand prize
established for whoever publishes the most useful book.
M. de Tocqueville, one of the authors of the book mentioned above, is about to
publish this coming October a work in two volumes that also has America as the
subject. This book will be entitled Of the Dominion of Democracy in America.
The fact that most struck the author during his stay in the United States was the
fact of equality of conditions. He believed that this primary fact had exercised and
still exercised a prodigious influence on the laws, habits, mores of the Americans and
dominated, so to speak, civil and political society in the United States. This struck
him even more because this same fact of equality of conditions is constantly devel-
oping among all the peoples of Europe in a progressive manner.
So M. de Tocqueville thought that if someone could succeed in specifying in a
very plain and very clear fashion what type of influence this fact, established in Amer-
ica and half-established in Europe, really exercised on society, what necessary aspect
it gave to laws, what secret instincts to peoples, what cast it imparted to ideas and
mores, a work not only interesting, but also useful would be written; a work, though
serious in form, would nonetheless reach the minds of the greatest number of readers,
because it would in some place necessarily touch on the political passions of the period
and all the material interests that the political passions more or less express.
The result of these reflections has been the work that M. de Tocqueville is about
to publish today and for which he gathered an enormous quantity of materials during
his stay in America (YTC, CVh, 3, pp. 100–101, 99).
2
s4s4s4s4s4
part i
Introduction a
[The work that you are about to read is not a travelogue,b <the reader can
rest easy>. I do not want him to be concerned with me. You will also not
find in this book a complete summary of all the institutions of the United
States; but I flatter myself that, in it, the public will find some new docu-
mentation and, from it, will gain useful knowledge about a subject that is
a. Ideas of the preface./

Irresistible movement of democracy, great fact of the modern world. Importance
of this fact superior to all questions of time and of internal politics. America showing
this fact come to its completion.
Goal of this work to give accurate notions about this fact; moreover, I do not judge
this fact. I do not even believe that there is anything of an absolute goodness in in-
stitutions. Montesquieu . . .
Ease of criticizing me. I know that nothing will be easier than to criticize this book,
if anyone ever thinks of examining it critically. You will have only to contrast certain
particular facts to certain of my general ideas. Nothing is easier; there are facts and
arguments for all doctrines. For you to judge me, I would like you to want to do what
I did, to see an ensemble of facts and to come to a decision based on the mass of
reasons. To whoever will do that and then does not agree with me, I am ready to
submit. For if I am sure of having sincerely sought the truth, I am far from consid-
ering myself as certain to have found it.
To contrast an isolated fact to the ensemble of facts, a detached idea to the se-
quence of ideas.
It isn’t that I don’t have set ideas, but they are general (for there is absolute truth
only in general ideas). I believe that tyranny is the greatest evil, liberty the first good.
But as for knowing what is most appropriate for preventing the one and creating the
other among peoples and knowing if all peoples are made to escape tyranny, that is
where doubt begins (YTC, CVh, 3, pp. 96–97).
b. The criticism of this passage (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 7) made by Louis de Kergorlay
has been published in Correspondance avec Kergorlay (OC, XIII, 1, p. 367).
3
4 introduction
more important for us than the fate of America and no less worthy of hold-
ing our attention.c]
Among the new objects that attracted my attention during my stay in
the United States, none struck me more vividly than the equality of con-
ditions.d I discovered without difficulty the prodigious influence that this
primary fact exercises on the march of society; it gives a certain direction
to the public mind, a certain turn to the laws; to those governing, new
maxims, and particular habits to the governed.
Soon I recognized that this same fact extends its influence far beyond
political mores and laws, and that it has no less dominion over civil society,
than over government: it creates opinions, gives birth to sentiments, sug-
gests customs and modifies all that it does not produce.
Therefore, as I studied American society, I saw more and more, in equal-
ity of conditions, the generating fact from which each particular fact
seemed to derive, and I rediscovered it constantly before me as a central
point where all of my observations came together.
Then I turned my thought back toward our hemisphere, and it seemed
to me that I perceived something analogous to the spectacle that the New
World offered me. I saw equality of conditions that, without having
reached its extreme limits as in the United States, approached those limits
c. In a first version of the drafts:

[In the margin: I have not said everything that I saw, but I have said everything that
I believed at the same time true and useful [v: profitable] to make known, and without
wanting to write a treatise on America, I thought only to help my fellow citizens
resolve a question that must interest us more deeply.]
I see around me facts without number, but I notice one of them that dominates
all the others; it is old; it is stronger than laws, more powerful than men; it seems to
be a direct product of the divine will; it is the gradual development of democracy in
the Christian world. When I say “democracy” here I do not mean to speak only about
a political form of government, but of a social state (YTC, CVh, 3, pp. 115–16).
d. This first paragraph differs a bit from the manuscript: “There is a fact that more
than all the rest attracts the attention of the European upon his arrival on the shores of
the New World. A surprising equality reigns there among fortunes; at first glance minds
themselves seem equal. I was struck, like others, at the sight of this extreme equality of
conditions and I discovered without difficulty . . .”
introduction 5
more each day; and this same democracy that reigned in American societies,
appeared to me to advance rapidly toward power in Europe.e
From that moment, I conceived the idea of the book you are about to
read.f
e. In the margin: “⫽I remember that I saw something analogous in France; I think
that you can usefully examine the effects in the two countries, and I conceive the idea
of the book.⫽” Another version is presented to the side that specifies: “⫽in Europe and
principally in my own country.⫽”
The version not struck out in the manuscript says: “. . . appeared to me ready to take
power among us.” Hervé de Tocqueville remarks: “The word ready does not seem good
to me. Besides, isn’t it too absolute relative to what is still happening at the moment
among us and to the government that succeeded the Restoration?”
Next to this observation, another is found, probably from Édouard de Tocqueville,
brother of Alexis: “I also agree that this expression must be softened” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 9).
The criticisms of Hervé de Tocqueville, father of Alexis, of Édouard and Hippolyte
de Tocqueville, his brothers, and those of his friends Gustave de Beaumont and Louis
de Kergorlay, made at the time of reading a copy of the manuscript of the first Democ-
racy, are known to us thanks to a copy in Bonnel’s hand. The latter does not identify
the authors. Nonetheless, the written comments can be attributed to them without great
difficulty, by taking into account tone, style, and the following facts: the observations
of Louis de Kergorlay consisted of small slips of paper inserted into the manuscript (only
a few of them remain relating to the introduction and to the last section of chapter X
of the 1835 part); certain of his notes on the introduction have been published in the
correspondence of Tocqueville and Kergorlay (cf. OC, XIII, 1, pp. 364–68; note that the
list reproduced on p. 368 is Tocqueville’s, not Kergorlay’s); all comments using the vous
form can be attributed to Beaumont, who always used vous with Tocqueville, in dis-
tinction to the members of Tocqueville’s family and Kergorlay; finally a letter included
in the critical observations (reproduced in note c for p. 142) and some sentences of the
first readers of the manuscript inform us that the notes found alongside the commen-
taries of Hervé were written by Édouard de Tocqueville. By elimination, some remaining
less interesting comments could be by Hippolyte, older brother of Alexis. Certain re-
flections inserted between texts seem to us to be by Alexis himself.
The whole of these commentaries are found at the Beinecke Library under the clas-
sification CIIIb. There are also a few brief commentaries by Hervé de Tocqueville for
chapter IX of the second part of the first volume of 1835 under the classification YTC,
CVh, 3, pp. 14–17.
f. At the top of the sheet appears, crossed out, the beginning of the section impor-
tance of what precedes in relation to europe, the conclusion of chapter 9
of the second part of volume I, constituting at the start the conclusion of the book (since
chapter 10 was added at the last moment). This fact, as well as numerous similarities and
displacements of paragraphs between the introduction and the conclusion of chapter 9,
indicate that the two chapters were very likely written at the same time, probably at the
end of the spring or at the beginning of the summer of 1834.
6 introduction
A great democratic revolution is taking placeg among us; everyone sees

it, but not everyone judges it in the same way. Some consider it as something
new and, taking it for an accident, they hope still to be able to stop it; while
others judge it irresistible, because it seems to them the most continuous,
oldest and most permanent fact known in history.
I look back for a moment to what France was seven hundred years ago:
I find it divided up among a small number of families who own the land
and govern the inhabitants; at that time, the right to command is passed
down with inheritances from generation to generation; men have only a
single way to act on one another, force; you discover only a single source
of power, landed property.
But then the political power of the clergy becomes established and is
soon expanding.h The clergy opens its ranks to all, to the poor and to the
g. In the manuscript: “. . . is reaching completion among us.”

Hervé de Tocqueville: “This sentence seems too absolute to me for the reasons that
I have just enumerated a short while ago; instead of the words reaching completion, I
would like better seems due to take place.”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “That is right” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 9).
h. The saints. Men committed to the moral grandeur of man.
Saints taken from all classes.
Political power of the clergy that makes men of all classes arrive at the government.
[In the margin: Ascending movement of time, descending movement of nobles. ]
Introduction of jurists into the government produces the same effect.
The Crusades that enervate the nobility and divide lands.
The financiers. Importance that the perpetual wars of the Middle Ages give to
them. The middle classes are introduced by them into government.
Granting of freedom to the towns.
Personal estates. Tyranny toward the Jews that brings about the invention of paper
wealth.
Instruction begun by the monks in the cathedrals. Religion awakens the arts. In-
troduction of men of letters into government. Political power of the University of
Paris.
Granting of nobility that brings commoners into the government by the nobility
(1270).
[In the margin: Equality penetrates finally into government by the nobility.]
Favoritism of the kings that brings men from nothing to power. Pierre de Brosse,
minister after having been a barber (1275).
Laws of exclusive privileges that prevent vassals from becoming too powerful.
Introduction of towns into the Estates General (1304).
Taste for literature that opens up a new importance to men of all classes. Estab-
introduction 7
rich, to the commoner and to the lord; equality begins to penetrate through
the Church into the government, and someone who would have vegetated
as a serf in eternal slavery takes his place as a priest among nobles and often
goes to take a seat above kings.
As society becomes more civilized and more stable with time, the dif-
ferent relationships among men become more complicated and more nu-
merous. The need for civil laws is intensely felt. Then jurists arise; they
emerge from the dark precinct of the courts and from the dusty recess of
the clerks’ offices, and they go to sit in the court of the prince, alongside
feudal barons covered with ermine and iron.
Kings ruin themselves in great enterprises; nobles exhaust themselves in
private wars; commoners enrich themselves in commerce. The influence
of money begins to make itself felt in affairs of State. Trade is a new source
of power, and financiers become a political power that is scorned and
flattered.
Little by little, enlightenment spreads; the taste for literature and the arts
reawakens; then the mind becomes an element of success; knowledge is a
means of government; intelligence, a social force; men of letters reach pub-
lic affairs.
As new roads to achieve power are found, however, we see the value of
birth fall. In the XIth century, nobility had an inestimable value; it is pur-
lishment of floral games (1324).TN 1

Discovery of firearms that equalizes the unprotected villein with the nobleman
covered in iron (1328).
The Jacquerie. The uprising of the bourgeois of Paris (1358).
Wars with the English that destroy or ruin the nobility.
Factions of the Armagnacs and the Burgundians that give importance to the peo-
ple. The nobles use them as instruments.
Beginning of heresies. Jan Huss (1414).
Institution of permanent armies that finishes undermining feudal power (1446).
Immense commercial and personal fortunes. Jacques Coeur.
End of the Eastern Empire. Increasing influence of letters in the West (1453).
Discovery of printing toward 1440. The post in . . .
Louis XI.
Discovery of America (1492) (YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 18–20).
Translator’s Note 1: Floral games were a literary competition held annually
in Toulouse and elsewhere in France.
8 introduction
chased in the XIIIth; the first granting of nobility takes place in 1270,j and
equality is finally introduced into government by aristocracy itself.
During the seven hundred years that have just passed, it sometimes hap-
pened that, in order to struggle against royal authority, or to take power
away from their rivals, the nobles gave political power to the people.
Even more often, you saw kings make the lower classes of the State par-
ticipate in government in order to humblek the aristocracy.
In France, kings showed themselves to be the most active and most con-
stant of levelers. When they were ambitious and strong, they worked to
raise the people to the level of the nobles, and when they were moderate
and weak, they allowedm the people to put themselves above kings. The
former helped democracy by their talents, the latter by their vices. Louis
XI and Louis XIV took care to equalize everything below the throne, and
Louis XV himself finally descended into the dust with his court.n
As soon as citizens began to own the land in ways other than by feudal
tenure, and as soon as personal wealth, once known, could in turn create
influence and confer power, no discoveries were made in the arts, no further
j. The manuscript says “1370.” The correct date is indeed 1270.

k. In the manuscript: “. . . in order to pull down the aristocracy.”
Hervé de Tocqueville: “Aren’t the words pull down too absolute here?”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “Perhaps humble would be better” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 10).
m. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I would like better: they suffered the people, etc” (YTC,
CIIIb, 1, p. 10).
n. Hervé de Tocqueville:
There is an error here; you undoubtedly wanted to put Louis XVI, for if Louis XV
prepared the Revolution by his debaucheries, you cannot deny that he was an absolute
king until his last moment and his court all powerful. I do not like the word dust
which is not of a type elevated enough for the rest of the style; one says, moreover,
fall into the dust, but one does not say descend into the dust.
Édouard de Tocqueville:
I also find this sentence leaves something to be desired. I will not, however, make the
same criticism as my father. It is indeed Louis XV who lost the monarchy by depriving
it of all of its moral force, of its dignity and of the prestige that surrounded the
throne. Only fall into the dust expresses a physical abasement, but it is a moral abase-
ment that must be expressed here, by observing that Louis XV succeeded in killing
the aristocracy by discrediting it by the corruption of his court (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 11).
introduction 9
improvements were introduced into commerce and industry, without also

creating as many new elements of equality among men. From this moment,
all processes that are found, all needs that are born, all desires that demand
to be satisfied, are progress toward universal leveling. The taste for luxury,
the love of war, the sway of fashion, the most superficial passions of the
human heart as well as the most profound, seem to work in concert to
impoverish the rich and to enrich the poor.
From the time when works of the mind became sources of strength and
wealth, each development of science, each new element of knowledge, each
new idea had to be considered as a germ of power put within reach of the
people. Poetry, eloquence, memory, mental graces, fires of the imagination,
depth of thought, all these gifts that heaven distributes at random, profited
democracy, and even when they were in the possession of democracy’s ad-
versaries, they still served its cause by putting into relief the natural gran-
deur of man; so democracy’s conquests spread with those of civilization
and enlightenment, and literature was an arsenal open to all, where the weak
and the poor came each day to find arms.
When you skim the pages of our history you do not find so to speak any
great events that for seven hundred years have not turned to the profit of
equality.
The Crusades and the English wars decimate the nobles and divide their
lands; the institution of the towns introduces democratic liberty into the
feudal monarchy; [<the rigors enforced against the Jews bring about the
invention of paper wealtho>]; the discovery of firearms equalizes the villein
and the noble on the field of battle; printing offers equal resources to their
minds; the post comes to deposit enlightenment at the threshold of the hut
of the poor as at the gate of palaces; Protestantism maintains that all men
are equally able to find the way to heaven. America, which comes into sight,
presents a thousand new paths to fortune and delivers the wealth and power
[reserved to kings] to obscure adventurers.
If you examine what is happening in France from the XIth century every
o. In the margin: “<Letters of exchange, the most democratic of all wealth.>“

10 introduction
fifty years, at the end of each one of these periods, you will not fail to notice
that a double revolution has taken place in the state of society. The noble
will have slipped on the social ladder, the commoner will have risen; the
one descends, the other ascends. Each half-century brings them closer to-
gether, and soon they are going to touch.
And this is not only particular to France. In whatever direction we cast
our eyes, we notice the same revolution continuing in all of the Christian
universe. [Let someone cite to me a republic or a kingdom in which the
nobles of today can be compared, I would not say to the nobles of feudal
times, but only to their fathers of the last century. {If France hastened the
democratic revolution of which I am speaking, France did not give it birth}.
For seven hundred years, there is not a single event among Christians
that has not turned to the profit of democracy, not a man who has not
served its triumph. <⫽The clergy by spreading enlightenment and by ap-
plying within its bosom the principle of Christian equality, kings by op-
posing the people to nobles, nobles by opposing the people to kings; writers
and the learned by creating intellectual riches for democracy’s use; trades-
men by providing unknown resources for democracy’s activity; the navi-
gator by finding democracy new worlds.⫽>]
Everywhere you saw the various incidents in the lives of peoples turn to
the profit of democracy; all men aided it by their efforts:p those who had
in view contributing to its success and those who did not think of serving
it; those who fought for it and even those who declared themselves its en-
emies; all were pushed pell-mell along the same path, and all worked in
common, some despite themselves, others without their knowledge, blind
instruments in the hands of God.
So the gradual development of equality of conditions [{democracy}] is
a providential fact;q it has the principal characteristics of one: it is universal,
p. In the manuscript: “The Catholic priest and the sectarian, the jurist and the poet,
the financier and the learned man, the manufacturer and the navigator, kings, nobles
themselves, each worked for the people. The people profited from all efforts. Those who
had in view . . .”
q. This sentence has not failed to provoke numerous commentaries. From it certain
commentators have been able to conclude a bit quickly that Tocqueville was fatalistic.
Thus François Furet (“Le système conceptuel de la Démocratie en Amèrique,” in Mi-
introduction 11
chael Hereth and Jutta Höffken, Alexis de Tocqueville. Zur Politik in der Demokratie,
Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1981, pp. 19–52, especially pp. 23 and 28) sees in Tocqueville the
development of the idea of inevitability already present in Chateaubriand. If it is in-
contestable that this paragraph acknowledges a destiny of a providential nature for the
idea of equality, the rest of the book, and all of Tocqueville’s work, is no less a plea in
favor of liberty against all forms of fatalism. Marvin Zetterbaum (Tocqueville and the
Problem of Democracy, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1967, pp. 15–19) attempted
to resolve this contradiction by attributing to Tocqueville, in this passage, motives of
the kind for persuasion and pedagogy: the latter would have insisted on the providential
character of democracy in order to take advantage of the religious sentiments of the
French aristocracy of the period and thus to persuade the French aristocracy not to op-
pose the march of democracy. Other authors, in particular Wilhelm Hennis, used a
similar argument to see in Tocqueville less of a political thinker than a rhetorician (in
the positive sense of the term). Without getting into a discussion of the rhetorical value
of Tocqueville’s work (what political discourse is not rhetorical?), it is necessary, none-
theless, to point out that in other places in the book Tocqueville sees in the inevitable
character of political equality the result of social equality and of the cartesian method.
This time the argument has psychological bases. If one time, even if in the middle of
revolutionary disorders, men have had the experience of equality or have thought of
themselves as equal, it is very difficult afterward to make them accept social inequality
and political differences. So social equality is inevitable if it has existed previously, if
only for a short moment, and if you accept the principle according to which social con-
ditions determine political life.
The development of social equality remains to be explained. To understand it, it is
indispensable to refer to a little known text of Tocqueville, drafted when he worked on
Democracy: “Mémoire sur le paupérisme” (Mémoires de la société académique de Cher-
bourg, 1835, pp. 293–344, reproduced in Commentaire XXIII (1983): 630–36; XXIV,
pp. 880–88). There Tocqueville sketches a general history of civilization. Almost literally
following the Rousseau of Discours sur l’origine de l’inégalité, he offers a picture according
to which men are equal solely when, coming out of the forests, they seek to associate
together with their fellow men in order to gain sufficient food and shelter against the
elements. Inequality owes its origin to ownership of territory which, in turn, produces
the aristocracy.
If you pay attention to what is happening in the world since the origin of societies,
you will discover without difficulty that equality is found only at the two ends of
civilization. Savages are equal to each other because they are all equally weak and
ignorant. Very civilized men can all become equal because they all have at their dis-
posal analogous means to attain comfort and happiness. Between these two extremes
are found inequality of conditions, the wealth, enlightenment, power of some, the
poverty, ignorance and weakness of all the others (p. 636).
The process of equality of conditions is dependent on the increase in intellectual and
material needs. Tocqueville writes again:
12 introduction
it is lasting, it escapes every day from human power; all events, like all men,
serve its development.r
Men leave the plow to take up the shuttle and the hammer; from the cottage they
pass into the factory; by acting in this way, they obey the immutable laws that preside
over the growth of organized societies. So you can no more assign a stopping point
to this movement than impose bounds on human perfectibility. The limit of the one
like that of the others is known only to God (p. 634).
Equality is consequently the direct result of a law of the evolution of intelligence, and
only intermediately, like all laws, a product of Providence. Finally, it must be recalled
that Tocqueville is content to note here what the entire book will demonstrate and make
convincing by the development of precise arguments. (See Correspondance avec Kergor-
lay, OC, XIII, 1, p. 375; according to André Jardin, this letter in reality would have been
written to Eugène Stoffels.)
r. Democracy! Don’t you notice that these are the waters of the flood? Don’t you
see them advance constantly by a slow and irresistible effort? <Already they cover the
fields and the cities, they roll over the destroyed battlements of fortified castles and
come to wash against the steps of thrones.> You withdraw, the waves continue their
march. You flee, they run behind you. Here you are finally in your last refuge and
scarcely have you sat down to take a breath when the waves have already covered the
space that still separates you from them. So let us know how to face the future steadily
and with open eyes. Instead of wanting to raise impotent dikes, let us seek rather to
build the holy [v: tutelary] ark that must carry the human species over this ocean
without shores.
But this is what hardly occupies us already placed in the middle . . .
It would be very insane to believe that we have seen the end of this great revolution.
This movement continues, no one can say where it will stop. For we are already lack-
ing terms of comparison. Conditions are more equal among us than they have ever
been in any time and in any country of the world.
Thus the very grandeur of what is done prevents us from foreseeing what can still
be done.
What will the probable consequences of this immense social revolution be? What
new order will emerge from the debris of the one that is falling? Who can say? The
men of the IVth century, witnesses to the barbarian invasions, gave themselves over,
like us, to a thousand conjectures, but no one thought to foresee the universal estab-
lishment of the feudal system that followed the ruin of Rome in all of Europe. To
discern effects without going back to causes, to judge what is without knowing what
will be, isn’t that moreover the whole of human destiny? We see that the sun changes
place and that it advances constantly toward other heavens, we recognize that its
movement is regulated, we feel that it obeys the hand of the Creator, but we will not
be able to determine the force that makes it move and we are carried along with the
sun toward a still unknown point in the universe.
In the middle of this impenetrable obscurity of the future, however, the eye sees
some shafts of light. You can glimpse even now that the centuries of limited mon-
introduction 13
Would it be wise to believe that a social movement that comes from so

far could be suspended by the efforts of a generation?s Do you think that
archy are rapidly passing and that modern societies are carried by a force superior to
that of man either toward the republic or toward despotism and perhaps alternately
from one to the other. As for me, I admit, in this century of liberty I fear for the
future liberty of the human species. I [do not (ed.)] draw my fears from the past,
which cannot be reproduced, but from the very nature of man, which does not
change.
I see that by a strange oddity of our nature the passion for equality, which should
decrease along with inequality of conditions, on the contrary increases as conditions
become equal. In proportion [that (ed.)] the trace of hierarchies disappears, that pas-
sion alone seems to rule the human heart. Now, men [have (ed.)] two ways to be
equal. They can all have the same rights or all be equally deprived of rights, and I
tremble at the idea of the choice that they are going to make when I see the little care
that is taken to (illegible word) [instruct? (ed.)] them, when I think how much more
difficult it is to live free than to vegetate in slavery. I know that there are many honest
men who are scarcely frightened by this idea and who would ask no better than to
sleep peacefully in the arms of despotism while stammering some words about liberty.
But my tastes, like my reason, distance me from them. Those who want thus to
achieve order by way of despots hardly know what they desire. Liberty sometimes
happens to make light of the existence of men, to be lavish with the resources of
society, to disturb souls and to make beliefs waver, but despotism attacks all these
things in their principle and in their [broken text (ed.)] (YTC, CVh, 3, pp. 27–30).
From the variant of this text (YTC, CVb, pp. 30–32, 26–31), the following details will
be retained (pp. 29–30):
To claim to stop the march of democracy would be folly. God willing, there is still
time to direct it and to prevent it from leading us to the despotism of one [v: military]
man, that is to say to the most detestable form of government that the human mind
has ever been able to imagine.
Sometimes liberty happens to make light of the existence of men, to be lavish with
the resources of society, to disturb souls, to make beliefs waver.
But despotism attacks these very things in their principle and their essence. It pre-
vents men from multiplying, it exhausts the source of wealth and of well-being, it
confuses notions of good and evil and, by taking from man his independence [v: free
will], it removes from him as much trace as it can of his divine origin. A free man
often does things unworthy of himself, but a slave is less than a man.
To abhor despotism is not to do the work of a citizen, but the act of a man.
s. Hervé de Tocqueville: “The word effort that I advised deleting a bit above is found
again here. Is the word generation suitable? It includes the idea of unanimity of action
which will certainly not be found against democracy in the present generation” (YTC,
CIIIb, 1, pp. 12–13).
14 introduction
after having destroyed feudalism and vanquished kings, democracy will re-
treat before the bourgeois and the rich?t Will it stop now that it has become
so strong and its adversaries so weak?
So where are we going? No one can say; for we are already lacking terms
of comparison; conditions are more equal today among Christians than
they have ever been in any time or in any country in the world; thus we are
prevented by the magnitude of what is already done from foreseeing what
can still be done.
The entire book that you are about to read has been written under the
impression of a sort of religious terror produced in the soul of the author
by the sight of this irresistible revolution that has marched for so many
centuries over all obstacles, and that we still see today advancing amid the
ruins that it has made.
It isn’t necessary for God himself to speak in order for us to discover
sure signs of his will; it is enough to examine the regular march of na-
ture and the continuous tendency of events; I know, without the Creator
raising his voice, that the stars in space follow the curves traced by his
fingers.
If long observations and sincere meditations led men of today to rec-
ognize that the gradual and progressive development of equality is at once
the past and the future of their history, this discovery alone would give this
development the sacred character of the will of God. To want to stop de-
mocracy would then seem to be struggling against God himself, and it
would only remain for nations to accommodate themselves to the social
state that Providence imposes on them.u
t. In the margin: “⫽The democratic revolution that carries us along will not retreat
after having triumphed for seven hundred years over so many obstacles.⫽”
u. This paragraph and the preceding one do not exist in the manuscript. In their place,
you find this: “If, to want to stop the development of democracy, is to struggle against
God himself, what then remains for men to do if not to accommodate themselves to the
social state that Providence imposes on them?”
The two new paragraphs were probably added following this suggestion by Louis de
Kergorlay:
The thought enclosed in this paragraph is very beautiful and fundamental, but un-
fortunately little in fashion, little spread among the public which remains more matter
of fact. I believe that to make the public see that it is a thought, that it is a sentiment,
introduction 15
Christian peoples seem to me to offer today a frightening spectacle.v The

movement that sweeps them along is already so strong that it cannot be
suspended, and it is not yet so rapid as to despair of directing it. Their fate
is in their hands; but soon it escapes them.w
that it is something serious, it must be developed a bit more. It is one of the building
blocks of your introduction. I have taken the risk of drafting the following three or
four sentences as more or less encompassing what I understand as the development
of your idea. So in my mind, I put this in place of your paragraph:
“Where would the hand of God be more visible than in the most immutable facts
of nature? Where does man thus find other proofs of the existence and of the will
of the divinity, than in the works of his creator, and what more sublime work could
he examine than his own nature?
“So if sincere meditations led him one day to acknowledge that the progressive
development of democracy is at once the past and the future of his history, this
discovery alone would give to this development the sacred character of the will of
our sovereign master, to all resistance against this march of our destiny that of a
struggle against God himself, and that of a duty to the search for all that can accom-
modate humanity to the new social state imposed by Providence.”
I do not know if you will find these sentences clear or vague, but what I want to
express to you is the need for a development that elevates the soul of the reader (YTC,
CIIIb, 1, pp. 23–24).
v. In the manuscript: “. . . offer today the most terrible of spectacles.”
Hervé de Tocqueville: “The most terrible here is too strong an expression, since the
author says farther along that you must not yet despair of being able to direct the
movement.”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “The word terrible does not seem to me very good either;
this expression which prepares for something frightening is not justified by what follows”
(YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 13).
w. It would be falling into a great error to believe that the period in which we live
resembled any other and that the habitual routine of human passions could be applied
to it equally. At the moment when I am speaking, the destinies of the Christian world
are in suspense and nations find themselves in a position unique in their lives. The
movement that carries them along is already too strong to be able to hope to stop it
and not yet strong enough to despair of directing it.
At the period in which we are, what are the destinies of a man, the fortune of a
law, the successes of a party? These interests of one day disappear before an interest
a thousand times greater still, that touches all men and all parties equally and that
must be the goal of all laws. Today the question is no longer only knowing what
progress civilization will make, but what the fate of civilization will be, not what laws
will regulate property, but what the very principle of property will be. It is no longer
only a matter of regulating political rights, but civil rights, inheritance, paternity,
marriage like the right to vote [v: property qualification].
16 introduction
To instruct democracy, to revive its beliefs if possible, to purify its mores,

to regulate its movements, to substitute little by little the science of public
affairs for its inexperience, knowledge of its true interests for its blind in-
stincts; to adapt its government to times and places; to modify it according
to circumstances and men; such is the first of duties imposed today on those
who lead society.
A new political sciencex is needed for a world entirely newy [{for a unique
situation, laws without precedents are needed}].
The time has passed when you struggled to conquer or to keep, not some liberty,
but all liberties together, up to that of living.
Today, in a word, you must not forget, it is still much more a matter of the very
existence of society than of the forms of the government.
You can no longer have anything except despotism or the republic.
Despotism such as our fathers never knew in any period of history, Roman or
Byzantine despotism, mixture of corruption [v: plunder], barbarism, brutality and
subtlety, of obsequiousness and of arrogance, no more collective resistance, no more
esprit de corps, family honor, aristocratic (four illegible words). Honest men who want
absolute power today do not know what they want. They will no longer have the
good absolute power of the old monarchy, moderated by mores . . . but the absolute
power of the Roman Empire . . . (YTC, CVh, 3, pp. 20–21, 21–22).
x. This affirmation is central and cannot be minimized. Criticism has too generally
put the accent on Tocqueville as a traveler, observer of mores and institutions, historian
foreshadowing the sociologist. Whereas, the objective that Tocqueville is fixed upon is
above all political. The fact that this “science” is defined in terms that to us signal more
sociology, history, or psychology must not diminish its importance. Like all political
thinkers, like Montequieu or Rousseau, Tocqueville wants to try to rethink what he calls
“political science” and to redefine it. He will not cease to come back to the question of
the language used to designate concepts and new realities; he will introduce neologisms.
It is also the meaning of the memorable speech delivered at the Academy of Moral and
Political Sciences in which the author presents himself as a political theorist. It is precisely
his talents as a theoretician, he thinks, that have prevented him from making a political
career:
The art of writing suggests, in fact, to those who have practiced it for a long time
habits of mind little favorable to the conduct of affairs. It subjugates them to the
logic of ideas, when the crowd never obeys anything except that of passions. It gives
them the taste for the fine, the delicate, the ingenious, the original, while it is the
awful commonplaces that lead the world. (Speech delivered to the annual public
meeting of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, Séances et travaux de
introduction 17
But that is what we scarcely consider; placed in the middle of a rapid

river, we obstinately fix our eyes on some debris that we still see on the
bank, while the current carries us away and pushes us backwards toward
the abyss.
There is no people of Europe among whom the great social revolutionz
that I have just described has made more rapid progress than among us;
but here it has always marched haphazardly.
The heads of State [{legislator}] never thought to prepare anything in
advance for it; it came about despite them or without their knowledge. The
most powerful, most intelligent and most moral classes of the nation did
l’Académie des sciences morales et politiques, XXI, 1852, p. 303; this speech has been
reproduced with some omissions in OCB, IX, pp. 116–33).
For Tocqueville, political science is a science based on the faculties and eternal in-
stincts of human nature; it spreads from philosophy to the civil law, from theory to
written laws and to facts. Such an upside down pyramid is conceived so that the closer
you get to facts, the farther you get from generalities: “There is no commentator who
does not often rely upon the abstract and general truths that writers on politics have
found, and the latter need constantly to base their theory on particular facts and on the
studied institutions that commentators have revealed or described” (ibid., p. 305). Par-
allel to this science exists the art of governing, politics of the practical order, able to be
modified constantly. The degree of civilization of a people is always proportional to the
complexity of its political science. In other words, the more civilization, the more elab-
orate the political science; a new world demands as well a new political science:
Among all civilized peoples, the political sciences give birth or at least give form to
general ideas, from which then follow particular facts, in the middle of which poli-
ticians agitate, and the laws that they think they invent. The political sciences form
around each society something like a kind of intellectual atmosphere in which the
minds of the governed and of those who govern breathe, and from which both, often
without knowing, sometimes without wanting to know, draw the principles of their
conduct. Barbarians are the only ones where only practice is recognized in politics
(ibid., p. 306).
y. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I do not know if you can use the expression for a world
entirely new while speaking of old Europe. I know well that it is a matter of the political
world, but the changes there are not so abrupt that world entirely new applies very
exactly.”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “Current society is certainly entirely new by comparison
with that of forty years ago” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 13).
z. “The French Revolution did the same good as the Nile that fertilizes the fields of
Egypt by covering them with muck” (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 97).
18 introduction
not try to take hold of it in order to direct it. So democracy has been aban-
doned to its wild instincts; it has grown up like those children, deprived of
paternal care, who raise themselves in the streets of our cities, and who
know society only by its vices and miseries. We still seemed unaware of its
existence, when it took hold of power without warning. Then each person
submitted with servility to its slightest desires; it was adored as the image
of strength; when later it was weakened by its own excesses, legislators con-
ceived the imprudent plan of destroying it instead of trying to instruct and
correct it, and not wanting to teach it to govern, they thought only about
pushing it away from government.
The result was that the democratic revolution took place in the ma-
terial aspect of society without happening in the laws, ideas, habits and
mores,a the change that would have been necessary to make this revolu-
a. This idea is found in the fourth lecture of Guizot’s course on civilization in France.
“The revolution that the last century caused to burst forth was a social revolution; it was
much more concerned with changing the reciprocal situation of men than their internal
and personal dispositions; it wanted to reform the society rather than the individual”
(François Guizot, Histoire de la civilisation en France in Cours d’histoire moderne, Brussels:
Hauman, 1839, p. 160). Tocqueville attended this course on the history of civilization
in France taught by Guizot at the Sorbonne in 1829–1830. The notes for the course, from
11 April 1829 to 29 March 1830, are preserved. His correspondence indicates nonetheless
that he attended the course before the month of April (see Correspondance avec Beau-
mont, OC, VIII, 1, pp. 76–77). Tocqueville, in a letter to Beaumont, dated 30 August
1829 (OC, VIII, 1, pp. 80–81), asserts that he has already read “most of Guizot” and that
he found him so “prodigious” that he proposes to his friend to read Guizot with him
during the winter. Reading Guizot enlightened him notably about the IVth century (note
r from p. 12 bears a reference to the same century). Several times, furthermore, Tocque-
ville will allude in the Democracy to the eighth lecture of the Cours. Two years later,
when he is in America, he writes to his friend and colleague Ernest de Chabrol: “We
cannot find here a book that is very necessary to us for helping us analyze American
society; this is the lectures of Guizot, including what he said and published three years
ago on Roman society and the Middle Ages” (New York, 18 May 1831, YTC, BIa2). It is
following Guizot, in the fourth lecture of the Cours, that Tocqueville divides his first
notes on American society into civil state and social state.
Guizot did not fail to find himself in Tocqueville’s work. In De la démocratie en France
( janvier 1849) (Brussels: J. Petit, 1849), whose title alone makes explicit reference to
Tocqueville, he seems to blame the latter for having taken the concept of equality and
having transformed it into a universal process that pushes irremediably toward popular
sovereignty while making the dominion of the middle classes disappear by its momen-
introduction 19
tionb useful. We therefore have democracy, minus what must attenuate

its vices and bring out its natural advantages; and seeing already the evils
that it brings, we are still unaware of the good that it can give.
When royal power, supported by the aristocracy, peacefully governed the
peoples of Europe, society, amid its miseries, enjoyed several kinds of hap-
piness, which are difficult to imagine and appreciate today.
The power of some subjects raised insurmountable barriers to the tyr-
anny of the prince; and kings, feeling vested in the eyes of the crowd with
a nearly divine character, drew, from the very respect that they caused, the
will not to abuse their power.
Placed an immense distance from the people, the nobles nonetheless
took the type of benevolent and tranquil interest in the fate of the people
that the shepherdc gives to his flock; and without seeing the poor man as
their equal, they watched over his lot as a trust put in their hands by
Providence.
Not having conceived the idea of a social state other than their own, not
imagining that they could ever be equal to their rulers, the people accepted
the benefits and did not question the rights of their rulers. They loved them
when they were lenient and just and submitted without difficulty and with-
out servility to their rigors as to inevitable evils sent to them by the hand
of God. Custom and mores had, moreover, established limits to tyranny
and founded a kind of right in the very midst of force.
Since the noble did not think that someone would want to wrest from
him the privileges that he believed legitimate, and the serf regarded his
tum. It is not the only time, as we will see, that Tocqueville repeats an idea of Guizot
for his particular ends.
See Luis Dı́ez del Corral, El pensamiento polı́tico de Tocqueville (Madrid: Alianza Uni-
versidad, 1989), pp. 353–91; Aurelian Craiutu, Liberalism Under Siege: The Political
Thought of the French Doctrinaires (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2003), pp. 87–122.
b. Édouard de Tocqueville: “How can a revolution take place in the material aspect
of society without the ideas, laws, habits and mores seconding it? So what then do you
call the material aspect of society?” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 14).
c. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I am afraid that some might respond to the author that
these shepherds were really wolves. You will avoid this disadvantage by generalizing less,
by putting a portion of the nobles” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 14).
20 introduction
inferiority as a result of the immutable order of nature, it is conceivable

that a kind of reciprocal benevolence could be established between these
two classes sharing so different a fate. You then saw in society inequality,
miseries, but souls were not degraded.
It is not the use of power or the habit of obedience that depraves men;
it is the use of a power that they consider as illegitimate and obedience to
a power that they regard as usurped and oppressive.
On one side were wealth, force, leisure and with them the pursuit of
luxury, refinements of taste, pleasures of the mind, devotion to the arts; on
the other, work, coarseness and ignorance.
But within this ignorant and coarse crowd, you met energetic passions,
generous sentiments, profound beliefs and untamed virtues.
The social body organized in this way could have stability, power, and
above all glory.
But ranks are merging; barriers raised between men are falling; estates
are being divided; power is being shared, enlightenment is spreading, in-
tellects are becoming equal; the social state is becoming democratic, and
the dominion of democracy is finally being established peacefully in insti-
tutions and in mores.
Then I imagine a society where all, seeing the law as their work, would
love it and would submit to it without difficulty; where since the authority
of the government is respected as necessary and not as divine, the love
that is felt for the head of State would be not a passion, but a reasoned
and calm sentiment. Since each person has rights and is assured of pre-
serving his rights, a manly confidence and a kind of reciprocal conde-
scension, as far from pride as from servility, would be established among
all classes.
Instructed in their true interests, the people would understand that, in
order to take advantage of the good things of society, you must submit to
its burdens. The free association of citizens would then be able to replace
the individual power of the nobles, and the State would be sheltered from
tyranny and from license.
I understand that in a democratic State, constituted in this manner, so-
ciety will not be immobile; but the movements of the social body will be
introduction 21
able to be regulated and progressive; if you meet less brilliance there than
within an aristocracy, you will find less misery; pleasures will be less extreme
and well-being more general; knowledge not as great and ignorance more
rare; sentiments less energetic and habits more mild; there you will notice
more vices and fewer crimes.d
If there is no enthusiasm and fervor of beliefs, enlightenment and ex-
perience will sometimes obtain great sacrifices from citizens; each man,
equally weak, will feel an equal need for his fellows; and knowing that he
can gain their support only on condition of lending them his help, he will
discover without difficulty that for him particular interest merges with the
general interest.
The nation taken as a body will be less brilliant, less glorious, less strong
perhaps; but the majority of citizens there will enjoy a more prosperous lot,
and the people will appear untroubled, not because they despair of being
better, but because they know they are well-off.e
If everything was not good and useful in such an order of things, society
at least would have appropriated everything useful and good that such an
order can present; and men, while abandoning forever the social advantages
that aristocracy can provide, would have taken from democracy all the good
that the latter can offer to them.
d. “For nearly ten years I have been thinking a part of the things that I revealed to
you just now. I was in America only to enlighten myself on this point,” Tocqueville
mentions to Kergorlay (?) in a letter dated from 1835 (?) (OC, XIII, 1, p. 374). See note
q for p. 12.
A certain number of the constituent ideas of the Democracy already appear in a letter
from Tocqueville to Charles Stoffels, dated Versailles, 21 April 1830 (that is, nearly a year
before the departure for the United States). This letter is reproduced in appendix V.
e. Mass floating in the middle, inert, egoistic, without energy, without patriotism,
sensual, sybaritic, that has only instincts, that lives from day to day, that becomes in
turn the plaything of all the others./
Moderation without virtue, nor courage; moderation that is born from cowardice
of the heart and not from virtue, from exhaustion, from fear, from egoism; tran-
quillity, that does not come about because you are well-off, but because you do not
have the courage and the energy necessary to seek something better. Debasement of
souls.
The passions of old men that end in impotence (YTC, CVh, 3, pp. 36–37).
22 introduction
But we, while giving up the social state of our ancestors, while throwing
pell-mell their institutions, their ideas, and their mores behind us, what
have we put in their place?
The prestige of royal power has vanished, without being replaced by the
majesty of laws; today the people scorn authority, but they fear it, and fear
extracts more from them than respect and love formerly yielded.
I notice that we have destroyed the individual existences that could strug-
gle separately against tyranny [{but I do not see that we have created a col-
lective strength to fulfill their function}], but I see the government that
alone inherits all the prerogatives wrenched from families, from corpora-
tions or from men; so, to the sometimes oppressive but often conservative
strength of a small number of citizens, the weakness of all has succeeded.
The division of fortunes has reduced the distance that separated the
poor from the rich; but by coming closer together, they seem to have found
new reasons to hate each other, and, eyeing one another with looks full
of terror and envy, they mutually push each other away from power; for
the one as for the other, the idea of rights does not exist, and force appears
to them both as the only reason for the present and the sole guarantee of
the future.
The poor man has kept most of the prejudices of his fathers, without
their beliefs; their ignorance, without their virtues; he has accepted, as the
rule for his actions, the doctrine of interest, without knowing the science
of interest, and his egoism is as wanting in enlightenment as his devotion
formerly was.
Society is tranquil, not because it is conscious of its strength and its well-
being, but on the contrary because it believes itself weak and frail; it is afraid
of dying by making an effort. Everyone feels that things are going badly,
but no one has the necessary courage and energy to seek something better;
we have desires, regrets, sorrows and joys that produce nothing visible or
lasting, similar to the passions of old men that end in impotence.
Thus we have abandoned what the old state could present of the good,
without acquiring what the current state would be able to offer of the use-
ful; we have destroyed an aristocratic society, [and we do not think about
organizing on its ruins a moral and tranquil democracy] and, stopping out
introduction 23
of complacency amid the debris of the former edifice, we seem to want to

settle there forever.f
What is happening in the intellectual world is no less deplorable.
f. There are two states of society that I imagine without difficulty, the one that has
been, the other that could be.
We have left the virtues of the old order without taking the ideas of the new order.
We have thrown pell-mell behind us the vices and the virtues of our ancestors,
their habits, their ideas, their mores, and we have put nothing in their place (YTC,
CVh, 3, pp. 106–107).
aristocratic and monarchical system. our fathers.

1. Love of the King.
2. (illegible word) aristocracy.
3. Individual strength against tyranny.
4. Beliefs, devotion, wild virtues, instincts.
5. Idea of duty.
6. Tranquillity of the people that arises from their not seeing anything better.
7. Monarchical immobility.
8. Strength and grandeur of the state which you reach by the constant efforts of
some.
democratic and republican system.

1. Respect for law, idea of rights.
2. Benevolence arising from equality of rights.
3. Association.
4. Interest well understood, enlightenment.
5. Love of liberty.
6. That they know that they are well-off.
7. Orderly and progressive movement of democracy.
8. Id. by the simultaneous efforts of all.
current state.
1. Fear of authority that is scorned.
2. War of the poor and the rich, individual egoism without strength.
3. Equal weakness without collective power {of association}.
4. Prejudices without beliefs, ignorance without virtues, the doctrine of interest
without the science, stupid egoism.
5. Taste for license.
6. Who do not have the courage to change, passions of old men (YTC, CVh, 3,
pp. 110–11).
24 introduction
Hindered in its march or abandoned without support to its disorderly

passions, democracy in France has overturned everything that it met on its
way, weakening what it did not destroy. You did not see it take hold of
society little by little in order to establish its dominion peacefully; it has not
ceased to march amid the disorders and the agitation of battle. Animated
by the heat of the struggle, pushed beyond the natural limits of his opinion
by the opinions and excesses of his adversaries, each person loses sight of
the very object of his pursuits and uses a language that corresponds badly
to his true sentiments and to his secret instincts.
From that results the strange confusion that we are forced to witness.
I search my memory in vain; I find nothing that deserves to excite more
distress and more pity than what is happening before our eyes;g it seems
that today we have broken the natural bond that unites opinions to tastes
and actions to beliefs; the sympathy that has been observed in all times
between the sentiments and the ideas of men seems to be destroyed, and
you would say that all the laws of moral analogy are abolished.
You still meet among us Christians full of zeal, whose religious souls love
to be nourished by the truths of the other life; they are undoubtedly going
to become active in favor of human liberty, source of all moral grandeur.
[<Their hearts will open without difficulty to the holy love of country, this
religion of the political world so fruitful in generous devotions.>] Chris-
tianity, which has made all men equal before God, will not be loath to see
all citizens equal before the law. But, by a combination of strange events,
religion is at the moment involved amid the powers that democracy is over-
turning, and it often happens that religion rejects the equality that it loves
and curses liberty as an adversary, while, by taking liberty by the hand,
religion could be able to sanctify its efforts.
Next to these religious men, I find others whose sights are turned toward
the earth rather than toward heaven; partisans of liberty, not only because
g. Hervé de Tocqueville:
This expression is too strong. It takes the thought beyond the truth. What happened
at the time of the imprisonment of King Jean and under the last of the Valois was
of a nature to cause more distress than what is happening currently. So I would delete
the words more distress in the sentence and I would put only: I find nothing that deserves
to excite more pity (YTC, CIIIb, 1, pp. 15–16).
introduction 25
they see in it the origin of the most noble virtues, but above all because
they consider it as the source of the greatest advantages, they sincerely desire
to secure its dominion and to have men taste its benefits. I understand that
the latter are going to hasten to call religion to their aid, for they must know
that you cannot establish the reign of liberty without that of mores, nor
found mores without beliefs; but they have seen religion in the ranks of
their adversaries; that is enough for them; some attack religion and the oth-
ers dare not defend it [all lack enlightenment or courage].
Past centuries saw base and venal souls advocate slavery, while indepen-
dent spirits and generous hearts struggled without hope to save human lib-
erty. But today you often meet men naturally noble and proud whose opin-
ions are in direct opposition to their tastes, and who speak in praise of the
servility and baseness that they have never known for themselves. There are
others, in contrast, who speak of liberty as if they could feel what is holy
and great in it and who loudly claim on behalf of humanity rights that they
have always disregarded.
I notice virtuous and peaceful men placed naturally by their pure morals,
tranquil habits, prosperity and enlightenment at the head of the popula-
tions that surround them. Full of a sincere love of country, they are ready
to make great sacrifices for it. Civilization, however, often finds them to be
adversaries; they confuse its abuses with its benefits, and in their minds the
idea of evil is indissolubly united with the idea of the new [and they seem
to want to establish a monstrous bond between virtue, misery and igno-
rance so that all three may be struck with the same blowh].
Nearby I see other men who, in the name of progress, try hard to ma-
terialize man, wanting to find the useful without attending to the just, want-
h. Hervé de Tocqueville: “This last thought is not very clear. Would it perhaps seem
a bit gigantesque? It is a kind of irony. But is it very accurate? Who would want to strike
virtue? No one, I think.”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “This sentence did not fully satisfy me either. I do not see
clearly why the persons in question here would desire that virtue, misery and ignorance
be struck with the same blow” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 16).
26 introduction
ing to find knowledge far from beliefs and well-being separate from virtue.
These claim to be champions of modern civilization and they arrogantly
put themselves at its head, usurping a place that is abandoned to them and
that their unworthiness denies to them.j
So where are we?
Religious men combat liberty, and the friends of liberty attack religion;
noble and generous spirits speak in praise of slavery, and base and servile
souls advocate independence; honest and enlightened citizens are enemies
of all progress, while men without patriotism and without mores become
the apostles of civilization and enlightenment!
Have all centuries resembled ours then? Has man always had before his
eyes, as today, a world where nothing is connected, where virtue is without
genius,k and genius without honor; where love of order merges with the
taste for tyrants and the holy cult of liberty with scorn for human laws;
where conscience throws only a doubtful light upon human actions; where
nothing any longer seems either forbidden, or permitted, or honest, or
shameful, or true, or false?
Will I think that the Creator made man in order to leave him to struggle
endlessly amid the intellectual miseries that surround us? I cannot believe
it; God is preparing for European societies a future more settled and more
calm; I do not know his plans, but I will not cease to believe in them because
I cannot fathom them, and I will prefer to doubt my knowledge than his
justice.
There is a country in the world where the great social revolution that I
am speaking about seems more or less to have reached its natural limits; it
came about there in a simple and easy way, or rather it can be said that this
j. In the margin: “⫽Thus some wanted virtue and misery; others, well-being without
virtue.⫽”
k. Hervé de Tocqueville: “This whole sentence is very beautiful and I would very
much like to let the word genius go by. But I cannot do so, because it expresses more
than is necessary. It will be asked where is the genius in France and each person will
answer: I do not know.”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “After long and careful reflection, I do not share the opinion
of my father. Genius here means intellectual superiorities and there are always some in
a country” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 17).
introduction 27
country sees the results of the democratic revolution that is taking place
among us, without having had the revolution itself.
The emigrants who came to settle in America at the beginning of the
XVIIth century in a way freed the principle of democracy from all those
principles that it struggled against within the old societies of Europe, and
they transplanted it alone to the shores of the New World. There it was
able to grow in liberty and, moving ahead with mores, to develop peacefully
in the laws.
It seems to me beyond doubt that sooner or later, we will arrive, like the
Americans, at a nearly complete equality of conditions. From that, I do
not conclude that one day we are necessarily called to draw from such a
social state the political consequences that the Americans have drawn from
it.m I am very far from believing that they have found the only form of
government that democracy may take; but in the two countries the gen-
erating cause of laws and mores is the same; that is enough for us to have
an immense interest in knowing what that generating cause has produced
in each of them.
So it is not only to satisfy a curiosity, legitimate for that matter, that I
examined America; I wanted to find lessons there from which we would be
m. Hervé de Tocqueville:
I would like the author to have added a sentence here to bring out clearly that he does
not mean that the forms of the American government can be adapted to the old
European societies whose conditions are so different. Alexis thinks that democracy
will end by dominating everywhere, while keeping at the head of government an
executive power more or less strong, more or less concentrated. He must, I think,
make that understood very clearly by his reader.
I find a great deal of accuracy in this observation. You must above all inculcate clearly
in the reader the conviction that you have not returned from America with the fixed
idea of adapting American institutions to Europe. So it would be good to say that
you foresee the establishment of democracy and of equality of conditions which is
the consequence of democracy, but very often with other forms and a different social
organization; the character, habits and mores of the two countries being eminently
dissimilar (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 18).
The phrase “I am very far . . . that democracy may take” does not appear in the
manuscript.
28 introduction
able to profit. You would be strangely mistaken if you thought that I wanted
to do a panegyric; whoever reads this book will be clearly convinced that
such was not my purpose;n nor was my goal to advocate any particular form
of government in general; for I am among those who believe that there is
hardly ever absolute good in laws; I did not even claim to judge if the social
revolution, whose march seems irresistible to me, was advantageous or
harmful to humanity. I have acknowledged this revolution as an accom-
plished or nearly accomplished fact, and, from among the peoples who have
seen it taking place among them, I sought the people among whom it has
reached the most complete and most peaceful development, in order to
discern clearly its natural consequences and, if possible, to see the means
to make it profitable to men. I admit that in America I saw more than
America;o I sought there an image of democracy itself, its tendencies, its
character, its prejudices, its passions; I wanted to know democracy, if only
to know at least what we must hope or fear from it.
In the first part of this work, I tried to show the direction that democracy,
delivered in America to its tendencies and abandoned almost without con-
n. “That governments have relative goodness. When Montesquieu . . . I admire him.

But when he portrays to me the English constitution as the model of perfection, it seems
to me that, for the first time, I see the limit of his genius. This constitution today falls
in the same [interrupted text (ed.)]” (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 91).
o. Why would I be afraid to say so? While I had my eyes fixed on America, I thought
about Europe. I thought about this immense social revolution that is coming to
completion among us while we are still discussing its legitimacy and its rights. I
thought about the irresistible slope where [we (ed.)] are running, who knows, per-
haps toward despotism, perhaps also toward the republic, but definitely toward
democracy. There are men who see in the Revolution of 1789 a pure accident and
who, like the traveler in the fable, sit down waiting for the river to pass. Vain il-
lusion! Our fathers did not see it being born and we will not see it end. Its turbulent
currents will flow for still many generations. More than six hundred years ago the
first impulse was given.
[In the margin] Some among us consider the present state as a beginning; others,
as an end. It is neither the one nor the other; it is an incident in an immense revolution
that began before it and has continued since (YTC, CVh, 3, pp. 22–23; see a more or
less identical fragment in YTC, CVh, 4, p. 1, and Souvenirs, OC, XII, p. 30).
introduction 29
straint to its instincts, gave naturally to laws, the course that it imparted to
government, and in general the power that it gained over public affairs. I
wanted to know what good and bad it produced. I sought out what pre-
cautions the Americans have used to direct it and what others they have
omitted, and I undertook to discern the causes that allow it to govern
society.
My goal was to portray in a second part [{third volume}] the influence
that equality of conditions and the government of democracy exercise in
America on civil society, on habits, ideas and mores;p but I begin to feel
less enthusiasmq about accomplishing this plan. Before I can complete in
this way the task that I proposed for myself, my work will have become
nearly useless. Someone else will soon show readers the principal features
of the American character and, hiding the seriousness of the descriptions
behind a light veil, will lend truth charms with which I would not be able
to adorn it.1
p. Although the second part had been published, probably on the recommendation
of Gosselin, the publisher, with the title of the first part, Tocqueville had at one moment
wanted to entitle it Influence of Equality on the Ideas and Feelings of Men (See letter to
Mill of 14 November 1839, Correspondance anglaise, OC, VI, 1, p. 326).
q. In the manuscript: “. . . but each day I feel less enthusiasm . . .”
Hervé de Tocqueville: “This turn of phrase seems too explicit to me; it removes in
too absolute a way the hope for a 3rd volume.”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “That is very true; a sentence more or less like this would
be needed: and I give up at least at present.
“I also do not like my work will have become useless. We do not know if you are speak-
ing about the future work or this one. At least would become useless would be necessary”
(YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 19). The manuscript says: “. . . will have become nearly useless.”
1. At the time when I published the first edition of this work, M. Gustave de Beaumont,
my traveling companion in America, was still working on his book entitled Marie, or Slavery
in the United States, which has since appeared. The principal goal of M. de Beaumont was
to bring out and make known the situation of Negroes within Anglo-American society. His
work will throw a bright and new light on the question of slavery, a vital question for the
united republics. I do not know if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the book of M. de
Beaumont, after deeply interesting those who want to gather emotions and find descriptions
there, will gain a still more solid and more lasting success among readers who, above all, desire
true insights and profound truths.r
r. For obvious reasons, the beginning of this note was a bit different in the first edi-
tion: “M. Gustave de Beaumont, my traveling companion in America, intends to publish
during the first days of 1835, a book entitled Marie, or Slavery in the United States. The
principal goal . . .”
30 introduction
I do not know if I have succeeded in making known what I saw in Amer-

ica, but I am sure that I sincerely desired to do so, and that I never yielded,
except unknowingly, to the need to adapt facts to ideas, instead of sub-
jecting ideas to facts.
When a point could be established with the help of written documents,
I have taken care to turn to original texts and to the most authentic and
most respected works.2 I have indicated my sources in notes, and everyone
will be able to verify them. When it was a matter of opinions, of political
customs, of observations of mores, I sought to consult the most enlight-
ened men. If something happened to be important or doubtful, I was not
content with one witness, but decided only on the basis of the body of
testimonies.
Here the reader must necessarily take me at my word. I would often have
been able to cite in support of what I advance the authority of names that
are known to him, or that at least are worthy to be; but I have refrained
from doing so. The stranger often learns by the hearth of his host important
truths, that the latter would perhaps conceal from a friend; with the stranger
you ease the burden of a forced silence; you are not afraid of his indiscretion
because he is passing through. Each one of these confidences was recorded
by me as soon as received, but they will never emerge from my manuscripts;
I prefer to detract from the success of my accounts than to add my name
2. Legislative and administrative documents have been provided to me with a kindness

the memory of which will always stir my gratitude. Among the American officials who have
thus favored my research, I will cite above all Mr. Edward Livingston, the Secretary of State
(now ambassador plenipotentiary to Paris). During my stay at the Congress, Mr. Livingston
was nice enough to have sent to me most of the documents that I possess relating to the federal
government. Mr. Livingston is one of those rare men whom you like by reading their writings,
whom you admire and honor even before knowing them and to whom you are happy to owe
acknowledgement.s
s. This note does not appear in the manuscript of the book and no reference to it is
found in the other papers of Tocqueville. At the end of the year 1834, Livingston was
in Paris in a very delicate situation because of the famous affair of the American indem-
nities. It is possible that the note had been written in sympathy with the man whose
name appears several times in the drafts as a source of information. On the affair of the
indemnities and Edward Livingston, see Richard A. McLemore, Franco-American Dip-
lomatic Relations, 1816–1836 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1941).
introduction 31
to the list of those travelers who send sorrows and troubles in return for
the generous hospitality that they received.
I know that, despite my care, nothing will be easier than to criticize this
book, if anyone ever thinks to examine it critically.
Those who will want to look closely at it will find, I think, in the entire
work, a generative thought that links so to speak all its parts. But the di-
versity of the subjects that I had to treat is very great, and whoever will
undertake to contrast an isolated fact to the whole of the facts that I cite,
a detached idea to the whole of the ideas, will succeed without difficulty.
So I would like you to grant me the favor of reading me with the same spirit
that presided over my work, and would like you to judge this book by the
general impression that it leaves, as I myself came to a decision, not due to
a particular reason, but due to the mass of reasons.
Nor must it be forgotten that the author who wants to make himself
understood is obliged to push each of his ideas to all of their theoretical
consequences, and often to the limits of what is false and impractical;t for
if it is sometimes necessary to step back from the rules of logic in actions,
you cannot do the same in discourses, and man finds it almost as difficult
to be inconsistent in his words as he normally finds it to be consistent in
his actions. [<This, to say in passing, brings out one of the great advantages
of free governments, an advantage about which you scarcely think. In these
t. Tocqueville is eager to emphasize that the goal of his book is the description of
models, of ideal types that, by definition, do not perfectly coincide with reality. He prob-
ably borrows the concept from Montesquieu, even if from Montesquieu to Tocqueville,
and later to Max Weber, differences are perceptible. The use of the idea of ideal types
(aristocracy and democracy) is of a hermeneutical nature; all attempts to make it a me-
chanical and automatic process would destroy one of the most remarkable aspects of
Tocqueville’s theory. For the latter, the good political regime is characterized by an eter-
nal tension between the two types, idea that points at the very same time to Pascal and
to the romanticism of the period. (See in this regard Auguste Comte, Cours de philosophie
positive, lesson 47; Emile Durkheim, Montesquieu et Rousseau, précurseurs de la sociologie,
Paris: Marcel Rivière, 1953, ch. III; Melvin Richter, “Comparative Political Analysis in
Montesquieu and Tocqueville,” Comparative Politics 1, no. 2 (1969): 129–60; Pierre Birn-
baum, Sociologie de Tocqueville, Paris: PUF, 1970, pp. 29–39; Gianfranco Poggi, Images
of Society, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972, pp. 2–82). Cf. note m of p. 694 of
volume I.
32 introduction
governments, it is necessary to talk a great deal. The need to talk forces men
of State to reason, and from speeches a bit of logic is introduced into public
affairs.>]
I finish by pointing out myself what a great number of readersu will
consider as the capital defect of the work.v This book follows in no one’s
train exactly; by writing it I did not mean either to serve or to combat any
party; I set about to see, not differently, but farther than parties;w and while
they are concerned with the next day, I wanted to think about the future.x
u. In the manuscript: “. . . what most readers . . .”

Hervé de Tocqueville: “You must not put most readers. That would shock them be-
cause you seem to doubt their intelligence too much. So put some readers in place of most
readers.
Édouard de Tocqueville (?): “Very right” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, pp. 19–20).
v. In the margin: “⫽Why I have not put many figures and statistics. Change so rap-
idly. Insignificant.⫽”
w. “I believe what I say, only advantage that I have over most of my contemporaries.
Nothing more common than to talk of liberty, but nearly everyone wants something
more or less than liberty. But I really love it and want it” (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 97).
“I am sure that my subject does not lack grandeur. If I fail it will be my fault and not
the fault of my subject. In any case, I will have pointed out the path” (YTC, CVh, 3,
p. 98).
x. “To point out if possible to men what to do to escape tyranny and debasement
while becoming democratic. Such is, I think, the general idea by which my book can be
summarized and which will appear on every page of the one I am writing at this moment.
To work in this direction is, in my eyes, a holy occupation and one for which you must
spare neither your money, nor your time, nor your life,” writes Tocqueville to Kergorlay.
26 December 1836 (Correspondance avec Kergorlay, OC, XIII, 1, pp. 431–32).
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 1
Exterior Configuration of
North America
North America divided into two vast regions, the one descending
toward the pole, the other toward the equator.—Valley of the
Mississippi.—Traces found there of global upheavals.—Coast of
the Atlantic Ocean where the English colonies were founded.—
Different appearance that South America and North America
presented at the time of discovery.—Forests of North America.—
Prairies.—Wandering tribes of natives.—Their outward
appearance, their mores, their languages.—Traces of an
unknown people.
North America, in its exterior configuration, presents general features that

are easy to distinguish at first glance.
A kind of methodical order presided over the separation of land and
waterways, mountains and valleys. A simple and majestic arrangement is
revealed even in the midst of the confusion of objects and among the ex-
treme variety of scenes.
Two vast regions divide North America almost equally.*
One is limited, in the North, by the Arctic pole; in the East, in the
West, by the two great oceans. Then it advances southward and forms a
triangle whose sides, irregularly drawn, finally meet below the Great Lakes
of Canada.
* See the map placed at the end of the volume. [See pp. xliv–xlv. This map was deleted
after the first editions. (ed.)]
33
34 exterior configuration
The second begins where the first finishes and extends over the entire
remainder of the continent.
The one inclines slightly toward the pole; the other, toward the equator.
The lands included in the first region descend toward the north in a
slope so slight that they could almost be said to form a plateau. In the
interior of this immense flatland, there are neither high mountains nor
deep valleys.
There the waterways wind as if haphazardly. The rivers mingle, join
together, part, meet again, vanish in a thousand swamps, are lost contin-
ually within a watery labyrinth that they have created, and only after in-
numerable twists and turns do they finally reach the polar seas. The Great
Lakes, where this first region terminates, are not, like most of the lakes
of the Old World, steeply embanked by hills and rocks; their shores are
flat and rise only a few feet above sea level. So each of them forms some-
thing like a vast basin filled to the brim: the slightest changes in the struc-
ture of the globe would hurl their waters toward either the pole or the
tropical sea.
The second region is more uneven and better prepared to become the
permanent dwelling place of man; two long mountain ranges divide it
along its length: one, named the Allegheny Mountains, follows the shores
of the Atlantic Ocean; the other parallels the Pacific Ocean.
The space enclosed between these two mountain ranges includes 228,843
square leagues.1 So its area is about six times greater than that of France.2
Yet this vast territory forms only a single valley that descends from the
rounded summits of the Allegheny Mountains, and, without meeting any
obstacles, climbs again to the peaks of the Rocky Mountains.
At the bottom of the valley flows an immense river. From all directions,
waterways descending from the mountains are seen to rush toward it.
1. 1,341,649 miles. See Darby’s View of the United States, p. 469. I have converted miles
into leagues of 2,000 toises.a
a. A toise equals 1,949 millimeters.
2. France measures 35,181 square leagues.
exterior configuration 35
Formerly the French called it the Saint Louis River, in memory of the
absent homeland; and the Indians, in their pompous language, named it
the Father of Waters, or the Mississippi.
The Mississippi has its source at the boundaries of the two great regions
that I spoke about above, near the top of the plateau that separates them.
Near the source of the Mississippi another river3 arises that empties into
the polar seas. Sometimes even the Mississippi seems uncertain of the path
it should take; several times it retraces its steps, and only after slowing its
pace amidst lakes and marshes does it finally settle upon its route and set
its course slowly toward the south.
Sometimes calm within the clayey bed that nature has dug for it, some-
times swollen by storms, the Mississippi waters more than a thousand
leagues along its way.4
Six hundred leagues5 above its mouth, the river already has an average
depth of 15 feet, and vessels of 300 tons go up for a distance of nearly two
hundred leagues.
Fifty-seven large navigable rivers flow into it. The tributaries of the Mis-
sissippi include a river with a length of 1,300 leagues,6 one of 900,7 one of
600,8 one of 500,9 four of 200,10 without considering an innumerable mul-
titude of streams that rush from all directions to become lost within it.
The valley watered by the Mississippi seems to have been created for it
alone; there the river dispenses good and evil at will, and seems like a god.
Near the river, nature displays an inexhaustible fecundity. As you move
away from its banks, plant energies fail; the soil thins; everything languishes
3. The Red River.

4. 2,500 miles, 1,032 leagues. See Description of the United States, by Warden, vol. I,
p. 166.
5. 1,364 miles, 563 leagues. See id., vol. I, p. 169.
6. The Missouri. See id., vol. I, p. 132 (1,278 leagues).
7. The Arkansas. See id., vol. I, p. 188 (897 leagues).
8. The Red River. See id., vol. I, p. 190 (598 leagues).
9. The Ohio. See id., vol. I, p. 192 (490 leagues).
10. The Illinois, the Saint Peter [the Minnesota (ed.)], the Saint Francis, the Des Moines.
In the measurements above, I have taken as a measure the legal mile (statute mile) and
the postal league of 2,000 toises.
or dies. Nowhere have the great convulsions of the earth left clearer traces
than in the Mississippi Valley. The whole appearance of the country attests
to the action of water. Its sterility, like its abundance, is the work of water.
At the bottom of the valley, the waves of the early ocean built up huge
layers of vegetable matter and then wore them down over time. On the
right bank of the river you find immense plains, made smooth like the
surface of a field worked over by the farmworker’s roller. In contrast,
the closer you get to the mountains, the more and more broken and sterile
the ground becomes; the soil is pierced, so to speak, in a thousand places;
and here and there primitive rocks appear, like the bones of a skeleton after
time has consumed the surrounding muscles and flesh. Granite sand and
stones of irregular size cover the surface of the earth; the shoots of a few
plants grow with great difficulty among these obstacles; it seems like a fertile
field covered by the ruins of some vast edifice. By analyzing these stones
and this sand, it is in fact easy to notice a perfect analogy between their
materials and those that form the dry and broken peaks of the Rocky
Mountains. After pushing the earth headlong into the bottom of the valley,
the water almost certainly ended up carrying along a portion of the rocks
themselves; it rolled them along the nearest slopes; and, after grinding them
against each other, it scattered these fragments, torn from the summits, at
the base of the mountains.b A
All in all, the Mississippi Valley is the most magnificent dwelling place
ever prepared by God for human habitation;c and yet, it can be said that it
is still only a vast wilderness.d
On the eastern slope of the Allegheny Mountains, between the foot of
the mountains and the Atlantic Ocean, stretches a long band of rocks and
b. In the margin: “⫽For more exactitude in this picture consult and cite Volney.
Examination of trees, nature of lands, shape of the country.⫽”
c. “The general population doubles in 22 years, that of the Mississippi Valley in 10
years. 3.25% for the whole, 5% in the valley. Darby, p. 446, calculates that in 1865 the
preponderance will be in the Mississippi Valley” (YTC, CVh, 1, p. 63).
d. Here Tocqueville tries to convey the sense of the English word wilderness, for
which Beaumont had proposed sauvagerie. For him, throughout his book, désert des-
ignates the virgin forest, unexplored and not cultivated. See Roderick Nash, Wilderness
and the American Mind, New Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press, 1973, pp. 1–7.
sand that the sea seems to have forgotten as it withdrew. This territory is,
on average, only 48 leagues wide,11 but it is 390 leagues long.12 The soil, in
this part of the American continent, lends itself to cultivation only with
difficulty. Vegetation there is sparse and uniform.
On this inhospitable coast the efforts of human industry were first con-
centrated. On this strip of arid land were born and grew the English col-
onies, which would one day become the United States of America. Still
today the center of power is found there, while behind, almost in secret,
gather the true elements of a great people to whom the future of the con-
tinent no doubt belongs.
When Europeans landed on the shores of the Antilles and later on the
coasts of South America, they thought themselves transported into the fa-
bled regions celebrated by poets.e The sea sparkled with the fiery glow of
the tropics. For the first time, the extraordinary transparency of the waters
exposed the depth of the ocean bottom to the eyes of the navigator.13 Here
and there small perfumed islands appeared, seeming to float like baskets of
flowers on the calm surface of the Ocean. In these enchanted places, all
that came into view seemed prepared for the needs of man or planned for
his pleasures. Most of the trees were laden with nourishing fruits, and those
least useful to man charmed his vision with the vividness and variety of
their colors. In a forest of fragrant lemon trees, of wild figs, of myrtle oaks,
of acacias and of oleanders, all intertwined by flowering creepers, a mul-
titude of birds unknown in Europe flashed their wings of crimson and
11. 100 miles.

12. About 900 miles.
e. Hervé de Tocqueville: “Alexis thinks correctly that the description of South Amer-
ica must be shortened a great deal, perhaps even removed entirely. 1. Because he was not
there. 2. Because South America is entirely outside of his subject” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 45).
13. The waters are so transparent in the Caribbean Sea, says Malte-Brun, vol. V, p. 726,
that corals and fish are distinguishable at a depth of 60 fathoms. The ship seems to glide on
air; a kind of vertigo grips the traveler whose view plunges beyond the crystalline fluid into
the midst of underground gardens where shellfish and gilded fish shimmer among the clumps
of fucus and the thickets of marine algae.
azure and mingled the chorus of their songs with the harmonies of a nature
full of movement and life.f B
Death was hidden under this brilliant cloak; but it was not noticed at
all at that time. Moreover, in the air of these regions, there reigned I do not
know what enervating influence, attaching man to the present and ren-
dering him unmindful of the future.
North America presented another appearance; everything there was
grave, serious, solemn. You could have said that it had been created to be-
come the domain of the mind, as the other was to be the dwelling place of
the senses.
A turbulent and foggy ocean enveloped its coasts; granite rocks or sandy
shores girdled it; the forests that covered its banks displayed a somber and
melancholy foliage; hardly anything other than pine, larch, holm oak, wild
olive and laurel grew there.
After penetrating this first barrier, people entered into the shade of the
central forest; there the largest trees that grow in the two hemispheres were
found mixed together. The plane tree, catalpa, sugar maple, and Virginia
poplar [eastern poplar][*] intertwined their branches with those of the oak,
the beech and the linden.
As in forests subjected to the dominion of man, death struck here with-
out respite; but no one took responsibility for clearing the remains that
death had caused. So they piled up; time could not reduce them to dust
f. In the manuscript: “The objects that caught the eye in these enchanted places ap-
peared destined to satisfy needs or to give rise to pleasures. Most of the trees produced
fruits; and all of them, flowers. (The wild fig, the lemon tree, the myrtle oak and the
oleander grew in dense groves. The acacia arose from the middle of the beach and scat-
tered its fragrant remains over the shores.
The bignonias, the granadillas [passion fruit], the acacias with large pods, fifty species
of creepers were thrown as) species of garlands thrown from tree to tree or branch to
branch, repeating the image of the works of man in the middle of the inimitable charms
of nature. A multitude of birds unknown to Europe made these flowery arches and
domes of greenery sparkle with their many colors. There you heard resounding from all
directions the sound of a thousand living creatures.
Death was . . .”
The published version is in Gustave de Beaumont’s hand (YTC, CIIIb, 3, pp. 42–
43). See note e supra, in which Tocqueville’s desire to shorten this description is clear.
[*]. See Tableau des Etats-Unis, by Volney, p. 9.
quickly enough to prepare new places. But in the very midst of these re-
mains, the work of reproduction went on without ceasing. Climbing plants
and weeds of all types grew up through the obstacles; they crept along the
fallen tree trunks, wormed into their dust, lifted up and broke the withered
bark that still covered them, and cleared a path for their young offshoots.
Thus, in a way, death there came to the aid of life. They were face to face,
and seemed to want to mix and mingle their work.g
These forests concealed a profound darkness. A thousand small streams,
not yet channeled by human effort, maintained an unending humidity.
Scarcely any flowers, wild fruits, or any birds were seen.
Only the fall of a tree toppled by age, the cataract of a river, the bellowing
of the buffalo and the whistling of the winds disturbed the silence of
nature.h
East of the great river, the woods partially disappeared; in their place
spread limitless prairies. Had nature, in its infinite variety, denied the seeds
of trees to these fertile fields, or had the forest that once covered them been
destroyed long ago by the hand of man? This is something that neither
tradition nor scientific research has been able to discover.
These immense wilderness areas were not entirely without the presence
of man however; for centuries, a few small tribes wandered in the shade of
the forest or across the prairie lands. From the mouth of the Saint Lawrence
to the delta of the Mississippi, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, these
savages shared certain similarities that testified to their common origin. But
they also differed from all known races.14 They were neither white like the
g. Cf. Journey to Lake Oneida, pp. 1295–1302, in the second volume.

h. In this paragraph as in the preceding one, Tocqueville took into account the sty-
listic modifications suggested by Beaumont (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 44).
14. Some similarities have since been discovered between the physical structure, the lan-
guage and the habits of the Indians of North America and those of the Tungus, Manchus,
Mongols, Tartars and other nomadic tribes of Asia. The latter occupy a position near the
Bering Strait, which allows the supposition that, at a period long ago, they were able to come
to people the empty American continent. But science has not yet succeeded in clarifying this
Europeans, nor yellow like most of the Asians, nor black like the Negroes.
Their skin was reddish; their hair, long and lustrous; their lips, thin; and
their cheekbones, very prominent. The languages spoken by the savage
tribes of America differed from each other in words, but all were bound by
the same grammatical rules. On several points, these rules deviated from
those that, until then, had seemed to govern the formation of human
language.
The idiom of the Americans seemed to result from new combinations;
it indicated on the part of its inventors an exercise of intelligence of which
the Indians of today seem little capable.C
The social state of these peoples also differed in several respects from
what was seen in the Old World: it could have been said that they multiplied
freely in their wilderness, without contact with more civilized races. So
among them, you found none of those doubtful and incoherent notions
of good and evil, none of that profound corruption which is usually com-
bined with ignorance and crudeness of mores among civilized nations who
have descended into barbarism again. The Indian owed nothing to anyone
except himself. His virtues, his vices, his prejudices were his own work; he
grew up in the wild independence of his own nature.
The coarseness of common men, in civilized countries, comes not only
from their ignorance and poverty, but also from their daily contact, as ig-
norant and poor men, with those who are enlightened and rich.
The sight of their misfortune and weakness, which is in daily contrast
to the good fortune and power of certain of their fellows, excites anger and
fear simultaneously in their heart; the feeling of their inferiority and de-
pendence irritates and humiliates them. This inner state of soul is repro-
duced in their mores, as well as in their language; at the very same time,
they are insolent and servile.
point. On this question, see Malte-Brun, vol. V; the works of Humboldt; Fischer,Conjectures
sur l’origine des Américains; Adair, History of the American Indians.
The truth of this is easily proved by observation. The people are more
coarse in aristocratic countries than anywhere else, and in opulent cities
more than in the countryside.j
In these places, where men so rich and powerful are found, the weak and
poor feel as though overwhelmed by their low condition; finding no point
by which they can regain equality, they completely lose hope in themselves
and allow themselves to fall below the dignity of human nature.
This unfortunate effect of the contrast in conditions is not found in
savage life; the Indians, at the same time that they are all ignorant and poor,
are all equal and free.k
At the time of the arrival of the Europeans, the native of North America
was still unaware of the value of wealth and showed himself indifferent to
the material well-being that civilized man obtains from it. He exhibited no
coarseness however; on the contrary, an habitual reserve and a kind of aris-
tocratic courtesy governed the way he behaved.
In peace, mild and hospitable, in war, merciless even beyond the known
limits of human ferocity, the Indian risked death by starvation in order to
aid a stranger who knocked at night on the door of his hut and, with his
own hands, tore apart the quivering limbs of his prisoner. The most famous
republics of antiquity never admired firmer courage, prouder souls, a more
uncompromising love of independence than what was then hidden in the
j. Hervé de Tocqueville: “This entire paragraph is well thought out and strikingly
true. But isn’t it a little long? You could perhaps delete the section from the words cited
above [The truth of this, etc. . . . (ed.)] to these: This unfortunate effect. It seems to me
that the expression of the thought would gain in precision.”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “This thought is excellent. I do not know what must be
deleted or cut, but it seems to me that you must revise and rework this entire passage,
perfect in thought and uneven and not very refined in style” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 46).
Nonetheless, Tocqueville did not modify the passage, identical in the manuscript and
in the published version.
k. Note in the margin: “⫽Idea of K[ergorlay (ed.)]. What makes the lower classes
coarse is contact with the upper classes and the feeling of their low condition. All the
savages are equal and free.⫽”
wild forests of the New World.15 The Europeans made only a small im-
pression when landing on the shores of North America; their presence gave
rise to neither envy nor fear. What hold could they have over such men?
The Indian knew how to live without needs, how to suffer without com-
plaint, and how to die singing.16 Like all the other members of the great
human family, moreover, these savages believed in the existence of a better
world, and under different names worshipped God, creator of the universe.
Their notions about the great intellectual truths were generally simple and
philosophical.D
15. Among the Iroquois, attacked by superior forces, says President Jefferson (Notes sur la
Virginie, p. 148), one saw old men disdain to flee or to outlive the destruction of their country
and to brave death, like the old Romans during the sack of Rome by the Gauls. Further along,
p. 150: “There never was an instance known, he says, of an Indian begging his life when in
the power of his enemies; on the contrary, that he courts death by every possible insult and
provocation.”
[Documents on the Indians./
See the work entitled Historical Collections of the Indians in New England, by Daniel
Gookin, printed in 1792. It is found in the historical collections of Massachusetts, vol. 1, p. 141
[–226 (ed.)].
Gookin says that there are people who believe that the Indians are the descendents of the
ten tribes of Israel, which explains the state of barbarism and darkness in which they are
found. “But this opinion [ . . . (ed.) . . . ], says Gookin, doth not greatly obtain. [But (ed.)]
surely it is not impossible and perhaps not so improbable as many learned men think” [p. 145
(ed.)].
See as well a work entitled Key into the Language of the Indians of New England by
Roger Williams, printed in London in 1643. It is found reprinted in the collection of the
historical society of Massachusetts, vol. 3, p. 203 [–238 (ed.)].]
16. See Histoire de la Louisiane, by Lepage-Dupratz; Charlevoix, Histoire de la Nou-
velle France; Letters of R. Hecwelder [Heckewelder (ed.)], Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, vol. I [the Voyages du baron de la Hontan; General History of
Virginia, by Captain John Smith; id., by Beverley; History of Carolina, by John Lawson;
and History of New York, by William Smith]; m Jefferson, Notes sur la Virginie, pp. 135–
90. What Jefferson says carries an especially great weight, because of the personal merit of the
writer, of his particular position and of the positive and exact century in which he wrote.
[{Perhaps put in a note here the most striking features of this portrait and the discourse
of Logan.}]
m. These works, included only in certain editions, do not appear at this place in the
manuscript. They are, however, cited elsewhere.
Yet, no matter how primitive the people whose character we are describ-
ing may appear, it cannot be doubted that they had been preceded in the
same regions by another people, more civilized and advanced in all ways.
An obscure tradition, but one widespread among most of the Indian
tribes along the Atlantic coast, teaches us that long ago the dwelling place
of these very bands was located west of the Mississippi. Mounds raised by
human hands are still found every day along the banks of the Ohio and
throughout the central valley. We are told that when you dig into the center
of these monuments, you hardly ever fail to find human bones, strange
instruments, weapons, implements of all sorts that are made of a metal or
that recall uses unknown to the present races.n
The Indians of today can give no information at all about the history
of this unknown people. Nor did those who lived three hundred years ago,
at the time of the discovery of America, say anything from which even an
hypothesis could be inferred. Traditions, those perishable and constantly
recurring memorials of the primitive world, furnish no light whatsoever.
It cannot be doubted, however, that thousands of people similar to us lived
there. When did they come there; what was their origin, their destiny, their
history? When and how did they perish? No one could say.
Strange thing! Some peoples have so completely disappeared from the
earth that even the memory of their name has been blotted out; their lan-
guages are lost; their glory has faded like a sound without an echo. But I
do not know if there is even one who has not at least left one tomb to mark
its passage. Thus, of all the works of man, the most durable is still the one
that best recounts his nothingness and his woes!
Although the vast country just described was inhabited by numerous
tribes of natives, you could justly say that, at the time of discovery, it was
still only a wilderness. The Indians occupied, but did not possess it. Man
appropriates the soil by agriculture, and the first inhabitants of North
America lived by the hunt. Their implacable prejudices, their untamed pas-
n. Cf. Conversation with Mr. Houston, December 31, 1831 (Notebook E, YTC, BIIa,
and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 264). This fragment also recalls the “journal sans date” of the
Voyage en Amérique of Chateaubriand (Oeuvres romanesques et voyages, Paris: Pléiade,
1969, I, pp. 710–13).
sions, their vices, and perhaps even more their wild virtues delivered them
to an inevitable destruction. The ruin of these people began the day Eu-
ropeans landed on their shores; it has continued constantly since then; to-
day it reaches completion. Providence, while placing them in the midst of
the riches of the New World, seemed to have given them only a short usu-
fruct; in a way, these people were there only waiting. These coasts, so well
prepared for commerce and industry; these rivers, so deep; this inexhaust-
ible Mississippi Valley; this entire continent, appeared at that time as the
still empty cradle of a great nation.o
That is where civilized men had to try to build society on new foun-
dations. Applying, for the first time, theories until then unknown or con-
sidered inapplicable, civilized men were going to present a spectacle for
which past history had not prepared the world.p
o. Cf. A Fortnight in the Wilderness (appendix II, especially p. 1354 of the second
volume).
p. In this place are found remarks on the Governor, reproduced in note b of pp. 140–
42.
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 2
Of the Point of Departure and Its Importance
for the Future of the Anglo-Americans a
Usefulness of knowing the point of departure of peoples in

order to understand their social state and their laws.—
America is the only country where the point of departure of
a great people could clearly be seen.—How all the men who
came to populate English America were similar.—How
they differed.—Remark applicable to all the Europeans
who came to settle on the shores of the New World.—
Colonization of Virginia.—Id. of New England.—
Original character of the first inhabitants of New
England.—Their arrival.—Their first laws.—Social
contract.—Penal code taken from the law of Moses.—
Religious fervor.—Republican spirit.—Intimate union of
the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty.
A man is newly born; his first years pass obscurely amid the pleasures or
occupations of childhood. He grows up; manhood begins; finally the doors
a. Point of departure./
Influence of the point of departure on the future of society.
Homogeneous ideas, mores, needs, passions of the founders of American society.
Influence of the extent of the territory, of the nature of the country, of its geo-
graphic situation, of its ports, of its population, immigration from Europe, and in
the West, from America itself.
The point of departure gave birth to the society as it is organized today, primitive
fact after which come the consequences, formulated as principles (YTC, CVh, 1,
p. 23).
45
46 of the point of departure
of the world open to receive him; he enters into contact with his fellow
men. Then, for the first time, you study him and think that the seeds of
the vices and virtues of his mature years can be seen developing in him.b
If I am not mistaken, that is a great error.c
Go back to the beginning; examine the child even in the arms of his
mother; see the exterior world reflected for the first time in the still dark
mirror of his intellect; contemplate the first examples that catch his eye;
listen to the first words that awaken his slumbering powers of thought;
finally, witness the first struggles that he has to sustain. And only then will
you understand the origin of the prejudices, the habits and the passions
that are going to dominate his life. The whole man is there, so to speak, in
the infant swaddled in his cradle.
Something similar happens among nations. Peoples always feel the ef-
fects of their origin. The circumstances that accompanied their birth and
were useful to their development influence all the rest of their course.
If it were possible for us to go back to the elements of societies and
examine the first memorials of their history, I am certain that we would be
able to discover there the first cause of the prejudices, habits, dominant
passions, of all that ultimately composes what is called the national char-
acter. [{There, no doubt, we would find the key to more than one historical
enigma}]. There we would happen to find the explanation for customs that
today seem contrary to the reigning mores; for laws that seem opposed to
recognized principles; for incoherent opinions found here and there in so-
ciety like fragments of broken chains that are sometimes seen still hanging
b. In the margin: “⫽It must be very much remembered that this chapter still requires
research on the laws of New England, Massachusetts, Rhode Island. See especially the
Town Officer [Isaac Goodwin, Town Officer: or Laws of Massachusetts Relative to the Du-
ties of Municipal Officers, second edition, Worcester: Dorr and Howland, 1829. (ed.)].⫽”
c. In the margin:
⫽Point common to all parts of the Union.
South.
West.
North. New England, sun, which is the source of all the rays that heat, light or at
least color everything else.⫽
of the point of departure 47
from the vaults of an old edifice and that no longer hold up anything. Thus
would be explained the destiny of certain peoples who seem to be dragged
by an unknown force toward an end unknown even to themselves. But until
now facts have been lacking for such a study. The spirit of analysis came
to nations only as they grew older, and when, at last, they thought to con-
template their birth, time had already enveloped it in a mist; ignorance and
pride had surrounded it with fables that hid the truth.
[Human remains are said to volatilize after death. Separated from each
other, these human molecules are incorporated with other living sub-
stances. Each of us can therefore consider himself as the summary of many
other individuals of the same species who have lived before him. An anal-
ogous phenomenon occurs again in the history of the formation of peoples.
Moreover, since the time when the various human races began to succeed
one another and to graft together, what people of the Old World is not
today composed of the remnants of older nations? It is true that, in place
of peoples who have ceased to exist, we have seen new peoples arise who
have borrowed something from each of their precursors. From this one, its
tongue; from that one, its laws; from another, its mores; from a fourth,
certain opinions and prejudices. Because these elements already exist, only
their combination is new. Amid all this debris of societies that slides hap-
hazardly over the earth, there is no one who could now recapture an original
type, or who would dare to trace how time has subjected an original type
to changes by combining it with strange elements. Science, in such a lab-
yrinth, provides only incomplete conclusions and vague hypotheses.]
America is the only country where we have been able to witness the nat-
ural and tranquil development of a society and where it has been possible
to clarify the influence that the point of departure exercised on the future
of States.d
d. Tocqueville seems not to have been satisfied with the draft of this paragraph. At
the time of the correction of proofs in October 1834, he writes expressly to Beaumont
to ask him what he thinks of it (Correspondance avec Beaumont, OC, VIII, 1, p. 144).
Two corrections concerning the style were certainly suggested by Beaumont (the original
version said discern the influence and spoke only of tranquil development ). In relation to
the same subject, Tocqueville notes in a rough draft:
At the time when European peoples descended upon the shores of the
New World, the features of their national character were already well fixed;
each of them had a distinct physiognomy. And since they had already
reached the level of civilization that leads men to self-study, they have
handed down to us a faithful picture of their opinions, mores, and laws.
The men of the fifteenth century are almost as well-known to us as those
of our own. So America shows us in full light what the ignorance and the
barbarism of the first ages concealed from our view.
Close enough to the era of the founding of the American societies to
know their elements in detail, far enough from that time to be able already
to judge what these seeds produced, men in our time seem destined to see
further into human events than their predecessors. Providence has put
within our reach a light that our fathers lacked and has allowed us to discern
the first causes of the destiny of nations that the obscurity of the past hid
from them.
When, after attentively studying the history of America, you carefully
When the earth was given to man by the Creator, it was young, fertile, inexhaustible,
but man was weak and ignorant. When he had learned to make use of the treasures
that the earth enclosed in its bosom, he already covered the entire surface of the land,
and he had to fight to acquire the right to have a refuge and to rest there. Then he
was civilized, but the earth, like him, was old . . . Such was not the (illegible word)
destiny of the men who in the fourteenth [sic ] century found America. For them this
land was like a new creation of a new universe suddenly emerging from the sea, all
shining with life, youth and spring-like beauty. This new creation was being offered
not to the isolated, ignorant and barbaric man of the first ages, but to men already
(illegible word) with all the secrets of nature and art, united among themselves and
entrusted with a civilization of fifty centuries (The copyist indicates that this page is
not in the handwriting of Alexis de Tocqueville. YTC, CVh, 3, pp. 50–51).
In America Tocqueville found the history of the establishment of a people that Rous-
seau lacked:
In general, the most instructive part of the annals of peoples, which is the history of
their establishment, is what we lack the most. Experience teaches us every day which
causes give birth to the revolutions of empires, but because peoples are no longer
being formed, we have hardly anything except conjectures to explain how they were
formed (Du contrat social, Œuvres complètes, Paris: Pléiade, 1964, I, book IV, chapter
IV, p. 444).
examine its political and social state, you feel deeply convinced of this truth:
there is not an opinion, not a habit, not a law, I could say not an event, that
the point of departure does not easily explain. So those who read this book
will find in the present chapter the germ of what must follow and the key
to nearly the whole book.e
The emigrants who came at different times to occupy the territory that
the American Union covers today differed from each other in many ways;
their aim was not the same, and they governed themselves according to
various principles.
These men shared common features, however, and they all found them-
selves in an analogous situation.
The bond of language is perhaps the strongest and most durable that
can unite men. All the emigrants spoke the same language; they were all
children of the same people. They were born in a country troubled, for
centuries, by the struggle of parties, and where the factions had been
obliged, one by one, to place themselves under the protection of the laws.
Their political education was shaped in this rude school, and you saw more
notions of rights, more principles of true liberty spread among them than
among most of the peoples of Europe. At the time of the first migrations,
town government, this fertile seed of free institutions, had already entered
e. Circumstances without number, theory to make.

Point of departure. The most important of all in my eyes, because it is the one that
has had the most influence on mores; I regard mores as by far the most powerful of
the three general causes. Equality. Democracy introduced in germ. Comfort, result
of the small population and the immense resources of the country.
Emigration, new resources equal to new needs.
The absence of neighbors, no war, no permanent army.
New country, no large cities, no manufacturing districts, no capital. Men are not
pressed one against the other; popular movements less electric and less destructive./
It is a land that presents itself with all the strength and fertility of youth.
The discovery of America is like the complement of creation.
America.
In this state it is presented to man, not to the ignorant and barbaric man of the
first centuries of the world, but to man already educated by an experience of 6,000
years (YTC, CVj, 2, pp. 20–21).
deeply into English habits; and with it, the dogma of the sovereignty of
the people was introduced even within the Tudor monarchy.
People were then in the middle of the religious quarrels that troubled
the Christian world. England had thrown itself into this new course with
a sort of fury. The character of the inhabitants, which had always been
grave and thoughtful, had become austere and argumentative. These in-
tellectual struggles had greatly increased education and had stimulated
deeper cultivation of the mind. While people were occupied with talk of
religion, mores became more pure. All these general features of the nation
were found more or less in the physiognomy of those of its sons who had
come to seek a new future on the opposite shores of the ocean.
Moreover, a remark, which we will have the occasion to return to later,
is applicable not only to the English but also to the French, to the Spanish,
and to all the Europeans who came successively to settle the shores of the
New World. All the new European colonies contained, if not the devel-
opment, at least the germ, of a complete democracy. Two causes led to this
result. [Among the emigrants, unlike in the old societies of Europe, neither
conquerors nor conquered were seen.] It can be said in general, that, at their
departure from the mother country, the emigrants had no idea whatsoever
of any kind of superiority of some over others. It is hardly the happy and
the powerful who go into exile, and poverty as well as misfortune are the
best guarantees of equality that are known among men. It happened, how-
ever, that on several occasions great lords went to America following po-
litical or religious quarrels. Laws were made in order to establish a hierarchy
of ranks there, but it was soon noticed that the American soil absolutely
rejected territorial aristocracy. To clear that intractable land nothing less
was required than the constant and interested efforts of the proprietor him-
self. The ground prepared, it was found that production was not great
enough to enrich both a master and a tenant at the same time. So the land
was naturally divided into small estates that the proprietor cultivated alone.f
Now, aristocracy clings to the land; it is attached to the soil and relies upon
the soil for support. It is not privileges alone that establish it; it is not birth
f. In the margin: “Put the details of this idea further along at democracy.”
that constitutes it; it is landed property handed down by inheritance. A

nation may exhibit immense fortunes and great misery; but if these fortunes
are not territorial, you see poor and rich in its bosom; truly speaking, there
is no aristocracy.g
So all the English colonies, at the time of their birth, shared a great family
resemblance. All, from their beginning, seemed destined to present the de-
velopment of liberty, not the aristocratic liberty of their mother country,
but the bourgeois and democratic liberty of which the history of the world
did not yet offer a complete model.h
Noticeable in the midst of this general coloration, however, were some
very strong nuances that must be pointed out.
In the great Anglo-American family, two principal branches can be dis-
tinguished, one in the South, one in the North; until now, they have grown
up without being completely merged.
Virginia received the first English colony. The emigrants arrived there
in 1607. At this time, Europe was still singularly preoccupied with the idea
that mines of gold and silver constituted the wealth of peoples. This de-
structive idea has done more to impoverish the European nations that em-
braced it and, in America, has destroyed more men than war and all bad
laws put together. So it was gold seekers who were sent to Virginia,1 men
without resources and without proper behavior, whose restless and turbu-
lent spirit troubled the early years of the colony2 and made its progress
g. To the side, with a bracket that includes the last three sentences of the paragraph:
“{Hasn’t this been said a hundred times?}”
h. In the margin: “⫽The great point of view of America is the development of
democracy⫽”
1. The charter granted by the English crown in 1609 included, among others, the clause
that the colonists would pay one-fifth of the production of gold and silver mines to the crown.
See Life of Washington, by Marshall, vol. I, pp. 18–66.
2. A great portion of the new settlers, says Stith (History of Virginia ) [pp. 167–68 (ed.)],
were dissolute young men of good families, shipped off by their relatives to save them from an
ignominious fate. Former servants, fraudulent bankrupts, the debauched, and other people
of this type, more appropriate for pillage and destruction than for consolidating the settlement,
formed the rest. Seditious leaders easily led this troop into all sorts of extravagances and excesses.
See, relative to the history of Virginia, the following works:
uncertain. Afterwards came the manufacturers and farmers, a more moral

and quieter breed, but one that in hardly any ways rose above the level of
the lower classes of England.3 No noble thought, no plans that were not
material, directed the foundation of these new establishments. The colony
was scarcely established before slavery was introduced there;4 that was the
capital fact that would exercise an immense influence on the character, the
laws and the entire future of the South.
Slavery, as we will explain later, dishonors work; into society, it intro-
duces idleness, along with ignorance and pride, poverty and luxury. It en-
ervates the forces of the mind and puts human activity to sleep. The influ-
ence of slavery, combined with the English character, explains the mores
and the social state [{the character}] of the South.j
[⫽Even the outward appearance of the settlers assumed the imprint of
the habits of their life. The Virginian race is recognizable everywhere by
its height and by the air of nobility and command that prevails among its
features.⫽]
In the North, completely opposite nuances were painted on this same
English background. Allow me some details here.
In the English colonies of the North, better known as the New England
states,5 were combined the two or three principal ideas that today form the
foundations of the social theory of the United States.
The principles of New England first spread into neighboring states;
History of Virginia from the First Settlements to the Year 1624, by Smith.
History of Virginia, by William Stith.
History of Virginia from the Earliest Period, by Beverley, translated into French in
1707.
3. It is only later that a certain number of rich English proprietors came to settle in the
colony.
4. Slavery was introduced about the year 1620 by a Dutch vessel that disembarked twenty
Negroes on the banks of the James River. See Chalmer.
j. In the travel notes and early drafts, as well as in the first drafts of the manuscript,
Tocqueville’s thinking tends to be oriented toward a North-South division of the United
States. This understanding is modified further, particularly following the observations
made by his family. Compare this note with note h of p. 77 and p. 602.
5. The states of New England are those situated east of the Hudson; today they number
six: 1. Connecticut; 2. Rhode Island; 3. Massachusetts; 4. Vermont; 5. New Hampshire;
6. Maine.
then, one by one, they reached the most distant states and finished, if I can
express myself in this way, by penetrating the entire confederation. Now
they exercise their influence beyond its limits, over the entire American
world. The civilization of New England has been like those fires kindled
on the hilltops that, after spreading warmth around them, light the farthest
bounds of the horizon with their brightness.
The founding of New England offered a new spectacle; everything there
was singular and original.
[⫽You would search the entire history of humanity in vain for an event
that presented some analogy to what we are describing.k⫽]
Nearly all colonies have had as first inhabitants either men without edu-
cation and without resources, who were pushed out of the country where
they had been born by poverty and misconduct, or avid speculators and
business agents. There are some colonies that cannot claim even such an
origin. Santo Domingo was founded by pirates; and today the English
courts of justice are in charge of peopling Australia.m
The emigrants who came to settle the shores of New England all be-
longed to the comfortable classes of the mother country. Their gathering
on American soil presented, from the beginning, the singular phenomenon
of a society in which there were neither great lords,n nor lower classes, nei-
ther poor, nor rich, so to speak. [I have already said that, among the Eu-
ropeans who went to America, conditions were in general largely equal, but
it can be said that, in a way, these emigrants {the Puritans} carried democ-
racy even within democracy.] In proportion, there was a greater amount of
k. In the margin: “⫽Their birth has no more precedents in world history than the
social and political state that we see among them today.⫽”
m. To the side: “⫽Union of liberty and of religion, of independence of individuals
and of austerity of mores.⫽”
John Quincy Adams had conversed with Tocqueville about the differences between
the colonization of New England and of the states in the West and had also mentioned
the importance of the “point of departure,” of the way in which the United States was
born (non-alphabetic notebooks 2 and 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 152).
n. Hervé de Tocqueville: “It has been said above that great lords had come to settle
in America. Farther along, in chapter 4, it will be said that they founded the colony of
Maryland. Beware of apparent contradictions. They will be avoided by developing the
thought. This is often necessary. The author is too brief, sometimes” (YTC, CIIIb, 2,
p. 104).
learning spread among these men than within any European nation of the
present day. All, perhaps without a single exception, had received a rather
advanced education; and several among them had made themselves known
in Europe by their talents and knowledge. The other colonies had been
founded by adventurers without families; the emigrants of New England
brought with them admirable elements of order and morality; they went
to the wilderness accompanied by their wives and children. But what
distinguished them, above all, from all the others was the very aim of their
enterprise. It was not necessity that forced them to abandon their country;
there they left a social position worthy of regret and a secure livelihood.
Nor did they come to the New World in order to improve their situation
or to increase their wealth; they tore themselves from the comforts of their
homeland to obey a purely intellectual need. By exposing themselves to
the inevitable hardships of exile, they wanted to assure the triumph of an
idea.
The emigrants, or, as they so accurately called themselves, the pilgrims,
belonged to that English sect given the name Puritan because of the aus-
terity of its principles. Puritanism was not only a religious doctrine, but
also at several points it was mingled with the most absolute democratic and
republican theories. From that had come its most dangerous adversaries.
The Puritans, persecuted by the government of the mother country and,
in the strictness of their principles, offended by the daily course of the
society in which they lived, sought a land so barbarous and so abandoned
by the world that they would still be allowed to live there as they wished
and to pray to God in liberty.
A few citations will show the spirit of these pious adventurers better than
anything that we could add.
Nathaniel Morton, historian of the first years of New England, begins
in this way:6
6. New England’s Memorial, p. 13 [13–14 (ed.)], Boston, 1826. Also see the History of
Hutchinson,o vol. II [I (ed.)], p. 440. [Also see the work entitled An Account of the Church
of Christ in Plymouth. Collection of the Historical Society of Massachusetts, vol. IV, p. 107
[107–41 (ed.)].]
o. Probably the appendix, A Summary of the Affairs of the Colony of New-Plymouth,
I have always believed, he says, that it was a sacred duty for us, whose
fathers received such numerous and memorable demonstrations of divine
goodness in the settlement of this colony, to perpetuate the memory of
them in writing. What we have seen and what we have been told by our
fathers, we must make known to our children, so that the generations to
come learn to praise the Lord [(Psalms LXXVIII, 3, 4) (ed.)]; so that the
lineage of Abraham, his servant, and the sons of Jacob, his chosen, keep
forever the memory of the miraculous works of God (Ps. CV, 5, 6). [ . . .
(ed.)p . . . ] They must know how the Lord brought his vine into the wil-
from the First Settlement until the incorporation with Massachusets-Bay &c. in one Province,
pp. 449–81.
p. Tocqueville cites texts more or less freely as his times allowed. Deletions of words
or sentences are not indicated. The editor has carefully corrected most of these citations;
in certain cases judged to be of little importance, he has simply noted the deletions made
by the author.
The first fragment from Morton says:
I have for some length of time looked upon it as a duty incumbent, especially on the
immediate successors of those that have had so large experience of those many mem-
orable and signal demonstrations of God’s goodness, viz. The first beginners of this
plantation in New England, to commit to writing his gracious dispensations on that
behalf; having so many inducements thereunto, not only otherwise, but so plentifully
in the sacred Scriptures, that so, what we have seen, and what our fathers have told
us, we may not hide from our children, shewing to the generations to come the praises
of the Lord. Psal. 78.3, 4. That especially the seed of Abraham his servant, and the
children of Jacob his chosen, may remember his marvelous works (Psal. 105. 5, 6)
[ . . . (ed.) . . . ] how that God brought a vine into this wilderness; that he cast out the
heathen and planted it; and he also made room for it, and he caused it to take deep
root, and it filled the land; so that it hath sent forth its boughs to the sea, and its
branches to the river. Psal. 80.8, 9. And not only so, but also that He hath guided his
people by his strength to his holy habitation, and planted them in the mountain of
his inheritance (Exod. 15. 13.) [ . . . (ed.) . . . ], God may have the glory of all, unto
whom it is most due; so also some rays of glory may reach the names of those blessed
saints that were the main instruments of the beginning of this happy enterprise.
The second text from Morton reads:
And the time being come that they must depart, [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] a town called Delft
Haven, [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] which had been their resting place [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] but they
knew that they were pilgrims and strangers here below, and looked not much on these
things, but lifted up their eyes to heaven, their dearest country, where God hath
prepared for them a city, Heb. Xi, 16, and therein quieted their spirits.
When they came to the place, they found the ship and all things ready; and such
derness; how he planted it and removed the pagans; how he prepared a

place for it, put its roots down deeply, and then allowed it to spread and
cover the earth (Ps. LXXX, 15, 13 [Psalms LXXX, 8, 9 (ed.)]; and not only
that, but also how he led his people toward his holy tabernacle, and es-
tablished them on the mountain of his heritage (Exod. XV, 13). [ . . . (ed.)
. . . ] These facts must be known, so that [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] God receives the
honor he is due, and so that some rays of his glory can fall on the venerable
names of the saints who served as his instruments.
It is impossible to read this beginning without being imbued, despite

yourself, with a religious and solemn impression; you seem to inhale an air
of antiquity and a kind of biblical perfume.
The conviction that animates the writer elevates his language. In your
eyes, as in his, it no longer concerns a small band of adventurers going to
seek their fortune across the seas; it is the seed of a great people that God
comes to set down with his own hands in a predestined land.
The author continues and depicts the departure of the first emigrants
in this way:7
Thus, he says, they left this city (Delft-Haven) [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] which
had been for them a place of rest; but they were calm; they knew that they
were pilgrims and strangers here below. They were not attached to the
of their friends as could not come with them, followed after them [ . . . (ed.) . . . ].
One night was spent with little sleep with the most, but with friendly entertainment,
and Christian discourse, and other real expressions of true Christian love. The next
day [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] they went on board, and their friends with them, where truly
doleful was the sight of that sad and mournful morning, to hear what sighs and sobs,
and prayers did sound amongst them; what tears did gush from every eye, and pithy
speeches pierced each others heart, that sundry of the Dutch strangers, that stood on
the Keys as spectators, could not refrain from tears. [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] But the tide (which
stays for no man) calling them away, that were thus loth to depart, their reverend
pastor falling down on his knees, and they all with him, with watery cheeks com-
mended them with most fervent prayers unto the Lord and his blessing; and then
with mutual embraces, and many tears, they took their leave one of another, which
proved to be the last leave to many of them.
7. New England’s Memorial, p. 23 [–24 (ed.)].
things of the earth, but raised their eyes toward heaven, their dear home-
land, where God had prepared for them his holy city. [Heb. XI, 16 (ed.)]
[ . . . (ed.) . . . ] They finally arrived at the port where the vessel awaited
them. A great number of friends who could not leave with them had at
least wanted to follow them to this port. The night went by without sleep;
it passed with outpourings of friendship, with pious speeches, with ex-
pressions full of a true Christian tenderness. The next day they went
aboard; their friends still wanted to accompany them; then you heard deep
sighs, you saw tears running from all eyes, you heard long hugs and kisses
and fervent prayers that made strangers themselves feel moved. [ . . . (ed.)
. . . ] Once the signal for departure was given, they fell on their knees, and
their pastor, raising eyes full of tears toward heaven, commended them to
the mercy of the Lord. Finally they took leave of each other, and pro-
nounced this farewell that, for many among them, was to be the last.
The emigrants numbered about one hundred and fifty, men as well as
women and children. Their goal was to found a colony on the banks of the
Hudson, but, after wandering a long time on the ocean, they were finally
forced to land on the arid coasts of New England, at the place where the
town of Plymouth is found today. The rock where the pilgrims landed is
still displayed.8
Says the historian I have already quoted:
But before going further, let us consider for an instant the present con-
dition of these poor people and let us marvel at the goodness of God who
saved them.9
They had now crossed the vast ocean, they were reaching the end of
their journey, but they saw no friends to receive them, no dwelling to offer
them shelter [ . . . (ed.) . . . ]; it was the middle of winter; and those who
know our climate know how harsh the winters are and what furious storms
then devastate our coasts. In this season, it is difficult to traverse known
8. This rock has become an object of veneration in the United States. I saw fragments of
it carefully preserved in several cities of the Union. Doesn’t this show quite clearly that the
power and greatness of man is entirely in his soul? Here is a rock touched for a moment by
the feet of a few wretched individuals, and this rock becomes famous; it attracts the attention
of a great people; the remains are venerated; far away, tiny pieces are shared. What has become
of the threshold of so many palaces? Who worries about it?
9. New England’s Memorial, p. 35 [–36 (ed.)].
places, even worse to settle on new shores. Around them appeared only a
hideous and desolate wilderness, full of animals and savage men whose
level of ferocity and number they did not know. [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] The earth
was frozen; the land was covered with woods and thickets. Everything had
a barbarous appearance. Behind them, they saw only the immense ocean
that separated them from the civilized world. To find a little peace and
hope, they could only turn their faces toward heaven.q
You must not believe that the piety of the Puritans was only speculative,
or that it proved to be unfamiliar with the course of human concerns. Pu-
ritanism, as I said above, was almost as much a political theory as a religious
doctrine. So, scarcely are these emigrants disembarked on this inhospitable
coast that Nathaniel Morton has just described than their first concern is
to organize themselves as a society. They immediately enact an agreement
[<It is the social contract in proper form that Rousseau dreamed of in the
following century>] which* reads:10
q. The original text says:

But before we pass on, let the reader, with me, make a pause, and seriously consider
this poor people’s present condition, the more to be raised up to admiration of God’s
goodness towards them in their preservation: For being now passed the vast ocean,
and a sea of troubles before in their preparation, they had now no friends to welcome
them, no inns to entertain or refresh them [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] and, for the season it was
winter, and they that know the winters of the country, know them to be sharp and
violent, subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much
more to search unknown coasts. Besides, what could they see but a hideous and des-
olate wilderness, full of wild beasts and wild men? And what multitudes of them
there were, they then knew not; [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] all things stand in appearance with
a weather-beaten face, and the whole country full of woods and thickets, represented
a wild and savage hue; if they looked behind them, there was the mighty ocean which
they had passed, and was now a main bar and gulf to separate them from all the civil
parts of the world.
* New England’s Memorial, p. 37 [–38. Note omitted in certain editions. (ed.)].
10. The emigrants who created the state of Rhode Island in 1638, those who established
New Haven in 1637, the first inhabitants of Connecticut in 1639, and the founders of Prov-
idence in 1640, also began by drawing up a social contract that was submitted for approval
to all those affected, Pitkin’s History, [vol I, (ed.)] pp. 42 [43 (ed.)] and 47.
We, whose names follow,r who, for the glory of God, the development
of the Christian faith and the honor of our country,s have undertaken to
establish the first colony on these distant shores,t we covenant by these
presents, by mutual and solemn consent, and before God, to form our-
selves into a body of political society, for the purpose of governing our-
selves and working for the accomplishment of our plans; and by virtue of
this contract, we covenant to promulgate laws, acts, ordinances, and to
establish, as needed, magistrates to whom we promise submission and
obedience.
This took place in 1620. From that period on, emigration did not stop.
Each year, the religious and political passions that tore apart the British
Empire throughout the reign of Charles I drove new swarms of sectarians
to the coasts of America. In England, the center of Puritanism continued
to be located in the middle classes;u most of the emigrants came from
within the middle classes. The population of New England increased rap-
idly; and, while in the mother country men were still classed despotically
according to the hierarchy of ranks, the colony increasingly presented the
novel spectacle of a thoroughly homogeneous society. Democracy, such as
antiquity had not dared dream it, burst forth fully grown and fully armed
from the midst of the old feudal society.
Content to remove the seeds of troubles and the elements of new rev-
r. The quoted fragment reads:

We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord,
King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, De-
fender of the faith, &c. Having undertaken for the glory of God, and advancement
of the Christian faith, and the honour of our King and country, a voyage to plant
the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents solemnly and
mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves
together into a civil body politick, for our better ordering and preservation, and fur-
therance of the ends aforesaid: And by virtue hereof, do enact, constitute and frame
such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and officers, from time to
time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the col-
ony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
s. Omitted: “our king and our country . . .”
t. The text says: “in the northern parts of Virginia.”
u. Tocqueville uses the words class and rank indiscriminately.
olutions, the English government watched this heavy emigration with-

out distress. It even encouraged it with all of its power and seemed hardly
at all concerned with the fate of those who came to American soil seeking
a refuge from the harshness of its laws. You could have said that the En-
glish government saw New England as a region delivered to the dreams
of the imagination that should be abandoned to the free experiments of
innovators.
The English colonies, and this was one of the principal causes of their
prosperity, always enjoyed more internal liberty and more political inde-
pendence than the colonies of other peoples; but nowhere was this principle
of liberty more completely applied than in the states of New England.
It was then generally agreed that the lands of the New World belonged
to the European nation that had first discovered them.
In this way, nearly the entire littoral of North America became an En-
glish possession toward the end of the sixteenth century. The means used
by the British government to populate these new domains were of different
kinds. In certain cases, the king subjected a portion of the New World to
a governor of his choosing, charged with administering the country in his
name and under his direct orders;11 this is the colonial system adopted by
the rest of Europe. At other times, he granted ownership of certain portions
of the country to a man or to a company.12 All the civil and political powers
were then concentrated in the hands of one or several individuals who,
under the inspection and control of the crown, sold the land and governed
the inhabitants. Finally, a third system consisted of giving a certain number
of emigrants the right to form a political society, under the patronage of
the mother country, and to govern themselves in everything not contrary
to its laws.
This method of colonization, so favorable to liberty, was put into prac-
tice only in New England.13
11. This was the case for the state of New York.
12. Maryland, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey were in this case. See Pitkin’s
History, vol. I, pp. 13–31.
13. See in the work entitled: Historical Collection of State Papers and other Authentic
Documents Intended as Materials for an History of the United States of America, by
Ebenezer Hazard, printed at Philadelphia, MDCCXCII, a very large number of precious
As early as 1628,14 a charter of this nature was granted by Charles I to

the emigrants who came to found the colony of Massachusetts.
But, in general, charters were not granted to the colonies of New En-
gland until long after their existence had become an accomplished fact.
Plymouth, Providence, New Haven, the states of Connecticut and Rhode
Island15 were founded without the support and, in a sense, without the
knowledge of the mother country. The new inhabitants, without denying
the supremacy of the home country, did not draw on it as the source of
powers; they incorporated themselves. And it was only thirty or forty years
after, under Charles II, that a royal charter legalized their existence.
So it is often difficult, while surveying the first historical and legislative
memorials of New England, to see the link connecting the emigrants to
the country of their ancestors. At every moment you can see them per-
forming some act of sovereignty; they name their magistrates, make peace
and war, establish regulations for public order, provide laws for themselves
as if they were answerable only to God alone16 [⫽later, when the colonies
began to become powerful, the mother country raised the claim of de-
fending and directing them⫽].
Nothing is more singular and, at the very same time, more instructive
documents valuable in their contents and authenticity, relating to the early years of the col-
onies, among others, the different charters that were granted by the English crown, as well as
the first acts of their governments.
Also see the analysis of all these charters that Mr. Story, Justice of the Supreme Court of
the United States, makes in the introduction of his Commentary on the Constitution of
the United States.
All these documents demonstrate that the principles of representative government and the
external forms of political liberty were introduced in all the colonies almost from their birth.
These principles were developed more fully in the North than in the South, but they existed
everywhere.
14. See Pitkin’s History, vol. I, p. 35 [36 (ed.)]. See The History of the Colony of
Massachusetts, by Hutchinson, vol. I, p. 9.
15. See id., pp. 42–47 [vol. I (ed.)].
16. The inhabitants of Massachusetts, in the establishment of criminal and civil laws for
proceedings and for the courts of justice, moved away from the customs followed in England:
in 1650 the name of the King still did not appear at the head of judicial orders. See Hutchinson,
vol. I, p. 452.
than the legislation of this period;v there, above all, is found the key to the
great social enigma that the United States presents to the world of today.
Among these memorials, we will particularly single out, as one of the
most characteristic, the law code that the small state of Connecticut gave
itself in 1650.17
The legislators of Connecticut18 first take charge of the penal laws; and
to write them, they conceive the strange idea of drawing upon sacred texts:
“Whoever will worship a God other than the Lord,” they begin by say-
ing, “will be put to death.”
Ten or twelve clauses of the same nature, borrowed word for word from
Deuteronomy, Exodus and Leviticus, follow.
Blasphemy, witchcraft, adultery,19 rape are punished with death; the
same punishment is imposed on flagrant insult by a son toward his parents.
In this way, the legislation of a primitive and half-civilized people was trans-
ferred to a society in which minds were enlightened and mores were mild;
so the death penalty was never so common in the laws, nor so rarely applied
to the guilty.
Above all, in this body of penal laws, the legislators are preoccupied with
upholding moral order and standards of good behavior; they constantly
enter, therefore, into the realm of conscience. There is hardly any sin that
v. “Ask Niles about the authenticity of the blue laws” (YTC, CVb, p. 33).
The laws of the first colonists of Connecticut were called blue laws. Understood in
the broadest sense, the term designates the regulations for the strict observance of the
Sabbath, which formerly existed throughout the American territory and which partially
survive today.
Nathaniel Niles was the secretary of the American delegation in Paris from 1830 to
1833.
17. Code of 1650, p. 28 (Hartford, 1830).
18. See as well in the History of Hutchinson, vol. I, pp. 435–56, the analysis of the penal
code adopted in 1648 by the colony of Massachusetts; this code is drafted on principles anal-
ogous to that of Connecticut.
19. Adultery was likewise punished by death under the law of Massachusetts, and Hutch-
inson, vol. I, p. 441, says that several persons in fact suffered death for this crime; he cites on
this subject a curious anecdote which relates to the year 1663. A married woman had relations
with a young man; she became a widow and married him; several years passed; the public
finally began to suspect the intimacy that had formerly existed between the spouses; they were
charged under the criminal law; they were imprisoned, and both were nearly condemned to
death.
they do not manage to submit to the censure of the magistrate. The reader
has been able to observe how harshly the laws punished adultery and rape.
Mere flirtation between unmarried people is severely suppressed. On the
guilty, the judge has the right to inflict one of three punishments: a fine, a
flogging or a wedding.20 And if the records of the old courts of New Haven
are to be believed, proceedings of this nature were not rare; you find, dated
May 1, 1660, a verdict with a fine and reprimand against a young woman
accused of having uttered a few indiscreet words and of allowing herself
to be kissed.21 The Code of 1650 abounds in preventive measures. Laziness
and drunkenness are severely punished.22 Innkeepers cannot provide more
than a certain quantity of wine to each consumer; a fine or a flogging cracks
down on a simple lie when it might be harmful.23 In other places, the leg-
islator, completely forgetting the great principles of religious liberty that
he claimed in Europe, forces, by threat of fines, attendance at divine24 wor-
ship.w And he goes so far as to impose severe penalties,25 and often death,
20. Code of 1650, p. 48.

It seems that sometimes judges gave these various penalties cumulatively, as you see in a
decision rendered in 1643 (p. 114, New Haven Antiquities ), which declares that Marguerite
Bedfort [Bedforde (ed.)], convicted of having committed reprehensible acts, will suffer the
penalty of whipping and will be enjoined to marry Nicolas Jemmings [ Jennings (ed.)], her
accomplice.
21. New Haven Antiquities, p. 104 [–106 (ed.)]. Also see in the History of Hutchinson,
vol. I, p. 435 [–436 (ed.)], several judgments as extraordinary as the former.
22. Code of 1650, pp. 50, 57.
23. Id., p. 64.
24. Id., p. 44.
w. Cf. Beaumont, Marie, I, p. 536–37, and Tocqueville’s account (appendix III).
25. This was not particular to Connecticut. See among others the law of December 13,
1644, in Massachusetts, which sentences Anabaptists to banishment. Historical Collection
of State Papers, vol. I, p. 538. Also see the law published on October 14, 1656, against the
Quakers: “Whereas, says the law, an accursed sect of heretics called Quakers has recently arisen
. . .” Clauses follow which impose a very heavy fine on captains of vessels that bring Quakers
into the country. The Quakers who succeed in entering will be flogged and put into prison to
work. Those who defend their opinions will first be fined, then sentenced to prison and driven
from the province. Same collection, vol. I, p. 630.
[If the Quakers banished in this way were found once again in the state, they were, once
identified, condemned to death. See same collection, vol. II, p. 456, the sentencing to death of
on Christians who want to worship God according to a creed different from

his own.26 Finally, the fervor for regulations, which possesses him, some-
times leads him to deal with concerns most unworthy of him. Thus, in the
same code, there is a law that prohibits the use of tobacco.27 It must not
be forgotten, moreover, that these bizarre or tyrannical laws were not at all
imposed; that they were voted by the free participation of all those con-
cerned; and that the mores were still more austere and puritanical than the
laws. In the year 1649, a solemn association was formed in Boston whose
purpose was to prevent the worldly luxury of long hair.28 E
Such errors undoubtedly shame the human spirit; they testify to the in-
firmity of our nature, which, incapable of firmly grasping the true and the
just, is most often reduced to choosing only between two excesses.
Alongside this penal legislation, so strongly stamped by narrow sectarian
spirit and by all the religious passions that were excited by persecution and
were still seething deep within souls, a body of political laws is found. The
two are, in a way, bound together. But those political laws, written two
hundred years ago, still seem very far ahead of the spirit of liberty of our
age.
The general principles on which modern constitutions rest, which most
of the Europeans of the seventeenth century scarcely understood and
which at that time triumphed incompletely in Great Britain, were all rec-
ognized and laid down by the laws of New England. There, the interven-
tion of the people in public affairs, the free vote of taxes, the responsibility
two men and a woman convicted of this crime (October 18, 1649). The woman, named Mary
Dyer, received mercy, but had to attend the execution of her two accomplices with the cord
around her neck.
Also see in the same collection, p. 573, a law of Plymouth: “Whereas, says this law, the
Quakers sometimes obtain places to stay, [and (ed.)] horses by means of which they move
rapidly from place to place and escape the searches of the legal authorities, poisoning the people
with their accursed doctrines . . . [this law (ed.)] orders that the horses seized in possession of
the Quakers will be confiscated.”
See in general at the end of this volume the acts of the government of New Plymouth
against the Quakers.]
26. In the penal law of Massachusetts, the Catholic priest who sets foot in the colony after
being expelled is punished by death.
27. Code of 1650, p. 96.
28. New England’s Memorial, p. 316.
of the agents of power, individual liberty, and jury trial were established
without argument and in fact.
There, these generative principles receive an application and develop-
ments that not a single European nation has yet dared to give them.
In Connecticut, from the beginning, the electoral body was comprised
of all citizens, and that is understood without difficulty.29 Among this
emerging people, a nearly perfect equality of means and, even more, of
minds then reigned.30
In Connecticut, at that time, all the agents of executive power were
elected, even the Governor of the state.31
[In Connecticut in 1650, all] The citizens older than sixteen years of
age were obliged to bear arms; they formed a national militia that named
its officers and had to be ready at all times to march in defense of the
country.32
In the laws of Connecticut, as in all those of New England, you see
arising and developing the town independence that still today constitutes
the principle and life of American liberty.
Among most European nations, political existence began in the higher
ranks of society; little by little and always incompletely, it was transmitted
to the various parts of the social body.
In America, in contrast, you can say that the town was organized before
the county; the county, before the state; the state, before the Union.
In New England, as early as 1650, the town is completely and definitively
formed. Gathered around this town individuality and strongly attached to
it are interests, passions, duties, and rights. Within the town, a real, active,
29. Constitution of 1638, p. 17 [12 (ed.)].

30. As early as 1641, the General Assembly of Rhode Island unanimously declared that the
state government consisted of a democracy and that power rested with the body of freemen
who alone had the right to make laws and to oversee their execution. Pitkin’s History, p. 47
[46 (ed.)].
31. Constitution of 1638, p. 12.
32. Code of 1650, p. 70.
totally democratic and republican political life reigns. The colonies still rec-
ognize the supremacy of the mother country; the monarchy is the law of
the state, but in the town, the republic is already fully alive.
The town names its magistrates of all sorts; it taxes itself; it apportions
and levies the tax on itself.33 In the New England town, the law of repre-
sentation is not accepted. As in Athens, matters that touch the interests of
all are treated in the public square and within the general assembly of
citizens.
When you attentively examine the laws that were promulgated during
these early years of the American republics, you are struck by the legislator’s
knowledge of government and advanced theories.
It is evident that he had a more elevated and complete idea of the duties
of society toward its members than European legislators of that time and
that he imposed obligations on society that society still eluded elsewhere.
In the states of New England, from the start, the fate of the poor was as-
sured;34 strict measures were taken for maintaining roads; and officers were
named to oversee them.35 Towns had public records in which the results of
general deliberations, deaths, marriages, births were inscribed;36 clerks were
appointed to maintain these records.37 Some officers were charged with the
administration of unclaimed inheritances, others, with overseeing the
boundaries of legacies. The principal function of several was to maintain
public peace in the town.38
[⫽The legislation of this era announces in the mass of the people and
in its leaders a civilization already well advanced; you feel that those who
make the laws and those who submit to them all belong to a race of intel-
ligent and enlightened men who have never been completely preoccupied
by the material concerns of life.⫽]
33. Code of 1650, p. 80.

34. Code of 1650, p. 78.
35. Id., p. 49.
36. See the History of Hutchinson, vol. I, p. 455.
37. Code of 1650, p. 86.
38. Id., p. 40.
The law gets into a thousand different details to provide for and to satisfy
a host of social needs of which, today in France, we still have only a vague
awareness. [{Nothing then in our old Europe could give the idea of a social
organization as extensive and as perfect.}]
But it is in the prescriptions relating to public education that, from the
very beginning, you see fully revealed the original character of American
civilization.
“Whereas, says the law, Satan, enemy of humanity, finds in the ignorance
of men his most powerful weapons, and it is important that the knowledge
brought by our fathers does not remain buried in their grave;—whereas the
education of children is one of the first interests of the State, with the help
of the Lord . . .”39 Then follow the provisions that create schools in all the
towns and oblige the inhabitants, under penalty of heavy fines, to tax them-
selves to support them. Secondary schools are established in the same way
in the most populated districts. Municipal magistrates must watch that par-
ents send their children to school; they have the right to levy fines against
those who refuse to do so. And if resistance continues, society then displaces
the family, lays hold of the child and removes from the fathers the rights
that nature had given to them, but that they knew so poorly how to use.40
The reader will undoubtedly have noticed the preamble of these ordi-
nances: in America, it is religion that leads to enlightenment; it is the ob-
servance of divine laws that brings men to liberty.
When, after thus casting a rapid glance over American society in 1650,
you examine the state of Europe and particularly that of the continent
39. Id., p. 90 [–91 (ed.)].x

x. The code of 1650 says:
It being one chiefe project of that old deluder, Sathan, to keepe men from the knowl-
edge of the scriptures, as in former times, keeping them in an unknowne tongue, so
in these latter times, by perswading them from the use of tongues, so that at least,
the true sence and meaning of the originall might bee clouded with false glosses of
saint seeming deceivers; and that learning may not bee buried in the grave of our
forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our indeavors . . . (pp.
90–91).
40. Code of 1650, p. 38.
around this same era, you are filled by a profound astonishment. On the
European continent, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, absolute
monarchy triumphed on all sides over the ruins of the oligarchic and feudal
liberty of the Middle Ages. [<⫽The top of the social edifice already received
the lights of modern civilization, while the base still remained in the dark-
ness of ignorance [v. of the Middle Ages].⫽>] In the heart of this brilliant
and literary Europe, the idea of rights had perhaps never been more com-
pletely misunderstood; never had peoples experienced less of political life;
never had minds been less preoccupied by the notions of true liberty. And
at that time these same principles, unknown or scorned by European na-
tions, were proclaimed in the wilderness of the New World and became
the future creed [{political catechism}] of a great people. The boldest the-
ories of the human mind were reduced to practice in this society so humble
in appearance, a society in which probably not a single statesman would
then have deigned to be involved; there, the imagination of man, aban-
doned to its natural originality, improvised legislation without precedent.
Within this obscure democracy that had still not brought forth either gen-
erals, or philosophers, or great writers, a man could stand up in the presence
of a free people and give, to the acclamation of all, this beautiful definition
of liberty:41
Let us not be mistaken about what we must understand by our inde-
pendence.y There is in fact a kind of corrupt liberty, the use of which is
common to animals as it is to man, and which consists of doing whatever
41. Mather’s Magnalia Christi Americana, vol. II, p. 13 [vol. I, p. 113 (ed.)].
This speech was given by Winthrop; he was accused of having committed arbitrary acts
as a magistrate; after delivering the speech of which I have just given a fragment, he was
acquitted with applause, and from that time on he was always re-elected Governor of the
State. See Marshall, vol. I, p. 166 [167 (ed.)].
y. The original says:
Nor would I have you to mistake in the Point of your own liberty. There is a liberty
of corrupt nature, which is affected by men and beasts, to do what they list; and this
liberty is inconsistent with authority, impatient of all restraint; by this liberty, Sumus
Omnes Deteriores; ’tis the grand enemy of truth and peace, and all the ordinances
of God are bent against it. But there is a civil, a moral, a federal liberty, which is the
proper end and object of authority; it is a liberty for that only which is just and good;
for this liberty you are to stand with the hazard of your very lives.
you please. This liberty is the enemy of all authority; it suffers all rules
with impatience; with it, we become inferior to ourselves; it is the enemy
of truth and peace; and God believed that he had to rise up against it! But
there is a civil and moral liberty that finds its strength in union, and that
the mission of power itself is to protect; it is the liberty to do without fear
all that is just and good. This holy liberty we must defend at all cost, and
if necessary, at risk of our life.
I have already said enough to reveal Anglo-American civilization in its

true light. It is the product (and this point of departure must always be
kept in mind) of two perfectly distinct elements that elsewhere are often
at odds. But in America, these two have been successfully blended, in a way,
and marvelously combined. I mean the spirit of religion and the spirit of
liberty.
The founders of New England were at the very same time ardent sec-
tarians and impassioned innovators. Restrained by the tightest bonds of
certain religious beliefs, they were free of all political prejudices. [{Religion
led them to enlightenment; the observance of divine laws brought them to
liberty.}]
From that, two diverse but not opposite tendencies resulted whose traces
can easily be found everywhere, in the mores as in the laws.z
Some men sacrifice their friends, family, and native land for a religious
opinion; you could believe that they are absorbed in the pursuit of the
intellectual good that they have come to purchase at such a high price. You
see them, however, seeking material riches and moral enjoyments with an
almost equal fervor, heaven in the other world, and well-being and liberty
in this one.
In their hands, political principles, laws, and human institutions seem
to be malleable things that can be shaped and combined at will.
The barriers that imprisoned the society where they were born fall before
z. Variant in the margin: “⫽Extreme obedience to established rules in the moral

world, extreme independence, restless spirit of innovation in the political world, these
are the two diverse and seemingly opposing tendencies that are revealed at each step in
the course of American society.⫽”
them; old opinions that for centuries ruled the world vanish; an almost
limitless course and a field without horizons open. The human mind rushes
toward them, sweeping over them in all directions. But having arrived at
the limits of the political world, it stops by itself. In fear and trembling, it
sets aside the use of its most formidable abilities, abjures doubt, renounces
the need to innovate, refrains even from lifting the veil of the sanctuary,
and bows respectfully before truths that it accepts without discussion.
[⫽After having rested awhile in the midst of the certainties of the moral
order, man begins to move again and reenters the political arena with more
fervor.⫽]a
In the moral world, therefore, everything is classified, coordinated, fore-
seen, decided in advance. In the political world, everything is agitated, con-
tested, uncertain; in the one, passive though voluntary obedience; in the
other, independence, scorn for experience and jealousy of all authority.
Far from harming each other, these two tendencies, apparently so op-
posed, move in harmony and seem to offer mutual support.
Religion sees in civil liberty a noble exercise of the faculties of man; in
the political world, a field offered by the Creator to the efforts of intelli-
gence. Free and powerful in its sphere, satisfied with the place reserved for
it, religion knows that its dominion is that much better established because
it rules only by its own strength and dominates hearts without other
support.
Liberty sees in religion the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the
cradle of its early years, the divine source of its rights. Liberty considers
religion as the safeguard of mores, mores as the guarantee of laws and the
pledge of its own duration.F
[Both, taking man by the hand, guide his steps and show his way in the
wilderness.]
a. In the margin: “⫽There will be many things to say about that. The American po-
litical world rests upon foundations different from ours, but just as settled and certain.
So you cannot say that there is more uncertainty and vagueness there than in the moral
world.⫽”
Reasons for Some Singularities That the Laws and

Customs b of the Anglo-Americans Present
Some remnants of aristocratic institutions within the most
complete democracy.—Why?—What is of Puritan origin and of
English origin must be carefully distinguished.
[⫽From whatever side I envisage the laws and mores of the Anglo-
Americans, I rediscover striking traces of their origin {of the point of de-
parture}. The reading of historians, the study of legislation, the sight of
things all involuntarily lead my steps back toward the point of departure.
{But I despair of making the whole extent of my idea understood by those
who have not seen English America with their own eyes.}⫽]
The reader must not draw from what precedes consequences that are too
general and absolute. The social condition, the religion and the mores of
the first emigrants undoubtedly exercised an immense influence over the
destiny of their new country. It was not up to them, however, to establish
a society whose point of departure was found only within themselves; no
one can entirely free himself from the past. With ideas and customs that
were their own, they mingled, either voluntarily or unknowingly, other cus-
toms and ideas that they got from their education or from the national
traditions of their country.
So when you want to know and judge the Anglo-Americans of today,
what is of Puritan origin or of English origin must be carefully distinguished.
You often encounter in the United States laws and customs that contrast
with all that surrounds them. These laws seem written in a spirit opposed
to the dominant spirit of American legislation; these mores seem contrary
to the social state as a whole. If the English colonies had been founded in
a century of darkness, or if their origin was already lost in the shadows of
time, the problem would be insoluble.
b. In an early draft, the title said: “. . . that the social state of the anglo-
americans presents.” This section was initially at the beginning of chapter III
(YTC, CVh, 3, p. 82).
I will cite a single example to make my thought understood.

The civil and criminal legislation of the Americans knows only two
means of action: prison or bail.c The first action in proceedings consists of
obtaining bail from the defendant or, if he refuses, of having him incar-
cerated; afterwards the validity of the evidence or the gravity of the charges
is discussed.
Clearly such legislation is directed against the poor and favors only the
rich.
A poor man does not always make bail, even in civil matters, and if he
is forced to await justice in prison, his forced inactivity soon reduces him
to destitution.d
A wealthy man, on the contrary, always succeeds in escaping impris-
onment in civil matters; even more, if he has committed a crime, he easily
evades the punishment awaiting him: after providing bail, he disappears.
So it can be said that for him all the penalties of the law are reduced to
fines.42 What is more aristocratic than such legislation?e
In America, however, it is the poor who make the law, and usually they
reserve the greatest advantages of society for themselves.
It is in England where the explanation for this phenomenon must be
found: the laws I am speaking about are English.43 The Americans have not
changed them, even though they are repugnant to their legislation as a
whole and to the mass of their ideas.
The thing that people change the least after their customs is their civil
c. “Ask Mr. Livingston about prisons and bail” (YTC, CVb, p. 33). Probably Edward
Livingston. See note 2 of Tocqueville’s introduction (p. 30).
d. “For prison ruins him by preventing him from working and bail makes him give
up the fruit of his work.
“To develop. Opinion of Mr. Duponceau.
“Little guarantee that the poor have against the oppression of municipal magistrates.
“Unwritten law that puts justice into the hands of the privileged class of lawyers”
(YTC, CVj, 2, pp. 4–5). The conversation with Mr. Duponceau is found in portable
notebook 3 (YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 182); see the conversation with [Al-
exander] Everett (ibid., p. 95).
42. There are certainly crimes for which there is no bail, but they are very few in number.
e. Cf. Beaumont, Marie, I, pp. 197, 367–70.
43. See Blackstone and Delolme, book I, chap. X.
legislation. The civil laws are familiar only to jurists, that is, to those who
have a direct interest in keeping them as they are, good or bad, because they
know them. The bulk of the nation knows them hardly at all; they see them
in action only in individual cases, grasp their tendency only with difficulty,
and submit to them without thinking about it.
I have cited an example; I could have pointed out many others.
The picture that American society presents is, if I can express myself in
this way, covered by a democratic layer beneath which from time to time
you catch a glimpse of the old colors of the aristocracy.
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 3
Social State of the Anglo-Americans
[Definition of the words social state.a/

I will speak so frequently about the social state of the Anglo-Americans
that, first and foremost, I need to say what I mean by the words social state.
In my view, the social state is the material and intellectual condition in
which a people finds itself in a given period.]
The social state is ordinarily the result of a fact, sometimes of laws, most
often of these two causes together. But once it exists, it can itself be con-
sidered the first cause of most of the laws, customs and ideas that regulate
the conduct of nations; what it does not produce, it modifies.b
So to know the legislation and the mores of a people, it is necessary to
begin by studying its social state.c
a. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I do not know if this definition is very useful. It slows the
transition from the second to the third chapter.
In any case, mores should be put before the other causes that modify social state.
Mores come before the fact whatever it may be. They precede laws. Example: Puritan
mores precede and lead to the fact of emigration.”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “I do not share this opinion” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 92).
b. “Among a people property is divided in a certain way, enlightenment is more or
less equal, morality is more or less high, that is what I call its social state./
“In general the social state is the result of a fact predating the laws, but the laws
develop its consequences and modify it” (YTC, CVh, 5, p. 9).
The social state according to Tocqueville recalls Montesquieu’s concept of the general
spirit of the nation (cf. L’esprit des lois, book XIX, chapters IV and V). On this question,
see Anna Maria Battista, “Lo stato sociale democratico nella analisi di Tocqueville,” Pen-
siero Politico 4, no. 3 (1973): 336–95.
c. In the margin, in pencil: “Vague, indeterminate. Perhaps examples instead of
definitions.”
74
social state of the anglo-americans 75
That the Salient Point of the Social State of the

Anglo-Americans Is to Be Essentially Democratic
First emigrants of New England.—Equal among themselves.—
Aristocratic laws introduced in the South.—Period of the
Revolution.—Change in the inheritance laws.—Effects produced
by this change.—Equality pushed to its extreme limits in the new
states of the West.—Intellectual equality.
Several important remarks about the social state of the Anglo-Americans

could be made, but one dominates all the others.d
The social state of the Americans is eminently democratic. It has had
this character since the birth of the colonies; it has it even more today.e
[⫽As soon as you look at the civil and political society of the United
States, you discover two great facts that dominate all the others and from
d. Causes of the social state and current government of America:

1. Their origin: excellent point of departure. Intimate mix of religion and of the
spirit of liberty. Cold and rational race.
2. Their geographic position: no neighbors.
3. Their commercial and industrial activity. Everything, even their vices, is favorable
to them now.
4. The material good fortune that they enjoy.
5. The religious spirit that reigns: republican and democratic religion.
6. The diffusion of useful knowledge.
7. Very pure morals.
8. The division into small States. They prove nothing for a large one.
9. The absence of a great capital where everything is concentrated. Care to avoid it.
10. Commercial and provincial activity that means that each person finds some-
thing to do at home (Alphabetic Notebook A, YTC, BIIa and Voyage, OC, V, 1,
p. 207).
e. Hervé de Tocqueville:
This is too absolute. At least you should say nearly all the colonies, in order to be in
agreement with page 128 (chap. 4), where you speak about the aristocratic influence
long exercised to the south and west of the Hudson. This difficulty arises from chapter
2 where Alexis recognized only two political divisions of the territory, which forced
him to generalize too much. Another division and a few sentences added, and every-
thing will be fine (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 92). Page 128 of the copy read by Hervé and the
other critics corresponds to pages 50–51 of this edition.
76 social state of the anglo-americans
which the others are derived. Democracy constitutes the social state; the
dogma of the sovereignty of the people, the political law.
These two things are not analogous. Democracy is society’s way of being.
Sovereignty of the people, a form of [v. the essence of ] government. Nor
are they inseparable, because democracyf is even more compatible with des-
potism than with liberty.
But they are correlative. Sovereignty of the people is always more or less
a fiction wherever democracy is not established.⫽]g
I said in the preceding chapter that a very great equality reigned among
the emigrants who came to settle on the shores of New England. Not even
the germ of aristocracy was ever deposited in that part of the Union. No
influences except intellectual ones [{a kind of intellectual patronage}]could
ever be established there. The people got used to revering certain names,
as symbols of learning and virtue. The voice of certain citizens gained a
power over the people that perhaps could have been correctly called aris-
tocratic, if it could have been passed down invariably from father to son.
This happened [{north}] east of the Hudson; [{south}] southwest of this
river, and as far down as Florida, things were otherwise.
f. With a reminder in the margin, in pencil: “Explain what is understood by democ-

racy.”
Tocqueville never arrived at a satisfactory definition of democracy. He always used
the term in different senses. Harold Laski, in his introduction to Democracy in America
(OC, I, p. xxx), distinguishes four; James T. Schleifer, The Making of Tocqueville’s “De-
mocracy in America” (pp. 263–74), identified as many as eight: inevitable development
or tendency, social condition, popular sovereignty, government of the people, mobility,
middle classes, equality of conditions, open society. Jean-François Sutter, in “Tocque-
ville et le problème de la démocratie” (Revue internationale de philosophie 49 (1959): 330–
40), examined the reason why Tocqueville did not manage to give one single definition
of democracy. Cf. the revealing letter of Louis de Kergorlay, dated January 6, 1838, a
letter that Tocqueville kept with the early drafts of the second part of his book (YTC,
CVg, 2, published in Correspondance avec Kergorlay, OC, XIII, 2, pp. 16–17).
g. In the margin: “⫽Note that in this chapter the social state must never be confused
with the political laws that follow from it; equality or inequality of conditions, which
are facts, with democracy or aristocracy, which are laws. Reexamine from this point of
view.⫽”
In most of the States situated southwesth of the Hudson, great English

landholders had come to settle. Aristocratic principles, and with them En-
glish laws of inheritance, had been imported.[*] I have shown the reasons
that prevented a powerful aristocracy from ever being established in Amer-
ica. But these reasons, though existing southwestj of the Hudson, had less
power there than [{north}] east of this river. To the south, one man alone
could, with the help of slaves, cultivate a large expanse of land. So in this
part of the continent wealthy landed proprietors were seen; but their in-
fluence was not precisely aristocratic, as understood in Europe, because they
had no privileges at all, and cultivation by slaves gave them no tenants and
therefore no patronage. Nonetheless, south of the Hudson, the great land-
holders formed a superior class, with its own ideas and tastes and generally
concentrating political activity within its ranks. It was a kind of aristocracy
not much different from the mass of the people whose passions and inter-
ests it easily embraced, exciting neither love nor hate;k in sum, weak and
h. This word is added later. At first, the word was south.

[*]. Note from Jefferson.
j. Hervé de Tocqueville:
Here again the drawback of only two divisions. Alexis finds himself forced to jump
abruptly from the Southwest to the South, without the connection of ideas being
clear, and the differences between this Southwest and the South remain unknown.
Does slavery also exist in the Southwest? Is this part entirely homogeneous with the
South? If it is, why speak successively of the West and the South? If it is not, why
take his example from the South alone? (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 93).
k. Hervé de Tocqueville:
I do not know what that means in a country where there was no people. Alexis un-
doubtedly meant to say an aristocracy whose habits resembled the democratic habits
of other parts of the Union. The expression does not seem right, nor do those that
follow: an aristocracy that embraces the passions and interests of the people cannot
remain indifferent to the people. Therefore, it is not right to say that it excited neither
love nor hate. You would have to say that it excited no jealousy at all in the other
classes. Proof that it was not indifferent is that two lines lower Alexis says that it
furnished all of the great men of the Revolution. But when the leaders are taken from
one class of citizens, you cannot say that it inspires neither love nor hate.
not very hardy. It was this class that, in the South, put itself at the head of
the insurrection; the American Revolution owed its greatest men to it.
In this period, the entire society was shaken.m The people, in whose
name the struggle was waged, the people—now a power—conceived the
desire to act by themselves; democratic instincts awoke.n By breaking the
yoke of the home country, the people acquired a taste for all kinds of in-
dependence. Little by little, individual influences ceased to make them-
selves felt; habits as well as laws began to march in unison toward the same
end.
But it was the law of inheritance that pushed equality to its last
stage.o
Édouard de Tocqueville: “I agree with my father only for the last paragraph, which
must absolutely be revised. How can a weak and not very hardy class lead an insurrec-
tion?” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 93–94). The author paid no attention to these criticisms; the
published version is identical to that in the manuscript.
This still seems to me too absolute. Society in the South had certainly been shaken,
but that of New England where democracy already existed did not need to be shaken.
Perhaps you should put: the entire society received a new impulse. Next I wonder where
these people were who became a power. I see the effect perfectly without seeing the
cause as clearly as I would like. It would seem from what Alexis says, page 130, that
democratic instincts had won everywhere, even among those whose position should
have set them most apart. Perhaps the aristocratic and rich leaders of the insurrection
thought that they should recompense those who had fought under their command
by granting them political rights or by extending those they already had. Once down
this path, as always happens, one is not able to stop.
Édouard de Tocqueville: “Apt observation. This first paragraph must be reworked a
bit” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 94).
n. In the margin: “⫽It was the aristocracy, if this name can be given to what was then
at the head of society in America, which had armed the people and led them on the fields
of battle.⫽”
o. “Give me, for thirty years, a law for equal division of inheritance and liberty of
the press and I will bring you a republic” (YTC, Cve, p. 63).
Tocqueville gives a privileged position to the structure of landed property in his the-
ory. In his Mémoire sur le paupérisme (Commentaire, XXIII, 1983, p. 633), he repeats that
it is the concentration of land that provoked the concentration of power and the birth
of the aristocracy. The same idea often appears in the notes taken during his journey in
America (conversations with Livingston, Clay, Latrobe, Sparks in YTC, BIIa, and Voy-
age, OC, V, 1, pp. 59, 87–88, 102, 109, 111–13), as well as during his journey in England
I am astonished that ancient and modern political writers have not at-
tributed a greater influence on the course of human affairs to the laws of
landed inheritance.1 These laws belong, it is true, to the civil order; but they
should be placed at the head of all political institutions, for they have an
incredible influence on the social state of peoples, political laws being just
the expression of the social state. In addition, the laws of inheritance have
a sure and uniform way of operating on society; in a sense they lay hold of
generations before their birth. Through them, man is armed with an almost
divine power over the future of his fellows. The law-maker regulates the
inheritance of citizens once, and he remains at rest for centuries: his work
put in motion, he can keep his hands off; the machine acts on its own power,
and moves as if self-directed toward an end set in advance.
Constituted in a certain way, the law of inheritance reunites, concen-
trates, gathers property and, soon after, power, around some head; in a way
it makes aristocracy spring from the soil. Driven by other principles and
set along another path, its action is even more rapid; it divides, shares, dis-
(Voyages en Angleterre, Irlande, Suisse et Algérie, OC, V, 2, pp. 52, 28, 41–42). In a letter
to Kergorlay of June 29, 1831 (Correspondance avec Kergorlay, OC, XIII, 1, pp. 231–33),
he explains that it is one of the particulars of American society that most surprised him.
Moreover, his interest in this question predates the journey to America. The division of
the land is already mentioned in the notes of the journey in Sicily in 1827 (Voyage, OC,
V, 1, pp. 43, 45). The same idea reappears in his article on the social and political state of
France before and after the Revolution of 1789, and in L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution.
We know that the social consequences of the inheritance laws have been considered
by Aristotle in the Politics (1266b8). Montesquieu took up the question again in De l’esprit
des lois (book V, chapters V and VIII). Afterward the question occupied a central place
in the political considerations of the revolutionary era. The beginning of the nineteenth
century still had in mind the posthumous speech of Mirabeau (Discours de M. de Mir-
abeau l’ainé sur l’égalité des partages dans les successions en ligne directe, Imprimerie Na-
tionale, Paris, 1791, 23 p.). Even the father of the author had treated it in one of his
publications (De la charte provinciale, Paris: J. J. Blaise, 1829, 62p., pp. 12–13).
1. By the inheritance laws, I understand all the laws whose principal end is to regulate the
disposition of property after the death of the owner.
The law of entail is among this number. It is true that it also has the result of preventing
the owner from disposing of his property before his death; but it imposes the obligation on
him of keeping it only with the view of having it go intact to his inheritor. So the principal
end of the law of entail is to regulate the disposition of property after the death of the owner.
All the rest is the means used.
seminates property and power. Sometimes people are then frightened by

the rapidity of its march. Despairing of stopping its movement, they seek
at least to create difficulties and obstacles before it; they want to counter-
balance its action with opposing efforts; useless exertions! It crushes or sends
flying into pieces all that gets in its way; it constantly rises and falls on the
earth until nothing is left in sight but a shifting and intangible dustp on
which democracy takes its seat.
When the law of inheritance allows and, even more, requires the equal
division of the father’s property among all the children, its effects are of
two sorts; they should be carefully distinguished, even though they lead to
the same end.
Due to the law of inheritance, the death of each owner leads to a rev-
olution in property; not only do the holdings change masters, but so to
speak, they change nature; they are constantly split into smaller portions.
[The generations grow poorer as they succeed each other.]
That is the direct and, in a sense, the material effect of the law.q So in
countries where legislation establishes equal division, property and par-
ticularly territorial fortunes necessarily have a permanent tendency to grow
smaller. Nonetheless, if the law were left to itself, the effects of this legis-
lation would make themselves felt only over time. Because as long as the
family includes not more than two children (and the average for families
in a populated country like France, we are told, is only three),r these chil-
p. In the margin in pencil: “This image of dust is exaggerated and lacks precision.”
q. To the side in an earlier draft: “ Explanatory note and on Rodat.”
Is this Rodat Claude Raudot, magistrate and friend of Tocqueville and Beaumont?
We can hardly think that the author would misspell the name of someone that he knew
so well. Bonnel notes “Rodat” at two places in the drafts (see note s infra). In any case,
no one of this name is found in the papers and correspondence of Tocqueville.
r. Hervé de Tocqueville: “Isn’t Alexis considerably underestimating the family av-
erage? At least, 4 should be put in place of 3, father, mother and two children. I do not
know if the law of averages should be invoked here. The family that has only one de-
scendant escapes from the law of division. But the family that has 5 or 6! What a pro-
gression of division of the land!” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 95).
dren, sharing the wealth of their father and their mother, will be no less
wealthy than each parent individually.
But the law of equal division exerts its influence not on the fate of prop-
erty alone; it acts on the very soul of the proprietors, and calls their passions
to its aid. These indirect effects rapidly destroy great fortunes and, above
all, great estates.s
Among peoples for whom the inheritance law is based on the right of
primogeniture, landed estates most often pass from generation to gener-
ation without being divided. That causes family spirit to be, in a way,
embodied in the land. The family represents the land; the land represents
the family; the land perpetuates its name, origin, glory, power and virtues.
s. Law of inheritance./
Effect of the law of inheritance.
1. Divides fortunes naturally. But this not very rapid, average number of children,
to divide two fortunes, that of the father and that of the mother.
2. Prevents the desire to keep them. Great effect. Destroys family spirit and sub-
stitutes individual egoism, leads to selling the land in order to have income, favors
the taste for luxury, the land passes into the hands of the peasants and doesn’t come
out again. Conversation with Rodat (YTC, CVh, 5, p. 9).
Law of inheritance. Its direct effects, its indirect effects (Rodat).
So greater equality not only among peoples of European races, but also among all
peoples, in all times.
However manufacturing (YTC, CVh, 5, p. 8).
Tocqueville will devote a chapter in the second part of his book to the manufacturing
aristocracy (chapter XX of volume II). On this point, this note and note d of p. 85 attest
to an interest well before the voyage to England in 1835. Tocqueville had briefly visited
England in 1833, but the notes of this first journey carry no trace of a particular attention
to the problem of industry. It is generally agreed that his visit to Manchester, Liverpool
and Birmingham in 1835 is at the origin of this interest (Voyages en Angleterre, Irlande,
Suisse et Algérie, OC, V, 2, pp. 67, 81).
During a conversation with Tocqueville in the United States, Robert Vaux had already
referred to the effects of manufacturing on the population (non-alphabetic notebooks
2 and 3, YTC, BIIa and Voyage, OC, V, p. 104). Beaumont, for his part, will not hesitate
to affirm in the novel that he would publish in 1835: “In truth there exists in America
something that resembles the feudal aristocracy. The factory is the manor; the manu-
facturer, the sovereign lord; the workers are the serfs” (Marie, I, pp. 241–42).
It is an undying witness to the past and a precious guarantee of life to

come.t
When the inheritance law establishes equal division, it destroys the in-
timate connection that existed between family spirit and keeping the land;
the land ceases to represent the family, for the land, inescapably divided
after one or two generations, clearly must shrink continually and disappear
entirely in the end. The sons of a great landed proprietor, if they are few,
or if fortune favors them, can maintain the hope of not being poorer than
their progenitor, but not of owning the same lands as he; their wealth will
necessarily consist of other elements than his.u
Now, from the moment you take away from landed proprietors any great
interest—arising from sentiment, memory, pride, or ambition—in keeping
the land, you can be sure that sooner or later they will sell it. They have a
great pecuniary interest in selling, since movable assets produce more in-
come than other assets and lend themselves much more easily to satisfying
the passions of the moment.v
Once divided, great landed estates are never reassembled; for the small
landholder gains proportionately more revenue from his field2 than the
large landholder; so he sells it at a much higher price than the large land-
holder. Thus the economic calculations that brought a rich man to sell vast
properties, will prevent him, with all the more reason, from buying small
properties in order to reassemble large estates.w
What is called family spirit is often based on an illusion of individual
t. “Ask Livingston if in the United States there is still the possibility of establishing
entails [in English in the text (ed.)]” (YTC, CVb, p. 33).
u. See the conversation with Mr. Latrobe (YTC, BIIa and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 109).
v. In L’Irlande, Beaumont will recommend the law of equal division as the way to
divide property and socially weaken the English aristocracy of Ireland (see especially vol.
II, pp. 191–200). Beaumont, like Tocqueville, had also observed in the United States the
effects of the inheritance law (cf. in particular two letters, dated respectively July 4 and
September 31, 1831, Lettres d’Amérique, pp. 80 and 147).
2. I do not mean that the small landholder cultivates better, but he cultivates with more
enthusiasm and care, and gains by work what he lacks in skill.
w. In the margin: “⫽The inheritance law acts much more forcefully on the destruc-
tion of landed fortunes than of fortunes in general.⫽”
egoism.x A person seeks to perpetuate and, in a way, to immortalize himself

in his great-nephews.y Where family spirit ends, individual egoism reverts
to its true inclinations. Since the family no longer enters the mind except
as something vague, indeterminate, and uncertain, each man concentrates
on present convenience; he considers the establishment of the generation
immediately following, and nothing more.
So a person does not try to perpetuate his family, or at least he tries to
perpetuate it by means other than landed property.
Thus, not only does the inheritance law make it difficult for families to
keep the same estates intact, but also it removes the desire to try and leads
families, in a way, to cooperate in their own ruin.
The law of equal division proceeds in two ways: by acting on the thing,
it acts on the man; by acting on the man, it affects the thing.
In these two ways it succeeds in profoundly attacking landed property
and in making families as well as fortunes rapidly disappear.3
Surely it is not up to us, the French of the nineteenth century, daily
witnesses to the political and social changes that the inheritance law brings
about, to question its power. Each day we see it constantly move back and
forth over our soil, toppling in its path the walls of our dwellings and de-
x. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I do not believe that the word egoism is the right word here.
Egoism is only concerned with the present and does not rush toward the future. The
word pride would seem more suitable to me.”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “I find the word egoism good” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 95).
y. Note in pencil in the manuscript that seems to speak about a first version that lacked
the sentence to which this note refers: “⫽Think about this. A bad inference could be
drawn from it, too generalized.⫽”
3. Since land is the most secure property, there are, from time to time, wealthy men who
are inclined to make great sacrifices to acquire it and who willingly lose a considerable portion
of their income in order to assure the rest. But these are accidents. The love of landed property
is no longer usually found except among the poor. The small landholder, who is less enlightened
and who has less imagination and fewer passions than the large landholder, is generally pre-
occupied only with the desire to enlarge his domain; and it often happens that inheritance,
marriage or turns of fortune in trade provide him the means little by little.
So alongside the tendency that brings men to divide the land, there exists another that
brings them to consolidate it. This tendency, which is enough to prevent property from being
infinitely divided, is not strong enough to create great territorial fortunes, nor above all to keep
them in the same families.
stroying the hedges of our fields. But if the inheritance law has already
accomplished much among us, much still remains for it to do. Our mem-
ories, opinions, and habits present it with powerful obstacles.z
In the United States, its work of destruction is nearly finished. That is
where its principal results can be studied.
English legislation on the transmission of property was abolished in
nearly all the states at the time of the Revolution.
The law of entail was modified so as to interfere only imperceptibly with
the free circulation of property.a G
z. Hervé de Tocqueville:
What are these obstacles? I do not know them. In France there are scarcely 2,000
families who give a double portion to the eldest son, and each day that becomes rarer.
Equality of affection toward the children predominates. The law of primogeniture
revolted even those who benefited from it. It was one of the most active causes of
the July Revolution. So you should say what these obstacles are, because the truth of
the phrase is not apparent (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 96).
a. [Note] “⫽Here citation of Kent and analysis of Lippitt and then a remark on how
the French laws on inheritance and entail are more democratic than the American
laws.⫽” Cf. note G.
In 1834, Tocqueville felt the need to have help in the organization and reading of
American books, brochures and codes. The following advertisement is found in one of
the notebooks of the copyist Bonnel:
Looking for an American from the United States who has received a liberal education,
who would like to do research in the political laws and the historical works of his
country and who, for two months, could sacrifice two or three hours of his time each
day for this work. Choice of hours would be left to him.
Apply to M. A[lexis (ed.)]. de T[ocqueville (ed.)]. rue de V[erneuil (ed.)]. n. 49,
before ten in the morning or in the afternoon between two and four.
Five copies (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 85).
This advertisement seems not to have been published. Francis Lippitt states that he
was hired on the recommendation of the American delegation in Paris by Nathaniel
Niles or Edward Livingston probably. In a letter to Daniel Gilman (reproduced in Daniel
C. Gilman, “Alexis de Tocqueville and his book on America, sixty years after,” The Cen-
tury Illustrated Monthly Magazine, 56, May–October 1898, pp. 703–15), Francis Lippitt
asserts that his work consisted of reading and summarizing books, newspaper clippings
and legal collections. Theodore Sedgwick, another American who had helped the author,
unquestionably had a more important role. His conversations seem to have been useful
The first generation disappeared; landed estates began to divide. As time

went by, the movement became more and more rapid [as a stone thrown
from the top of a tower accelerates as it moves through space]. Today, when
hardly sixty years have gone by, the appearance of society is already unrec-
ognizable; the families of the great landed proprietors are almost entirely
engulfed by the common mass. In the state of New York, which had a very
large number of such families, two barely stay afloat above the abyss ready
to swallow them.b Today, the sons of these opulent citizens are business-
men, lawyers, doctors. Most have fallen into the most profound obscurity.
The last trace of hereditary rank and distinction is destroyed; the law of
inheritance has done its leveling everywhere.c
It is not that there are no rich in the United States as there are elsewhere;
I do not even know of a country where the love of money holds a greater
place in the human heart and where a deeper contempt is professed for the
theory of the permanent equality of property.d But wealth circulates there
with incredible rapidity, and experience teaches that it is rare to see two
generations reap the rewards of wealth.e [{The people are like the divinity
of this new world; everything emanates from and returns to them.}]
to Tocqueville while drafting certain points of the book. (Also see, George W. Pierson,
Tocqueville and Beaumont in America, pp. 731–34.)
b. [Note] “⫽The Livingstons and the Van Rensselaers.⫽”
c. At the time of his voyage, Tocqueville met Charles Carroll, signatory of the Dec-
laration of Independence and one of the wealthiest Americans of the time. On No-
vember 8, 1831, Tocqueville, in a draft of a letter to an unidentified recipient, noted
concerning him: “[Charles Carroll], a little old man of 95 years, straight as an arrow,
. . . saw all the great families disappear as a result of the new inheritance law. For sixty
years he has seen their descendants grow poorer, the noble families disappear, and the
democracy take hold of the power that the great landholders held in his time” (YTC,
BIa2).
d. In the margin: “⫽Put here, I think, the inequality arising from the accumulation
of the personal wealth of manufacturing.⫽”
e. Democracy./
What is most important for democracy, is not that there are no great fortunes; it
is that great fortunes do not rest in the same hands. In this way, there are the rich,
but they do not form a class.
Commerce, industry perhaps create larger individual fortunes in America now
than sixty years ago. However, the abolition of primogeniture and entail make de-
This picture, however colored you think it is, still gives only an in-
complete idea of what is happening in the new states of the West and
Southwest.f
At the end of the last century, hardy adventurers began to penetrate the
valleys of the Mississippi. This was like a new discovery of America: soon
the bulk of emigration went there; you saw unknown societies suddenly
emerge from the wilderness. States, whose names did not even exist a few
years before, took a place within the American Union. [<⫽Hardly a year
passed without the republic being forced to have some new star attached
to its flag.⫽>] In the West democracy can be observed carried to its extreme
limit. In these states, in a way improvised by chance, the inhabitants arrived
but yesterday on the soil they occupy. They scarcely know each other, and
each one is unaware of the history of his closest neighbor. So in this part
of the American continent, the population escapes not only from the in-
fluence of great names and great wealth, but also from the natural aristoc-
racy that arises from enlightenment and virtue. There, no one exercises the
power that men grant out of respect for an entire life spent in doing good
before their eyes. The new states of the West already have inhabitants; so-
ciety still does not exist.
mocracy, its passions, interests, maxims, tastes more powerful in our time than sixty
years ago.
Furthermore, equality of political rights has introduced a powerful new element
of democracy.
American societies had always been democratic by their nature; the Revolution
made democratic principles pass into the laws (YTC, CVe, pp. 60–61).
f. Hervé de Tocqueville:
This transition needs revision. The picture that precedes relates to the effect of the
law of equal division and has no relation whatsoever to the new states of the West.
I think that you should say: what we have said about the equality of fortunes and
rank in the East and in the South gives only an incomplete idea of the way it is
established in the new states, etc. Here I offer a thought. The author must not be
afraid of sometimes saying a few words that recall what precedes. These are resting
points for the imagination, which put it back on track, and ease the work of com-
paring ideas already expressed with those which are being presented (YTC, CIIIb, 2,
p. 97).
But not only fortunes are equal in America; to a certain degree, equality
extends to minds themselves.
I do not think there is any country in the world where, in proportion to
the population, there exist so small a number of ignorant and fewer learned
men than in America.
There primary education is available to every one; higher education is
hardly available to anyone.
This is easily understood and is, so to speak, the necessary result of what
we advanced above.
Nearly all Americans live comfortably; so they can easily gain the pri-
mary elements of human knowledge.
In America, there are few rich [⫽and the rich do not form a class apart.
The consequences of this fact in relation to education are of several
kinds.⫽]; nearly all Americans need to have an occupation. Now, every
occupation requires an apprenticeship. So Americans can devote only the
first years of life to general cultivation of the mind; at age fifteen, they
begin a career; most often, therefore, their education concludes when ours
begins. If pursued further, it is directed only toward a specialized and
lucrative field; they study a field of knowledge in the way they prepare for
a trade; and they take only the applications recognized to have immediate
utility.
In America, most of the rich began by being poor; nearly all the men
of leisure were busy men in their youth. The result is that when they
could have the taste for study, they do not have the time to devote them-
selves to it; and when they have gained the time, they no longer have the
taste.
So in America no class exists that honors intellectual work and in which
the penchant for intellectual pleasures is handed down with affluence and
hereditary leisure.
Both the will and the power to devote oneself to this work are therefore
missing.
In America a certain middling level of human knowledge is established.
All minds have approached it; some by rising, others by falling.
So you meet a great multitude of individuals who have about the same
number of notions in matters of religion, history, the sciences, political
economy, legislation, and government.
Intellectual inequality comes directly from God, and man cannot pre-
vent it from always reappearing.
But it follows, at least from what we have just said, that minds, while
still remaining unequal as the Creator intended, find equal means at their
disposal. Thus, today in America, the aristocratic element, always feeble
since its birth, is, if not destroyed, at least weakened further; so it is difficult
to assign it any influence whatsoever in the course of public affairs.
Time, events, and the laws have, on the contrary, made the democratic
element not only preponderant but also, so to speak, unique. No family or
group influence can be seen; often not even an individual influence, no
matter how ephemeral, can be found.
[{Society there [is (ed.)] profoundly and radically democratic in its re-
ligion, ideas, habits, and passions.g}
⫽For a people that has reached such a social state, mixed governments
are more or less impractical; hardly any choice exists for them other than
absolute power or a republic [v: sovereignty of the people].
America found itself in circumstances fortunate for escaping despotism
and favorable for adopting a republic.⫽]
So America presents, in its social state, the strangest phenomenon.
There, men appear more equal in fortune and in mind or, in other words,
more equal in strength than they are in any other country in the world and
have been in any century that history remembers.
g. In the margin, with a bracket uniting this paragraph with the two preceding ones:
“⫽To sacrifice, I think, because all of that implies something more than the social state.
Ask G[ustave (ed.)]. and L[ouis (ed.)].⫽”
Political Consequences of the Social State

of the Anglo-Americans
The political consequences of such a social state are easy to deduce.
It is impossible to think that, in the end, equality would not penetrate
the political world as it does elsewhere. You cannot imagine men, equal in
all other ways, forever unequal to each other on a single point; so in time
they will become equal in all ways.
Now I know only two ways to have equality rule in the political world:
rights must either be given to each citizen or given to no one [and apart
from the government of the United States I see nothing more democratic
than the empire of the great lord].TN 2
For peoples who have arrived at the same social state as the Anglo-
Americans, it is therefore very difficult to see a middle course between the
sovereignty of all [v: of the people] and the absolute power of one man [v:
of a king].
[⫽So peoples who have a similar social state are faced with a frightening
alternative; they must choose between the sovereignty of the people and
the absolute power of a king⫽].
We must not hide from the fact that the social state I have just described
lends itself almost as easily to the one as to the other of these two
consequences.
There is in fact a manly and legitimate passion for equality that incites
men to want to be strong and esteemed. This passion tends to elevate the
small to the rank of the great. But in the human heart a depraved taste for
equality is also found that leads the weak to want to bring the strong down
to their level and that reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to
inequality in liberty. Not that peoples whose social state is democratic nat-
urally scorn liberty; on the contrary, they have an instinctive taste for it.
But liberty is not the principal and constant object of their desire; what
they love with undying love is equality; they rush toward liberty by rapid
impulses and sudden efforts, and if they miss the goal, they resign them-
Translator’s Note 2: Here Tocqueville probably means the Sultan.

selves; but without equality nothing can satisfy them, and rather than lose
it, they would agree to perish.h
On the other hand, when citizens are all more or less equal, it becomes
difficult for them to defend their independence against the aggressions of
power. Since none among them is then strong enough to struggle alone
with any advantage, it is only the combination of the strength of all that
can guarantee liberty. Now, such a combination is not always found.j
Peoples can therefore draw two great political consequences from the
same social state; these consequences differ prodigiously, but they both arise
from the same fact.
The first to be subjected to this fearful alternative that I have just de-
scribed, the Anglo-Americans have been fortunate enough to escape ab-
solute power. Circumstances, origin, enlightenment, and above all, mores
have allowed them to establishk and to maintain the sovereignty of the
people.m
h. Hervé de Tocqueville:
All of this paragraph is extremely obscure. I do not know if I understood it, but it
does not seem very correct to me. Men want to be equal not in order to be strong
and respected, but out of human pride, out of a more or less well understood sen-
timent of human dignity. Nor is it because the weak want to draw or rather lower
the strong to their level that servitude is established. Servitude is a state of degradation
that is never the choice of any nation or any fragment of a nation. It results from the
vices of the nation from which liberty is escaping because the nation did not know
how to use liberty or is cowardly enough not to know how to rid itself of a tyrant.
Fatigue or cowardice, degradation or disgust, such are the causes of servitude; it does
not come about because men prefer equality in servitude to inequality in liberty.
Among them, it is not preference, but objection (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 98–99).
j. In the version put at the disposal of the family, the sentence continues as follows:
“. . . such a combination is not always found. It happens that they resign themselves
without difficulty to servitude” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 100–101).
k. In another version, in the margin: “. . . mores, ⫽this hidden will of God that is
called chance⫽, have allowed them . . .”
m. Hervé de Tocqueville: “Erase the word establish. The sovereignty of the aggre-
gation of all the individuals of a nation that is called the people is not established, for
this sovereignty exists by itself and everywhere. Even in Turkey, it strangles the sultan;
in Spain, the Cortes is needed to sanction a change in the inheritance of the throne”
(YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 99).
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 4
Of the Principle of the Sovereignty
of the People in America
It dominates all of American society.—Application that the

Americans already made of this principle before their
Revolution.—Development that the Revolution gave to it.—
Gradual and irresistible lowering of the property qualification.
When you want to talk about the political laws of the United States, you
must always begin with the dogma of the sovereignty of the people.a
The principle of the sovereignty of the people, which is more or less
always found at the base of nearly all human institutions, ordinarily re-
mains there as if buried. It is obeyed without being recognized, or if some-
times it happens, for a moment, to be brought into the full light of day,
people soon rush to push it back into the shadows of the sanctuary.
The national will is one of those terms abused most widely by schemers
of all times and despots of all ages. Some have seen it expressed in votes
bought from the brokers of power; others in the votes of an interested or
fearful minority. There are even some who have discovered it fully for-
mulated in the silence of the people and who have thought that from the
fact of obedience came, for them, the right of command.b
In America, the principle of the sovereignty of the people is not hidden
or sterile as it is in certain nations [a vain show and a false principle as among
a. “Sovereignty of the people and democracy are two perfectly correlative words; the one
represents the theoretical idea, the other its practical realization” (YTC, CVh, 1, p. 22).
b. In the margin, with a bracket enclosing the entire paragraph: “⫽{This seems trite
to me.}⫽”
91
92 of the sovereignty of the people
certain others; it is a legal and omnipotent fact that rules the entire society;
that spreads freely and reaches its fullest consequences without obstacles];
it is recognized by the mores, proclaimed by the laws; it spreads freely and
reaches its fullest consequences without obstacles.
If there is a single country in the world where the true value of the dogma
of the sovereignty of the people can hope to be appreciated, where its ap-
plication to the affairs of society can be studied and where its advantages
and dangers can be judged, that country is assuredly America.
I said before that, from the beginning, the principle of the sovereignty
of the people had been the generative principle of most of the English
colonies of America.
It then fell far short, however, of dominating the government of society
as it does today.
Two obstacles, one external, one internal, slowed its invasive march.
It could not appear openly in the laws because the colonies were still
forced to obey the home country; so it was reduced to hiding in the pro-
vincial assemblies and especially in the town. There it spread in secret.
American society at that time was not yet ready to adopt it in all its
consequences. For a long time, learning in New England and wealth south
of the Hudson, exercised, as I showed in the preceding chapter, a sort of
aristocratic influence that tended to confine the exercise of social powers
to a few hands. It still fell far short of electing all public officials and of
making all citizens, voters. Everywhere the right to vote was restricted to
certain limits and subordinated to the existence of a property qualification
which was very low in the North and more considerable in the South.c
The American Revolution broke out. The dogma of the sovereignty of
the people emerged from the town and took over the government;d all
c. To the side, with a note: “{Know exactly the state of things on this point.}”
d. The manuscript says: “{and occupied the throne}.” A note in pencil in the margin
specifies: “⫽The word throne does not seem to me the right word since it concerns a
republic.⫽”
of the sovereignty of the people 93
classes took risks for its cause; they fought and triumphed in its name; it
became the law of laws.e
e. Of the sovereignty of the people./

I draw a great difference between the right of a people to choose its government,
and the right that each individual among this people would have to take part in the
government.
The first proposition seems to me to contain an incontestable truth; the second,
a manifest error.
I cannot acknowledge the absolute right of each man to take an active part in the
affairs of his country, and I am astonished that this doctrine, so contradictory to the
ordinary course of human affairs, could be proposed.
What is more precious to man than his liberty? It is recognized, however, that
society can take liberty away from one of its members who makes poor use of it.
What is more natural [than (ed.)] to manage your own property? All peoples have
recognized, however, that, before a certain age and in certain [missing word (ed.)],
this control could be withdrawn, because it was thought [that (ed.)] these individuals
either did not yet have or had never had the judgment necessary to make good use
of this power. And would this faculty of judgment that some individuals are found
to lack for conducting themselves then be granted to everyone for conducting the
affairs of society? The constitutions that have apparently been founded on the doc-
trine that I am combating have never dared to admit all of its consequences. Even in
the United States the poor man who pays no taxes obeys laws to which he has con-
sented neither directly nor indirectly. How does that happen if the right to be in-
volved in the affairs of government is a right inherent in the nature of man?
So all questions of democracy and aristocracy (aristocracy as a ruling body), of
monarchy and republic, are not questions of right, but questions of fact, or rather
the question of fact always precedes the other. Show me a people in which all the
citizens may be involved in the government and, in my eyes, this people will have the
right to govern itself democratically. Imagine another, if you can, in which no class
or citizen may have the required capacity; and although I hardly like the power of
one man alone, I will grant that it is legitimate and will take care to live elsewhere.
[In the margin: How so? If you recognize that some of the individuals who com-
pose a people are incapable of taking part in its government, how even more would
they be able to make a good choice? Now, if you remove some from this choice, it
is no longer the people who choose. Moreover, from the moment you recognize that
some can be incapable of choosing well, you must imagine a social state where no
one could choose well; and then you are moving even further from the maxim that
all people have the right to choose their government. Everything is reduced to this:
to choose a government and to take part in government, these are two analogous
products of human judgment. It is difficult entirely to concede the one while entirely
refusing the other.
A change almost as rapid was carried out within the interior of society.
The law of inheritance completed the dismantling of local influences.
At the moment when this effect of the laws and of the revolution began
to be evident to all, victory had already been irrevocably declared in favor
of democracy. Power was in fact in its hands. Even struggling against it was
no longer permitted. So the upper classes submitted without a murmur and
without a fight to an evil henceforth inevitable. What usually happens to
powers that are in decline happened to them: individual egoism took hold
of the members of the upper classes.f Since force could no longer be wrested
from the hands of the people and since they did not detest the multitude
enough to take pleasure in defying it, they came to think only of winning
Response:
Judgment is necessary to choose a good government. But only intelligence and
experience are needed to find that an existing government is not suitable and that it
should be changed.] (YTC, CVh, 5, pp. 4–6). Cf. Guizot, tenth lecture, entitled De
la représentation, in Journal des cours publics de jurisprudence, histoire et belles-lettres
(Paris: au bureau du journal, 1821–1822, vol. II, especially pages 131–33). Also see note
c of pp. 99–100.
I do not know if Alexis has grasped all the causes of this phenomenon. I indicated
one in the remarks on the preceding chapter that I ask him to think about. To know
if the necessity to recompense soldiers has not obligated leaders to grant them rights;
perhaps even a sentiment more noble than necessity, gratitude. Afterwards, demo-
cratic appetites have grown. I see in note 2 of chapter III that only in 1786 has equal
division been established in New York, from where it has spread throughout the
Union. Nor do I know if individual egoism can suddenly dominate an entire class
in such a way as to make it give up its most precious advantages. Something else is
involved there other than just the desire to please the multitude. There is always in
my mind a difficulty that I do not believe I have expressed clearly enough. In the
beginning the position of the settlers in each state was identical, whether it appeared
aristocratic or democratic. There was no “people”; how was “the people” formed so
that there was a mass demanding concessions alongside a mass that granted them? I
believe that Alexis should have said something about it in the first chapter.
Édouard de Tocqueville: “Doesn’t inequality come from the lack of inheritance laws?”
(YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 89–90).
Was Hervé thinking here of Montesquieu? Cf. Considérations sur la cause de la gran-
deur des Romains et de leur décadence, in Œuvres complètes (Paris: Pléiade, 1951), II,
chapter XIII, p. 142.
its good will at any cost. [⫽Moreover, men have at their disposal such a
deep reservoir of baseness, that it is always found more or less the same in
the service of all despots, whether people or king.⫽] In an effort to outdo
each other, the most democratic laws were then voted by the men whose
interests were most damaged by them. In this way, the upper classes did not
incite [{implacable}] popular passions against themselves; but they them-
selves hastened the triumph of the new order. So, a strange thing! The dem-
ocratic impulse showed itself that much more irresistible in the states where
aristocracy had more roots.
The state of Maryland, which had been founded by great lords, was the
first to proclaim universal suffrage1 and introduced the most democratic
forms into its whole government.g
When a people begins to tamper with the electoral qualification, you can
foresee that, after a more or less long delay, it will make that qualification
disappear completely. That is one of the most invariable rules that govern
societies. As the limit of electoral rights is pushed back, the need grows to
push it further; for, after each new concession, the forces of democracy
increase and its demands grow with its new power. [It is the history of the
Romans buying peace with gold.h] The ambition of those left below the
electoral qualification is aroused in proportion to the great number of those
who are found above. Finally, the exception becomes the rule; concessions
1. Amendments made to the constitution of Maryland in 1801 and 1809.

g. Hervé de Tocqueville
The history of the great lords who founded the colony of Maryland bothers me be-
cause it implies a contradiction with what Alexis says about the original equality that
was established at first in the states of the Union. I know that this contradiction is
only apparent, but it leaves some suspicion in the mind. Alexis must clearly explain
how and why the ideas, pretensions, etc. of these great lords were absorbed right away
by the influence of the spirit of equality spread throughout the Union (YTC, CIIIb,
2, p. 108).
h. Hervé de Tocqueville: “The example does not seem to me to relate to the subject”
(YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 90). These are the very words of Montesquieu. Considération sur les
causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, in Œuvres complètes (Paris: Pléiade,
1951), II, chapter XVIII, p. 171.
follow one after the other without letup, and there is no more stopping
until universal suffrage is reached.j
Today in the United States the principle of the sovereignty of the people
has attained all the practical developments that imagination can conceive.
It has been freed from all the fictions that have been carefully placed around
it elsewhere; it is seen successively clothed in all forms according to the
necessity of the case. Sometimes the people as a body make the laws as at
Athens; sometimes the deputies created by universal suffrage represent the
people and act in their name under their almost immediate supervision.
There are countries where a power, in a way external to the social body,
acts on it and forces it to follow a certain path.
There are others where force is divided, being simultaneously inside and
outside the society. Nothing of the sort is seen in the United States; there
society acts by itself and on itself. Power exists only inside it;k hardly anyone
may even be found who dares to conceive and especially to express the idea
of seeking power elsewhere. The people participate in the composition of
j. In a letter to an unknown recipient, Tocqueville again takes up some arguments

expressed at the time of a conversation with Charles Carroll:
But, I replied, the Revolution over, what forced you to destroy English institutions
and to establish democracy among yourselves?—“We were divided after the victory,”
responded Ch[arles (ed.)]. Carroll. “Each party wanted to use the people and, to gain
their adherence, granted them new privileges, until finally the people became our
master and showed us all the door.”
What do you think of this apology? Doesn’t it have the air of being said in Paris
toward the end of 1830 or at the very least in the course of the year of grace 1831? I
am, however, a very faithful narrator (Draft of a letter of Tocqueville dated Novem-
ber 8, 1831, YTC, BIa2).
k. A symbol in the text refers to the following note: “Place a chapter here explaining
what is called a constitution in America. Say that it is only a changing expression of the
sovereignty of the people, that has nothing of the perpetual, that binds only until it is
amended. Difference from what is understood by constitution in Europe, even in
England.
[In the margin: Ask advice here.]”
the lawsm by the choice of the legislators, in their application by the election
of the agents of executive power. It can be said that they govern themselves,
so weak and restricted is the part left to the administration, so much does
the administration feel its popular origin and obey the power from which
it emanates. The people rule the American political world as God rules the
universe. They are the cause and the end of all things; everything arises
from them and everything is absorbed by them.H
m. In the manuscript: “The people enter into the composition of the laws . . .”
Hervé de Tocqueville:
I keep repeating the same objection, for it strikes me at every step. What is “the
people” in a society where, as much as possible, ranks, fortunes, and minds approach
the level of equality? Assuredly, in the New World the word people has none of the
same meaning as among us. I believe that a sense of this must be given somewhere.
Otherwise, the chapter moves along very well.
Édouard de Tocqueville: “I understand the preceding objection when it involved ex-
plaining the successive formation of American society; but here it isn’t the same thing
anymore. Alexis describes the government of democracy, and in this case the word people
is appropriate and is perfectly understood. This entire passage seems remarkable to me”
(YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 90).
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 5
Necessity of Studying What Happens in the
Individual States before Speaking about the
Government of the Union a
The following chapter is intended to examine what form government

founded on the principle of sovereignty of the people takes in America,
what its means of action, difficulties, advantages and dangers are.b
A first difficulty arises: the United States has a complex constitution. You
notice two distinct societies there, bound together and, if I can explain it
in this way, nested like boxes one inside the other. Two completely separate
and nearly independent governments are seen: the one, habitual and un-
defined, which answers to the daily needs of the society; the other, excep-
tional and circumscribed, which applies only to certain general interests.
They are, in a word, twenty-four small sovereign nations, that togetherform
the great body of the Union.
To examine the Union before studying the state is to embark on a path
strewn with difficulties. The form of the federal government in the United
States appeared last; it was only a modification of the republic, a summary
of political principles spread throughout the entire society before the fed-
eral government existed, and subsisting there independently of it. As I have
just said, the federal government is, moreover, only an exception; the gov-
ernment of the states is the common rule. The writer who would like to
a. According to a rough draft (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 83), this section would at first have
constituted an independent chapter.
b. In the margin: “⫽Perhaps immediately after having treated the sovereignty of the
people, it would be necessary to talk about election, which is its first and most complete
application to the government of society.⫽”
98
government of the states 99
show such a picture as a whole before pointing out its details would nec-
essarily lapse into obscurities and repetitions.
There can be no doubt that the great political principles that govern
American society today arose and developed in the state. So to have the key
to all the rest, the state must be understood.
The states that make up the American Union today all look the same
with regard to the external appearance of institutions. Political and ad-
ministrative life there is found concentrated in three centers of action that
could be compared to the various nerve centers that make the human body
move.
At the first level is found the town ;TN 3 higher, the county; finally, the
state.
Of the Town System in America c

Why the author begins the examination of political institutions
with the town.—The town is found among all peoples.—
Difficulty of establishing and maintaining town liberty.—
Translator’s Note 3: I have translated commune, when it refers to America, as

town rather than township. Town is, by far, the more common term in the United States,
especially in New England. And American historians almost unanimously use the term
town. When commune refers to France, I have usually left it in French, italicized.
c. When he starts on the study of the American administration, Tocqueville realizes
that he hardly knows that of his own country. In the month of October 1831, he asks
his father and two of his colleagues, Ernest de Chabrol and Ernest de Blosseville, to draw
up for him a summary sketch of the French administration. Tocqueville writes to his
father:
Nothing would be more useful to me for judging America well than to know France.
But it is this last point that is missing; I know in general that among us the government
gets into nearly everything; a hundred times people have blared into my ears the word
centralization, without explaining it to me. . . . If you could, my dear papa, analyze
for me this word centralization, you would help me immensely (letter to his father,
New York, 7 October 1831, YTC, BIa2).
In reply, Hervé de Tocqueville sends his son a long report bearing the title Coup d’oeil
sur l’administration française [Brief View of the French Administration ]. There the former
prefect develops several of the ideas presented in De la charte provinciale (Paris: J. J.
Blaise, 1829, 62 pp.). After several pages devoted to description of the administration,
100 government of the states
Its importance.—Why the author has chosen the town

organization of New England as the principal object of
his examination.
Not by chance do I first examine the town.

[⫽The town is the first element of the societies out of which peoples
take form; it is the social molecule; if I can express myself in this way, it is
the embryo that already represents and contains the seed of the complete
being.⫽]
the author considers in detail the problem of centralization and the way to lessen its
abuses. Hervé de Tocqueville, who fears that the autonomy of the French communes
[towns] will divide the country into a multitude of small republics, insists a great deal
on the fact that the King must exercise the administration and have the right to dissolve
the conseils communaux [town councils]. But he recognizes, nonetheless, the extreme
slowness of an excessively centralized administration and recommends the creation of
special juries for the purpose of deciding administrative questions as the most effective
means to accelerate decision making. In his response, Chabrol considers, above all, the
question of administrative jurisdiction. Macarel had in fact pointed out to him that the
majority of trials between the administration and individuals that were judged by the
conseils municipaux [municipal councils] were trials of an ordinary type that could have
been judged according to the forms of the ordinary judicial system. Chabrol also points
out that a large part of the administration still carries the trace of the centralizing con-
cepts of the Napoleonic administration. The report of Blosseville, shorter and less precise
than the other two, allows for the shift of administrative trials to ordinary jurisdiction,
in agreement with Chabrol. (A copy of the three reports is found at Yale, under the
classification CIIIa).
For the preparation of this chapter, the report on the local administration of New
England, written by Jared Sparks for Alexis de Tocqueville, also has considerable im-
portance. On this document and Brief View of the French Administration, see George
W. Pierson, Tocqueville and Beaumont in America, pp. 403–13. Finally, there is a note
by Beaumont that relates an interesting conversation with Sparks (in Beaumont, Lettres
d’Amérique, pp. 152–54). The questions posed by Tocqueville to Jared Sparks and the
responses of the latter have been published by H. B. Adams in Jared Sparks and Alexis
de Tocqueville, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, XVIth
series, n. 12, 1898. A rough draft with several notes for this chapter also contains numerous
references to the report of Sparks (YTC, CVb, p. 17). It is Jared Sparks who points out
to Tocqueville that Nathaniel Niles, Secretary of the American delegation in Paris and
native of New England, can be useful to him for the chapter on the town administration
of this part of the United States. It seems that, following this suggestion, Tocqueville
contacted the latter (see note v for p. 62).
The town is the only association that is so much a part of nature that
wherever men are gathered together, a town takes shape by itself.
Town society exists therefore among all peoples no matter what their
customs and their laws; it is man who establishes kingdoms and creates
republics; the town seems to come directly from the hands of God. [⫽The
town is not only the first of social elements, but also the most important
of all.⫽] But if the town has existed ever since there have been men, town
liberty is something rare and fragile.d A people can always establish great
political assemblies, because it usually contains a certain number of men
among whom, to a certain degree, enlightenment takes the place of the
practice of public affairs. The town is made up of crude elements that often
resist the action of the legislator. Instead of diminishing as nations become
more enlightened, the difficulty of establishing town independence in-
creases with their enlightenment. A highly civilized society tolerates the trial
efforts of town liberty only with difficulty; it rebels at the sight of its nu-
merous errors and despairs of success before having reached the final result
of the experiment.
Of all liberties, town liberty, which is so difficult to establish, is also
the most exposed to the encroachments of power. Left to themselves,
town institutions could scarcely resist a strong and enterprising govern-
ment; to defend themselves successfully, they must have reached their
d. In the margin:
Cause of its little importance. The coarse elements that it brings into use. It can hardly
arise except during little developed centuries when individuality is the first need.
The town puts liberty and government within the grasp of the people; it gives
them an education or creates great national assemblies.
A town system is made only with the support of mores, laws, circumstances and
time.
Town liberty is the most difficult to suppress, the most difficult to create.
It is in the town that nearly all the strength of free peoples resides./
It is in the town that the liberty of peoples resides. Makes kingdoms and creates
republics.⫽ Cf. conversation with Mr. Gray (non-alphabetic notebooks 2 and 3,
YTC, BIIa and Voyages, OC, V, 1, pp. 94–95).
fullest development and be mingled with national ideas and habits. Thus,
as long as town liberty has not become part of the mores, it is easy to
destroy; and it can become part of the mores only after existing in the
laws for a long time.
Town liberty therefore escapes human effort so to speak. Consequently
it is rarely created;e in a sense it arises by itself. It develops almost in secretf
within a semi-barbaric society. The continuous action of laws and of mores,
circumstances, and above all time succeed in its consolidation. You can say
that, of all the nations of the European continent, not a single one knows
town liberty.
The strength of free peoples resides in the town, however. Town in-
stitutions are to liberty what primary schools are to knowledge; they put
it within the grasp of the people; they give them a taste of its peaceful
practice and accustom them to its use. Without town institutions, a na-
tion can pretend to have a free government, but it does not possess the
spirit of liberty.g Temporary passions, momentary interests, the chance
of circumstances can give it the external forms of independence; but des-
e. In his report on Algeria to the Chamber of Deputies (“Rapport fait par M. de

Tocqueville sur le projet de loi relatif aux crédits extraordinaires demandés pour
l’Algérie” and discussions on Algeria, Moniteur universel, 24, 25 May, 1, 9, 10, 11, 12 June
1847, reproduced in OCB, IX, pp. 423–512 and in Écrits et discours politiques, OC, III, 1,
pp. 308–409), Tocqueville insists, nonetheless, on the necessity of creating town insti-
tutions in Algeria. He sees it as a condition of the French colonial presence in that coun-
try (Écrits et discours politiques, OC, III, 1, p. 352). See Seymour Drescher, Dilemmas of
Democracy: Tocqueville and Modernization (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,
1968), p. 61.
f. Hervé de Tocqueville: “This does not seem to me to agree very well with what
precedes. How does it develop almost in secret, if it has subsisted for a long time in the
laws?” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 84).
g. In his notes on the government of India, Tocqueville sees in the permanence and
power of the town the reason for the survival of Hindu culture through revolution and
the lack of interest in general politics: “The entire political life of the Indians withdrew
into the town; the entire administration was concentrated there. As long as the town still
existed, who controlled the empire was of little importance to the inhabitants. They
hardly noticed the change of masters” (Écrits et discours politiques, OC, III, 1, p. 450).
potism, driven back into the interior of the social body, reappears sooner
or later at the surface.
To make the reader understand well the general principles on which the
political organization of the town and the county in the United States rests,
I thought that it was useful to take one state in particular as a model, to
examine in detail what happens there, and then to cast a quick glance over
the rest of the country.
I have chosen one of the states of New England.
The town and the county are not organized in the same way in all the
parts of the Union; it is easy to recognize, however, that throughout the
Union the same principles, more or less, have presided over the formation
of both.
[⫽The town institutions of New England were the first to reach a state
of maturity. They present a complete and uniform whole. They serve as a
model for the other parts of the Union and tend more and more to become
the standard to which all the rest must sooner or later conform.⫽]
Now, it seemed to me that in New England these principles were con-
siderably more developed and had attained further consequences than any-
where else. So they are, so to speak, more evident there and are thus more
accessible to the observation of the foreigner.
The town institutions of New England form a complete and regular
whole. They are old; they are strong because of the laws, stronger still be-
cause of the mores; they exercise a prodigious influence over the entire
society.
In all these ways, they merit our attention.
Town District
The town in New England (Township ) falls between the canton and the
commune [town] in France. Generally it numbers from two to three thou-
sand inhabitants.1 So it is not too extensive for all its inhabitants to share
1. In 1830, the number of towns, in the State of Massachusetts, was 305; the number of
inhabitants 610,014; this gives an average of about 2,000 inhabitants per town.
nearly the same interests; and on the other hand, it is populated enough to
assure that elements of a good administration are always found within it.
Town Powers in New England

The people, source of all powers in the town as elsewhere.—
There they deal with principal matters by themselves.—
No town council.—The largest part of town authority
concentrated in the hands of the selectmen.—How the selectmen
function.—General assembly of the inhabitants of the town
(Town Meeting).—Enumeration of all the town officers.—
Offices mandatory and paid.
In the town as everywhere else, the people are the source of social powers,
but nowhere else do they exercise their power more directly. In America,
the people are a master who has to be pleased to the greatest possible degree.
In New England, the majority acts through representatives when the
general affairs of the state must be dealt with. This was necessary; but in
the town, where legislative and governmental action is closer to the
governed, the law of representation is not accepted.h There is no town
council; the body of voters, after naming their magistrates, directs them in
everything that is not the pure and simple execution of the laws of the
state.2
h. For Tocqueville, the lack of representation is the principal characteristic of the

town; he gives the town a role similar to that of the small republic in the thought of
Rousseau. If here he asserts that the lack of representation is a characteristic of the town
across the Atlantic, in the Ancien Régime et la Révolution (OC, II, 1, pp. 119–20), he will
admit that in the parish of the old regime he found the lack of political representation
and other traits that he had formerly judged as belonging only to North America.
2. The same rules do not apply to the large towns.j These generally have a mayor and a
municipal body divided into two branches; but that is an exception that must be authorized
by a law. See the law of 22 [23 (ed.)] February 1822, regulating the powers of the city of
Boston. Laws of Massachusetts, vol. II, p. 588. This applies to large cities. It also frequently
This state of things is so contrary to our ideas, and so opposed to our

habits, that it is necessary to provide a few examples here for it to be well
understood.
Public offices are extremely numerous and highly divided in the town,
as we will see below. The largest part of administrative powers is concen-
trated, however, in the hands of a small number of individuals elected an-
nually who are called selectmen.3
The general laws of the state have imposed a certain number of obli-
gations on the selectmen. To fulfill them they do not need the authorization
of those under their jurisdiction, and they cannot avoid their obligations
without engaging their personal responsibility. State law charges them, for
example, with drawing up the electoral lists in their town; if they fail to do
so, they make themselves guilty of a misdemeanor. But in all things that
are left to the direction of the town authority, the selectmen are the exec-
utors of the popular will, as with us the mayor is the executor of the de-
liberations of the town council. Most often they act on their private re-
sponsibility and, in actual practice, only carry out the implications of
principles previously set down by the majority. But if they want to intro-
duce any change whatsoever in the established order, if they desire to pursue
a new undertaking, they must return to the source of their power. Suppose
that it is a question of establishing a school: the selectmen convoke on a
happens that the small cities are subject to a special administration. In 1832, the State of New
York numbered 104 towns administered in this way ( William’s Register).
j. Hervé de Tocqueville:
Delete the note and transfer it to the end of the chapter. This note, while teaching
us that the large towns have a different municipal system, interrupts, diminishes, and,
in order to bring an imperfectly stated difference to our attention, diverts our interest.
At the end of the chapter, a section on the municipal system of the large towns is
needed. That is indispensable for the unity of the work and the satisfaction of the
reader (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 84).
3. Three are elected in the smallest towns; nine, in the largest. See The Town Officer, p.
186. Also see the principal laws of Massachusetts relative to the selectmen:
Law of 20 February 1786, vol. I, p. 219;—24 February 1796, vol. I, p. 488;—7 March
1801, vol. II, p. 45;—16 June 1795, vol. I, p. 473;—12 March 1808, vol. II, p. 186;—28 Feb-
ruary 1787, vol. I, p. 302;—22 June 1797, vol. I, p. 539.
given day, in a place specified in advance, the whole body of voters; there,
they set forth the need that is felt; they show the means to satisfy it, the
money that must be spent, the location that should be chosen. The assem-
bly, consulted on all those points, adopts the principle, determines the lo-
cation, votes the tax and puts the execution of its will into the hands of
the selectmen.
Only the selectmen have the right to call the town meeting, but they can
be made to do so. If ten property owners conceive a new project and want
to submit it for approval by the town, they call for a general convocation
of the inhabitants; the selectmen are obliged to agree to the call and only
retain the right to preside over the meeting.4
Without a doubt, these political mores, these social customs are very far
from us. At this moment I want neither to judge them nor to show the
hidden causes that produce and animate them; I am limiting myself to
presenting them.
The selectmen are elected annually in the month of April or May. At
the same time the town meeting chooses a host of other town magistrates,5
appointed for certain important administrative tasks.k Some, known as as-
sessors, must determine the tax; others, known as collectors, must collect
it. One officer, called the constable, is charged with keeping the peace, su-
pervising public places and assuring the physical execution of the laws. An-
other, named the town clerk, records all deliberations; he keeps minutes of
the acts of the civil registry. A treasurer keeps the town funds. Add to these
officers an overseer of the poor, whose duty, very difficult to fulfill, is to
enforce the laws relative to the poor; school commissioners, who direct pub-
lic education; road surveyors, who are responsible for all the routine tasks
relating to the roadways, large and small; and you will have the list of the
principal agents of town administration. But the division of offices does
4. See Laws of Massachusetts, vol. I, p. 250; law of 23 March 1786.

5. Ibid.
k. In the margin: “⫽What makes town spirit powerful./
“Independence of the town.
“Importance of the town.
“Constant political life.
“Division of town powers.⫽”
not stop there. You still find, among the town officers,6 parish commis-
sioners who must regulate church expenses;m inspectors of various kinds,
some charged with directing the efforts of citizens in case of fire; others,
with overseeing the harvest; these, with temporarily relieving difficulties
that can arise from fencing; those, with supervising wood allotments or with
inspecting weights and measures.
In all, principal offices in the town number nineteen. Each inhabitant
is obligated, under penalty of a fine, to accept these different offices; but
also most of these offices are paid,n so that poor citizens can devote their
time to them without suffering a loss. The American system, moreover,does
not give any fixed salary to officers. In general, each act of their adminis-
tration has a value, and they are remunerated only in proportion to what
they have done.o
6. All these magistrates actually exist in practice.

To know the details of the duties of all of these town magistrates, see the book entitled
Town Officer, by Isaac Goodwin, Worcester 1829; and the collection of the general laws of
Massachusetts in 3 vols., Boston, 1823.
m. Tocqueville learned from Goodwin that in the United States the town inhabitants
were obliged to contribute to the support of a Protestant minister. This seems to him
nearly the sign of a State religion, and he says so to Sparks. Apparently in agreement,
Sparks answers him: “It is one of those cases in which early prejudice, habit, and acci-
dental causes, may pervert the sense of a majority and operate against the equal rights
of the whole” (H. B. Adams, Jared Sparks and Alexis de Tocqueville, p. 25).
n. The manuscript says: “paid, little it is true, but enough, however, so that poor
citizens . . .”
o. I found myself in a Boston salon behind two respectable gentlemen who appeared
to treat an important subject with interest:
“How much will that gain you much [sic ]?” said one.
“It’s a fairly good business,” answered the other, “about one hundred dollars is
given for each.”
“As you say,” replied the first, “that truly is a good business.”
Now, it concerned nothing less than two pirates who were to be hanged the next
day. One of these speakers, who was the City Marshal, was obliged by his position
to be present at the execution and to see that everything was done according to order.
The law allocated to him for his right to be present one hundred dollars for each one
hanged; and he spoke of these two condemned men like a pair of cattle that he had
to sell the next day at the market.
Told by the consul (alphabetic notebook B, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1,
p. 241).
Of Town Life
Each person is the best judge of what concerns only himself
alone.—Corollary of the principle of sovereignty of the people.—
Application that the American towns make of these doctrines.—
The New England town, sovereign in everything that concerns
only itself, subject in everything else.—Obligation of the
town toward the state.—In France, the government lends
its agents to the town.—In America, the town lends its to
the government.
I said previously that the principle of sovereignty of the people hovers over
the entire political system of the Anglo-Americans. Each page of this book
will show some new applications of this doctrine.
Among nations where the dogma of the sovereignty of the people reigns,
each individual forms an equal portion of the sovereign power, and par-
ticipates equally in the government of the state.
Each individual is therefore considered to be as enlightened, as virtuous,
as strong as any of his fellows.
So why does he obey society, and what are the natural limits of this
obedience?
He obeys society, not at all because he is inferior to those who direct it,
or less capable than another man of governing himself; he obeys society
because union with his fellows seems useful to him and because he knows
that this union cannot exist without a regulatory power.
So in all that concerns the mutual duties of citizens, he has become a
subject. In all that concerns only himself, he has remained the master; he
is free and is accountable for his actions only to God. Thus this maxim,
that the individual is the best as well as the only judge of his particular
interest and that society has the right to direct his actions only when it feels
harmed by them, or when it needs to call for his support.
This doctrine is universally accepted in the United States. Elsewhere I
will examine what general influence it exercises over even the ordinary acts
of life; but at this moment I am talking about the towns.
The town, taken as a whole and in relation to the central government,
is only an individual like any other to whom the theory I have just indicated
applies.
Town liberty in the United States follows, therefore, from the very
dogma of the sovereignty of the people. All the American republics have
more or less recognized this independence; but among the people of New
England, circumstances have particularly favored its development.
In this part of the Union, political life was born very much within the
towns; you could almost say that at its origin each of them was an inde-
pendent nation. When the Kings of England later demanded their share
of sovereignty, they limited themselves to taking central power. They left
the town in the situation where they found it; now the towns of New En-
gland are subjects; but in the beginning they were not or were scarcely so.
They did not therefore receive their powers; on the contrary, they seem to
have relinquished a portion of their independence in favor of the state; an
important distinction which the reader must keep in mind.p
In general the towns are subject to the states only when an interest that
I will call social is concerned, that is to say, an interest that the towns share
with others.q
For everything that relates only to them alone, the towns have remained
independent bodies. No one among the inhabitants of New England, I
think, recognizes the right of the state government to intervene in the di-
rection of purely town interests.r
So the towns of New England are seen to buy and sell, to sue and to
defend themselves before the courts, to increase or reduce their budget
p. In the margin: “⫽The dogma of sovereignty of the people, it must not be forgot-
ten, has as its end not to make the people do all that they should want, but all that they
do want.⫽”
q. Cf. conversations with Sparks and Mr. Gray (non-alphabetic notebooks 2 and 3,
YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, p. 90, 96). See also H. B. Adams, Jared Sparks and Alexis de
Tocqueville, p. 18.
r. Earlier draft: “⫽I do not believe anyone has ever dared to profess that the duty and
the right of a government was to watch over the governed in such a paternal way that
they could not even do what can be of harm only to themselves.⫽”
without any administrative authority whatsoever thinking to oppose them.7

[<⫽This right has only a single limit. That is found in the institution of
the judicial power, but we will examine it later.⫽>]
As for social duties, they are required to fulfill them. Thus, if the state
needs money, the town is not free to grant or to deny its cooperation.8 If
the state wants to open a road, the town does not have the right to close
its territory. If it establishes a regulation concerning public order, the town
must execute it. If it wants to organize education according to a uniform
plan throughout the country, the town is required to create the schools
desired by the law.9 We will see, when we talk about administration in the
United States, how and by whom the towns, in all these different cases,
are forced to obey. Here I only want to establish the existence of the ob-
ligation. This obligation is strict, but the state government, while impos-
ing it, only enacts a principle; for carrying out the principle, the town
generally recovers all its rights of individuality. Thus, it is true that the
tax is voted by the legislature, but it is the town that apportions and col-
lects it; a school is prescribed, but it is the town that builds, funds and
directs it.
In France the tax collector of the State levies the taxes of the town; in
America the tax collector of the town raises the tax of the state.
With us, therefore, the central government lends its agents to the town;
in America, the town lends its officers to the government. That alone makes
clear to what degree the two societies differ.
Of Town Spirit in New England

Why the New England town attracts the affections of those who
live there.—Difficulty met in Europe in creating town spirit.—
Town rights and duties that work together in America to
form this spirit.—The native land has a more distinctive
7. See Laws of Massachusetts, law of 23 March 1786, vol. I, p. 250.

8. Ibid., law of 20 February 1786, vol. I, p. 217.
9. See the same collection, law of 2 June 1789, and 8 [10 (ed.)] March, 1827, vol. I, p. 367,
and vol. III, p. 179.
physiognomy in the United States than elsewhere.—How town

spirit is shown in New England.—What fortunate effects
it produces there.
[⫽Laws act on mores; and mores, on laws. Wherever these two things do
not lend each other mutual support, there is unrest, revolution tearing apart
the society.
The legislation of New England constituted the town. Habits have com-
pleted the establishment of a true town spirit there.
The town is a center around which interests and passions gather and
where real and sustained activity reigns.⫽]
In America not only do town institutions exist, but also a town spirit
that sustains and animates them.s
The New England town brings together two advantages that, wherever
they are found, strongly excite the interest of men—namely, independence
and power. It acts, it is true, within a circle that it cannot leave, but within
that circle its movements are free. This independence alone would already
give the town real importance even if its population and size would not
assure its importance.
You must realize that in general the affections of men go only where
strength is found. Love of native land does not reign for long in a conquered
country.t The inhabitant of New England is attached to his town, not so
much because he was born there as because he sees in this town a free and
strong corporate body to which he belongs and which merits the trouble
of trying to direct it.
In Europe the very people who govern often regret the absence of town
spirit; for everyone agrees that town spirit is a great element of order and
public tranquillity; but they do not know how to produce it. By making
the town strong and independent, they fear dividing social power and ex-
posing the State to anarchy. Now, take strength and independence away
s. In the margin: “<The person who focuses his affections and his hopes on the town,
who knows how to take his place there and to participate in its governance, that person
possesses what I call town spirit.>”
t. In the margin, in pencil, on a paper glued into place: “I do not know if this thought
is very accurate. Witness, Poland.”
from the town, and you will forever find there only people who are ad-
ministered, not citizens.
Note, moreover, an important fact. The New England town is so con-
stituted that it can serve as a center of strong affections, and at the same
time there is nothing nearby that strongly attracts the ambitious passions
of the human heart.
The officials of the county are not elected and their authority is limited.
The state itself has only a secondary importance; its existence is indistinct
and tranquil. To gain the right to administer it, few men agree to distance
themselves from the center of their interests and to disrupt their existence.
The federal government confers power and glory on those who direct it;
but the number of men who are able to influence its destiny is very small.
The presidency is a high office that can hardly be attained except after reach-
ing an advanced age. When someone reaches other high level federal offices,
it is by chance in a way and after already becoming famous by pursuing
another career.u Ambition cannot make these high offices the permanent
aim of its efforts. [{The Union is a nearly ideal being that nothing represents
to the mind.}]v It is in the town, at the center of the ordinary relations of
life, that the desire for esteem, the need for real interests, the taste for power
and notice are focused. These passions, which so often trouble society,
change character when they can operate thus near the domestic hearth and,
in a way, within the family.
See with what art, in the American town, care has been taken to scatter
power, if I can express myself in this way, in order to interest more people
in public life. Apart from the voters called from time to time to perform
the acts of government, how many diverse offices, how many different
magistrates, who all, in the circle of their attributions, represent the
powerful corporate body in whose name they act! How many men thus
u. The drafting of this sentence, and of the preceding one, is by Beaumont (YTC,
CIIIb, 2, pp. 68–69). In this chapter, Tocqueville seems to have largely taken into ac-
count numerous stylistic suggestions made by Beaumont.
v. In pencil in the margin: “⫽There again, an idea that is a bit undeveloped and that
consequently lacks clarity.⫽”
exploit the power of the town for their profit and are interested in it for
themselves!
Nor is the American system, even as it divides municipal power among
a great number of citizens, afraid to multiply town duties. In the United
States people think rightly that love of country is a kind of religious cult
that attaches men by observances.
In this way, town life makes itself felt at every moment as it were; it
manifests itself every day by the accomplishment of a duty or by the
exercise of a right. This political existence imparts a continual, but at
the same time peaceful, movement to society that agitates without trou-
bling it.w
The Americans are attached to the city by a reason analogous to the one
that makes mountain dwellers love their country. Among them the native
land has marked and characteristic features; it has a more distinctive phys-
iognomy than elsewhere.
In general the New England towns have a happy existence. Their gov-
ernment suits their taste and is their choice as well. Within the profound
peace and material prosperity that reign in America, the storms of munic-
ipal life are few. Leadership of town interests is easy. The political education
of the people, moreover, was done a long time ago, or rather they arrived
already educated on the soil they occupy. In New England, division of ranks
does not exist even in memory; so there is no portion of the town tempted
to oppress the other, and injustices, which strike only isolated individuals,
are lost in the general contentment. Should the government exhibit some
faults, and certainly it is easy to point them out, they are not obvious to
view, because the government truly derives from the governed. And it is
sufficient for town government to operate, whether well or poorly, for it
to be protected by a kind of paternal pride. The Americans, moreover,
have no point of comparison. England once ruled the colonies as a whole,
but the people have always directed town affairs. So sovereignty of the
w. “Rights and duties are multiplied in the town in order to attach man by its benefits,
like religion by its observances. Town life makes itself felt at every moment. Duty, flex-
ible and easy to fulfill; social importance that that scatters” (YTC, CVb, p. 17).
people in the town is not only a long-standing condition, but also an origi-
nal one.
The inhabitant of New England is attached to his town, because it is
strong and independent; he is interested in it, because he participates in its
leadership; he loves it, because he has nothing to complain about in his lot.
In the town he places his ambition and his future; he joins in each of the
incidents of town life; in this limited sphere, accessible to him, he tries his
hand at governing society. He becomes accustomed to the forms without
which liberty proceeds only by revolutions, is infused with their spirit, ac-
quires a taste for order, understands the harmony of powers, and finally
gathers clear and practical ideas about the nature of his duties as well as the
extent of his rights.
Of the County in New England

The county in New England, analogous to the arrondissement
in France.—Created for a purely administrative interest.—
Has no representation.—Administered by
non-elective officials.
The American county is very analogous to the French arrondissement. As

for the latter, an arbitrary circumscription was drawn for the former; it
forms a body whose different parts have no necessary bonds with each other
and for whom neither affection nor memory nor shared existence serve as
attachments. It is created only for a purely administrative interest.
The town was too limited in area ever to contain the administration of
justice. The county is, therefore, the primary judicial center. Each county
has a court of justice,10 a sheriff to execute the decisions of the courts, a
prison that must hold the criminals.
There are needs that are felt in a more or less equal way by all the towns
of a county; it was natural that a central authority was charged with pro-
viding for them. In Massachusetts, this authority resides in the hands of a
10. See the law of 14 February 1821, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. II, p. 551.
certain number of magistrates, appointed by the Governor of the state,

with the advice11 of his council.12
The county administrators have only a limited and exceptional power
that applies only to a very small number of cases provided for in advance.
The state and the town are sufficient for the ordinary course of things.
These administrators only prepare the county budget; the legislature votes
it.13 There is no assembly that, directly or indirectly, represents the county.
So truly speaking, the county has no political existence.x
A double tendency is noticeable in most American constitutions, which
leads the law-makers to divide executive power and to concentrate legis-
lative power. The New England town by itself has a principle of existence
that is not stripped away from it. But this existence would have to be created
artificially in the county, and the usefulness of doing so has not been felt.
All the towns united together have only a single representative, the state,y
center of all national powers;z apart from town and national action, you
could say that there are only individual powers.
Of Administration in New England a

In America, you do not see the administration.—Why.—
Europeans believe they are establishing liberty by taking away
some of the rights belonging to the social power; Americans, by
11. See the law of 20 February 1819, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. II, p. 494.
12. The Governor’s Council is an elected body.
13. See the law of 2 November 1781, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. I, p. 61.
x. In a working note for the draft of Ireland, Beaumont will write:
“—In Ireland political life is in the county, because Ireland is aristocratic.
—In America, in the town, because America is democratic.
—Among us, in the State, because France, still monarchical” (Beaumont, YTC, CX).
y. In a first draft, this section was followed by that which treats the state.
z. The style of the last three sentences had been modified following remarks by Beau-
mont (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 70).
a. The manuscript mentions the following titles: “of administration in the
united states,” “what is meant in the united states by administration
and government. their means of action and their elements,” and “of
executive power in the united states. of government and adminis-
tration.”
dividing their exercise.—Nearly all of the administration strictly

speaking contained in the town, and divided among town
officers.—No trace of an administrative hierarchy is seen, either
in the town or above it.—Why it is so.— How the state happens,
however, to be administered in a uniform way.—Who is charged
with making the town and county administrations obey the
law.—Of the introduction of the judicial power into the
administration.—Result of extending the elective principle to all
officials.—Of the justice of the peace in New England.—
Appointed by whom.—Administers the county.—Ensures the
administration of the towns.—Court of sessions.—The way in
which it acts.—Who apprises it.—The right of inspection and of
complaint, scattered like all administrative functions.—
Informers encouraged by sharing fines.
What most strikes the European who travels across the United States is the
absence of what among us we call government or administration. In Amer-
ica, you see written laws; you see their daily execution; everything is in
motion around you, and the motor is nowhere to be seen. The hand that
runs the social machine escapes at every moment.
But just as all peoples, in order to express their thoughts, are obliged
to resort to certain grammatical forms that constitute human languages,
all societies, in order to continue to exist, are compelled to submit to a
certain amount of authority; without it, they fall into anarchy. This au-
thority can be distributed in different ways; but it must always be found
somewhere.
There are two means to diminish the strength of authorityb in a nation.
The first is to weaken power in its very principle, by taking from society
the right or the capacity to defend itself in certain cases; to weaken au-
b. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I do not like the word authority here very much. It seems
too generic to me to apply to the species; there is the authority of laws that cannot be
diminished, nor that of the magistrates. I would prefer power. It would be dropped in
the following sentence” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 86 prima).
thority in this way is what, in Europe, is generally called establishing

liberty.c
[{This method has always seemed to me barbaric and antisocial.}]
There is a second means to diminish the action of authority. This one
consists not of stripping society of some of its rights or paralyzing its ef-
forts, but of dividing the use of its powers among several hands; of mul-
tiplying officials while attributing to each all the power needed to carry out
what he is meant to do. There are peoples who can still be led to anarchy
by this division of the social powers; in itself, however, it is not anarchic.
By sharing authority in this way, its action is made less irresistible and less
dangerous, it is true; but authority is not destroyed.
The Revolution in the United States was produced by a mature and
thoughtful taste for liberty, and not by a vague and undefined instinct for
independence. It was not based upon passions for disorder; on the contrary,
it proceeded with love of order and of legality.d
So in the United States, the Americans did not claim that, in a free coun-
try, a man had the right to do everything; on the contrary, social obligations
more varied than elsewhere were imposed on him. They did not have the
idea of attacking the power of society in its principle and of contesting its
rights; they limited themselves to dividing power in its exercise. In this way
they wanted to make authority great and the official small, so that society
might continue to be well regulated and remain free.
There is no country in the world where the law speaks a language as
c. Édouard de Tocqueville:
I cannot understand this. How can someone think to establish liberty by taking from
society the right to defend itself? Fine, if you had said: by taking from the government
which represents society, etc. You wanted to say, I think, that someone thought to
establish liberty by weakening the government, the governmental power. Well! That
is badly expressed, for to weaken the government of a society or to weaken this society
are two very different things. French society was not weak under the Convention,
but the old government had just been destroyed” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 81–82).
d. In the margin of another version: “⫽When democracy comes with mores and be-
liefs, it leads to liberty.
When it comes with moral and religious anarchy, it leads to despotism.⫽”
absolute as in America, nor is there one where the right to apply the law is
divided among so many hands.
Administrative power in the United States presents nothing either cen-
tralized or hierarchical in its constitution; that is why you do not see it.
Power exists, but you do not know where to find its representative.
We saw above that the New England towns were not subordinate. So
they take care of their own individual interests.
It is also the town magistrates who are usually charged with seeing to
the execution of the general laws of the state or with executing them
themselves.14
Apart from the general laws, the state sometimes makes general regu-
lations concerning public order. But ordinarily it is the towns and the town
officers who, jointly with the justices of the peace and according to the
needs of the localities, regulate the details of social existence and promul-
gate prescriptions relating to public health, good order and the morality of
citizens.15
Finally it is the municipal magistrates who, by themselves and without
needing to wait for outside initiative, provide for the unexpected needs that
societies often feel.e 16
14. See The Town Officer, particularly the words Selectmen, Assessors, Collectors,
Schools, Surveyors of Highways . . . Example among many others: the state forbids unnec-
essary travel on Sunday. It is the tythingmen, town officers, who are especially charged with
using their authority to enforce the law.
See the law of 8 March 1792, Laws of Massachusetts, vol. I, p. 410.
The selectmen draw up the electoral lists for the election of the Governor and forward the
result of the vote to the secretary of the republic. Law of 24 February 1796, id., vol. I, p. 488.
15. Example: the selectmen authorize the construction of sewers, designate the locations
where slaughterhouses can be built, and where certain types of business whose proximity is
harmful can be established.
See the law of 7 June 1785, vol. I, p. 193.
e. In the first draft: “⫽The administration in societies where the legislative and ex-
ecutive powers are not concentrated in the same hands {where the principle of sover-
eignty of the people reigns} has only two obligations:
1. To execute the existing laws.
2. To provide for the unforeseen accidents of social life.⫽”
16. Example: the selectmen attend to public health in case of contagious diseases, and
As a result of what we have just said, administrative power in Massa-

chusetts is almost entirely contained within the town;17 but it is divided
there among many hands.
In the French town there is in fact only a single administrative official,
the mayor.f
We have seen that there were at least nineteen in the New England town.
The nineteen officers do not generally depend on each other. The law
has carefully drawn a circle of action around each of these magistrates.
Within this circle, they have all the power needed to fulfill the duties of
their office and are not under any town authority.
If you look above the town, you see scarcely a trace of an administrative
hierarchy. Sometimes county officials correct a decision made by the towns
or by the town magistrates,18 but in general you can say that the adminis-
trators of the county do not have the right to direct the conduct of the
administrators of the town.19 The former have authority over the latter only
in things that concern the county.
jointly with the justices of the peace, take necessary measures. Law of 22 June 1797, vol. I,
p. 539 [549 (ed.)].
17. I say almost, because there are several incidents of town life that are regulated, either
by a justice of the peace in their individual capacity, or by the justices of the peace assembled
as a body at the county-seat. Example: it is the justices of the peace who grant licenses. See the
law of 28 February 1787, vol. I, p. 297.
f. Initially, Tocqueville wrote more specifically: “⫽In the French town the mayor is
only the representative of an official at a higher level than he; his power is only the
reflection of a superior power, a delegation of authority; the representative must always
disappear before the one who gave the mandate.⫽”
18. Example: a license is granted only to those who present a certificate of good conduct
given by the selectmen. If the selectmen refuse to give this certificate, the person can complain
to the justices of the peace assembled in the court of sessions, and they can grant the license.
See the law of 12 March 1808, vol. II, p. 186. The towns have the right to make regulations
(bylaws) and to require the observation of these bylaws by fines the level of which are fixed;
but these bylaws must be approved by the court of sessions. See the law of 23 March 1786, vol.
I, p. 254.
19. In Massachusetts, the county administrators are often called to assess the acts of the
town administrators; but we will see later that they engage in this examination as a judicial
power, and not as an administrative authority.
The town magistrates and those of the county are required, in a very
small number of cases stipulated in advance, to report the result of their
actions to the officers of the central government.20 But the central govern-
ment is not represented by one man charged with making general regula-
tions concerning public order or ordinances for the execution of the laws,
with communicating routinely with the administrators of the county and
town, with examining their conduct, with directing their actions and pun-
ishing their mistakes.
So there is no center where the lines of administrative power come
together.
Then how do you manage to run society according to a more or less
uniform plan? How can counties and their administrators, towns and their
officers be made to obey?g
In the states of New England, the legislative power extends to more ob-
jects than with us. The legislator penetrates in a way to the very heart of
the administration; the law gets into the smallest details. It simultaneously
prescribes the principles and the means to apply them; thus it encloses the
secondary bodies and their administrators within a multitude of strict and
rigorously defined obligations.
As a result, if all the secondary bodies and all the officials follow the law,
all parts of society proceed in a uniform way. But there still remains the
20. Example: the town school committees are bound to make an annual report on the state
of the school to the secretary of the republic. See the law of 10 March 1827, vol. III, p. 183.
g. Administrative and judicial powers./
Among all nations there are two methods of executing the laws:
The administrative method.
The judicial method.
The administrative method always addresses the cause; the other, the effect. The
one is direct; the other, indirect.
Example: a town makes an illegal decree.
The executive power quashes it. The judicial power prevents it from having any
effects and protects those who resist it.
An obstruction arises on the public road. The executive power has it removed; the
judicial power gets to the same end indirectly by fining those who caused it (YTC,
CVb, pp. 19–20).
question of knowing how the secondary bodies and their officials can be
forced to follow the law.
In a general way you can say that society finds at its disposal only two
means to force officials to obey the laws.
It can entrust to one of the officers the discretionary power to direct all
the others and to remove them from office in case of disobedience.
Or it can charge the courts with imposing judicial penalties on those
who break the law.h
You are not always free to choose one or the other of these means.
The right of directing an official assumes the right to remove him from
office, if he does not follow the orders given to him, or to promote him if
he zealously fulfills all of his duties. Now, an elected magistrate can be nei-
ther removed nor promoted. Elective offices are by nature irrevocable until
the end of the term. In reality, the elected magistrate has nothing either to
hope or to fear except from the voters.j So when all public offices result
from election, there can be no true hierarchy among officials, since both
the right to command and the right to quell disobedience effectively cannot
be given to the same man; and the power to command cannot be joined
with that of rewarding and punishing.
h. Centralization. Town liberties.

In France there are two means available against the decisions of the Administra-
tion, an administrative means and a judicial means.
When an agent of the administration orders something contrary to the law, you
can apply to his superior and have his decision changed.
In the same situation, you can refuse to obey, and then the question comes before
the courts that decide indirectly if the official had the right to issue the order. See a
discussion where these ideas are treated by Odilon Barrot. Débats [ Journal des débats
(ed.)] of 1 March 1834 (YTC, CVj, 2, pp. 26–27).
Tocqueville’s papers contain an article clipped from the Journal des débats of the same
date, relating to the discussion on 28 February 1834 on the municipal law (copied in YTC,
CVj, 2, pp. 27–46). On the occasion of the debate, Barrot defends the independence of
the French towns against Thiers and the government, which took a position in favor of
a strict control of the mayor by the prefect.
j. “Where there is election, the supervision by the superior official of his inferior is
less necessary. Elections deal with negligence; the courts, with misdeed.
Be careful to distinguish carefully what is judicial from what is administrative. Nearly
all the administration strictly speaking is concentrated in the towns; it is only a matter of
having them fulfill their obligations” (YTC, CVb, p. 6).
People who introduce election into the secondary mechanisms of their

government are therefore led necessarily to make heavy use of judicial pen-
alties as a means of administration.
This is not obvious at first glance. Those who govern see making offices
elective as a first concession, and submitting elected magistrates to the de-
cisions of judges as a second concession. They dread these two innovations
equally; and because they are requested to do the first more than the second,
they grant the election of the official and leave him independent of the
judge. One of these two measures, however, is the only counterbalance that
can be given to the other. We should be very careful about this; an elective
power not submitted to a judicial power escapes sooner or later from all
control or is destroyed. Between the central power and elected administra-
tive bodies, only the courts can serve as an intermediary. They alone can
force the elected official to obey without violating the right of the voter.
So in the political world, the extension of judicial power must be cor-
relative with the extension of elective power. If these two things do not go
together, the State ends by falling into anarchy or servitude.k
It has been noted in all times that judicial habits prepared men rather
poorly for the exercise of administrative power.
The Americans took from their fathers, the English, the idea of an in-
stitution that has no analogy whatsoever with what we know on the con-
tinent of Europe: the justices of the peace.
The justice of the peace holds a middle place between a public figure
and the magistrate, administrator and judge. The justice of the peace is an
enlightened citizen, but not necessarily one who is versed in knowledge of
the laws. Consequently, he is charged only with keeping order in society,
something that requires good sense and uprightness more than knowledge.
The justice of the peace brings to administration, when he takes part in it,
a certain taste for forms and for publicity that makes him a highly trou-
k. Hervé de Tocqueville: “This sentence is abstract.”

Édouard de Tocqueville: “It is very concise. I do not find it obscure” (YTC, CIIIb,
2, p. 87).
Gustave de Beaumont: “Excellent sentence. Do not listen to paternal advice” (YTC,
CIIIb, 2, p. 72).
blesome instrument to despotism. But he does not appear to be a slave to

those legal superstitions that make magistratesm little capable of governing.
The Americans appropriated the institution of justices of the peace, all
the while removing the aristocratic character that distinguished it in the
mother country.
The Governorn of Massachusetts21 appoints, in all the counties, a certain
number of justices of the peace, whose term in office lasts seven years.22
Among these justices of the peace, moreover, he designates three of them
who form in each county what is called the court of sessions.
The justices of the peace individually take part in public administration.
Sometimes, along with the elected officials, they are charged with certain
administrative acts;23 sometimes they form a court before which the mag-
m. Édouard de Tocqueville: “I would like there: that generally make magistrates little
capable, etc. . . . No one must be hurt, and by allowing for exceptions, everyone applies
the exception to himself; besides, I believe that there really are some” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 82).
n. Édouard de Tocqueville (?):
We have not yet heard about a governor. The reader is even totally unaware what
this pompous label corresponds to in a republican country. Astonishment is redou-
bled when he learns that in the same country where the principle of informing [del-
egation? (ed.)] has penetrated everywhere, the governor appoints, in all the counties,
a certain number of justices of the peace, etc.
I know that further along, on page 229, you explain what the functions of the
governor are, but it appears indispensable to me that you say a word about it here,
since the reader is bewildered when reading this paragraph. You could, I believe, begin
this paragraph more or less like this: There is in each county a magistrate who has the
title of governor. I will say further on how he gets his powers and what his attributions
are. Or better still, this could be put in a note at the bottom of the page, or simply
in a note at the word governor: head of the executive power of the county (YTC, CIIIb,
2, pp. 82–83).
Note 21 does not exist in the manuscript.
21. We will see further on what the Governor is; I must say at this moment that the Gov-
ernor represents the executive power of the whole state.
22. See the Constitution of Massachusetts, chap. II, section I, paragraph 9; chap. III, par-
agraph 3.
23. Example among many others: a stranger arrives in a town, coming from a country
ravaged by a contagious disease. He falls ill. Two justices of the peace, with the advice of the
selectmen, can order the county sheriff to transport him elsewhere and to watch over him.
Law of 22 June 1797, vol. I, p. 540.
In general, the justices of the peace intervene in all the important acts of administrative
life and give them a semi-judicial character.
istrates summarily charge the citizen who refuses to obey, or the citizen
denounces the crimes of the magistrates. But it is in the court of sessions
that the justices of the peace exercise the most important of their admin-
istrative functions.
The court of sessions meets twice a year at the county seat. In Massa-
chusetts it is charged with upholding the obedience of most24 of the public
officials.25
Careful attention must be paid to the fact that in Massachusetts the court
of sessions is simultaneously an administrative body strictly speaking and
a political court.
[⫽The administrative and judicial functions of the court of sessions are
so often confused in practice, that it is difficult to separate them even in
theory. But it is useful to do so.
<The court of sessions has attributions of two kinds. It administers the
county and ensures the administration of the towns.>⫽]
24. I say most because in fact certain administrative crimes are referred to the ordinary
courts. Example: when a town refuses to raise the funds needed for its schools, or to appoint
the school committee, a very considerable fine is imposed. The court called supreme judicial
court or the court of common pleas pronounces this fine. See the law of 10 March 1827, vol.
III, p. 190. Id. When a town fails to make provision for war supplies. Law of 21 February
1822, vol. II, p. 570.
25. The justices of the peace, in their individual capacity,o take part in the government
of the towns and counties. The most important acts of town life are generally undertaken only
with the support of one of them.
o. Hervé de Tocqueville:
I do not believe that the word capacity exactly expresses the thought of the author.
Care must be taken about using words whose specific expression is made uncertain
by their multiple meanings. It seems to me that, from page 189 to 193, Alexis does
not say enough about how the justices of the peace participate in town administra-
tion. He must not lose sight of the fact that America is something new for most of
his readers, and that they will be looking in his book still more for instructions than
for reflections. I admit that here, being uninformed, my curiosity is not satisfied. I
feel humiliated by my lack of knowledge, and I am annoyed that the author has
assumed that I am more informed than I am. These pages must be reviewed and more
precise details given about the administrative action of the justices of the peace, when
they act outside of the court of sessions. Most readers do not even know how they
act in England.
Édouard de Tocqueville: “Quite right. It seems to me that here the word capacity
means attribution. This word would be better I believe” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 87–88).
We said that the county26 had only an administrative existence. It is the

court of sessions by itself that is in charge of the small number of interests
that relate to several towns at the same time or to all the towns of the county
at once, interests that consequently cannot be entrusted to any single town
in particular.
When it concerns the county, the duties of the court of sessions are
therefore purely administrative, and if it often introduces judicial forms
into its way of proceeding, it is only as a means to inform itself,27 and as a
guarantee given to the citizens. But when the administration of the towns
must be ensured, the court of sessions almost always acts as a judicial body,
and only in a few rare cases, as an administrative body.
The first difficulty that presents itself is making the town itself, a nearly
independent power, obey the general laws of the state.
We have seen that each year the towns must appoint a certain number
of magistrates who, as assessors, apportion taxes. A town tries to evade the
obligation to pay the tax by not appointing the assessors. The court of
sessions imposes a heavy fine.28 The fine is raised by head on all the inhab-
itants. The county sheriff, officer of the law, executes the decision. In this
way, in the United States, power seems eager to hide itself carefully from
sight. Administrative command is almost always veiled there as a judicial
mandate; as such it is only more powerful, having in its favor the almost
irresistible strength that men grant to legal forms.
This procedure is easy to follow and is easily understood. What is re-
quired of the town is, in general, clear and defined; it consists of a simple
and uncomplicated act, of a principle, and not a detailed application.29 But
26. The things relating to the county and that the court of sessions attends to can be reduced
to these:
1. The building of prisons and courts of justice; 2. The proposed county budget (it is the
state legislature that votes on it); 3. The apportionment of these taxes thus voted; 4. The
distribution of certain licenses; 5. The establishment and repair of county roads.
27. When it is a matter of a road, this is the way that the court of sessions, with the help
of the jury, settles nearly all the difficulties of execution.
28. See the law of 20 February 1786, vol. I, p. 217.
29. There is an indirect way to make the town obey. The towns are compelled by law to
keep their roads in good condition. If they neglect to vote the funds required for this main-
the difficulty begins when it concerns securing the obedience, not of the
town any longer, but of the town officers.
All the reprehensible actions that a public official can commit fall defin-
itively into one of these categories:
He can do, without enthusiasm and without zeal, what the law requires
of him.
He cannot do what the law requires of him.
Finally, he can do what the law forbids.
A court can get at the conduct of an official only in the last two cases.
A positive and appreciable act is needed as grounds for judicial action.
Thus, if the selectmen fail to fulfill the formalities required by law in
the case of town elections, they can be fined.30
But when the public official fulfills his duty without intelligence, when
he obeys the instructions of the law without enthusiasm and without zeal,
he is entirely beyond the reach of a judicial body.
In this case, the court of sessions, even when vested with its adminis-
trative attributions, is impotent to force him to fulfill all of his obligations.
Only fear of removal can prevent these quasi-failings; and the court of
sessions does not hold within itself the source of town powers; it cannot
remove officials that it does not appoint.p
In order to make certain, moreover, that there is negligence or lack of zeal,
the subordinate official would have to be put under constant supervision.
Now, the court of sessions meets only twice a year; it does not conduct in-
spections; it judges only the reprehensible acts that are brought before it.
tenance, the town magistrate responsible for the roads is then authorized, as a matter of course,
to raise the needed money. Since he is himself responsible to individuals for the bad condition
of the roads, and can be sued by them before the court of sessions, it is assured that he will
exercise against the town the extraordinary right given to him by the law. Thus, by threatening
the officer, the court of sessions forces the town to obey. See the law of 5 March 1787, vol. I,
p. 305.
30. Laws of Massachusetts, vol. II, p. 45.
p. Hervé de Tocqueville: “Que, qui, que within a few lines. I do not know why, when
the thought is powerful, the style drags. It comes from repeated use of c’est que, il n’y a
que; you must fight to the death against them. In a work of this type a concise and
dogmatic sentence is better than a drawn-out sentence. Example: Montesquieu” (YTC,
CIIIb, p. 109).
Only the discretionary power to remove public officials can guarantee

the kind of enlightened and active obedience on their part that judicial
suppression cannot impose.
In France we seek this last guarantee in administrative hierarchy; in
America, they seek it in election.
Thus to summarize in a few words what I have just explained:
Should the public official in New England commit a crime in the exercise
of his duties, the ordinary courts are always called to bring him to justice.
Should he commit an administrative fault, a purely administrative court
is charged with punishing him, and when the matter is serious or urgent
the judge does what the official should have done.31
Finally, should the same official be guilty of one of those intangible fail-
ings that human justice can neither define nor assess, he appears annually
before a tribunal from which there is no appeal, that can suddenly reduce
him to impotence [{remove him from power without even telling him
why}]. His power is lost with his mandate.
Certainly this system encompasses great advantages,q but in its execution
a practical difficulty is encountered that must be noted.
I have already remarked that the administrative tribunal that is called
the court of sessions did not have the right to inspect the town magistrates;
following a legal term, it can only act when it is apprised. But that is the
delicate point of the system.
The Americans of New England have not established a public prose-
cutor attached to the court of sessions,32 and you must understand how
31. Example: if a town stubbornly persists in not naming assessors, the court of sessions
names them, and the magistrates chosen in this way are vested with the same powers as the
elected magistrates. See the law already cited of 20 February 1787.
q. In the margin: “⫽Perhaps enumerate them at this time.
Human dignity.
Legal, not arbitrary habits.
People at their business.⫽”
32. I say attached to the court of sessions. There is a magistrate, attached to the ordinary
courts, who fulfills several of the functions of the public prosecutor’s office.
difficult it would have been for them to establish one. If they had limited
themselves to placing a prosecutor at each county seat, and if they had not
given him agents in the towns, why would this magistrate have been more
informed about what was happening in the county than the members of
the court of sessions themselves? If he had been given agents in each town,
the power most to be feared,[*] that of administering through the courts,
would have been centralized in his hands. Laws are, moreover, the daughters
of habits, and nothing similar existed in English legislation.
So the Americans have divided, like all other administrative functions,
the right of inspection and the right of complaint.
Under the terms of the law, the members of the grand jury must notify
the court, to which they are attached, of crimes of all kinds that might be
committed in their county.33 There are certain great administrative crimes
that the ordinary public prosecutor must pursue as a matter of course.34
Most often, the obligation to have the offenders punished is imposed on
the fiscal officer, charged with collecting the proceeds of the fine; thus the
town treasurer is charged with pursuing most of the administrative crimes
that are committed in his sight.
But above all, American legislation appeals to individual interest;35 that
is the great principle found constantly when you study the laws of the
United States.
[*]. <⫽Far from wanting to create a magistrate of this kind, the Americans have, on
the contrary, such a great fear of combining too much administrative power in the same
hands, that when they assign responsibility to someone for suing for administrative
crimes, they hardly ever choose the most important officials.
Should a town refuse to raise the state tax, it is not the Governor who notifies the
court of sessions, it is the state Treasurer. L[aws (ed.)] of M[assachusetts (ed.)], vol. I,
p. 209.
Should an assessor refuse to accept the functions that are granted to him, it is not the
selectmen who sue, it is the town treasurer. Id., vol. I, p. 218.⫽>
33. Grand juries are obliged, for example, to inform the courts about the bad condition
of the roads. Laws of Massachusetts, vol. I, p. 308 [307–308 (ed.)].
34. If, for example, the county treasurer does not provide his books. Laws of Massachu-
setts, vol. I, p. 406.
35. Example among many: an individual damages his vehicle or is hurt on a poorly main-
tained road; he has the right to ask the town or the county responsible for the road for damages
before the court of sessions. Laws of Massachusetts, vol. I, p. 309 [307–308 (ed.)].
American legislators show little confidence in human honesty; but they

always assume an intelligent man. So most often they rely on personal in-
terest for the execution of laws.
Indeed, when an individual is positively and presently hurt by an ad-
ministrative crime, it is understood that personal interest guarantees the
lodging of a complaint.
But it is easy to foresee that, if it concerns a legal prescription that has
no utility felt by an individual at the moment, even though the legal pre-
scription is useful to society, each person will hesitate to come forward as
accuser. In this way, by a kind of tacit agreement, the laws could fall into
disuse.
Thrown into this extremity by their system, the Americans are forced to
interest informers by calling them in certain cases to share in the fines.36
Dangerous measure that assures the execution of laws by debasing
mores.
Above the county magistrates, there is truly no other administrative
power, only a governmental power.
General Ideas on Administration in the United States

How the states of the Union differ among themselves, by the
system of administration.—Town life less active and less complete
36. In case of invasion or insurrection, when the town officers neglect to provide the militia
with necessary equipment and supplies, the town may be fined 200 to 500 dollars (1000 to 2700
[2500 (ed.)] francs). It can easily be imagined that, in such a case, it could happen that no
one would have either the interest or the desire to take the role of accuser. Consequently, the
law adds: “[the fine is] to be sued for and recovered by any person, who may prosecute
for the same, [ . . .(ed.). . . ] one moiety to the prosecutor.” See the law of 6 March 1810,
vol. II, p. 236.
The same arrangement is found very frequently reproduced in the laws of Massachusetts.
Sometimes it is not the individual that the law incites in this way to sue public officials;
it is the official who is encouraged to have the disobedience of particular individuals punished.
Example: an inhabitant refuses to do the share of work assigned to him on a major roadway.
The surveyor of roads must sue him; and if the surveyor has him found guilty, half of the
fine comes to him. See the laws already cited, vol. I, p. 308.
as you move toward the south.—The power of the magistrate

then becomes greater; that of the voter smaller.—Administration
passes from the town to the county.—State of New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania.—Administrative principles applicable to all the
Union.—Election of public officials or fixed term of their
offices.—Absence of hierarchy.—Introduction of judicial means
into the administration.
I previously announced that, after having examined in detail the consti-

tution of the town and county in New England, I would cast a general
glance over the rest of the Union.
There are towns and town life in each state; but in none of the confed-
erated states do you find a town identical to the New England town.
As you move toward the south, you notice that town life becomes less
active; the town has fewer magistrates, rights and duties; the population
there does not exercise so direct an influence on town affairs; town meetings
are less frequent and involve fewer matters. The power of the elected mag-
istrate is therefore comparatively greater and that of the voter, smaller; town
spirit there is less awake and less powerful.37
You begin to see these differences in the state of New York; they are
already very apparent in Pennsylvania; but they become less striking when
you move toward the Northwest. Most of the emigrants who go to establish
the states of the Northwest come from New England, and they bring the
37. See, for detail, The Revised Statutes of the State of New York, at part I, chap. XI,
entitled: Of the Powers, Duties and Privileges of Towns, vol. I, pp. 336–64.
See in the collection entitled: Digest of the Laws of Pennsylvania, the words Assessors,
Collectors, Constables, Overseers of the Poor, Supervisors of highways. And in the col-
lection entitled: Acts of a General Nature of the State of Ohio, the law of 25 February
1824, relating to the towns, p. 412. And next, the particular arrangements relative to the
diverse town officers, such as: Township’s Clerks, Trustees, Overseers of the Poor, Fence
Viewers, Appraisers of Property, Township’s Treasurers, Constables, Supervisors of
Highways.
administrative habits of their mother land to their adopted country. The

Ohio town has much in common with the Massachusetts town.
We have seen that in Massachusetts the principle of public administra-
tion is found in the town. The town is the center where the interests and
affections of men converge. But it ceases to be so the more you move toward
the states where enlightenment is less universally spread and where, con-
sequently, the town offers fewer guarantees of wisdom and fewer elements
of administration. So as you move away from New England, town life
passes in a way to the county. The county becomes the great administrative
center and forms the intermediate power between the [central] govern-
ment and the ordinary citizens.
I said that in Massachusetts county matters were directed by the court
of sessions. The court of sessions is made up of a certain number of mag-
istrates appointed by the Governor and his council. The county has no
representation, and its budget is voted by the national [sic: state] legislature.
In the large state of New York, on the contrary, in the state of Ohio and
in Pennsylvania, the inhabitants of each county elect a certain number of
deputies; these deputies meet together to form a representative county
assembly.38
The county assembly possesses, within certain limits, the right to tax
the inhabitants; in this regard, it constitutes a true legislature. It simul-
taneously administers the county, directs the administration of the towns
in several instances, and limits their powers much more strictly than in
Massachusetts.r
These are the principal differences presented by the constitution of the
town and county in the various confederated states. If I wanted to get into
38. See Revised Statutes of the State of New York, part I, chap. XI, vol. I, p. 340. Id.
chap. XII; id., p. 366. Id., Acts of the State of Ohio, law of 25 February 1824, relating to
the county commissioners, p. 263. See Digest of the Laws of Pennsylvania, the words
County Rates, and Levies, p. 170.
In the state of New York, each town elects a deputy, and this deputy participates at the
same time in the county administration and in that of the town.
r. In the margin: “⫽Ask L[ouis (ed.)] and B[eaumont (ed.)] if it is necessary to support
these generalities with notes. Here either very minutely detailed notes are needed or
nothing.⫽”
the details of the means of execution, there are still many other dissimi-
larities that I could point out. But my goal is not to give a course in Amer-
ican administrative law.
I have said enough about it, I think, to make the general principles that
administration in the United States rests upon understood. These princi-
ples are applied in different ways; they have more or less numerous con-
sequences depending on the place; but fundamentally they are the same
everywhere. The laws vary; their physiognomy changes; the same spirit an-
imates them.
The town and county are not constituted in the same way everywhere;
but you can say that everywhere in the United States the organization of
the town and county rests on the same idea: that each person is the best
judge of what concerns himself alone, and the one most able to provide
for his individual needs. So the town and county are charged with looking
after their special interests. The state governs and does not administer. Ex-
ceptions to this principle are found, but not a contrary principle.s
The first consequence of this doctrine has been to have all the adminis-
tratorst of the town and county chosen by the inhabitants themselves, or at
least to choose these magistrates exclusively from among the inhabitants.[*]
[⫽The second, to put into their hands the administration [v. direction]
of nearly all the interests of the town and county.
The state has retained the power to impose laws on all the towns and
counties, but it has not put into the hands of any official the power to direct
the administration in a general way.⫽]
s. “To place.
Jealousy of legislatures against intermediate bodies.
In New England the justice of the peace prepares the county budget; it is the legis-
lature that votes on it. In the state of New York it is a representation of the county that
votes on the tax, but its power is confined to very narrow limits” (YTC, CVh, 5, p. 13).
t. Hervé de Tocqueville: “It seems to me that you cannot say as positively that these
administrators are chosen by the inhabitants since you have taught us that the justices
of the peace are chosen by the Governor” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 111). Cf. note 48.
[*]. I say this because in the laws of Tennessee, which are probably those found among
all those of Virginian descent, the justices of the peace or magistrates composing the
county court (who hold their offices during good behavior) are in charge of the entire
administration. I believe that it is purely and simply the English system.
Since administrators everywhere are elected or at least irrevocable, the

result has been that rules of hierarchy have not been able to be introduced
anywhere. So there are nearly as many independent officials as offices. Ad-
ministrative power finds itself scattered among a multitude of hands.
Since administrative hierarchy exists nowhere and administrators are
elected and irrevocable until the end of their term, the obligation followed
to introduce courts, more or less, into the administration. From that comes
the system of fines, by means of which the secondary bodies and their
representatives are forced to obey the law. This system is found from one
end of the Union to the other.
The power of suppressing administrative crimes or of taking adminis-
trative actions as needed has not been granted, moreover, to the same judges
in all the states.
The Anglo-Americans have drawn the institution of the justices of the
peace from a common source; it is found in all the states. But they have not
always taken advantage of it in the same way.
Everywhere the justices of the peace take part in the administration of
the towns and counties,39 either by administering them directly or by sup-
pressing certain administrative crimes committed in them. But in most
states, the most serious of these crimes are submitted to ordinary courts.
Election of administrative officials, or irremovability from office, lack
of administrative hierarchy, and introduction of judicial measures into the
government of society at the secondary level are, therefore, the principal
39. There are even states in the South where the magistrates u of the county courts are
charged with all details of the administration. See The Statutes of the State of Tennessee,
the art. Judiciary, Taxes . . .
u. Hervé de Tocqueville: “If there are states where the court of sessions is charged
with all details of the administration, what becomes in these states of the town spirit so
praised by the author ?
“It would seem, from the end of the chapter, that certain states are beginning to feel
the disadvantage of excessive decentralization. This consideration must be weighed by
the author in the following chapter” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 77).
characteristics by which American administration, from Maine to Florida,

is recognized.v
There are some states where signs of administrative centralization be-
gin to be seen. The state of New York is the most advanced along this
path.
In the state of New York, officials of the central government exercise,
in certain cases, a kind of supervision and control over the conduct of the
secondary bodies.40 In certain other cases, they form a type of court of
appeal for deciding matters.41 In the state of New York, judicial penalties
v. “No hierarchy and no centralization, character of American administration. So in

the town, more powers and more magistrates than in the French town, but all independent.
“Division of powers among those charged with making them fulfill their duties. Fi-
nally, when they are concentrated, it is in a judicial body, that is to say, legal and far from
arbitrary [v: slave to forms]” (YTC, CVb, p. 16).
40. Example: the running of public education is centralized in the hands of the govern-
ment. The legislature appoints the members of the university, called regents; the Governor
and the Lieutenant-Governor of the state are members ex officio. (Revised Statutes, vol. I,
p. 456). The regents of the university visit the colleges and universities each year and submit
an annual report to the legislature; their supervision is not illusory, for the following particular
reasons: the colleges, in order to become corporations that can buy, sell and own, need a charter;
but this charter is granted by the legislature only on the advice of the regents. Each year the
state distributes to the colleges and academies the interest from a special fund created to en-
courage education. It is the regents who are the distributors of this money. See chap. XV,
Public Education, Revised Statutes, vol. I, p. 455.
Each year, the boards of public schools are required to send a report on conditions to the
superintendent of the Republic, Id., p. 488.
A similar report on the number and condition of the poor must be made annually to him.
Id., p. 631.
41. When someone believes himself wronged by certain acts coming from the school com-
missioners (these are town officers), he can appeal to the superintendent of primary schools
whose decision is final. Revised Statutes, vol. I, p. 487.
You find here and there, in the laws of the state of New York, provisions analogous to
those I have just cited as examples. But in general these tentative efforts at centralization are
weak and not very productive. While the highest officials of the state were given the right to
supervise and direct inferior agents, they were not given the right to reward or punish them.
The same man is hardly ever charged with giving the order and with suppressing disobedience;
so he has the right to command, but not the ability to make himself obeyed.
In 1830, the superintendent of schools, in his annual report to the legislature, complained
that several school commissioners, despite notice from him, had not forwarded the accounts
are used less than elsewhere as an administrative measure. There, the right
to bring proceedings against administrative crimes is also placed in fewer
hands.42
The same tendency is slightly felt in several other states.43 But, in general,
you can say that the salient characteristic of public administration in the
United States is to be prodigiously decentralized.
Of the State
I have talked about the towns and about administration; I still have to talk
about the state and about government.
Here, I can move faster without fear of being misunderstood; what I
have to say is found all sketched out in written constitutions that anyone
can easily obtain.44 These constitutions rest on a simple and rational theory.
Most of the forms that they prescribe have been adopted by all peoples
who have constitutions; they have therefore become familiar to us.
So I have only to do a brief overview here. Later I will try to judge what
I am about to describe.
they owed him. “If this omission occurs again, he added, I will be reduced to prosecuting them
to the full extent of the law before the courts of competent jurisdiction.”
42. Example: the district attorney in each county is charged with suing for the recovery of
all fines above 50 dollars, as long as this right has not been expressly granted by law to another
magistrate. Revised Statutes, part I, chap. XII, vol. I, p. 383.
43. There are several signs of administrative centralization in Massachusetts. Example:
the town school boards are charged with making an annual report to the Secretary of State.
Laws of Massachusetts, vol. I, p. 367.
44. See the text of the constitution of New York.w
w. Reproduced as an appendix in the first editions.
Legislative Power of the State

Division of the legislative body into two houses.—
Senate.—House of representatives.—
Different attributions of these two bodies.
The legislative power of the state is entrusted to two assemblies; the first is
generally called the senate.
The senate is normally a legislative body; but sometimes it becomes an
administrative and judicial body.
It takes part in administration in several ways depending on the different
constitutions;45 but ordinarily it enters into the sphere of executive power
by taking part in the choice of officials.
It participates in judicial power by judging certain political crimes and
sometimes as well by ruling on certain civil actions.46
Its members are always few in number.
The other branch of the legislature, usually called the house of repre-
sentatives, participates in nothing related to administrative power, and takes
part in judicial power only when accusing public officials before the senate.
The members of the two houses are subject almost everywhere to the
same conditions of eligibility. Both are elected in the same way and by the
same citizens.
The only difference that exists between them is due to the fact that the
mandate of senators is generally longer than that of representatives. The
second rarely remain in office more than a year; the first ordinarily hold
their seats two or three years.
By granting senators the privilege of being named for several years, and
by replacing them by cohort, the law has taken care to maintain, among
the legislators, a nucleus of men, already used to public affairs, who can
exercise a useful influence over the newcomers.
45. In Massachusetts, the Senate is vested with no administrative function.

46. As in the state of New York.x
x. See conversation with Mr. Spencer (non-alphabetic notebook 1, YTC, BIIa, and
Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 68).
So by the division of the legislative body into two branches, the Amer-
icans did not want to create one hereditary assembly and another elective
one; they did not intend to make one into an aristocratic body, and the
other into a representative of the democracy. Nor was their goal to make
the first into a support for the governing power, while leaving the interests
and passions of the people to the second.y
To divide legislative power, to slow in this way the movement of political
assemblies, and to create a court of appeal for the revision of laws, such are
the only advantages that result from the current constitution of the two
houses in the United States.
Time and experience have shown the Americans that, reduced to these
advantages, the division of legislative powers is still a necessity of the first
order.
Pennsylvania alone, among all the united republics, tried at first to estab-
lish a single assembly. Franklin himself, carried away by the logical conse-
quences of the dogma of sovereignty of the people, had worked toward this
measure. The law soon had to be changed and two houses established. The
principle of the division of legislative power thus received its final consecra-
tion; henceforth then, the necessity to divide legislative activity amongseveral
bodies can be considered a demonstrated truth. This theory, more or less
unknown in the ancient republics, introduced into the world almost by
chance, like most great truths, misunderstood among several modern peo-
ples, has finally passed as an axiom into the political science of today.z
y. Division of administrative power, concentration of legislative power. American

principle (important).
The legislature most often appoints special agents to enforce its will. Thus, power
not even regular or necessary executor of the laws.
The Governor’s veto is not a barrier to the democracy, the Governor emanating
entirely from it. Only the judges are a real barrier.
Not only is power divided among several hands, but the exercise of power is di-
vided. The Governor cannot appoint the official and direct him at the same time.
Subtle and dubious.
The institution of the senate is a barrier to the democracy because named for a
longer time; they [sic ] are not as immediately subject to the fear of not being reelected
(YTC, CVb, pp. 15–16).
z. Tocqueville, it must be remembered, was part of the commission charged with
drafting the constitution of 1848. There, he defended the division of legislative power
into two branches. This idea came to nothing. In his Souvenirs (OC, XII, pp. 148–87),
he gives some details about it. The notes taken by Beaumont during the work of the
commission offer in this regard some interesting, previously unpublished details (YTC,
DIVk). Beaumont notes as follows, in a rapid and necessarily schematic fashion, Tocque-
ville’s answers to the proposal of Marrast concerning the creation of a single chamber
(25 May 1848):
Tocqueville.—Recognizes that the cause of two chambers is lost. The state of minds
is such that it would be almost dangerous to insist upon a system that [illegible word]
in itself is bad only in the circumstances.
—But, necessary to show how two chambers are the only institution that can per-
haps make the republic viable.
—History!
—The United States. The Constitution of the United States must be set aside;
take the thirty democratic constitutions of the United States that have same social
and political state as we.
—Now, in these 30 states the question of two chambers is an accomplished fact
and an uncontested truth.
—Is it [that this (ed.)] historical tradition is English?
—No. Instead of following the English tradition, they broke with it. Congress
began with a single assembly. Those of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania in the same
way (for thirteen years in Pennsylvania); and at the end of thirteen years with a single
assembly, Pennsylvania changed the system of a single assembly and adopted two
chambers.
—So in France what made opinion so hostile to single chambers?
—It is a misunderstanding. Until now in Europe the system of two chambers was
to give a special expression to two different elements, the aristocrat and the democrat;
from that it was concluded that the establishment of two chambers was an aristocratic
principle. This natural conclusion is correct, if it was a question of introducing the
slightest element of aristocracy into the government.
—But is the existence of two chambers in itself a fact aristocratic by nature?
—How so! The two chambers in America are from the aristocracy!! What is it
then? The two chambers are chosen by the same electors, for the same time, in the
same conditions, more or less.
—Objection that if the second chamber has no use as a counterbalance to the
democracy, what purpose does it serve? Then it is a superfluity.
—No.
—Even logically, it can be sustained. What is logical is that the nation be all pow-
erful; but what [more (ed.)] contrary to logic than that the sovereignty of the nation
have one or two agents.
—Now logically what purpose do two chambers serve?
Of the Executive Power of the State

What the Governor is in an American state.—What position
he occupies vis-à-vis the legislature.—What his rights and
duties are.—His dependency on the people.
The executive power of the state is represented by the Governor.[*] [⫽Not

only is the Governor of each state an elected magistrate, but also he is gen-
erally elected only for a year; in this way he is tied by the shortest possible
chain to the body from which he emanates.⫽]
Three principal uses.

1. Necessity in France of giving the executive power great force. But, certain con-
siderable matters cannot be absolutely conducted by the executive power without any
everyday control. In the United States, the Senate assists the President in certain acts,
or rather controls him; treaties, choice of high officials. Body small enough to be able
to act in concert with the executive power and strong because it comes from the
people. This could be done, it is true, by [the (ed.)] Conseil d’État.
2. Driving impulses of democracies. Perilous and untenable situation of the ex-
ecutive power, in the eternal head to head of this one man and this single assembly;
eternal conflict between two wills face to face. – The only means for no conflict is
that the man always gives way to the assembly. Then no struggle.
3. The great disease of democracies is legislative intemperance, violence in pro-
ceedings, rapidity in actions. The advantage of two chambers is not to prevent
violent revolutions, but to prevent the bad government that ends up leading to
revolution.
—What means to combat the inherent vices of this single body? It is to di-
vide it.
—Two chambers drawn from the same elements can have different thoughts
however.
—Difficulty for two or three men to dominate a country when there are two cham-
bers. Very easy when there is only one chamber.
—Utility of two considerations of a question. But there are two considerations
only when there are two assemblies. Two readings do not mean two considerations.
It is resubmitting a judgment to those who have made it, and who will only repeat
what they judged (YTC, DIVk).
The papers of Beaumont, which contain innumerable notes on the American consti-
tutions, are there to witness to the importance given to American constitutional history
during the discussions of the constitutional commission of 1848.
[*]. See the Constitution of Massachusetts, chap. I, part II, chap 11.
It is not by chance that I have used the word represents. The Governor
of the state in effect represents the executive power; but he exercises only
some of its rights.
The supreme magistrate, who is called the Governor, is placed alongside
the legislature as a moderator and adviser. He is armed with a qualified veto
that allows him to stop or at least to slow the legislature’s movements as he
wishes. To the legislative body, he sets forth the needs of the country and
makes known the means that he judges useful to provide for those needs;
for all enterprises that interest the entire nation [sic: state], he is the natural
executor of its will.47 In the absence of the legislature, he must take all
proper measures to protect the state from violent shocks and unforeseen
dangers.
The Governor combines in his hands all of the military power of the
state. He is the commander of the militia and chief of the armed forces.
When the power of opinion, which men have agreed to grant to the law,
is not recognized, the Governor advances at the head of the physical force
of the state; he breaks down resistance and reestablishes customary order.
The Governor, moreover, does not get involved in the administration
of the towns and counties, or at least he participates only very indirectly
by the appointment of the justices of the peace whom he cannot thereafter
remove.48
The Governor is an elected magistrate. Care is even taken, generally, to
elect him only for one or two years; in this way, he always remains narrowly
dependenta on the majority that created him.b
47. In practice, it is not always the Governor who carries out the enterprises conceived by
the legislature; often, at the same time that the latter votes a principle, it names special agents
to oversee its execution.
48. In several states, the justices of the peace are not appointed by the Governor.
a. The manuscript says: “. . . he is tied by the shortest possible chain to the body
from which he emanates.”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “This sentence is absolutely unintelligible. Why? What do
you mean by the body from which he emanates? From what body does he emanate? And
how is he tied to this body by the shortest possible chain by the fact that he is named
for only two years? I repeat, I do not understand this paragraph at all” (YTC, CIIIb, 2
p. 112).
b. In the manuscript, at the end of the first chapter, is a cover sheet with the title:
Of the real influence that the President exercises in the conduct of public affairs [in
the margin: Real and habitual influence in foreign affairs, almost entirely personal in-
fluence in domestic affairs./Study to do.]; in it, the following fragment on the Gov-
ernor is found:
[The beginning is missing] The first of these two obligations is marked out in a clear
and precise manner.
The second depends essentially on the circumstances that give it birth.
Among most nations, the same man or at least the same authority is charged with
fulfilling these two obligations. He sees to it by himself or through his agents that
order reigns, and when order begins to be disturbed, by some violent shock, some
unforeseen event, he is still the one who temporarily takes the place of the missing
national will and takes charge of remedying the evil.
In America, it is rarely so; the Governor is only occasionally charged with the peace-
ful execution of the laws. His functions consist, above all, of overseeing in a general
manner the state of society, of enlightening the legislative body with his advice and
of providing for the accidental needs of the state.
[In the margin: in a way, the Governor participates in legislative power by the veto.
In executive power by the administrative council.
In France it is the same man who is charged.
Start with the extreme concentration of powers.
There are some countries where the legislative, administrative and judicial powers
are united.
There are some others where the legislative power is separate from the other two.
There are still others.]
Thus, it is not the Governor who is charged with using his authority to see that
the towns execute their duties faithfully and punctually. If the legislature orders the
opening of a canal or road, it is not generally the Governor who is charged with
supervising the projects. The legislative power, at the same time it votes the principle,
appoints special agents to supervise the execution.
But if an unforeseen danger emerges, if an enemy appears, if an armed revolt
breaks out, then the Governor truly represents the executive power of the State. He
commands and directs the police force.
In the accidental cases that I have just enumerated, the concentration of power
on a single head is an indispensable condition for the existence of societies; thus the
Governor of a state in America is the sole and absolute leader of the armed force.
But as for the daily, peaceful execution of the laws, powers are still divided to a
degree that our imagination can scarcely conceive.
[In the margin: Only it is not judicial strength that comes to add to administrative
strength. It is administrative strength that comes to join with judicial strength; now,
liberty never has to fear judicial strength./
Concentration of powers and administrative hierarchy are two synonymous words,
for where there is hierarchy you necessarily arrive at unity by moving upward.
Concentration of power is not a necessity so absolute./
Of the Political Effects of Administrative

Decentralization in the United States c
Distinction to establish between governmental centralization and
administrative centralization.—In the United States, no
I am beginning to believe that it is definitively the judicial power that administers.

In America, therefore, you arrive, in a round about way, at the union of administrative
and judicial powers.]
In order to understand this part of my subject well, I take the most robust indi-
vidual with whom the state would have to deal, that is to say the town, and I ask how
the town is made to obey the laws.
Here reread my town notes.
c. Letter of Édouard de Tocqueville to his brother, Alexis:
St Germain, 15 June [1834 (ed.)]./
I have read and examined your chapter very attentively, my dear friend; I send you
the notes and remarks that I have made about it, as well as some observations that I
have added to those of your father. All that you say about centralization is remarkable
and well considered, but this chapter, the last in this thick folder, will be the subject
of the most serious criticism from me.
The general tone of your work is serious, impartial, philosophical. You see things
there in too lofty a way for your expressions to reveal passion. We guess your opinion,
your sympathies, but you leave the need to conclude to the reader; you just accu-
mulate enough facts and reasons, leading to the conclusion you desire, to carry the
reader there inevitably; that is what a tightly reasoned work should do. The author
should stay behind the curtain and be content to produce conviction without insisting
upon it and saying: as for me, here is the conclusion that I draw from all this. This
personal opinion adds nothing to the strength of reasoning, and can harm it to the
extent that this perfect impartiality that inspires confidence is no longer seen in the
author. I find, therefore, that in this last chapter you are too much on stage; you enter
the lists armed with your personal opinion; you apply your principles to France; you
enter into politics; it is no longer simply logical, clear and profound deduction from
facts and institutions attentively studied that you present to the reader, but your own
ideas about these facts, these institutions, about their consequences and their appli-
cation. You judge, when the reader must be allowed to judge; you must only put all
the pieces of evidence before him. His good sense must do the rest, and it will do so
if your book is good.
Consider carefully that your book must not carry the date 1834, nor even the colors
of France; to live in posterity, it must be removed from the influences of time and
place.
To conclude: I believe that this chapter will be entirely as strong and stronger,
when you have cut from it all that reveals the polemical and when you content your-
administrative centralization, but very great governmental

centralization.—Some unfortunate effects that result in the
United States from the extreme administrative
decentralization.—Administrative advantages of this order of
things.—The force that administers society, less steady, less
enlightened, less skillful, very much greater than in Europe.—
Political advantages of the same order of things.—In the United
States, country makes itself felt everywhere.—Support that the
governed give to the government.—Provincial institutions more
necessary as the social state becomes more democratic.—Why.
Centralization is a word repeated constantly today, and, in general, no one
tries to clarify its meaning.
Two very distinct types of centralization exist, however, that are impor-
tant to know well.
Certain interests are common to all parts of the nation, such as the for-
mation of general laws and the relationships of the people with foreigners.
Other interests are special to certain parts of the nation, such as town
enterprises, for example.
To concentrate in the same place or in the same hands the power to direct
the first is to establish what I will call governmental centralization.d
self with saying what centralization or rather decentralization is in America; what its
effects, its action, its consequences are, without explaining what centralization has
been, is still, and what has produced and produces it in France. Certainly, it is a great
and interesting question, admirable to treat from the rostrum when you climb up
there, but your book, which raises a host of these questions, does not argue any of
them; why make an exception for this one?
Weigh these considerations.
Adieu, my dear friend, I embrace you with all my heart. Embrace maman for us.
Alexandrine and the children are very well (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 63–65).
d. “The power to have men and money, such in sum is governmental centralization”
(YTC, CVb, p. 12).
Beaumont thus summarizes the intervention of Tocqueville in favor of governmental
centralization during the session of the constitutional commission on 31 May 1848:
Tocqueville. Impossible to touch on centralization in its constituent and general prin-
ciples.—It is centralization that has saved France. Centralization is the power given
To concentrate in the same way the power to direct the second is to

establish what I will name administrative centralization.e
There are points at which these two types of centralization merge. But
by taking, as a whole, the matters that fall more particularly in the domain
of each of them, we easily manage to distinguish them.f
It is understood that governmental centralization acquires immense
strength when it is joined with administrative centralization. In this way,
it accustoms men to making a complete and continuous abstraction of their
will, to obeying, not once and on one point, but in everything and every
day. Then, not only does it subdue them by force, but also it captures them
by their habits; it isolates them and then, within the common mass, catches
hold of them, one by one.
These two types of centralization lend each other mutual aid, attract
each other; but I cannot believe that they are inseparable.
Under Louis XIV, France saw the greatest governmental centralization
that could be imagined, since the same man made general laws and had the
power to interpret them, represented France to the outside world and acted
in its name. L’Etat, c’est moi, he said; and he was right.g
to the State, the duty to do everything inside and outside that is of general interest
and is therefore in the interest of the State. The State must do everything in the
country that matters strongly to it, either in the department or in the town.
The State must not intervene in what interests only the locality (YTC, DIVk).
e. “Administrative centralization does not create strength within a nation, but des-
potism” (YTC, CVb, p. 25).
f. Variant: “<⫽The first, which I will call governmental centralization, is the concen-
tration in a single hand or in the same place of the great social powers. The power to
make the general laws and the strength to force obedience to them. The direction of the
foreign affairs of the State and the means to succeed in them.
The second type of centralization, which I will name administrative centralization,
is the concentration in a single hand or in the same place of the power to regulate the
ordinary affairs of society, to rule the diverse parts of the State in the direction of their
special affairs and to be in charge of the daily details of their existence.⫽>”
g. “In France the administrative power has been placed at the center, not because it
was in itself more useful there, perhaps the opposite, but in order to increase political
power, which is different” (YTC, CVb, p. 10).
Under Louis XIV, however, there was much less administrative central-
ization than today.h
h. In the essay on the French administration drafted in response to the request for
information from his son, Hervé de Tocqueville remarks:
In the state of things as set up by the charter of 1814, the King is present everywhere.
He has command over individual wills in order to unite them against the common
danger. His action makes itself felt in all parts of the administration. Without him,
it can do nothing; it moves if he allows; it stops when he so commands. We still do
not know what the consequences will be of the notable changes that have taken place
since 1830. Will not the principle of election introduced into the formation of all the
conseils inspire in the provincial bodies pretensions of independence that are difficult
to suppress; and will not this same principle applied to the nomination of officers of
the national guard harm the passive obedience imposed on this armed force for public
security? The newspapers that call themselves royalist ask for the reestablishment of
the old provinces and insist daily on the creation of provincial assemblies that would
be charged with the direction of local affairs. It is probable that these assemblieswould
tend constantly to increase their own power and that France would soon be no more
than a vast federation, the weakest of governments, in the middle of the compact
monarchies that surround it (YTC, CIIIe, pp. 38–39).
After having praised the effects of centralization on the accountability of the French
towns, he adds:
The tutelage of the King is excellent because it prevents poorly planned undertakings,
useless or superfluous expenditures and the waste of funds. But one wonders if it has
not gone too far, or rather if it is not surrounded by too many formalities. It seems
that a part of the things that must be submitted to the ministry of the interior could
be decided by the provincial authority (Ibid., p. 40).
And further along:
It will be concluded from what precedes that, if centralization has become a little too
extensive in the relations between superior and inferior authorities, it becomes dif-
ficult to bear, above all, when it is exerted over the portion of private interests that
are discussed and regulated administratively. In summary, it is useful to keep the
tutelage of the administration in what concerns administrative expenditures. . . .
Royal intervention in the affairs of the towns should be limited to the authorization
to sell, acquire, exchange and borrow. Then again, small loans could be authorized
by the prefect (Ibid., pp. 41–42).
It is difficult to establish the precise influence that the report of the author’s father,
the letters of Chabrol and Blosseville, the conversations and correspondence with Sparks
had on the formation of Tocqueville’s ideas on centralization. If all of this material was
able to help him clarify several points, it seems that his ideas on centralization date at
least from the first days of his journey on American territory.
In a letter to his father of 3 June 1831, that is, four months before asking for help,
In our time, we see a power, England, where governmental centralization

is carried to a very high degree; the State there seems to move like a single
man; at will, it rouses immense masses, gathers and delivers, wherever it
wants, the utmost of its strength.
England, which has done such great things for the last fifty years, does
not have administrative centralization.
For my part, I cannot imagine that a nation could live or, above all,
prosper without strong governmental centralization.
Tocqueville already referred to centralization: “All that there is of good in centralization

seems to be as unknown as what there is of bad; no central idea seems to regulate the
movement of the machine” (OCB, VII, p. 21). The theme is found again a month later
in a letter also addressed to his father:
Here, moreover, the central government is hardly anything. It is involved only with
what relates to the state as a whole; the localities arrange their affairs all by themselves.
That is how they have made the republic practicable. Everywhere individualambition
finds a small center of action at hand where its activity is exercised without danger
for the state. I imagine that if the Bourbons, instead of fearing the organization of
the towns, had sought little by little, from the beginning of the Restoration, to give
importance to the localities, they would have had less difficulty struggling against the
mass of passions that were raised against them (Albany, 4 July 1831, YTC, BIa2).
Two months before meeting Sparks, 29 June 1831, he had written to Louis de Kergorlay
in nearly identical terms (Correspondance avec Kergorlay, OC, XIII, I, pp. 233–34). See
George W. Pierson, Tocqueville and Beaumont in America, p. 363; and James T. Schleifer,
The Making of Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America,” pp. 122–23. See note q for p. 150.
Tocqueville returns to this subject in his report on Algeria (Écrits et discours politiques,
OC, III, 1, especially pp. 331–38). There he denounces an excess of administrative cen-
tralization and a lack of political centralization. Algeria opens to Tocqueville a potential
for political creativity in which he envisions using the theoretical tools forged in America.
More than once, Tocqueville encounters in French Africa situations entirely similar to
those at the beginning of the American colonies. His intervention in parliament retains
a certain transatlantic flavor easy to detect. The project of buying land in Algeria with
Kergorlay, which would come to nothing, is there to attest to his interest in the colony.
See the reports and parliamentary interventions, published in the Moniteur Universel,
24 and 25 May, and 1, 9, 10, 11, and 12 June 1847 (reproduced in OCB, IX, pp. 423–512,
and in Écrits et discours politiques, OC, III, 1, pp. 308–409). His travel notes and other
writings on Algeria also contain numerous references to centralization and to other
American subjects. Cf. note f for p. 1210 of volume II.
But I think that administrative centralization is suitable only to enervate

the peoples who submit to it, because it constantly tends to diminish the
spirit of citizenship in them.j Administrative centralization, it is true, suc-
ceeds in gathering at a given time and in a certain place all the available
forces of a nation, but it is harmful to the multiplication of those forces.
It brings the nation victory on the day of battle and over time reduces its
power. So it can work admirably toward the passing greatness of a man,
not toward the lasting prosperity of a people.k [<⫽I see there an element
of despotism, but not of lasting national strength [in pencil: that would
be].⫽>]
You must be very careful; when someone says that a State is unable to
act because it has no centralization, he is, without knowing it, almost always
talking about governmental centralization.m The German empire, it is said
repeatedly, has never been able to gain all that it possibly could from its
forces. Agreed. But why? Because national force has never been centralized
there; because the State has never been able to compel obedience to its gen-
eral laws; because the separate parts of this great body have always had the
right or the possibility to refuse their support to the agents of the common
authority, even in what concerned all citizens; in other words, because there
was no governmental centralization. The same remark applies to the Mid-
dle Ages. What produced all the miseries of feudal society was that the
power, not only to administer, but also to govern, was divided among a
thousand hands and fragmented in a thousand ways; the absence of any
governmental centralization then prevented the nations of Europe from
moving with energy toward any goal.
j. In the manuscript: “. . . to diminish the number of citizens. . . .”

k. In the manuscript: “. . . the greatness of a man, but not that of the State.”
Gustave de Beaumont:
False idea. Administrative centralization, by the effects that are concerned here, can
work toward the greatness of the State just as toward that of a man, for this greatness
can depend on a great battle that might have been lost without administrative cen-
tralization. Only, it is an obstacle to lasting greatness. As I do not know if the author
agrees and do not know what idea he will adopt, I am not occupying myself with the
writing (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 76).
m. The same idea appears in Beaumont, Irlande, vol. II, pp. 157–59.
[⫽Moreover, like nearly all the harmful things of this world, adminis-
trative centralization is easily established and, once organized, can hardly
ever be destroyed again except with the social body itself.n
When all the governmental force of a nation is gathered at one point, it
is always easy enough for an enterprising genius to create administrative
centralization. We ourselves have seen this phenomenon take place before
our eyes. The Convention had centralized government to the highest de-
gree, and Bonaparte needed only to will it in order to centralize the ad-
ministration. It is true that for centuries in France our habits, mores and
laws had always worked simultaneously toward the establishment of an
intelligent and enlightened despotism.[*]
Once administrative centralization has lasted for a time, should the
power that established it sincerely desire to destroy it, that same power al-
most always finds itself unable to bring about its ruin.
In fact, administrative centralization assumes a skillful organization of
authority; it forms a complicated machine in which all the gears fit together
and offer mutual support.
When the law-maker undertakes to scatter this administrative power
that he has concentrated in a single place, he does not know where to begin,
because he cannot remove one piece of the mechanism without disrupting
the whole thing. At each moment, he sees that either nothing must be
changed or everything; but what hand, so foolhardy, would dare to smash
with one blow the administrative machinery of a great people?
To attempt it would be to invite disorder and confusion into the State.
The art of administration is assuredly a science, and peoples do not have
more innate knowledge than individuals do. Delivered to itself without any
transition, society would almost entirely cease to be administered.
Moreover, one of the greatest misfortunes of despotism is that it creates
in the soul of the men submitted to it a kind of depraved taste for tran-
quillity and obedience, a sort of self-contempt, that ends by making them
n. In the margin: “⫽Perhaps all of that to delete as irrelevant.⫽”

[*]. “⫽Truthfully, in France, the provinces have never administered themselves; it was
always the authority of one man that was exercised and that regulated, directly or in-
directly, all the affairs of society. Only, the administrative range was limited; the Rev-
olution of 1789 just extended it.⫽”
indifferent to their interests and enemies of their own rights. In nothing,

however, is it more necessary for the governed themselves to show a definite
and sustained will.
Nearly all the passionate and ambitious men who talk about centrali-
zation lack a real desire to destroy it. What happened to the Praetorians
happens to them; they willingly suffer the tyranny of the emperor in the
hope of gaining the empire. So decentralization, like liberty, is something
that the leaders of the people promise, but that they never deliver. In order
to gain and keep it, nations can count only on their own efforts; and if they
themselves do not have a taste for it, the evil is without remedy.
Surprisingly, the same corporations, in whose name the power of self-
administration has been passionately claimed, are often seen to accept with-
out enthusiasm the portion of power granted to them and to show them-
selves almost eager to lay it down again, like a useless and heavy burden.⫽]o
We have seen that in the United States no administrative centralization
existed. Scarcely a trace of hierarchy is found there. Decentralization there
has been carried to a point that no European nation could bear, I think,
without a profound uneasiness, and that, even in America, produces un-
fortunate effects. But, in the United States, governmental centralization
exists to the highest degree. It would be easy to prove that national [sic:
state] power is more concentrated there than it has been in any of the old
monarchies of Europe. Not only is there just a single body in each state
that makes laws; not only is there just a single power able to create political
life around it; but in general, the Americans have avoided bringing together
numerous district or county assemblies for fear that these assemblies would
be tempted to move beyond their administrative attributions and hinder
the movement of the government. In America the legislature of each state
is faced by no power capable of resisting it. Nothing can stop it in its tracks,
neither privileges, nor local immunity, nor personal influence, not even the
authority of reason, for it represents the majority that claims to be the only
o. In the margin: “<{To review the part on centralization and perhaps shorten it.
Advice of Beau[mont (ed.)].}>”
instrument of reason. So it has no limit to its action other than its own
will. Next to it and close at hand is found the representative of the executive
power who, with the aid of physical force, has to compel the discontent to
obey.p
Weakness is found only in certain details of governmental action.
The American republics do not have a permanent armed force to sup-
press minorities, but up to now minorities there have never been reduced
to starting a war; and the need for an army has not yet been felt.q Most
often, the state uses town or county officials to act upon the citizens. Thus,
for example, in New England, it is the town assessor who apportions the
tax; the town tax collector levies it; the town treasurer makes sure that the
tax revenue goes into the public treasury; and complaints that arise are sub-
mitted to the ordinary courts. Such a way to collect taxes is slow and awk-
ward; at every instant it would hinder the movement of a government that
had great pecuniary needs. In general, for everything essential to its exis-
p. In the manuscript: “Next to it and close at hand is found an executive power,

absolute head of physical force, to compel the minorities to obedience.”
q. In a letter to Ernest de Chabrol, Tocqueville explained:
All the offices, like all the registers, have been open to us, but as for the government,
we are still looking for it. It does not really exist at all. The legislature regulates ev-
erything that is of general interest; the municipalities have the rest.
The advantage of this arrangement is to interest each locality very actively in its
own affairs and greatly to feed political activity. But the disadvantage, even in Amer-
ica, seems to me to be to deprive the administration of any kind of uniformity, to
make general measures impossible and to give to all useful enterprises a character of
instability that you cannot imagine.
We are, above all, in a position to notice these effects of the lack of centralization
in what relates to the prisons: nothing fixed, nothing certain in their discipline; men
replace each other; with them, the systems; the methods of administration change
with each administrator, because no central authority exists that can give everything
a common direction.
The United States must thank heaven that until now they have been placed in such
a way that they have no need for standing armies, for police or for skillful and sus-
tained foreign policy. If one of these three needs ever presents itself, you can predict
without being a prophet that they will lose their liberty or concentrate power more
and more (Auburn, 16 July 1831, YTC, BIa2).
tence, you would want the government to have officials of its own, chosen
and removable by it, and to have ways to move ahead rapidly; but it will
always be easy for the central power, organized as it is in America, to in-
troduce more energetic and effective means of action, as needed.[*]
So it is not, as is often repeated, because there is no centralization in the
United States, that the republics of the New World will perish.r It can be
asserted that the American governments, very far from not being centralized
enough, are centralized too much; I will prove it later. Each day the legis-
lative assemblies devour some of the remains of governmental powers; they
tend to gather them all unto themselves, just as the Convention did.s The
social power, thus centralized, constantly changes hands, because it is sub-
ordinate to popular power. Often it happens to lack wisdom and foresight,
because it can do everything. That is where the danger to it is found. So it
is because of its very strength, and not as a result of its weakness, that the
social power is threatened with perishing one day.t
[*]. The creation of paid and standing military bodies to suppress or to prevent in-
surrections has already happened in Massachusetts and in Pennsylvania. See Federalist,
p. 115 [No. 28 (ed.)].
r. Variant in a draft: “. . . but because the central power is constantly in different
hands and is subordinated to popular power, a power eminently variable by nature and,
for this reason, incapable of governing society for long” (YTC, CVb, p. 1).
s. In a first version, under a paper glued into place: “{Executive power is nothing while
remaining in their hands. This is, moreover, an inherent weakness in completely [un-
certain reading (ed.)] democratic government. See the Federalist, p. 213 [No. 48 (ed.)].}”
t. In the margin:
⫽When a people renounces the centralization of power, the need for administrative
courts is felt; now, I admit that it is always with terror that I see the administration
and the judicial system concentrated in the same hands. Of all tyrannies, the worst
is the one that covers itself in legal forms. Administrative courts, once subservient,
seem to me one of the most fearsome instruments of despotism.⫽
Recall the words of Montesquieu: “No tyranny is more cruel than the one you exercise
under the cloak of the laws and with the colors of justice: when, so to speak, you drown
the unfortunate on the very plank on which they were saved.” Considérations sur les causes
de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, in Œuvres complètes (Paris: Pléiade, 1951),
II, chapter XIV, p. 144. Cf. note o for p. 1228 of the second volume.
Administrative decentralization produces several diverse effects in

America.
We have seen that the Americans had almost entirely isolated adminis-
tration from government; in that, they seem to me to have gone beyond
the limits of healthy reason, because order, even in secondary things, is still
a national interest.49
The state has no administrative officials of its own, who are placed in
permanent posts at different points of the territory and to whom it can give
a common impulse; the result is that it rarely attempts to establish general
rules of public order. Now, the need for these rules makes itself sharply
felt. The European often notices their absence. This appearance of disorder,
which reigns on the surface, persuades him, at first view, that there is com-
plete anarchy in the society; it is only by examining things in depth that he
corrects his error.
[This absence of national (v: central) administration often prevents the
different states from engaging in certain undertakings of a general interest,
the execution of which would present great difficulties if handed over to
the localities and left to temporary and special agents. Besides, it is always
to be feared that, without a permanent authority to centralize and supervise,
the work, once done, might self-destruct.
As for differences that would make themselves felt between the admin-
istrative principles of one portion of the territory and those of another,
differences that would be very great in Europe are not noticeable in Amer-
ica. The states are not so vast as to present examples; and above all, their
population is too perfectly homogeneous and too enlightened for these dif-
ferences to be lasting. All the counties, moreover, are forced to obey general
laws that are the same for each of them.
49. The authority that represents the state, even when it does not itself administer, must
not, I think, relinquish the right to inspect local administration. I suppose, for example, that
a government agent, placed at a set post in each county, might refer crimes that are committed
in the towns and in the county to the judiciary. In this case, would not orderly organization
be more uniformly followed without compromising the independence of the localities? Now,
nothing like this exists in America. Above the county courts, there is nothing; and in a way,
only by chance are these courts made officially aware of administrative crimes that they must
suppress.
⫽I recognize as well that in America the views that direct the adminis-
tration are rarely permanent. It is difficult to decentralize administrative
power without putting a portion of it back into the hands of the people;
and the people never proceed except by momentary efforts and sudden
impulses.
I come to the great objection that has been made from time immemorial
to the system of administrative decentralization, the objection that encom-
pass [sic ] all of the others.⫽
The partisans of centralization in Europe . . . ]
Certain enterprises interest the entire state and yet cannot be carried out
because there is no national [sic: state] administration to direct them. Aban-
doned to the care of the towns and counties, left to elected and temporary
agents, they lead to no result or produce nothing lasting.
The partisans of centralization in Europe maintain that governmental
power administers the localities better than they would be able to admin-
ister themselves. Perhaps that is true, when the central power is enlightened,
and the localities are not; when it is active, and they are passive; when it is
in the habit of taking action, and they are in the habit of obeying. You can
even understand that the more centralization increases, the more this dou-
ble tendency grows; and the capacity of the one and incapacity of the other
become more striking.
But I deny that this is so when the people are enlightened, alert to their
interests, and accustomed to consider them as they do in America.
I am persuaded, on the contrary, that in this case the collective strength
of the citizens will always be more powerful for producing social well-being
than the authority of the government.
I admit that it is difficult to indicate with certainty how to awaken a
people who are asleep, how to give them the passions and enlightenment
that they lack. To persuade men that they should take charge of their own
affairs is, I am aware, a difficult enterprise. Often it would be less awkward
to interest them in the details of court etiquette than in the repair of their
town hall [{and I would conclude, if you want, that there are certain nations
[v: peoples] who cannot do without despotism.}].
But I also think that when the central administration claims to replace
completely the free participation of those who have the primary interest,
it is mistaken or wants to deceive you.
A central power, as enlightened, as skillful as can be imagined, cannot
by itself encompass all the details of the life of a great people. It cannot,
because such a task exceeds human power. When, on its own, it wants to
create and put into operation so many different mechanisms, it either con-
tents itself with a very incomplete result or exhausts itself in useless efforts.
Centralization easily manages, it is true, to subject the outward actions
of men to a certain uniformity that is ultimately loved for itself, apart from
the things to which it is applied; like the devout who worship the statue,
forgetting the divinity it represents. Centralization succeeds without dif-
ficulty in imparting a steady appearance to everyday affairs; in skillfully
dictating the details of social order; in suppressing slight disturbances and
small transgressions; in maintaining society in a status quo which is not
exactly either decadence or progress; in keeping a kind of administrative
somnolence in the social body that administrators customarily call good
order and public tranquillity.50 In a word, it excels at preventing, not at
doing. When it is a matter of profoundly shaking society or moving it rap-
idly, centralization loses its strength. As soon as its measures need the sup-
port of individuals, you are totally surprised by the weakness of this im-
mense machine; it suddenly finds itself reduced to impotence.
Then sometimes centralization, in desperation, tries to call citizens to its
aid. But it says to them: “You will act as I want, as long as I want, and exactly
in the way that I want. You will take charge of these details without aspiring
to direct the whole; you will work in the shadows, and later you will judge
my work by its results.” Under such conditions you do not gain the support
50. China seems to me to offer the most perfect symbol of the type of social well-being that
can be provided by a very centralized administration to the people who submit to it. Travelers
tell us that the Chinese have tranquillity without happiness, industry without progress, sta-
bility without strength, physical order without public morality. Among them, society functions
always well enough, never very well. I imagine that when China opens to Europeans, the latter
will find there the most beautiful model of administrative centralization that exists in the
universe.
of human will, which requires liberty in its ways, responsibility in its ac-
tions. Man is made so that he prefers remaining immobile to moving with-
out independence toward an unknown end.u
[During the almost forty years that we in France have completed the
system of administrative centralization, what great improvement has been
introduced into the state of the civilization of the people? Who would com-
pare our social progress to that of the English during the same period? But,
centralization does not exist in England.]
I will not deny that in the United States you often regret the lack of
those uniform rules that seem constantly to watch over each of us.
From time to time, great examples of unconcern and of social negligence
are found there. Here and there crude blemishes appear that seem com-
pletely at odds with the surrounding civilization.
Useful undertakings that require constant care and rigorous exactitude
in order to succeed often end up being abandoned; for in America, as else-
where, the people proceed by momentary efforts and sudden impulses.v
The European, accustomed to finding an official constantly at hand who
gets involved in nearly everything, becomes used to these different mech-
anisms of town administration with difficulty. In general it can be said that
the small details of social order that make life pleasant and easy are ne-
glected in America; but the guarantees essential to man in society exist there
as much as everywhere else. Among the Americans, the force that admin-
isters the State is much less stable, less enlightened, less skillful, but is one
hundred times greater than in Europe. When all is said and done, there is
no country in the world where men make as many efforts to create social
well-being. I know of no people who have managed to establish schools so
numerous and so effective; churches more appropriate to the religious needs
of the inhabitants; town roads better maintained. So, in the United States,
do not look for uniformity and permanence of views, minute attention to
u. To the side, in the manuscript: “⫽Louis advises placing this elsewhere, but
where?⫽”
v. In the margin: “⫽{The small details of} social {order} are generally neglected, but
in short the guarantees essential to man in society exist as much in America as everywhere
else.⫽”
details, perfection in administrative procedures.51 What is found there is

the image of strength, a little wild, it is true, but full of power; of life,
accompanied by accidents, but also by activities and efforts.x
I will admit, moreover, if you want, that the villages and counties of the
United States would be administered more profitably by a central authority
that was located far from them and remained unknown to them, than by
officials drawn from within. I will acknowledge, if you insist, that more
security would reign in America, that wiser and more judicious use of social
resources would be made there, if the administration of the entire country
were concentrated in a single hand. The political advantages that the Amer-
icans gain from the system of decentralization would still make me prefer
it to the opposite system.
51. A talented writer who, in a comparison between the finances of the United States and
those of France, proved that the mind could not always make up for knowledge of facts, rightly
reproaches the Americans for a type of confusion that prevails in their town budgets; and,
after giving the model of a departmental budget in France, he adds: “Thanks to centralization,
admirable creation of a great man [which is slandered without knowing it (ed.)], municipal
budgets, from one end of the kingdom to the other, those of the largest cities, like those of the
most humble towns, show the same order and method.” w That, certainly, is a result that I
admire; but I see most of these French towns, whose accounts are so perfect, plunged into a
profound ignorance of their true interests and given over to an apathy so invincible, that society
there seems rather to vegetate than to live; on the other hand, I notice in these same American
towns, whose budgets are not drawn up according to methodical or, above all, uniform plans,
an enlightened, active, enterprising population; there I gaze upon a society always at work.
This spectacle astonishes me; for in my eyes the principal end of a good government is to produce
the well-being of peoples and not to establish a certain order in the midst of their misery. So
I wonder if it would not be possible to attribute to the same cause the prosperity of the Amer-
ican town and the apparent disorder of its finances, the distress of the French town and the
perfection of its budget. In any case, I distrust a good that I find intermingled with so much
evil, and I am easily consoled about an evil that is offset by so much good.
w. Sébastien L. Saulnier, “Nouvelles observations sur les finances des États-Unis, en
réponse à une brochure publié par le Général La Fayette,” Revue Britannique, n. s., 8,
October 1831, pp. 195–260), p. 239. On this article and the polemic over American fi-
nances, see note j for pp. 349–50.
x. “The admirable effect of republican governments (where they can subsist) is not
to present a glimpse of regularity, of methodical order in the administration of a people,
but the picture of life. Liberty does not carry out each of its enterprises with the same
perfection as intelligent despotism, but in the long run, it produces more than intelligent
despotism” (pocket notebook 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 184).
So what, after all, if there is an authority always at the ready, [{that muz-
zles dogs [v: waters public walkways] during the heat wave, that breaks up
river ice during the winter}] that makes sure that my pleasures are peaceful,
that flies before my steps to turn all dangers aside without the need for me
even to think about them; if this authority, at the same time that it removes
the smallest thorn from my route, is absolute master of my liberty and life;
if it monopolizes movement and existence to such a degree that everything
around it must languish when it languishes, sleep when it sleeps, perish if
it dies?
There are such nations in Europe where the inhabitant considers himself
a sort of settler, indifferent to the destiny of the place where he lives. The
greatest changes occur in his country without his participation; he does not
even know precisely what happened; he surmises; he has heard about the
event by chance. Even more, the fortune of his village, the policing of his
street, the fate of his church and his presbytery have nothing to do with
him; he thinks that all these things are of no concern to him whatsoever,
and that they belong to a powerful stranger called the government. [v: At
each moment, you think you hear him say: what concern is this to me; it
is the business of the authorities to provide for all of this, not mine.] As
for him, he enjoys these benefits like a usufructuary, without a sense of
ownership and without ideas of any improvement whatsoever. This dis-
interestedness in himself goes so far that if his own security or that of his
children is finally compromised, instead of working himself to remove the
danger, he crosses his arms to wait until the entire nation comes to his aid.
Moreover, this man, even though he has so completely sacrificed his own
free will, likes to obey no more than anyone else. He submits, it is true, to
the will of a clerk; but, like a defeated enemy, he likes to defy the law as
soon as power withdraws. Consequently, you see him oscillate constantly
between servitude and license.
When nations have reached this point, they must modify their laws and
mores or perish, for the source of public virtues has dried up; subjects are
still found there, but citizens are seen no more.
I say that such nations are prepared for conquest. If they do not vanish
from the world stage, it is because they are surrounded by similar or inferior
nations. It is because within them there still remains a kind of indefinable
patriotic instinct, I do not know what unthinking pride in the name that
the nation carries. It is because there still remains I do not know what vague
memory of past glory, not precisely linked to anything, but enough to im-
part an impulse of preservation as needed.
You would be wrong to reassure yourself by thinking that certain peoples
have made prodigious efforts to defend a native land where, so to speak,
they lived as strangers. Be very careful here, and you will see that in that
case religion was almost always their principal motive.
For them, the duration, glory or prosperity of the nation had become
sacred dogmas, and by defending their native land, they also defended this
holy city in which they were all citizens.
The Turkish populations have never taken any part in the direction of
the affairs of society; they accomplished immense enterprises, however, as
long as they saw the triumph of the religion of Mohammed in the con-
quests of the Sultans. Today religion is disappearing; despotism alone re-
mains for them; they are in decline.y
y. Original version in one of the drafts:

There are peoples living under despotism who have a great sentiment of nationality,
however; you see them making immense sacrifices to save a native land where they
live without interests and without rights.
But then be very careful here; for them, it is always religion which takes the place
of patriotism.
For them, the duration, glory or prosperity of the nation is a religious dogma. By
defending their country, they defend this holy city in which they are all citizens.
The Turkish populations have never taken any part in the direction of the affairs
of society. They accomplished immense things, however, as long as they saw the
triumph of the religion of Mohammed in the conquests of the Sultan. Today religion
is disappearing; only despotism remains for them, and they are in decline.
The Russian, who does not even have an interest in the land on which he was born,
is one of the bravest soldiers of Europe; and he burns his house and harvest to ruin
the enemy. But it is the Holy Empire that he defends, and when he dies for his coun-
try, heaven opens and his reward is ready.
Despotic governments are made formidable when the peoples they direct are trans-
formed by a religious enthusiasm. Then the unity of power, instead of harming the
social power, does nothing more than direct it; nations in this condition have the
strength of free peoples, without the disadvantages of liberty. Forces are combined
and there is a single direction. Their impact is nearly irresistible. . . . Then a strange
thing happens: the harder and more oppressive the government, the more it does
Montesquieu, by giving despotism a strength of its own, gave it, I think,

an honor that it did not deserve. Despotism, all by itself, can sustain noth-
ing lasting. When you look closely, you notice that what made absolute
governments prosper for a long time was religion, and not fear.
No matter what, you will never find true power among men except in
the free participation of wills.z Now, in the world, only patriotism or re-
great things; the more unfortunate the nation, the more it makes the effort to protect
a soil that it does not possess; the less these men cling to life, the better they defend
it. It is not with this world in view that religious people act in this way; and the more
miserable they are, the more easily they die. . . .
Montesquieu, by giving despotism a lasting strength, gave it an honor that it does
not deserve. Despotism is something so bad by nature that, all by itself, it can neither
create nor maintain anything. Fear, all by itself, can only serve for a while.
When you look closely, you notice that what makes absolute governments last and
act is religion, and not fear; religion, principle of strength that they use, but that is
not in them. When a nation still enslaved ceases to be religious, there is no human
means to keep it bundled together for long.
In summary, I am profoundly convinced that there is no lasting strength except
in the collaboration of human wills. So to apply this force to the preservation of
societies, men must have an interest in this world or the other (YTC, CVe, pp. 55–
57).
Tocqueville defends the preeminence of social and intellectual habits over laws; it is
therefore inevitable that he finds Montesquieu’s idea of despotism based far too much
on legal criteria. The author seems to be more concerned with the problems envisioned
by Montesquieu than with the solutions he proposes, which does not, for all that, reduce
the influence of the author of Esprit des lois. Nonetheless, Kergorlay denies a stylistic
influence of Montesquieu on his friend (“Étude littéraire sur Alexis de Tocqueville,”
Correspondant 52 (1861): 758–59): “I would not go so far as to say that Tocqueville never,
at any period of his literary life, sought in Montesquieu some models to follow. But it
was only in a quite secondary manner, not very lasting and not very effective.” On the
other hand, Kergorlay recognizes the influence of Pascal, Voltaire and La Bruyère. On
the influence of Montesquieu, see Melvin Richter, “Modernity and Its Distinctive
Threats to Liberty: Montesquieu and Tocqueville on New Forms of Illegitimate Domi-
nation,” in Michael Hereth and Jutta Höffken, eds., Alexis de Tocqueville. Zur Politik in
der Demokratie, Baden Baden: Nomos, 1981, pp. 362–98.
z. Édouard de Tocqueville: “How did Louis XIV, Peter the Great, Frederick, Bon-
aparte, not give great power to their nations? And with them what became of the free
collaboration of wills?” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 113).
ligion can make the totality of citizens march for long toward the same
goal.
It does not depend on the laws to revive beliefs that are fading; but it
does depend on the laws to interest men in the destinies of their country.
It depends on the laws to awaken and to direct that vague patriotic instinct
that never leaves the human heart, and, by linking it to thoughts, passions,
daily habits, to make it into a thoughtful and lasting sentiment. And do
not say that it is too late to try; nations do not grow old in the same way
that men do. Each generation born within the nation is like a new people
who comes to offer itself to the hand of the law-maker.
What I admire most in America are not the administrative effects of
decentralization, but its political effects. In the United States, country
makes itself felt everywhere. It is an object of solicitude from the village to
the whole Union. The inhabitant becomes attached to each of the interests
of his country as to his very own. He glories in the glory of the nation; in
the successes that it achieves, he believes that he recognizes his own work,
and he rises with them; he rejoices in the general prosperity that benefits
him. For his country, he has a sentiment analogous to that you feel for your
family, and it is even by a kind of egoism that he is interested in the State.
Often the European sees in the public official only force; the American
sees the law. So it can be said that in America, a man never obeys a man,
but obeys justice or the law.
Consequently, he has conceived an often exaggerated, but almost always
salutary opinion of himself. Without fear, he relies on his own powers that
seem to him all sufficient. An individual conceives the idea of some enter-
prise; even if this enterprise has some direct connection with the well-being
of society, it does not occur to him to address himself to public authority
to gain its support. He makes his plan known, offers to carry it out, calls
other individual powers to his aid, and struggles hand-to-hand against all
obstacles. Often, doubtlessly, he succeeds less than if the State took his
place; but in the long run the general result of all of these individual un-
dertakings surpasses by a great deal what the government would be able to
accomplish.a
a. The example was provided to Tocqueville by Mr. Quincy, President of Harvard

Since administrative authority is placed next to the administered, and

in a way represents them, it excites neither jealousy nor hate. Since its means
of action are limited, each person feels that he cannot rely on it alone.
So when the administrative power intervenes within the circle of its at-
tributions, it does not find itself alone, as in Europe. No one believes that
the duties of individuals have ceased because the public representative hap-
pens to act. On the contrary, each person guides, supports and sustains him.
By joining the action of individual powers with the action of social pow-
ers, you often succeed in doing what the most concentrated and energetic
administration would be unable to carry out.I
I could cite many facts to support what I am advancing; but I prefer to
present only one and to choose the one I know best.
In America, the means put at the disposal of authority to uncover crimes
and to pursue criminals are few.
Police control does not exist; passports are unknown. Officers of the
court in the United States cannot be compared to ours. The agents of the
public prosecutor’s office are few; [they do not communicate with each
other;] they do not always have the right to initiate legal proceedings; pre-
liminary investigation is rapid and oral. I doubt, however, that, in any coun-
try, crime as rarely escapes punishment.
The reason for it is that everyone believes himself interested in providing
proof of the crime and in catching the offender.
I saw, during my stay in the United States, the inhabitants of a county,
where a great crime had been committed, spontaneously form committees
for the purpose of pursuing the guilty party and delivering him to the
courts.
In Europe, the criminal is an unfortunate who is fighting to hide from
the agents of power; the population in a way helps in the struggle. In Amer-
ica, he is an enemy of the human species, and he has all of humanity against
him.
University, 20 September 1831 (non-alphabetic notebooks 1 and 2, YTC, BIIa, and Voy-
age, OC, V, 1, pp. 89–90).
I believe provincial institutions useful to all peoples; but none seems to

me to have a more real need for these institutions than the one whose social
state is democratic.
In an aristocracy, a certain order is sure to be maintained in the midst
of liberty.
Since those who govern have a great deal to lose, order has a great interest
for them.
In an aristocracy, it can be said as well that the people are sheltered from
the excesses of despotism, because organized forces are always found, ready
to resist the despot.
A democracy without provincial institutions possesses no guarantee
against similar evils.
How can a multitude that has not learned how to make use of liberty
in small things, be made to support it in larger ones?
How to resist tyranny in a country where each individual is weak, and
where individuals are united by no common interest?
So those who are afraid of license and those who fear absolute power
must equally desire the gradual development of provincial liberties.b
I am convinced, moreover, that there are no nations more at risk of fall-
ing under the yoke of administrative centralization than those whose social
state is democratic.
Several causes lead to this result, but among others, these:
The permanent tendency of these nations is to concentrate all govern-
mental power in the hands of the single power that directly represents the
people, because, beyond the people, nothing more is seen except equal in-
dividuals merged into a common mass.
b. Once a man has contracted the habit of obeying a foreign and arbitrary will in
nearly all the actions of his life, and notably in those that come closest to the human
heart, how do you expect him to conceive a true taste for great political liberty and
independence in general actions?
Town institutions not only give the art of using great political liberty, but they bring
about the true taste for liberty. Without them, the taste for political liberty comes over
peoples like childish desires or the hotheadedness of a young man that the first ob-
stacle extinguishes and calms (YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 1–2; the same fragment is found,
almost word for word, in YTC, CVe, p. 61).
Now, when the same power is already vested with all the attributes of
government, it is highly difficult for it not to try to get into the details of
administration [{so you often see democratic peoples simultaneously es-
tablish liberty and the instruments of despotism}]; and it hardly ever fails
to find eventually the opportunity to do so. We have witnessed it among
ourselves.
[⫽If we shift our view to times closer to us, we see a strange confusion
prevailing in most of the States of Europe. Kings descend into the admin-
istration of {the narrowest communal interests}.⫽]c
In the French Revolution,d there were two opposing movements that
must not be confused: one favorable to liberty, the other favorable to
despotism.e
c. In the margin: “⫽That is, you have wanted to make a city without citizens, a re-
public with subjects [v: servants] submitted to a clerk [v: and transform servants of a
clerk into republicans] [v: and place the spirit of liberty in the very midst of servitude].”
On the idea of citizenship as participation, see Doris S. Goldstein, “Alexis de Tocque-
ville’s Concept of Citizenship,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 108, no.
1 (1964): 39–53.
d. “Ask Mr. Feuillet if there is a book that can give basic ideas about the French
constitution in 1789” (YTC, CVb, p. 33). Feuillet was the librarian at the Bibliothèque
Royale. See note v for pp. 1110–13 of the second volume.
e. Of centralization./
When you speak about centralization you are constantly struggling in the shadows
because you have not made the distinction that I established above between govern-
mental centralization and administrative centralization.
You blame or praise without knowing why.
There are people who cite as one of the advantages of centralization the estab-
lishment of the present system where everything ends at a supreme court. As one of
the proofs of the evils caused by decentralization, they cite the old system of parle-
ments. They do not see that the system of parlements was a gross abuse and not a
natural consequence of the system of decentralization. If there is one thing in the
world that is a national necessity, it is the unity of law. For the law to be one, two
things are needed: 1. that it comes from a single authority, 2. that it is interpreted by
a single authority. For to interpret the law is, in a way, to make it again. That is how
all the American republics have understood it.
A judicial system where seventeen sovereign courts can interpret the same law at
the same time, on the same question, in seventeen different ways is a political mon-
strosity.1 For a nation to bear such a division of the judicial system without itself
dividing, all the real power in the nation must be in hands other than judicial ones.
That is what happened in France, where the King easily made his will prevail over
the courts in all things that essentially concerned politics and acutely interested the
State, and where he let anarchy reign only on secondary points that did not matter
much to the general course of public affairs. That was a necessary cure, but one almost
as bad as the illness. Interpretation, instead of being made by a central judicial power,
was made by a (illegible word) council [v: power]. France of the old regime, already
much too centralized relative to several objects, was evidently not centralized enough
on the former. And when the partisans of decentralization stand on this ground, they
are wrong. They defend what they should concede at the beginning.
What has caused our greatest misfortunes in France is that there is a host of ex-
cellent principles that we have never known and felt except by their exaggerated con-
sequences. Strange thing! We have often experienced the abuse of the thing, without
knowing the thing itself.2
Decentralization is among this number. Apart from our continental situation,
which has always made us feel more acutely the need for the concentration of power,
decentralization has never appeared to us other than as a division of the essential rights
of sovereignty, that is, as the most active agent of oppression and anarchy. Today,
we have not learned better; the word decentralization represents in our mind only a
multitude of small sovereigns, judging with sovereignty, dispensing justice, coining
money. And for us, it is even quite difficult to place this power, divided in this way,
in hands other than those of an envious, haughty, exclusive aristocracy. Iudex irae.
England, on the contrary, alone among all the peoples of Europe, had the good for-
tune that, from the beginning, the part of the central power was largely established.
In that country, the system of decentralization, contained right away within true
limits, awakens only ideas of order, prosperity and glory. The system of decentrali-
zation made and still makes the strength of England. England had strong and despotic
kings at a time when royalty was too crude to want to take charge of everything. The
kings created governmental centralization; the mores and the social state, adminis-
trative decentralization.
Moreover, we must not be mistaken about this. It is democratic governments that
arrive most quickly at administrative centralization while losing their political liberty.
Aristocracies struggle an infinitely longer time, because the power of resistance is
greater in each of the parts of the social body organized in this way.
1. The American Union, which is a confederation, is more centralized on this point
than was the absolute monarchy of France.
2. Thus in France, when the King intervened in the administration of justice, the
abuse of governmental centralization was pointed out; when, on the contrary, the
courts were free to establish judicial anarchy, all minds felt the abuse of administrative
decentralization. But no one perceived the precise limits of the one and the other”
(YTC, CVe, pp. 57–60, and BIIb, pp. 6–8).
In the old monarchy, the King alone made the law.

Below the sovereign power were found some remnants, half destroyed,
of provincial institutions. These provincial institutions were incoherent,
poorly ordered, often absurd. In the hands of the aristocracy, they had
sometimes been instruments of oppression.
The Revolution has declared itself against royalty and provincial insti-
tutions at the same time. It has mingled in the same hatred all that had
preceded it, absolute power and what could temper its rigors; it has been
simultaneously republican and centralizing.
This double character of the French Revolution is a fact that the friends
of absolute power have laid hold of with great care. When you see them
defend administrative centralization, do you think that they are working
in favor of despotism? Not at all; they are defending one of the great con-
quests of the Revolution.K In this way, they can remain a man of the people
and an enemy of the rights of the people, secret servant of tyranny, and
declared friend of liberty.f
I have visited the two nations that have developed the system of pro-
vincial liberties to the highest degree, and I have heard the voice of the
parties dividing these nations.
In America, I found men who secretly longed to destroy the democratic
institutions of their country. In England, I found others who openly at-
tacked the aristocracy; I did not meet a single one who did not view pro-
vincial liberty as a great good.g
In these two countries, I saw the ills of the State imputed to an infinity
of diverse causes, but never to town liberty.
I heard citizens attribute the greatness or the prosperity of their native
land to a multitude of reasons; but I heard all of them put provincial liberty
in the first rank and list it at the head of all the other advantages.
When men, who are naturally so divided that they do not agree on either
religious doctrines or on political theories, fall into agreement on a single
f. The manuscript indicates that Tocqueville at one moment considered the possi-
bility of placing here a section entitled of the excellence of town institu-
tions.
g. To the side: “⫽Aristocrats and democrats, royalists and republicans.⫽”
fact, a fact that they can best judge, since it occurs everyday before their
eyes, am I to believe that this fact might be wrong?
Only peoples who have only a few or no provincial institutions deny
their utility; that is, only those who do not know the thing at all, speak ill
of it.
s4s4s4s4s4
c h a p t e r 6a
Of the Judicial Power in the United States
and Its Action on Political Society b
The Anglo-Americans have kept all the characteristics that

distinguish the judicial power among other peoples.—They have,
a. This chapter and the following one are not found in the copy read by friends and
family, which suggests that they were included belatedly in the project. From the begin-
ning of the voyage, Tocqueville, as a lawyer, showed a lively interest in how the American
judicial power functioned. Notebook F of his travel notes is devoted exclusively to civil
and criminal law in America (YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 296–335); and in
the first plans of the book (YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 20–31) the judicial power, as well as the
civil and criminal laws, occupy an important place. Beyond the notebook cited, a great
number of commentaries on the American judicial power appear in the other notebooks
of the travel diaries and in the correspondence. There are certain indications that
Tocqueville had in particular asked his friend, Élie de Beaumont, judge at Versailles, for
information about the French judicial power. We recall that Tocqueville used this
method of comparing the situation in France with that in the United States when he
considered centralization. A letter from Tocqueville to another magistrate, Ernest de
Chabrol, dated November 26, 1831 (YTC, BI a2) contains, along with a description of
the American jurisdictional organization, a reference to an earlier note on justices of the
peace; the note was a reflection made in a letter (apparently lost) addressed to Élie de
Beaumont. Another possible source of information is mentioned in a rough draft: “Speak
to Mr. Livingston about the American judicial system” (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 10).
b. Judicial power./
The most original and most difficult part to understand of all the American con-
stitution. Elsewhere there have been confederations, a representative system, a de-
mocracy; but no where a judicial power organized as that of the Union.
How the judicial power of the Union is conservative without harming that great
principle of the necessity of a single dominating principle in constitutions. It slows,
it cannot stop the people, because the latter by changing the constitution can always
arrive at what they desire.
How all the laws that challenge the judicial power in America are truly destructive
of order and of liberty (YTC, CVh, 5, p. 40).
167
168 of the judicial power
however, made it into a great political power.—How.—

How the judicial system of the Anglo-Americans differs
from all others.—Why American judges have the right to
declare laws unconstitutional.—How American judges
exercise this right.—Precautions taken by the law-maker
to prevent abuse of this right.
I have thought that a separate chapter must be devoted to the judicial power.
Its political importance is so great that it seemed to me that talking about
it in passing would diminish it in the eyes of readers.
There have been confederations elsewhere than in America; we have seen
republics in places other than on the shores of the New World; the rep-
resentative system is adopted in several States in Europe; but I do not think
that until now any nation in the world has constituted the judicial power
in the same way as the Americans.c
[⫽The Americans have established the judicial power as counterbalance
and barrier to the legislative power. They have made it a political power of
the first order.⫽]
What is most difficult for a foreigner to understand in the United States
is the judicial organization. There is, so to speak, no political event in which
he does not hear the authority of the judge invoked; and he naturally con-
cludes that in the United States the judge is one of the premier political
powers. Then when he comes to examine the constitution of the courts,
he discovers at first view only judicial attributions and habits. In his eyes,
the magistrate seems never to get into public affairs except by chance; but
this very chance recurs daily.
When the Parlement of Paris made remonstrances and refused to register
an edict, when on its own it summoned a corrupt official to appear before
it, the political action of the judicial power could be recognized. But noth-
ing similar is seen in the United States. [{The American judge never enters
c. “⫽In my eyes, the constitution of the judicial power forms the newest and most
original portion of the entire political system of the Americans⫽” (YTC, CVh, 4, pp. 16–
17).
of the judicial power 169
into direct conflict [v: is never found battling] with the political powers
strictly defined.}]
The Americans have kept all the characteristics by which the judicial
power is customarily recognized. They have enclosed it exactly within the
circle where it habitually moves.
The first characteristic of the judicial power, among all peoples, is to
serve as arbiter. For the courts to take action, a case must be brought. For
there to be a judge, there must be proceedings. As long as a law does not
give rise to a case, the judicial power has no occasion to get involved with
it. The judicial power is there, but it doesn’t see the law. When a judge, as
part of a trial, attacks a law relating to the trial, he extends the circle of his
attributions, but he does not go beyond them, since in a way he must judge
the law in order to be able to judge the trial. When he delivers a verdict on
a law, outside of a trial, he goes completely beyond his sphere and enters
into that of the legislative power.
The second characteristic of the judicial power is to deliver a verdict
concerning particular cases and not concerning general principles. Should
a judge, while deciding a particular question, make it certain that each of
the consequences of the same principle is struck down in the same way, the
principle becomes sterile. While destroying the general principle in this
way, he remains within the natural circle of his action. But should a judge
directly attack the general principle and destroy it without having a partic-
ular case in view, he goes beyond the circle where all peoples have agreed
to enclose him; he becomes something more important, perhaps more use-
ful than a magistrate, but he ceases to represent the judicial power.
The third characteristic of the judicial power is to be able to act only
when it is called upon, or, following the legal expression, when it is apprised.
This characteristic is not found as generally as the other two. I believe, how-
ever, that, despite exceptions, it can be considered as essential. By its nature,
the judicial power is passive; to stir, it must be put in motion. Someone
denounces a crime before it and it punishes the guilty; someone calls upon
it to redress an injustice and it redresses it; someone submits an act to it
and it interprets it; but it does not go on its own to pursue criminals, seek
out injustice and examine facts. In a way the judicial power would do vi-
olence to this passive nature if it took initiative on its own and set itself up
as censor of the laws.
[<Two things must not be confused. The same man can be vested with
political and judicial powers without thereby mingling political and judicial
power. The mind sees them as distinct in the very midst of the confusion
of actions. When the Parlement of Paris issued decisions, registered edicts
and made regulations for public order, it formed only a single body; but
within it three different powers were easily distinguished>.]
The Americans have kept these three distinctive characteristics for the
judicial power. The American judge can deliver a verdict only when there
is a lawsuit. He can never get involved except in a particular case; and to
act he must always wait to be apprised.
So the American judge perfectly resembles the magistrates of other na-
tions. He is vested, however, with an immense political power [that the
latter do not have. His power forms the most formidable barrier to the
encroachments of the legislature].
What causes that? He moves within the same circle and uses the same
means as other judges; why does he possess a power that the latter do not
have?
The cause is this single fact: the Americans have recognized the right of
judges to base their decisions on the constitution rather than on the laws.
In other words, they have allowed them not to apply laws that would appear
unconstitutional to them.
I know that a similar right has sometimes been claimed by the courts of
other countries; but it has never been granted to them. In America, it is
recognized by all powers; no party, not even a man is met who contests it.
The explanation for this must be found in the very principle of American
constitutions.
In France, the constitution is, or is considered to be, an immutable
work.d No power can change anything in it; such is the accepted theory.e L
d. In the margin: “⫽The oath is therefore a very rational consequence of very absurd
principles.⫽”
e. In the margin, with a mark: “⫽Is this true?⫽”
In England, Parliament is recognized to have the right to modify the

constitution. In England, therefore, the constitution can change constantly,
or rather it does not exist at all. Parliament is, at the same time, the legislative
body and the constituent body.M
In America, political theories are simpler and more rational.
An American constitution is not considered to be immutable, as in
France; it cannot be modified by the ordinary powers of society, as in En-
gland. It forms a work apart that, representing the will of all the people,
binds legislators as well as ordinary citizens; but it can be changed by the
will of the people following established forms and in cases for which pro-
visions have been made.
So in America, the constitution can vary; but as long as it exists, it is the
source of all powers. Predominant force resides in it alone.
It is easy to see how these differences must influence the position and
rights of the judicial body in the three countries that I have cited.
If, in France, the courts could disobey the laws on the grounds that they
found them unconstitutional, the constituent power would actually be in
their hands, since they alone would have the right to interpret a constitution
whose terms no one could change. They would therefore take the place of
the nation and would dominate society, at least in so far as the inherent
weakness of the judicial power would allow them to do so.f
f. If the French judge had the right to disregard the laws on the grounds that they
are unconstitutional, not only would he usurp the constituent power, but also he
would escape from all constraint, for in France the courts are answerable only to
themselves. Political jurisdiction is introduced only against the principal organs of
the government. Therefore the judge, while becoming a political power, would con-
tinue to be answerable only to a judicial power, which implies an obvious confusion
in all ideas.
In America the judge interprets the constitution, but his opinion is not necessarily
followed; he takes a place naturally among the principal political powers, but he an-
swers for his actions to a central political court. He cannot shield either his actions
[v. opinions] or his person from the control of society.
In the United States political jurisdiction is a weapon always hanging over the head
of the magistrate, a weapon all the more formidable because by his position the judge
is the habitual censor of those who are called to deliver his decision.
So the high prerogatives granted to American magistrates never put them beyond
I know that by denying judges the right to declare laws unconstitutional,

we indirectly give the legislative body the power to change the constitu-
tion, since it no longer encounters a legal barrier that stops it. But better
to grant the power to change the constitution of the people to men who
imperfectly represent the will of the people, than to others who represent
only themselves.
It would be still more unreasonable to give English judges the right to
resist the will of the legislative body, because Parliament, which makes the
law, makes the constitution as well, and because, as a result, a law cannot
the reach of the majority; and their independence is not such that there is not always
a single dominant power in society before which all must definitively submit. Judicial
power slows the people; it cannot stop them.
When you examine the constitution of the different powers that govern society,
you easily discover that the weakest of all is the judiciary when it finds itself aban-
doned solely to it own resources.1 The legislature relies on the moral force that belongs
to the whole nation; the executive power has its right to initiate and the physical
strength of its agents; but the magistracy represents only the authority of reason. The
judicial power only becomes formidable when united with another power. There is
no more powerful agent of tyranny in the world than the body of magistrates when
it joins its action with that of a despot. Because it then delivers to him the only thing
that force alone cannot create: the support of the law [in the margin, with a bracket:
a commonplace]. Then human liberty does not know where to flee and comes to
expire at the very door of the temple of laws. In America the magistrate cannot seek
the principle of power outside of himself. The executive power would willingly come
to his aid; but it [is (ed.)] without influence. The people would be able to offer him
more real help, but the people often see him only as an inconvenient censor. The
American judge is therefore isolated among the crowd. To the passions that swirl
around him, to the impetus of public opinion, he can only oppose his word; he com-
mands only as long as they want to obey.
It must be remarked, moreover, that in the United States the judge could only get
involved in politics through the unconstitutionality of laws. When the people act
within the circle drawn by the constitution, whatever the nature of their acts, the
judge is reduced to silence. Actually the American magistrates do not have the right
to constrain the will of the people; they can only force the people not to be unfaithful
to their will and not to fall into self-contradiction.
If, against the view of the majority and after public opinion has had the time to
come to a decision, the magistrate persists in his refusal, the people can always change
or clarify the terms of the constitution. And immediately resistance ceases along with
the motive or the pretext that gave it birth.
1. Don’t I previously say the opposite? (YTC, CVh, 5, pp. 16–19).
in any case be called unconstitutional when it issues from the three powers.
Neither of these two arguments applies to America.
In the United States, the constitution dominates the legislators as well
as ordinary citizens. It is, therefore, the highest law and cannot be mod-
ified by a law. So it is right that the courts obey the constitution in pref-
erence to all laws [and by doing so, they do not make themselves masters
of society since the people, by changing the constitution, can always re-
duce the judges to obedience. So American judges refuse without hesi-
tation to apply laws that seem to them contrary to the constitution]. This
follows from the very essence of the judicial power: to choose from among
legal provisions those that bind him most strictly is in a way the natural
right of the magistrate.
In France, as well, the constitution is the highest law, and judges have
an equal right to base their decisions on it. But by exercising this right, they
would not be able to avoid encroaching upon another right still more sacred
than theirs: that of the society in whose name they act. Here ordinary reason
must yield to reason of state.g
In America, where the nation can always reduce magistrates to obedience
by changing its constitution, a similar danger is not to be feared. On this
point, therefore, politics and logic are in agreement, and the people as well
as the judges equally retain their privileges.
When a law that the judge considers contrary to the constitution is in-
voked before the courts of the United States, he can refuse to apply it. This
power is the only one particular to the American magistrate, but a great
political influence follows from it.
There are, in fact, very few laws that can by nature escape judicial analysis
for long, for there are very few of them that do not harm an individual
interest, and that litigants cannot or must not cite before the courts.
Now, from the day when the judge refuses to apply a law in a trial, it
g. “In France {during the Restoration}, we have often seen the executive power seek
to reduce judicial authority, while the democratic party sought with all its efforts to raise
it up. It seems to me that on both sides they acted against themselves” (YTC, CVh, 5,
pp. 26–27).
instantly loses part of its moral force. Those who have been wronged by
the law are then alerted that a way exists to escape the obligation to obey
it; trials multiply, and it becomes powerless. Then one of these two things
happens: the people change the constitution or the legislature revokes its
law.
So the Americans have given their courts an immense political power;
but by forcing them to challenge laws only by judicial means, they have
greatly diminished the dangers of this power.
If the judge had been able to challenge laws in a theoretical and general
fashion; if he had been able to take the initiative and censure the legislator,
he would have burst upon the political scene. Having become the champion
or the adversary of one party, he would have called upon all the passions
that divide the country to join in the struggle. But when the judge chal-
lenges a law in an obscure debate and on a particular application, he par-
tially conceals the importance of the challenge from the eyes of the public.
His decision intends only to strike an individual interest; the law is harmed
only by chance.
The law censured in this way, moreover, is not destroyed; its moral force
is lessened, but its material effect is not suspended. Only little by little, and
under the repeated blows of jurisprudence, does it finally succumb. [{If the
law were challenged directly it would triumph or succumb in a day.}]
Furthermore, it is easily understood that by charging individual interest
with provoking the censure of laws, by intimately linking the trial of the
law to the trial of a man, you assure that legislation will not be lightly chal-
lenged. In this system legislation is no longer exposed to the daily aggression
of parties. By pointing out the mistakes of the legislator, you obey a real
need; you start with a definite and appreciable fact, since it must serve as
the basis for a trial.
I do not know whether the way in which the American courts act, at the
same time that it is most favorable to public order, is not most favorable to
liberty as well.
If the judge could challenge the legislators only head on, there are times
when he would be afraid to do so; there are other times when partisan spirit
would push him daily to dare to do so. Thus the laws would be challenged
when the power from which they came was weak, and you would submit
to them in silence when that power was strong. That is to say that the laws
would often be challenged when respect for them would be most useful,
and would be respected when oppression in their name would become
easy.h
But the American judge is led onto political terrain despite himself. He
judges the law only because he has a trial to judge and cannot avoid judging
the trial. The political question that he must resolve is linked with the in-
terest of the litigants, and he cannot refuse to settle it without committing
a denial of justice. By fulfilling the strict duties imposed on the profession
of magistrate, he performs the act of a citizen. It is true that judicial censure,
exercised by the courts on legislation, cannot be extended in this way to all
laws without distinction, for there are some that can never give rise to this
kind of clearly formulated dispute that is called a trial. And when such a
dispute is possible, it is still conceivable that there will be no one who wants
to submit it to the courts.
The Americans have often felt this drawback, but they have left the rem-
edy incomplete for fear of making it dangerously effective in all cases.
Enclosed within its limits, the power granted to the American courts to
rule on the unconstitutionality of laws still forms one of the most powerful
barriers that has ever been raised against the tyranny of political assemblies.j
h. Note: “⫽This is what happened particularly at the time of the constitution of the
year VIII. The senate was established as overseer of the other powers, and it had to
denounce to the legislative bodies attacks against the constitution. We know that it re-
frained from doing so on any occasion. Under Napoleon’s son, this very senate could
perhaps have hindered the legal course of government.⫽”
j. “⫽The absence of administrative centralization is more a fortunate circumstance
than the result of the wisdom of the law-maker. But the judicial power in the United
States is a barrier raised by design against the omnipotence of the majority. It can be
considered as the only powerful or real obstacle that the American laws have placed before
the steps of the people⫽” (YTC, CVh, 4, pp. 16–17).
“Judicial power in general./
“Utility of the judicial power to oppose the encroachments of popular power. See
Kent, vol. 1, p. 275” (YTC, CVh, 5, p. 41).
Other Powers Granted to American Judges

In the United States, all citizens have the right to accuse public
officials before ordinary courts.—How they exercise this right.—
Art. 75 of the French constitution of the year VIII.—
The Americans and the English cannot understand
the sense of this article.
I do not know if I need to say that among a free people, like the Americans,
all citizens have the right to accuse public officials before ordinary judges,
and that all judges have the right to condemn public officials, it is so natural
a thing.
To allow the courts to punish agents of the executive power when they
violate the law is not giving the courts a particular privilege. To forbid them
to do so is taking away a natural right.
It did not appear to me that in the United States, by making all offi-
cials responsible to the courts, the forces of government had been weak-
ened.
It seemed to me, on the contrary, that the Americans, by acting in this
way, had increased the respect that is owed to those who govern, the latter
being much more careful to avoid criticism.
Nor did I observe in the United States that many political trials were
instituted, and it is easily explained. A trial is always, whatever its nature,
a difficult and costly enterprise. It is easy to accuse a public man in the
newspapers, but it is not without grave motives that someone decides to
bring him before the law. So to bring legal proceedings against an official,
it is necessary to have just grounds of complaint; and officials hardly pro-
vide such grounds when they fear having proceedings brought.
This does not result from the republican form that the Americans have
adopted, for the same experience can occur every day in England.
These two peoples did not believe that their independence had been
assured by allowing the principal agents of power to be put on trial. Instead,
they thought that they succeeded in guaranteeing liberty, much more by
small trials, placed daily within the reach of the least citizen, than by great
proceedings that were never used or were used too late.
In the Middle Ages, when it was very difficult to reach criminals, judges,
when they got hold of some of them, often inflicted terrible punishments
on these unfortunates; this did not reduce the number of those guilty. Since
then, we have discovered that by making justice both more certain and
milder, we have made it more effective at the same time.
The Americans and the English think that arbitrariness and tyranny
must be treated like theft: make it easier to take legal action and make the
penalty more mild.
In the year VIII of the French Republic, a constitution appeared whose
article 75 was worded thus: “The agents of the government, other than the
ministers, cannot have legal proceedings instituted against them for facts
relating to their functions, except by virtue of a decision of the Conseil
d’État; in this case, the proceedings take place before the ordinary courts.”
The constitution of the year VIII passed from the scene, but not this
article, which remained after it [{and we are still so inexperienced in the art
of [being (ed.)] free.}]; and it is still used every day to oppose the just com-
plaints of citizens.
[{But this is particular to France.}]
I have often tried to explain the sense of this art. 75 to some Americans
or Englishmen, and it has always been very difficult for me to succeed in
doing so.
What they noticed first was that the Conseil d’État, in France, was a high
court seated at the center of the kingdom; there was a kind of tyranny in
sending all complainants before it as a preliminary step.
But when I tried to make them understand that the Conseil d’État was not
a judicial body at all, in the ordinary sense of the term, but an administrative
body, whose members were dependent on the King; and that the King, as
sovereign, after ordering one of his servants, called prefect, to commit a wrong-
ful act, could order, as sovereign, another of his servants, called councilor of
the Conseil d’État, to prevent someone from having the first punished; when
I showed them the citizen harmed by the order of the prince, reduced to
asking the prince himself for the authorization to seek justice, they refused
to believe in such enormities and accused me of lying and of ignorance.
Often, in the old monarchy, the parlement ordered the arrest of the pub-
lic official who made himself guilty of a crime. Sometimes the royal au-
thority, intervening, had the procedure annulled. Despotism then showed

itself openly, and people, while obeying, submitted only to force.
So we have retreated far from the point reached by our fathers; for we
allow, under the color of justice, and consecrate, in the name of law, deeds
that violence alone imposed on them.
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 7
Of Political Jurisdiction in the United States TN 4
What the author understands by political jurisdiction.—How

political jurisdiction is understood in France, England and the
United States.—In America, the political judge concerns himself
only with public officials.—He orders dismissals rather than
punishments.—Political jurisdiction, customary method of
government.—Political jurisdiction, as understood in the United
States, is, despite its mildness, and perhaps because of it, a very
powerful weapon in the hands of the majority.
[⫽Political jurisdiction is a violation of the great principle of the separation

of powers; you resort to it as an extreme measure to reach certain guilty
individuals.⫽]
I understand by political jurisdiction the decision delivered by a political
body temporarily vested with the right to judge.
In absolute governments, it is useless to give judgments extraordinary
forms. The prince, in whose name the accused is prosecuted, is master of
the courts as of everything else, and he has no need to seek a guarantee
beyond the idea that is held of his power.a The only fear that he can imagine
Translator’s Note 4: For this chapter, there is no totally satisfactory way to

translate jugement politique. The most direct translation, political judgment, is extremely
ambiguous. For want of a better alternative, I have decided to use the traditional trans-
lation, political jurisdiction, since the chapter has to do with the right of a political body,
in particular circumstances, to bring to trial, to judge and to punish a public figure.
a. In the margin:
It was necessary to give the superior political power control of all powers for the unity
of government, and for that it was necessary to give the legislature the entirely ad-
ministrative power to dismiss or the entirely judicial power to judge.
179
180 of political jurisdiction in the united states
is that not even the external appearances of justice are kept, and that his
authority is dishonored in the desire to assert it.
But in most free countries, where the majority can never act on the courts
as an absolute prince would, judicial power is sometimes placed temporarily
in the hands of the very representatives of society. Temporarily mixing
powers in this way is preferred to violating the necessary principle of the
unity of government. England, France and the United States have intro-
duced political jurisdiction into their laws; it is curious to examine how
these three great peoples have turned it to good account.
In England and in France, the chamber of peers forms the highest crim-
inal court1 of the nation. It does not judge all political crimes, but it can
do so.
Alongside the chamber of peers is another political power, vested with
the right to accuse. On this point, the only difference that exists between
the two countries is this: in England, the members of the House of Com-
mons can accuse whomever they choose before the Lords; while in France
the deputies can only prosecute the ministers of the King in this way.b
In these two countries, moreover, the chamber of peers finds all the penal
laws at its disposal for striking the delinquents.
In the United States, as in Europe, one of the two branches of the leg-
islature is vested with the right to accuse, and the other with the right to
judge. The representatives denounce the guilty party; the Senate punishes
him.
But a matter can be referred to the Senate only by the representatives; and
before the Senate, the representatives can accuse only public officials. There-
fore the Senate has a more limited competence than the French court of
On the other hand, it was very dangerous to liberty and humanity to vest a political
power with the most formidable rights of a judicial body.
From that the mixed American system. Political jurisdiction more than dismissal,
less than a ruling.
1. The court of Lords in England furthermore forms the last appeal in certain civil matters.
See Blackstone, book III, chap. IV.
b. In the margin: “I find nothing in Blackstone that justifies this distinction.However
I think it is correct.”
of political jurisdiction in the united states 181
the peers, and the representatives have a broader right to accuse than our
deputies.
But here is the greatest difference that exists between America and Eu-
rope. In Europe, political courts can apply all the provisions of the penal
code. In America, when they have removed from the guilty party the public
character with which he was vested, and have declared him unworthy to
hold any political offices whatsoever in the future, their right is exhausted,
and the task of the ordinary courts begins.
I suppose that the President of the United States has committed a crime
of high treason.
The House of Representatives accuses him; the senators decide his re-
moval. Afterward he appears before a jury that alone can take away life or
liberty.
This succeeds in throwing a bright light on the subject that occupies us.
By introducing political jurisdiction into their laws, Europeans wanted
to reach great criminals whatever their birth, rank or power in the State.
To achieve that, they temporarily united, within a great political body, all
the prerogatives of the courts.
The legislator is then transformed into a magistrate; he can establish the
crime, classify and punish it. By giving him the rights of the judge, the law
imposed all of the judge’s obligations on him, and bound him to the ob-
servation of all the forms of justice.
When a political court, French or English, has a public official as a de-
fendant and delivers a verdict condemning him, by doing so, it removes
him from office and can declare him unworthy to hold any office in the
future. But here the dismissal and political interdiction are a consequence
of the decision and not the decision itself.
So in Europe, political jurisdiction is more a judicial act than an ad-
ministrative measure.
The opposite is seen in the United States, and it is easy to be persuaded
that political jurisdiction there is more an administrative measure than a
judicial act.
It is true that the decision of the Senate is judicial in form; to make it,
the senators are obliged to conform to the solemnity and customs of the
procedure. It is also judicial by the grounds on which it is based; the Senate
is, in general, obliged to base its decision on a crime of the common law.
But it is administrative in its objective.
If the principal aim of the American law-maker had really been to arm
a political body with a great judicial power, he would not have restricted
its action to the circle of public officials, for the most dangerous enemies
of the State may hold no office at all. This is true above all in republics,
where the favor of parties is the first of powers, and where someone is often
much stronger when not legally exercising any power.
If the American law-maker had wanted to give society itself, like judges,
the right to prevent great crimes by fear of punishment, he would have
put at the disposal of the political courts all the resources of the penal
code. But he only provided them with an incomplete weapon that cannot
reach the most dangerous of criminals. For what use is a judgment of
political interdiction against someone who wants to overturn the laws
themselves?
The principal aim of political jurisdiction in the United States is, there-
fore, to withdraw power from someone who is making poor use of it, and
to prevent the same citizen from being vested with power in the future.
That, as we see, is an administrative act that has been given the solemnity
of a judgment.
So in this matter, the Americans have created something mixed. They
have given all the guarantees of political jurisdiction to administrative dis-
missal, and they have removed from political jurisdiction its greatest rigors.
This point settled, everything closely follows; we then discover why
the American constitutions submit all civil officials to the jurisdiction of
the Senate, and exempt the military whose crimes are, however, more to
be feared [{in republics}]. In the civil order, the Americans have, so to
speak, no removable officials; some are irremovable; others hold their
rights by a mandate that cannot be abrogated. So to remove them from
power, they must all be judged.c But military officers depend on the head
c. To the side: “⫽Action of the two systems.

“French system more effective, more dangerous.
“American system more just, more rational in the separation of power. Less effective
in times of crisis, more everyday.⫽”
of State, who himself is a civil officer. By reaching the head of State, they
strike them all with the same blow.2
Now, if we come to compare the European and American systems in the
effects that each produces or can produce, we discover differences no less
noticeable.
In France and in England, political jurisdiction is considered as an ex-
traordinary weapon that society should use only to save itself in moments
of great peril.
We cannot deny that political jurisdiction, as understood in Europe,
violates the conservative principle of the separation of powers and con-
stantly threatens the life and liberty of men.
Political jurisdiction in the United States strikes only an indirect blow
at the principle of separation of powers. It does not threaten the existence
of citizens; it does not, as in Europe, hang over all heads, since it strikes
only those who, by accepting public offices, subject themselves to its rigors
in advance.
It is simultaneously less to be feared and less effective.
Moreover, the law-makers of the United States did not consider it as an
extreme remedy for the great ills of society, but as a customary means of
government.
From this point of view, it perhaps exercises more real influence over the
social body in America than in Europe. You must not in fact be fooled by
the apparent mildness of the American legislation regarding political ju-
risdiction. It must be noted, in the first place, that in the United States the
court that delivers these judgments is composed of the same elements and
is subject to the same influences as the body charged with accusing; this
gives an almost irresistible impulse to the vindictive passions of parties. If
political judges, in the United States, cannot order punishments as severe
as those ordered by political judges in Europe, there is less chance of being
acquitted by them as a result. Conviction is less to be feared and more
certain.
Europeans, by establishing political courts, had as their principal object
2. Not that his rank can be taken from an officer, but he can be removed from his
command.
to punish the guilty; Americans, to remove them from power. Political ju-
risdiction in the United States is a preventive measure in a way. So judges
there must not be bound by very exact criminal definitions.
Nothing is more frightening than the vagueness of American laws, when
they define political crimes strictly speaking. The crimes that will justify
the conviction of the President, says the Constitution of the United States,
section IV, art. I [sic: Article II, Section 4], are “Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Most of the state constitutions are even
more obscure.
“Public officials, says the constitution of Massachusetts,d will be con-
demned for their culpable behavior and for their bad administration.3 All
officials who put the State in danger by bad administration, corruption or
other misdemeanors, says the constitution of Virginia, are impeachable by
the House of Delegates.” There are constitutions that, in order to let an
unlimited responsibility weigh upon the public officials, specify no crime.4
But what makes the American laws in this matter so formidable arises,
I dare say, from their very mildness.
We have seen that in Europe the dismissal of an official, and his political
interdiction, were consequences of the penalty, and that in America it was
the penalty itself. The result is this. In Europe, the political courts are vested
with terrible rights that sometimes they do not know how to use; and it
happens that they do not punish for fear of punishing too much. But in
America, they do not back away from a penalty that humanity does not
bemoan. To condemn a political enemy to death, in order to remove him
from power, is in everybody’s eyes a horrible assassination. To declare an
adversary unworthy to possess this same power and to take it away from
him, while leaving him his life and liberty, can appear as the honest outcome
of the struggle.
d. The Massachusetts Constitution reads: “The senate shall be a court with full au-
thority to hear and determine all impeachments made by the house of representatives,
against any officer or officers of the commonwealth, for misconduct and mal-adminis-
tration in their offices.”
3. Chap. 1, sect. II, § 8.
4. See the constitutions of Illinois, Maine, Connecticut and Georgia.
Now, this judgment, so easy to decide, is nonetheless the height of mis-

fortune for the ordinary man among those to whom it is applied. Great
criminals will undoubtedly defy its empty rigors; ordinary men will see in
it a decision that destroys their position, stains their honor, and that con-
demns them to a shameful inaction worse than death.
So the less formidable political jurisdiction in the United States seems,
the greater the influence it exercises on the course of society. It does not
act directly on the governed, but it makes the majority entirely master of
those who govern. It does not give the legislature an immense power that
could be exercised only in a day of crisis; it allows the legislature to have a
moderate and regular power that can be used every day. If the power is less,
on the other hand, its use is more convenient and its abuse easier.
By preventing political courts from ordering judicial punishments, the
Americans seem to me therefore to have avoided the most horrible con-
sequences of legislative tyranny, rather than tyranny itself. And all things
considered, I do not know if political jurisdiction, as it is understood in
the United States, is not the most formidable weapon ever put in the hands
of the majority.
When the American republics begin to degenerate, I believe that it will
be easy to recognize; it will be enough to see if the number of cases of
political jurisdiction increases.N
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 8
Of the Federal Constitution
Until now I have considered each state as forming a complete whole, and
I have shown the different mechanisms that the people put in motion there,
as well as the means of action that they use. But all these states that I have
envisaged as independent are, in certain cases, forced to obey a supreme
authority, which is that of the Union. The time has come to examine the
portion of sovereignty that has been conceded to the Union, and to cast a
rapid glance over the federal constitution.1
Historical Background of the Federal Constitution a

Origin of the first Union.—Its weakness.—Congress
summons the constituent power.—Interval of two years that
1. See the text of the federal Constitution. [In Appendix in the first editions (ed.)]
a. In the margin: “⫽Where to find the outline of the first federation?
“Bad result of the first federation. See Federalist, p. 60 [No. 15 (ed.)].⫽”
The Federalist is, without any doubt, the work that Tocqueville cites most often. Its
decisive influence on the drafting of this chapter must be recognized, even if such an
influence on the whole book is difficult to define and remains to be determined. When
Tocqueville reads the Federalist, he certainly has in mind, and at hand, Montesquieu
and Rousseau. He rediscovers many of their ideas in the American work. An initial ex-
amination of the citations taken from the work seems to indicate that, above all, Tocque-
ville found in it a confirmation of his own ideas. This does not mean, as has often been
asserted, that he intentionally omitted citations of the text in other chapters. If unde-
niable similarities exist between the American text and the Democracy, they demonstrate
the result of a shared origin of ideas between the two texts more than a direct influence
of the first book on the second. Another important work concerning information on
the political organization of the United States is the commentaries on the Constitution
by Justice Joseph Story. In a letter to Francis Lieber of May 9, 1840, Story, apparently
186
federal constitution 187
passes between this moment and that when the

new Constitution is promulgated.
[⫽I am not among those who profess a blind faith in legal prescriptions
and who think that it is sufficient to change the laws of a people in order
to modify easily their social and political state. Laws act only in two ways,
either by their long duration, when a power superior to society manages to
impose them over many years, or by their perfect harmony with the mores,
habits and civilization of the people. In this last case, the laws are only the
conspicuous and legal manifestation of a preexistent fact.b
But I admit that when laws are found to be in harmony with the needs
{the social state} of a country, its mores and its habits, their effect is often
something of a miracle.
unable to recognize the significance of the Democracy, judges that Lieber’s knowledge
of the American political system is much superior to that of Tocqueville; according to
Story, Tocqueville simply took his ideas from the Federalist and from Story’s own book
on the American Constitution (Life and Letters of Joseph Story, Boston: Charles C. Little
and James Brown, 1851, vol. II, p. 330). John W. Henry Canoll (“The Authorship of
Democracy in America,” Historical Magazine 8, no. 9 (1864): 332–33), who reports the
words of Mgr. Alexander Vattemare, asserts that the American author who had a direct
influence on Tocqueville’s thought is John C. Spencer. According to Canoll, Tocqueville
would have shown Spencer a plan of his work; the latter would have reviewed and criti-
cized it and, after numerous interviews, would have given the canvas of the Democracy
to the author.
b. In the margin:
⫽The government of the United States is not truly speaking a federal government,
it is a national government whose powers are limited. Important./
Mixture of national and federal in the constitution. See Federalist, p. 166 [No. 28
(ed.)]./
The Union enters most profoundly into the government of the United States by
the right to invalidate laws that are contrary to vested rights. Note that it is the federal
judicial power alone that acts in this case./
[To the side: I am not among those who believe that there is a force in the laws
that commands obedience to such an extent that all the present and all the future of
a people depend on its legislation./
You could deal with the principles of union, from complete independence, league,
confederation, to finally national government.⫽]
188 federal constitution
No country on earth more than America has ever given a greater example
of the power of laws on the life of political society.⫽]
The thirteen colonies that simultaneously threw off the yoke of England
at the end of the last century had, as I have already said, the same religion,
the same language, the same mores, nearly the same laws; they struggled
against a common enemy. So they must have had strong reasons to unite
closely together, and to be absorbed into one and the same nation.
But each of them, having always had a separate existence and a govern-
ment close at hand, had created particular interests as well as customs; and
each found repugnant a solid and complete union that would have made
its individual importance disappear within a common importance. From
that, two opposing tendencies: one that led the Anglo-Americans to unite;
the other that led them to separate.
As long as the war with the mother country lasted, necessity made the
principle of union prevail. And, although the laws that constituted the
union were defective, the common bond continued to exist in spite of
them.2
But as soon as peace was concluded, the vices of the legislationc became
clear; the State seemed to dissolve all at once. Each colony, having become
an independent republic, seized full sovereignty. The federal government,
condemned by its very constitution to weakness, and no longer supported
by the feeling of public danger, saw its flag abandoned to the outrages of
the great peoples of Europe. At the same time, it could not find sufficient
resources to stand up to the Indian nations and to pay the interest on debts
contracted during the war for independence. About to perish, it officially
declared its own impotence and summoned the constituent power.3
2. See the articles of the first confederation formed in 1778. This federal constitution was
adopted by all the States only in 1781.
Also see the analysis that the Federalist makes of this constitution, from No. 15 to No. 22
inclusive, and Mr. Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,
pp. 85 [84 (ed.)]–115.
c. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I do not know if you shouldn’t say: of the constitution”
(YTC, CIIIb, 3, pp. 9–10).
3. Congress made this declaration on February 21, 1787.
If ever America was capable of rising for a few moments to the high level
of glory that the proud imaginationd of its inhabitants would like con-
stantly to show us, it was at this supreme moment when the national power
had, in a way, just abdicated authority.
For a people to struggle energetically to conquer its independence is a
spectacle that every century has been able to provide. The efforts made by
the Americans to escape from the yoke of the English have, moreover, been
much exaggerated. Separated from their enemies by 1,300 leagues of ocean,
aided by a powerful ally, the United States owed their victory to their po-
sition much more than to the merit of their armies or to the patriotism of
their citizens.e Who would dare to compare the American war to the wars
of the French Revolution, and the efforts of the Americans to ours? France,
the object of attacks from the whole of Europe, without money, credit,
allies, threw one-twentieth of its population before its enemies, with one
hand putting out the conflagration that devoured its bowels and with the
other carrying the torch abroad.f But what is new in the history of societies
is to see a great people, warned by its legislators that the gears of government
are grinding to a halt, turn its attention to itself, without rushing and with-
out fear; sound the depth of the trouble; keep self-control for two whole
years, in order to take time to find the remedy; and, when this remedy is
indicated, voluntarily submit to it without costing humanity either a tear
or a drop of blood.
When the insufficiency of the first federal constitution made itself
felt, the excitement of the political passions that had given birth to the
revolution was partially calmed, and all the great men that it had created
still lived. This was double good fortune for America. The small as-
d. The manuscript says: “. . . that the vain imagination . . .”

Hervé de Tocqueville: “I would cross out the word vain in order not to shock the
Americans among whom the book should have a great deal of success” (YTC, CIIIb, 3,
p. 10).
e. In the margin: “⫽If you want to know what a people can do for its independence,
it is not America that you must look at.⫽”
f. Hervé de Tocqueville: “If you keep this paragraph, you must suppress this last
sentence which is declamatory, vague and could be interpreted as praise for violence in
the manner of Thiers” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 10).
sembly,4 which charged itself with drafting the second constitution, in-
cluded the best minds and most noble characters that had ever appeared
in the New World. George Washington presided over it.h
This national commission, after long and mature deliberations, finally
offered to the people for adoption the body of organic laws that still governs
the Union today. All the states successively adopted it.5 The new federal
government began to operate in 1789, after two years of interregnum. So
the American Revolution finished precisely at the moment when ours
began.
4. It was composed of only 55 g members. Washington, Madison, Hamilton, the two Mor-
rises were part of it.
g. The manuscript says 39, which indicates the number of delegates to the convention
approving the proposed constitution on September 17, 1787.
h. Great men of the early times of the republic./
Their enlightenment. Their true patriotism. Their high character. Convention
that made the federal Constitution. Few prejudices that were met there; constant
struggle against provincial prejudices. Sincere love of republican liberty, but coura-
geous and constant struggle against the bad passions of the people.
Character of Washington. Still more admirable for his courage in struggling
against popular passions than for what he did for liberty. The gods are disappearing!
A separate chapter on Washington. Washington has been admired for not having
wanted to become a dictator, for having returned to the crowd. . . . Ignorance about
the true state of things; historical memories badly applied.
Cincinnatus. Washington could not reasonably think to dominate. But admirable
in his resistance to the exaggerations of popular opinion; there is his superiority; there
is the culminating point.
Washington could not rise by arms (absurd), but by popular favor. And he did
not seek it out for a moment.
Why did Washington, who in the end during his lifetime lost the majority, become
more than a man after his death? (YTC, CVe, pp. 61–62).
In a bundle of notes where Tocqueville had gathered information for new chapters, the
following title is found: Of the Great Men of America and of Washington
in Particular (YTC, CVh, 1, p. 1).
5. It was not the legislators who adopted it. The people named deputies for this ex-
press purpose. In each of these assemblies the new Constitution was the object of thorough
discussion.
Summary Picture of the Federal Constitution j

Division of powers between federal sovereignty and that of the
states.—The government of the states remains the normal law;—
the federal government, the exception.
A first difficulty must have presented itself to the minds of the Americans.
It was a question of sharing sovereignty in such a way that the different
states that formed the Union continued to govern themselves in everything
that related only to their internal prosperity, and that the whole nation,
represented by the Union, did not cease to be a body and to provide for all
its general needs. A complex question, difficult to resolve.k
It was impossible to set in advance, in an exact and complete manner,
the portion of power that had to revert to each of these two governments
that were going to share sovereignty.
Who would be able to anticipate in advance all the details of the life of
a people?
The duties and rights of the federal government were simple and easy
enough to define, because the Union had been formed for the purpose of
meeting a number of great general needs. The duties and rights of the
government of the states were, on the contrary, numerous and complicated,
because this government penetrated into all the details of social life.
So the attributions of the federal government were defined with great
care,m and everything that was not included in the definition was declared
to be part of the attributions of the government of the states. Thus, the
j. Union./
The Union has an artificial sovereignty; the states, a natural sovereignty; cause of
difference in real strength (perhaps subtle)./
Power of the Union in what concerns it: The Union has more extensive and more
essential prerogatives, in what concerns it, than a number of States forming only a
single body have had (YTC, CVh, 1, p. 51).
k. In the margin: “I believe that the principle of the unity of the American people
regarding the matters provided for in the Constitution—principle rich in consequences
and which you come back to constantly—must be placed at the beginning of this part
(I do not know where).”
m. ⫽Here there was a principle that was supposed to dominate the whole matter:
government of the states remained the normal law; the federal government
was the exception.6
But it was anticipated that, in practice, questions could arise relative to
the exact limits of this exceptional government, and that it would be dan-
gerous to abandon the solution of these questions to the ordinary courts
established in the different states, by the states themselves. So a high federal
court,7 a single tribunal, was created; one of its attributions was to maintain
the division of powers between the two rival governments as the Consti-
tution had established it.8
The Union has only a circumscribed sovereignty, but within this circle it forms
only one and the same people.1
(You could define the Union as a people who does not enjoy all the rights of
sovereignty.) Within this circle the Union is sovereign. This set forth and accepted,
the rest is easy; for from the origin of societies, this point is agreed: that a people has
the right to have all that involves its security and independence judged by its own
courts.
Now, since the Union, for the particular matters indicated by the Constitution,
forms only one people, the above rule was as applicable to it as to all others.
Nothing more was involved than determining what its interests were within the
circle of its existence, traced by the Constitution.
1. Some restriction has indeed been put on these principles by introducing the
states as independent powers in the Senate and by making them vote separately in
the House of Representatives in the case of election of the President. But these are
exceptions. The opposite principle predominates⫽ (YTC, CVb, p. 20).
6. See amendments to the federal Constitution. Federalist, No. 32. Story [ Commentaries
(ed.)], p. 711. Kent’s Commentaries, vol. I, p. 364.
Note indeed that, whenever the Constitution has not reserved to Congress the exclusive
right to regulate certain matters, the states can do so, while waiting for Congress to choose to
take charge of them. Example: Congress has the right to pass a general bankruptcy law; it
doesn’t do so; each state could pass one in its own way. This point was established, moreover,
only after discussion before the courts. It is only jurisprudence.
7. The action of this court is indirect, as we will see later.
8. This is how the Federalist, in No. 45 [p. 200], explains this division of sovereignty
between the Union and the particular states:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and
defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.
The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation,
and foreign commerce. [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] The powers reserved to the several states will
Attributions of the Federal Government

Power granted to the federal government to make peace, war, to
establish general taxes.—Matter of internal political policy with
which it can be involved.—The government of the Union, more
centralized on some points than was the royal government under
the old French monarchy.
Peoples in relation to one another are only individuals. Above all, a nation
needs a single government to appear with advantage in regard to foreigners.
So the Union was granted the exclusive right to make war and peace; to
conclude treaties of commerce; to raise armies, to equip fleets.9
The necessity of a national government does not make itself as strongly
felt in the direction of the internal affairs of society.
Nonetheless, there are certain general interests for which only a general
authority can usefully provide.
The Union was left the right to regulate all that relates to the value of
money; it was charged with the postal service; it was given the right to open
extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties,
and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the
state.
I will often have the occasion to cite the Federalist in this work. When the proposal that has
since become the Constitution of the United States was still before the people, and submitted
for adoption, three men who were already celebrated and have since become even more famous,
John Jay, Hamilton and Madison, joined together for the purpose of making the advantages
of the proposal clear to the nation. With this idea, they published, in the form of a newspaper,
a series of articles that together form a treatise. They gave the newspaper the name Federalist,
which has remained the title of the work.
The Federalistn is a fine book that, though particular to America, should be familiar to
the statesmen of all countries.
n. James T. Schleifer has identified the English edition used by Tocqueville. It was
the one published in Washington by Thomson & Homans, in 1831. In his notes, Tocque-
ville also cites a French edition of 1792 (probably that of Buisson, Paris).
9. See Constitution, sect. VIII. Federalist, Nos. 41 and 42. Kent’s Commentaries, vol.
I, p. 207 and following. Story [ Commentaries (ed.)], pp. 358–82; id., pp. 409–26.
the great avenues of communication that had to unite the various parts of
the territory.10
The government of the different states was generally considered free in
its sphere, but it could abuse this independence and compromise the se-
curity of the entire Union through imprudent measures. For these rare
cases, defined in advance, the federal government was permitted to inter-
vene in the internal affairs of the states.11 That explains how, while still
recognizing in each of the confederated republics the power to modify and
change its legislation, each was, nevertheless, forbidden to make retroactive
laws and to create bodies of noblemen within its midst.12
Finally, since the federal government had to be able to fulfill the obli-
gations imposed on it, it was given the unlimited right to levy taxes.13
When you pay attention to the division of powers as the federal con-
stitution has established it; when, on the one hand, you examine the portion
of sovereignty that the particular states have reserved to themselves and, on
the other, the share of power that the Union took, it is easily discovered
that the federal law-makers had formed very clear and very sound ideas
about what I earlier called governmental centralization.o
The United States forms not only a republic, but also a confederation.p
But the national authority there is, in several respects, more centralized than
it was in the same period under several of the absolute monarchies of Eu-
rope. I will cite only two examples.
10. There are also several other rights of this type, such as that to pass a general law on
bankruptcy, to grant patents. . . . What made the intervention of the whole Union necessary
in these matters is felt well enough.
11. Even in this case, its intervention is indirect. The Union intervenes through its courts,
as we will see further on.
12. Federal Constitution, sect. X, art. 1.
13. Constitution, sect. VIII, IX and X. Federalist, Nos. 30–36, inclusive. Id., 41, 42, 43,
44. Kent’s Commentaries, vol. I, pp. 207 and 381. Story, id., pp. 329–514.
o. In a variant of the manuscript: “⫽You can even say that the necessity of govern-
mental centralization was better understood by them than it was in several of the mon-
archies of Europe.⫽”
p. Throughout the book, Tocqueville uses the words federation and confederation
with not much precision.
France counted thirteen sovereign courts that, most often, had the right
to interpret the law without appeal. It possessed, in addition, certain prov-
inces called pays d’États that could refuse their support, after the sovereign
authority, charged with representing the nation, had ordered the raising of
a tax.
The Union has only a single court to interpret the law, as well as a single
legislature to make the law; a tax voted by the representatives of the nation
obligates all the citizens. So the Union is more centralized on these two
essential points than the French monarchy was; the Union, however, is only
a collection of confederated republics.
In Spain, certain provincesq had the power to establish their own cus-
toms system, a power that, by its very essence, stems from national sover-
eignty.
In America, Congress alone has the right to regulate commerce among
the states. So the government of the confederation is more centralized on
this point than that of the kingdom of Spain.
It is true that, in the end, you arrived at the same point, since in France
and in Spain the royal power is always able to execute, by force if necessary,
what the constitution of the kingdom denied it the right to do. But I am
talking here about theory.
Federal Powers
After having enclosed the federal government within a clearly drawn circle
of action, it was a matter of knowing how to make it work.
q. In the manuscript: “each province.”

Legislative Powers r
[difference between the constitution of the senate and
that of the house of representatives]
Division of the legislative body into two branches.—Differences

in the way the two houses are formed.—The principle of the
independence of the state triumphs in the formation of the
Senate.—The dogma of national sovereignty, in the composition
of the House of Representatives.—Singular effects that result
from this, that constitutions are logical only when peoples
are young.
In the organization of the powers of the Union, the plan that was traced
in advance by the particular constitution of each of the states was followed
on many points.
The federal legislative body of the Union was composed of a Senate and
a House of Representatives.
The spirit of conciliation caused different rules to be followed in the
formation of each of these assemblies.
I brought out above that, when the Americans wanted to establish the
federal constitution, two opposing interests found themselves face to face.
These two interests had given birth to two opinions.
Some wanted to make the Union a league of independent states, a sort
of congress where the representatives of distinct peoples would come to
discuss certain points of common interest.
Others wanted to unite all the inhabitants of the old colonies into one
and the same people, and give them a government that, although its sphere
would be limited, would be able to act within this sphere, as the one and
only representative of the nation. The practical consequences of these two
theories were very different.
Thus, if it was a matter of organizing a league and not a national gov-
ernment, it was up to the majority of the states to make laws, and not up
r. In the manuscript: “legislative power.”

to the majority of the inhabitants of the Union. For each state, large or
small, would then conserve its character of independent power and would
enter into the Union on a perfectly equal footing.
On the contrary, from the moment when the inhabitants of the United
States were considered to form one and the same people, it was natural that
only the majority of the citizens of the Union made the law.
Understandably, the small states could not consent to the application of
this doctrine without completely abdicating their existence in what con-
cerned federal sovereignty; for, from co-regulating power, they would be-
come an insignificant fraction of a great people. The first system would
have granted them an unreasonable power; the second nullified them.
In this situation, what almost always happens when interests are opposed
to arguments happened: the rules of logic were made to bend. The law-
makers adopted a middle course that forced conciliation of two systems
theoretically irreconcilable.
The principle of the independence of the states triumphed in the for-
mation of the Senate;s the dogma of national sovereignty, in the compo-
sition of the House of Representatives.t
s. Senate./
The constitution of the Senate is the least logical and the least rational part of the
Constitution of the United States. That is what Hamilton remarks in the Federalist.
All of his discussion on this point shows great distress to see this system introduced,
though he considers it a necessity given the state of opinion.
The equal representation of the states in the Senate goes directly against the prin-
ciple of the Constitution to create a national, not a federal government.
In practice, however, I believe few disadvantages result from this anomaly. Once
the majority is well and constitutionally established in the House of Representatives,
a power enormously popular by its nature, the Senate is forced to go along.
You could be astonished to see the Senate charged with participating in a treaty.
. . . But this power, though not expressed in all constitutions, exists in fact among all
free peoples, even in monarchies.
In America, as among us, all the preliminary negotiations are done, moreover, by
the executive power acting alone. It is the treaty itself that needs the support of the
Senate (YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 42–43).
t. “Political assemblies./
“The more numerous they are, the more prone they are to the oligarchical direction
of some members. See Federalist, p. 235 [No. 58 (ed.)].
Each state had to send two senators to Congress and a certain number
of representatives,u in proportion to its population.14
Today, as a result of this arrangement, the state of New York has forty
representatives in Congress and only two senators; the state of Delaware,
two senators and only one representative. So in the Senate, the state of
Delaware is the equal of the state of New York, while the latter has, in the
House of Representatives, forty times more influence than the first. Thus,
it can happen that the minority of the nation, dominating the Senate, en-
tirely paralyzes the desires of the majority, represented by the other cham-
ber; this is contrary to the spirit of constitutional governments.
All this shows clearly how rare and difficult it is to link all the parts of
legislation together in a logical and rational manner.
In the long run, time always gives birth to different interests and con-
secrates diverse rights in the same people. Then, when it is a question of
establishing a general constitution, each of these interests and rights serves
as so many natural obstacles that are opposed to following all of the con-
sequences of any one political principle. So only at the birth of societies
can you be perfectly logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoy this
advantage, do not rush to conclude that they are wise; instead, think that
they are young.
“January 30, 1832, Washington. Small number of the members of Congress” (YTC,
CVe, p. 51; this note is not reproduced in Voyage, OC, V, 1).
u. “Ask Mr. Livingston or other Americans at the nomination of the King what the
current rule of apportionment for the representatives is” (YTC, CVb, p. 34).
14. Every ten years, Congress again fixes the number of deputies that each state must send
to the House of Representatives. The total number was 69 [65 (ed.)] in 1789; it was 240 in
1833. (American Almanac, 1834, p. 194 [124 (ed.)].)
The Constitution had said that there would not be more than one representative for 30,000
inhabitants; but it did not set a lower limit. Congress has not believed that it had to increase
the number of representatives in proportion to the growth of the population. By the first law
that dealt with this subject, April 14, 1792 (see Laws of the United States by Story, vol. I,
p. 235), it was decided that there would be one representative for 33,000 inhabitants. The last
law, which occurred in 1832, set the number at 1 representative for 48,000 inhabitants. The
population represented is composed of all free men and three-fifths of the number of slaves.
At the time when the federal Constitution was formed, only two interests
positively opposed to each other existed among the Anglo-Americans: the
interest of individuality for the particular states, and the interest of union
for the whole people. It was necessary to come to a compromise.
You must recognize, nonetheless, that up to now this part of the Con-
stitution has not produced the evils that could be feared.
All the states are young;v they are near each other; they have homoge-
neous mores, ideas and needs; the difference that results from their greater
or lesser size is not sufficient to give them strongly opposed interests. So
the small states have never been seen to join together in the Senate against
the plans of the large. There is, moreover, such an irresistible force in the
legal expression of the will of an entire people that, when the majority
expresses itself in the organ of the House of Representatives, the Senate,
facing it, finds itself quite weak.
Beyond that, it must not be forgotten that it did not depend on the
American law-makers to make one and the same nation out of the people
to whom they wanted to give laws. The aim of the federal Constitution
was not to destroy the existence of the states, but only to restrain it. So,
from the moment when a real power was left to those secondary bodies
(and it could not be taken from them), the habitual use of constraint to
bend them to the will of the majority was renounced in advance. This said,
the introduction of the individual strengths of the states into the mecha-
nism of the federal government was nothing extraordinary. It only took
note of an existing fact, a recognized power that had to be treated gently
and not violated.
v. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I would prefer new, for if they are young in terms of es-
tablishment, they are old in terms of civilization” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 12).
Another Difference between the Senate and the

House of Representatives w
The Senate named by the provincial legislators.—
The representatives, by the people.—Two levels of election
for the first.—A single one for the second.—Length of the
different mandates.—Attributions.
The Senate differs from the other chamber not only by the very principle
of representation, but also by the mode of election, by the length of man-
date and by the diversity of attributions.
The House of Representatives is named by the people; the Senate, by
the legislators of each state.
The one is the product of direct election; the other, of indirect election.
The mandate of representatives lasts only two years; that of the senators,
six.
The House of Representatives has only legislative functions; it partici-
pates in judicial power only by accusing public officials. The Senate par-
ticipates in the making of laws; it judges political crimes that are referred
to it by the House of Representatives; it is, in addition, the great executive
council of the nation. Treaties, concluded by the President, must be vali-
dated by the Senate; his choices, to be definitive, need to receive the ap-
proval of the same body.15
w. In the manuscript: “other differences between . . .”

15. See Federalist, Nos. 52–66, inclusive. Story [ Commentaries (ed.)], pp. 199–314.Con-
stitution, sect. II and III.
Of Executive Power16
Dependence of the President.—Elective and accountable.—
Free in his sphere; the Senate oversees him and does not direct
him.—The salary of the President fixed at his entry into
office.—Qualified veto.
The American law-makers had a difficult task to fulfill: they wanted to cre-
ate an executive power that depended on the majority and yet was strong
enough by itself to act freely in its sphere.x
The maintenance of the republican form required that the representative
of the executive power be subject to the national will.
The President is an elective magistrate. His honor, goods, liberty, life
answer continually to the people for the good use that he will make of his
power. While exercising his power, moreover, he is not completely inde-
pendent. The Senate watches over him in his relations with foreign powers,
as well as in the distribution of positions; so he can be neither corrupted
nor corrupt.
The law-makers of the Union recognized that the executive power could
not fulfill its task usefully and with dignity, if they did not succeed in giving
it more stability and strength than it had been granted in the particular
states.
16. Federalist, Nos. 67–77, inclusive. Constitution, art. 2. Story [ Commentaries (ed.)],
p. 315, pp. 515–80. Kent’s Commentaries [vol. I (ed.)], p. 255 [235 (ed.)].
x. The President and in general the executive power of the Union./
Some advantages of a strong executive power:
1. It executes the constitutional desires of the legislatures with more skill and sa-
gacity than they would be able to do themselves.
2. It is a barrier against the abuse of their power; it prevents their omnipotence
from degenerating into tyranny (see, on the subject of the requisite conditions for
the creation of a sufficient executive power, the Federalist, pp. 301 and 316 [No. 70
(ed.)]).
To divide the executive power, to subordinate its movements to the desires of a
council, is to diminish its accountability.
It was necessary to liberty that the President depended on the national will. He is
elective, not inviolable (YTC, CVh, 1, p. 53).
The President was named for four years and could be re-elected. With
a future, he had the courage to work for the public good and the means to
implement it.
The President was made the one and only representative of the executive
power of the Union. Care was even taken not to subordinate his will to
those of a council: a dangerous measure that, while weakening the action
of the government, lessens the accountability of those who govern. The
Senate has the right to strike down some of the acts of the President, but
it can neither force him to act, nor share the executive power with him.
The action of the legislature on the executive power can be direct; we
have just seen that the Americans took care that it was not. It can also be
indirect.
The chambers, by depriving the public official of his salary, take away
a part of his independence; it must be feared that, masters of making laws,
they will little by little take away the portion of power that the Constitution
wanted to keep for him.
This dependence of the executive power is one of the vices inherent in
republican constitutions. The Americans have not been able to destroy the
inclination that leads legislative assemblies to take hold of government,y
but they have made this inclination less irresistible.
y. In the manuscript: “The Americans have not been able to destroy the inclination
[v: tendency], but they have made it less irresistible [v: rapid].”
On this page there is an error of style. Executive power is taken here in a double sense;
first, as presenting the idea of the persons who govern, and then, as including the
idea of the administration itself. This word can indeed be used in this double sense,
but not in places so close together, because it sows confusion in the mind. That is so
true that, when we read: The Americans have not been able to destroy the inclination
to drag the executive power into the legislative assemblies . . . , we think we are going
to see the President of the United States brought into the House of Representatives,
because you were speaking about him a moment before under the name executive
power. This is certainly not the thought of the author, since he means, on the con-
trary, that the legislative assemblies are always led toward taking hold of the executive
power. I would put: The Americans have not been able to destroy the inclination that
leads legislative assemblies to take hold of power, but . . .” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, pp. 51–52).
The salary of the President is fixed, at his entry into office, for the entire
time that his leadership lasts. In addition, the President is armed with a
qualified veto that permits him to stop the passage of laws that would be
able to destroy the portion of independence that the constitution left to
him. There can only be an unequal struggle, however, between the Presi-
dent and the legislature, since the latter, by persevering in its intentions,
always has the power to overcome the resistance that opposes it. But the
qualified veto at least forces it to retrace its steps; it forces the legislature to
consider the question again; and this time, it can no longer decide except
with a two-thirds majority of those voting. The veto, moreover, is a kind
of appeal to the people; the executive power pleads its cause and makes its
reasons heard. Without this guarantee, it could be oppressed in secret. But
if the legislature perseveres in its intentions, can it not always overcome the
resistance that opposes it? To that I will answer that in the constitution of
all peoples, no matter what its nature, there is a point where the law-maker
is obliged to rely on the good sense and virtue of the citizens. This point
is closer and more visible in republics, more removed and more carefully
hidden in monarchies; but it is always found somewhere. There is no coun-
try where the law can foresee everything and where the institutions must
take the place of reason and mores.
How the Position of the President

of the United States Differs from That of
a Constitutional King in France
The executive power, in the United States, limited and
exceptional, like the sovereignty in the name of which it acts.—
The executive power in France extends to everything, like the
sovereignty there.—The King is one of the authors of the law.—
The President is only the executor of the law.—Other differences
that arise from the duration of the two powers.—The President
hampered in the sphere of executive power.—The King is free
there.—France, despite these differences, resembles a republic
more than the Union does a monarchy.—Comparison of the
number of officials who depend on the executive power
in the two countries.
The executive power plays such a great role in the destiny of nations that
I want to stop for an instant here in order to explain better what place it
occupies among the Americans.
In order to conceive a clear and precise idea of the position of the Pres-
ident of the United States, it is useful to compare it to that of the King in
one of the constitutional monarchies of Europe.z
z. Dissimilarity and similarity between the President and the King of England. Fed-
eralist, pp. 295 and 300 [No. 69 (ed.)].
America.
1. Elective magistrate.
2. Subject to the courts, accountable.
3. Qualified veto.
4. Commands the militia, but only in time of war.
5. Cannot pardon in case of impeachment.
6. He cannot adjourn the legislature except in a case allowed.
7. He can make treaties only with two-thirds of the Senate.
8. He can only appoint to office with the advice and consent of the Senate.
9. He can prescribe no rule concerning commerce and monetary system of the
country.
10. He has no ecclesiastical jurisdiction whatsoever.
In this comparison, I will attach little importance to the external signs

of power; they fool the observer more than they help.
When a monarchy is gradually transformed into a republic, the executive
power there keeps titles, honors, respect, and even money, long after it has
lost the reality of power. The English, after having cut off the head of one
of their kings and having chased another from the throne, still knelt to
speak to the successors of these princes.
On the other hand, when republics fall under the yoke of one man,
power continues to appear simple, plain and modest in its manners, as if
it had not already risen above everyone. When the emperors despotically
disposed of the fortune and the life of their citizens, they were still called
Caesar when spoken to, and they went informally to have supper at the
homes of their friends.
So we must abandon the surface and penetrate deeper.
Sovereignty, in the United States, is divided between the Union and the
states; while among us, it is one and compact. From that arises the first and
greatest difference that I notice between the President of the United States
and the King in France.
In the United States, executive power is limited and exceptional,a like
England.
1. Hereditary.
2. Inviolable.
3. Absolute veto.
4. At all times and throughout the kingdom.
5. In all cases.
6. He can always prorogue and dissolve Parliament.
7. He alone makes treaties. He is the only representative of England abroad.
8. He appoints to all offices, even creates offices, and beyond that can confer a mul-
titude of graces, either honorary or lucrative.
9. On certain points he is the arbiter of commerce; he can establish markets, regulate
weights and measures, strike money, set an embargo.
10. He is the head of the national church (YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 58–59).
a. Édouard de Tocqueville:
How is the sovereignty represented by the executive power (that is the national sov-
ereignty) limited and exceptional? That can only be applied to the executive power,
which is in fact very limited.
Upon reflection, I understand the thought. As we saw in the preceding chapter,
the very sovereignty in whose name it acts; in France, it extends to every-

thing, like the sovereignty there.
The Americans have a federal government; we have a national
government.
This is a primary cause of inferiority that results from the very nature
of things; but it is not the only one. The second in importance is this:
strictly speaking, sovereignty can be defined as the right to make laws.
The King, in France, really constitutes one part of the sovereign power,
since laws do not exist if he refuses to sanction them. In addition, he exe-
cutes the law.
The President also executes the law, but he does not really take part in
making the law, since, by refusing his consent, he cannot prevent it from
existing. So he is not part of the sovereign power; he is only its agent.
Not only does the King, in France, constitute one portion of the sov-
ereign power, but he also participates in the formation of the legislature,
which is the other portion. He participates by naming the members of one
chamber and by ending at his will the term of the mandate of the other.
The President of the United States takes no part in the composition of the
legislative body and cannot dissolve it.
The King shares with the Chambers the right to propose laws.
The President has no similar initiative.
The King is represented, within the Chambers, by a certain number of
agents who set forth his views, uphold his opinions and make his maxims
of government prevail.
The President has no entry into Congress; his ministers are excluded as
he is, and it is only by indirect pathways that he makes his influence and
his opinion penetrate this great body.
the Union was granted, by the Constitution, only a limited power, very defined and
perhaps exceptional. But, it seems to me, the President does not represent only this
portion of sovereignty that has been attributed to the federal government; he also
represents the entire sovereignty of the country, its internal as well as external will;
in a word, he is the instrument of national sovereignty (YTC, CIIIb, 3, pp. 1–2).
So the King of France operates as an equal with the legislature, which

cannot act without him, as he cannot act without it.
The President is placed beside the legislature, as an inferior and depen-
dent power.
In the exercise of executive power strictly speaking, the point on which
his position seems closest to that of the King in France, the President still
remains inferior due to several very great causes.
First, the power of the King in France has the advantage of duration
over that of the President. Now, duration is one of the first elements of
strength. Only what must exist for a long time is loved and feared.
The President of the United States is a magistrate elected for four years.
The King in France is a hereditary leader.
In the exercise of executive power, the President of the United States is
constantly subject to jealous oversight. He prepares treaties, but he does not
make them; he designates people for offices, but he does not appoint
them.17
The King of France is the absolute master in the sphere of executive
power.
The President of the United States is accountable for his actions. French
law says that the person of the King of France is inviolable.
But above the one as above the other stands a ruling power, that of public
opinion. This power is less defined in France than in the United States; less
recognized, less formulated in the laws; but, in fact, it exists there. In Amer-
ica, it proceeds by elections and by decisions; in France, by revolutions.
Hence France and the United States, despite the diversity of their consti-
tutions, have this point in common: public opinion is, in effect, the dom-
inant power.b So the generative principle of the laws is, in actual fact, the
17. The Constitution had left it doubtful whether the President was required to ask the
advice of the Senate in the case of removal, as in the case of nomination of a federal official.
The Federalist, in No. 77, seemed to establish the affirmative; but in 1789, Congress decided
with all good reason that, since the President was accountable, he could not be forced to use
agents that did not have his confidence. See Kent’s Commentaries, vol. I, p. 289.
b. In the margin: “⫽This fact, the sovereignty of the people, the capital point com-
mon to the two countries, gives a similarity to their constitutions despite the diversity
of the laws.⫽”
same among the two peoples, although its developments are more or less
free, and the consequences that are drawn from it are often different. This
principle, by its nature, is essentially republican. Consequently, I think that
France, with its King, resembles a republic more than the Union, with its
President, resembles a monarchy.
In all that precedes, I have been careful to point out only the main points
of difference. If I had wanted to get into details, the picture would have
been still more striking. But I have too much to say not to want to be brief.
I remarked that the power of the President of the United States, in his
sphere, exercises only a limited sovereignty, while that of the King, in
France, acts within the circle of a complete sovereignty.
I could have shown the governmental power of the King in France sur-
passing even its natural limits, however extensive they were, and penetrating
into the administration of individual interests in a thousand ways.
To this cause of influence, I could join that which results from the great
number of public officials, nearly all of whom owe their mandate to the
executive power. This number has surpassed all known limits among us;
it reaches 138,000.18 Each of these 138,000 nominations must be consid-
ered as an element of strength. The President does not have an absolute
right to appoint to public positions, and those positions hardly exceed
12,000.19
18. The sums paid by the State to these various officials amount annually to 200,000,000
francs.
19. Each year in the United States an almanac, called the National Calendar, is pub-
lished; the names of all the federal officials are found there. The National Calendar of 1833
furnished me with the figure I give here.
It would follow from what precedes that the King of France has at his disposal eleven times
more places than the President of the United States, although the population of France is only
one and a half times greater than that of the Union.
Accidental Causes That Can Increase

the Influence of the Executive Power
External security that the Union enjoys.—Cautious policy.—
Army of 6,000 soldiers.—Only a few ships.—The President
possesses some great prerogatives that he does not have the
opportunity to use.—In what he does have the opportunity
to execute, he is weak.
If the executive power is less strong in America than in France, the cause
must be attributed to circumstances perhaps more than to laws.
It is principally in its relations with foreigners that the executive power
of a nation finds the opportunity to deploy skill and force.
If the life of the Union were constantly threatened, if its great interests
were found involved daily in those of other powerful peoples, you would
see the executive power grow in opinion by what would be expected of it
and by what it would execute.
The President of the United States is, it is true, the head of the army,
but this army is composed of 6,000 soldiers;c he commands the fleet, but
the fleet numbers only a few vessels; he directs the foreign affairs of the
Union, but the United States has no neighbors. Separated from the rest of
the world by the ocean, still too weak to want to dominate the sea, they
have no enemies; and their interests are only rarely in contact with those
of the other nations of the globe.
This demonstrates well that the practice of government must not be
judged by theory.
The President of the United States possesses some nearly royal prerog-
atives that he does not have the opportunity to use; and the rights that, up
to now, he is able to use are very circumscribed. The laws allow him to be
strong; circumstances keep him weak.
On the contrary, circumstances, still more than the laws, give royal au-
thority in France its greatest strength.
c. 4,000 in the manuscript.

In France, the executive power struggles constantly against immense ob-

stacles and disposes of immense resources to overcome them. It increases
with the greatness of the things that it executes and with the importance
of the events that it directs, without thereby modifying its constitution.
Had the laws created it as weak and as circumscribed as that of the
Union, its influence would soon become very much greater.
Why the President of the United States,

to Lead Public Affairs, Does Not Need
to Have a Majority in the Chambers
It is an established axiom in Europe that a constitutional King cannot gov-
ern when the opinion of the legislative chambers is not in agreement with
his.
Several Presidents of the United States have been seen to lose the support
of the majority of the legislative body, without having to leave power, nor
without causing any great harm to society.
I have heard this fact cited to prove the independence and strength of
the executive power in America. A few moments of reflection are sufficient,
on the contrary, to see there the proof of its weakness.
A European King needs to obtain the support of the legislative body to
fulfill the task that the constitution imposes on him, because this task is
immense. A European constitutional King is not only the executor of the
law; the care of its execution so completely devolves onto him that, if
the law is against him, he would be able to paralyze its force. He needs the
chambers to make the law; the chambers need him to execute it; they are
two powers that cannot live without each other; the gears of government
stop at the moment when there is discord between them.
In America, the President cannot stop the making of laws; he cannot
escape the obligation to execute them. His zealous and sincere support is
undoubtedly useful, but it is not necessary to the course of government.
In everything essential that he does, he is directly or indirectly subject to
the legislature; where he is entirely independent of it, he can hardly do
anything. So it is his weakness, and not his strength, that allows him to live
in opposition to the legislative power.
In Europe, there must be agreement between the King and the Cham-
bers, because there can be a serious struggle between them. In America,
agreement is not required, because the struggle is impossible.
Of the Election of the President

The danger of the system of election increases in proportion to the
extent of the prerogatives of the executive power.—The
Americans can adopt this system because they can do without a
strong executive power.—How circumstances favor the
establishment of the elective system.—Why the election of the
President does not make the principles of government change.—
Influence that the election of the President exercises on the
fate of secondary officials.
The system of election, applied to the head of the executive power among
a great people, presents some dangers that experience and historians have
sufficiently pointed out.
Consequently, I do not want to talk about it except in relation to
America.
The dangers feared from the system of election are more or less great,
depending on the place that the executive power occupies and its impor-
tance in the State, depending on the method of election and the circum-
stances in which the people who elect are found.
Not without reason, the elective system, applied to the head of State, is
criticized for offering such a great lure to individual ambitions and inflaming
them so strongly in the pursuit of power that often, when legal means are
no longer sufficient, they appeal to force when right happens to desert them.
It is clear that the greater the prerogatives of the executive power, the
greater the lure; also, the more the ambition of the pretenders is excited,
the more it finds support among a host of men of lesser ambition who
hope to share power after their candidate has triumphed.d
d. The wording of this paragraph is a bit different in the manuscript. The published
version was suggested by Beaumont (YTC, CIIIb, 3, pp. 52–53).
The dangers of the elective system increase therefore in direct proportion

to the influence exercised by the executive power in the affairs of the State.
The Polish revolutions should not be attributed only to the elective sys-
tem in general, but to the fact that the elected magistrate was the head of
a large monarchy.e
So before discussing the absolute goodness of the elective system, there
is always an intervening question to resolve, that of knowing if the geo-
graphic position, laws, habits, mores and opinions of the people among
whom you want to introduce it allow you to establish a weak and dependent
executive power. To want the representative of the State to be simulta-
neously armed with great power and elected is, to my mind, to express two
contradictory desires. For my part, I know only one way to make hereditary
royalty change to a state of elected power. Its sphere of action must be
contracted in advance; its prerogatives gradually reduced; and little by little,
the people accustomed to living without its aid. But the republicans of
Europe are hardly concerned with this. Since many among them hate tyr-
anny only because they are the objects of its rigors, the extent of executive
power does not offend them; they attack only its origin, without noticing
the tight bond that links these two things.
No one has yet been found who cared about risking his honor and his
life to become President of the United States, because the President has
only a temporary, limited and dependent power. Fortune must put an im-
mense prize at stake in order for desperate players to enter the lists. [⫽For
my part, I would prefer to be Premier Ministre in France than President of
the Union.⫽] No candidate, until now, has been able to raise ardent sym-
pathies and dangerous popular passions in his favor.f The reason is simple.
Once at the head of the government,g he can distribute to his friends nei-
e. Cf. Rousseau, Considérations sur le gouvernement de Pologne, chapters VIII and XIV.
f. Hervé de Tocqueville: “Carefully check if this paragraph agrees well with what the
author says in the chapters on the crisis [of election] and on re-election. You must be
careful about even the appearance of contradiction. Later you talk about intrigues, about
the efforts of the President to get himself re-elected and about the development of his
power in this regard” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 13).
g. In the manuscript: “. . . the President has only a few places . . .”
Hervé de Tocqueville: “These sentences are in clear opposition to what the author
ther much power, nor much wealth, nor much glory; and his influence in
the Stateh is too weak for factions to see their success or their ruin in his
elevation to power.
Hereditary monarchies have a great advantage. Since the particular in-
terest of a family is continually tied in a close way to the interest of the
State, there is never a single moment when the latter is left abandoned to
itself. I do not know if in these monarchies public affairs are better con-
ducted than elsewhere; but at least there is always someone who takes charge
for good or ill, depending on his capacity.j
In elective States, on the contrary, at the approach of the election and a
long time before it happens, the gears of government no longer function,
in a way, except by themselves. The laws can undoubtedly be put together
so that the election takes place at one go and rapidly, and the seat of ex-
ecutive power never remains vacant so to speak; but no matter what is done,
an empty place exists mentally despite the efforts of the law-maker.
At the approach of the election, the head of the executive power thinks
only of the struggle to come; he no longer has a future; he can undertake
nothing, and pursues only languidly what someone else perhaps is going
to achieve. “I am so near the moment of my retirement,” wrote President
Jefferson on 21 [28 (ed.)] January 1809 (six weeks before the election), “that
I no longer take part in public affairs except by expressing my opinion. To
me, it seems just to leave to my successor the initiation of measures that he
will have to execute and for which he will have to bear responsibility.”
On its side, the nation has its eyes focused only on a single point; it is
occupied only with overseeing the birth about to take place.
says on pages 346 and 347. Moreover, can one say that a man has only a few places to
distribute when 20,000 nominations depend on him in a machine as simple as the Amer-
ican organization?” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 14).
h. Cf. non-alphabetic notebook 1, conversation with John (?) Livingston (YTC, BIIa,
and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 60).
j. “In France, for society to work, social power must be not only centralized, but also
stable.
“Power can be centralized in an assembly; then it is strong, but not stable. It can be
centralized in a man. Then it is less strong, but more stable” (YTC, Cve, p. 64).
The more vast the place occupied by the executive power in the lead-
ership of public affairs, the greater and more necessary is its habitual action,
and the more dangerous such a state of things is. Among a people who have
contracted the habit of being governed by the executive power, and with
even more reason, of being administered by it, election cannot help but
produce a profound disturbance.
In the United States, the action of the executive power can slow down
with impunity, because this action is weak and circumscribed.
When the head of government is elected, a lack of stability in the in-
ternal and external policies of the State almost always follows. That is one
of the principal vices of this system.
But this vice is felt more or less, depending on the portion of power
granted to the elected magistrate. In Rome, the principles of government
never varied, although the consuls were changed annually, because the Sen-
ate was the directing power; and the Senate was an hereditary body. In most
of the monarchies of Europe, if the King were elected, the kingdom would
change faces with each new choice.
In America, the President exercises a fairly great influence on affairs of
State, but he does not conduct them; the preponderant power resides in
the whole national representation. Therefore, the mass of people must be
changed, and not only the President, in order for the maxims of policy to
change. Consequently, in America, the system of election, applied to the
head of the executive power, does not harm the steadiness of government
in a very tangible way.
The lack of steadiness is an evil so inherent in the elective system, more-
over, that it still makes itself keenly felt in the President’s sphere of action,
no matter how circumscribed.
Mr. Quincy Adams, when he took power, dismissed most of those ap-
pointed by his predecessor; and of all the removable officials that the federal
administration uses, I do not know of a single one who was left in office
by General Jackson in the first year that followed the election.k
k. This paragraph, which does not appear in the manuscript, is included in the edition
of 1835 and eliminated from the sixth and later editions, following a letter from John
Quincy Adams, dated June 12, 1837:
The Americans thought correctly that the head of the executive power,
in order to fulfill his mission and bear the weight of full responsibility, had
to remain free, as much as possible, to choose his agents himself and to
remove them at will;m the legislative body watches over rather than directs
The truth is that I never dismissed a single individual named by my predecessor. It

was a principle of my administration to dismiss no person from office but for mis-
conduct, and there were in the course of four years that I presided, only two persons
dismissed from civil executive office, both of them for gross official misdemeanors.
My successor it is true did pursue a different principle. He dismissed many subor-
dinate officer executive [sic ] not however so generally as the remainder of the para-
graph in your book, which I have cited, supposes. He left in office many of those
who had been appointed by his predecessors, and would probably have left many
more but for the influences by which he was surrounded (YTC, CId).
On December 4, 1837, Tocqueville answers from Paris:
I receive with great pleasure the complaint that you very much wanted to address to
me relating to a sentence in my book that concerns you. You can be assured that this
sentence will disappear in the sixth edition which is supposed to appear, I believe,
this winter. I am delighted that you have given me this occasion to please you and to
correct an error that I regret having made. The fact you complain about and that you
say is inaccurate had been affirmed to me in America itself (my notes prove it) by a
man on whose veracity I thought I could count (YTC, CId, and OC, VII, pp. 67–
68). See, in the non-alphabetic notebooks 2 and 3, the second conversation with Mr.
Walker (YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 130).
m. In the manuscript:
The legislative body therefore interferes only very little in the choices of men to whom
public positions are entrusted. It limits itself to supervising the President; it does not
direct him. What is the result? At each election, a complete replacement takes place
in the federal administration. [In the margin: This happened only under Quincy
Adams and under Jackson.] There is not an employee so lowly who can claim to
escape from the result of the vote. His place belongs in advance to the friends of the
new power. People in the constitutional monarchies of Europe complain about seeing
the fate of the secondary employees of the administration depend on the fate of the
ministers. It is still much worse in States where the head of government is elected.
Of the [blank (ed.)] revocable officials employed by the federal administration, I do
not think that there was a single one that General Jackson left in place the first year
that followed his election. The reason for this difference is easily understood. In mon-
archies, the ministers, in order to come to power and remain there, have no need to
extend the circle of their influence very far; as long as they obtain the majority in the
chambers, it is enough. But to bring about his election or reelection, the President
needs to reach the popular masses; and in order to succeed in that, he must not neglect
the President. From that it follows that at each new election, the fate of all
federal employees is as if in suspense.
a single means of action. Each election, therefore, brings to public affairs a new ad-
ministration whose education is completed at the expense of the administered. As
for the individual misfortunes that result . . .
(In the margin) False, for to bring about election and reelection of the deputies,
the ministers need the same means.
Here is a piece that Alexis proposes to delete. But it contains views and a fact worth
keeping; perhaps it could be modified in the following way:
After the sentence: The legislative body therefore interferes only very little in, I would
like a short note that explained how the legislative body intervenes in nominations.
The flaw in this explanation is that something is missing.
A complete replacement takes place in the administration. Here a note at the bottom
of the page where you will say that, because this replacement has taken place at the
election of the last two Presidents, it may be believed that this precedent will be
followed by their successors (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 14).
I would very much hesitate to delete the piece crossed out. Possibly it contains some
ideas and opinions that need to be revised and modified. But as a whole it is very
interesting and will be especially for the public, because it touches on a question
extremely exciting to the personal interests of all public officials.
The contrast between the President and the ministers does not exist; they are in an
analogous position in the sense that the ministers of a French monarchy have an interest
in bringing their weight to bear on the least agents, in order to gain the majority in the
chambers from the electoral body. And they cannot remain ministers if they do not
have this majority, just as the President will not be elected if he does not gain it.
But here is the difference: a minister cannot think of dismissing everyone in order
to remain minister; and if he wanted to do it, he would not be able to do so. Because
public opinion, on which he depends, would never understand that the end justified
the means. It is the opposite when it is a matter, for a man, of being head of the State
(YTC, CIIIb, 3, pp. 53–54).
Whatever your decision regarding this piece, I will make several observations; first
this sentence: to remove them at will is trite. But the most serious flaw in this piece
is to present a striking contradiction to what you said a few sentences earlier. Here
you say that all the employees are replaced at the coming into office of the President
and that he is obligated, in the machinery he puts in motion, to reach the popular
masses, without neglecting a single means of action. While you say, p. 324, that no
one cares about risking his honor and his life to become President, that no candidate
In the constitutional monarchies of Europe, the complaint is that the

destiny of the obscure agents of the administration often depends on the
fate of the ministers. It is even worse in States where the head of govern-
ment is elected. The reason for this is simple. In constitutional monarchies,
ministers replace each other rapidly; but the principal representative of the
executive power never changes, which contains the spirit of innovation
within certain limits. So administrative systems there vary in the details
rather than in the principles; one cannot be suddenly substituted for an-
other without causing a kind of revolution. In America, this revolution
takes place every four years in the name of law.
As for the individual misfortunes that are the natural consequence of
such legislation, it must be admitted that the lack of stability in the lot of
officials does not produce in America the evils that would be expected else-
where. In the United States, it is so easy to make an independent living that
to remove an official from an office that he holds sometimes means taking
away the comforts of life, but never the means to sustain it.
I said at the beginning of this chapter that the dangers of the mode of
election, applied to the head of the executive power, were more or less great,
depending on the circumstances in which the people who elect are found.
Efforts to reduce the role of the executive power are made in vain. There
is something over which this power exercises a great influence, whatever
the place that the laws have given it. That is foreign policy; a negotiation
can hardly be started and successfully carried through except by a single
man. [{Physical force can only be adequately put in motion [v: directed]
by a single will.}]
The more precarious and perilous the position of a people, the more the
need for consistency and stability makes itself felt in the direction of foreign
has been able to raise ardent sympathies in his favor and that he can attach to his
cause neither personal interest nor party interest, that he has only a few places to
distribute to his friends.
How then do you say afterwards, p. 330, that the place of the lowliest employeebelongs
in advance to the friends of the new power, and that General Jackson did not leave a
single official in place? And again, page 346, the positions he has at his disposal, etc.
(YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 3).
affairs, and the more dangerous the system of election of the head of State
becomes.
The policy of the Americans in relation to the whole world is simple;
you would almost be able to say that no one needs them, and that they need
no one. Their independence is never threatened.
So among them, the role of executive power is as limited by circum-
stances as by laws. The President can frequently change his views without
having the State suffer or perish.
Whatever the prerogatives with which the executive power is vested, the
time that immediately precedes the election and the time while it is taking
place can always be considered as a period of national crisis.
The more the internal situation of a country is troubled and the greater
its external perils, the more dangerous this moment of crisis is for it. Among
the peoples of Europe, there are very few who would not have to fear con-
quest or anarchy every time that they chose a new leader.
In America, society is so constituted that it can maintain itself on its
own and without help; external dangers are never pressing. The election of
the President is a cause for agitation, not for ruin.
Mode of Election
Skill which the American law-makers have demonstrated in the
choice of the mode of election.—Creation of a special electoral
body.—Separate vote of special electors.—In what case the House
of Representatives is called to choose the President.—What has
happened in the twelve elections that have taken place since the
Constitution has been in force.
Apart from the dangers inherent in the principle, there are many others that
arise from the very forms of election and that can be avoided by the care
of the law-maker.n
n. The draft of this passage has been corrected by Gustave de Beaumont (YTC, CIIIb,
3, p. 55).
When a people gather in arms in the public square to choose a leader, it

exposes itself not only to the dangers presented by the elective system itself,
but also to all those of civil war which arise from such a method of election.
When Polish laws made the choice of the king depend on the veto of a
single man, they invited the murder of this man or created anarchy in
advance.
As you study the institutions of the United States and look more atten-
tively at the political and social situation of this country, you notice a mar-
velous accord there between fortune and human efforts. America was a new
country; but the people who lived there had already long made use of liberty
elsewhere: two great causes of internal order. Furthermore, America had
no fear of conquest. The American law-makers, taking advantage of these
favorable circumstances, had no difficulty in establishing a weak and de-
pendent executive power; having created it so, they could make it elective
without risk.
Nothing remained for them to do except to choose, from among the
different systems of election, the least dangerous; the rules that they drew
up in this respect completed admirably the guarantees that the physical and
political constitution of the country already provided.
The problem to solve was to find a mode of election that, while still
expressing the real will of the people, little excited their passions and
kept the people in the least possible suspense. First, they granted that a
simple majority would make the law. But it was still very difficult to obtain
this majority without having to fear delays that they wanted to avoid
above all.
It is rare, in fact, to see a man get the majority of votes on the first try
from among a large population. The difficulty increases still more in a re-
public of confederated states where local influences are much more devel-
oped and more powerful.
A way to obviate this second obstacle presented itself: to delegate the
electoral powers of the nation to a body that represented it.
This mode of election made a majority more probable; for the fewer the
electors, the easier it is for them to agree among themselves. It also presented
more guarantees for a good choice.
But should the right to elect be entrusted to the legislative body itself,
the usual representative of the nation; or, on the contrary, must an electoral
college be formed whose sole purpose would be to proceed to the naming
of the President?o
The Americans preferred this last option. They thought that the men
sent to make ordinary laws would only incompletely represent the wishes
of the people relating to the election of the first magistrate. Being elected,
moreover, for more than a year, they could represent a will that had already
changed. They judged that, if the legislature was charged with electing the
head of the executive power, its members would become, long before the
election, the objects of corrupting maneuvers and the playthings of in-
trigue; while special electors, like jurors, would remain unknown in the
crowd until the day when they must act and would only appear at one
moment to deliver their decision.
So they established that each state would name a certain number of elec-
tors,20 who would in turn elect the President. And, since they had noticed
that assemblies charged with choosing heads of government in elective
countries inevitably became centers of passions and intrigue, that some-
times they took hold of powers that did not belong to them, and that often
their operations, and the uncertainties that followed, lasted long enough to
put the State in danger, they decided that the electors would all vote on a
set day, but without meeting together.21
The mode of election in two stages made a majority probable, but did
not guarantee it, for it could be that the electors would differ among them-
selves as those who named them would have differed.
In this case, the Americans were led necessarily to take one of three mea-
sures: it was necessary to have new electors named, or to consult once again
those already named, or finally to refer the choice to a new authority.
o. Gustave de Beaumont: “335, 336, 337, 338, etc. . . . All these pages seem excellent
to me and I very strongly urge the author not to make the corrections that are advised
by imprudent friends” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, pp. 55–56).
20. As many as the members they send to Congress. The number of electors for the election
of 1833 was 288 ( The National Calendar [1833] [p. 19 (ed.)]).
21. The electors of the same state meet; but they send to the seat of the central government
the list of individual votes and not the result of the majority vote.
The first two methods, apart from the fact that they were not very cer-
tain, led to delays and perpetuated an always dangerous excitement.
So they settled on the third and agreed that the votes of the electors
would be transmitted in secret to the president of the Senate. He would
count the votes on the day fixed and in the presence of the two houses. If
no candidate had gained a majority, the House of Representatives would
itself proceed immediately to the election; but they took care to limit its
right. The Representatives could only elect one of the three candidates who
had obtained the largest number of votes.22
As you see, only in a rare case, difficult to foresee in advance, is the elec-
tion left to the ordinary representatives of the nation; and even then, they
can only choose a citizen already designated by a strong minority of the
special electors; a happy combination, that reconciles the respect owed to
the will of the people with the rapidity of execution and the guarantees of
order required by the interest of the State. Yet, by making the House of
Representatives decide the question, in case of division, the complete so-
lution of all difficulties had still not been achieved; for the majority in the
House of Representatives could in turn be doubtful, and this time the Con-
stitution offered no remedy. But by establishing required candidates, by
restricting their number to three, by relying on the choices of some en-
lightened men, it had smoothed all the obstacles23 over which it could have
some power; the others were inherent in the elective system itself.p
22. In this circumstance, it is the majority of the states, and not the majority of the mem-
bers, that decides the question. So that New York does not have more influence on the delib-
eration than Rhode Island. Thus the citizens of the Union, considered as forming one and
the same people, are consulted first; and when they cannot agree, the division by states is
revived, and each of the latter is given a separate and independent vote.
That again is one of the strange things that the federal constitution presents and only the
clash of opposing interests can explain.
23. In 1801, however, Jefferson was named only on the thirty-sixth ballot.
p. Tocqueville writes to Corcelle:
There is a piece of your work that particularly pleased me a great deal. It is where
you indicate, as a remedy for the excesses of democracy, election by stages. In my
opinion that is a capital idea that must be introduced very prudently and that is very
During the forty-five years the federal Constitution has existed, the
United States has already elected its President twelve times.
Ten elections were done immediately, by the simultaneous vote of the
special electors seated at different points of the territory.
The House of Representatives has used the exceptional right with which
it is vested in case of division only twice. The first, in 1801, was at the time
of the election of Jefferson; and the second, in 1825, when Quincy Adams
was named.
Election Crisis
The moment of the election of the President can be considered a
moment of national crisis.—Why.—Passions of the people.—
Preoccupation of the President.—Calm which follows the
agitation of the election.
I have talked about the favorable circumstances in which the United States
was found for adopting the elective system, and I have shown the precau-
tions taken by the law-makers to reduce its dangers. The Americans are
used to having all kinds of elections. Experience has taught them what level
of agitation they can reach and where they must stop. The vast extent of
their territory and the distribution of the inhabitants make a collision
important to introduce gradually to the thinking of those who love liberty and the
equality of men. I firmly believe, without yet saying it as strongly as I think it, that
different stages of election form the most powerful and perhaps the only means that
democratic peoples have to give the direction of society to the most skillful, without
making them independent of everyone else (Letter of October 1835 (?) Correspondance
avec Corcelle, OC, XV, I, p. 57. Cf. Souvenirs, OC, XII, pp. 188–90).
In the report that he did as a member of the Commission charged with the revision
of the constitution (“Rapport fait à l’Assemblée législative au nom de la Commission
chargée d’examiner les propositions relatives à la révision de la constitution . . . ,” Mon-
iteur Universel, July 9, 1851, pp. 1943–1945, and OCB, IX, pp. 574–606), Tocqueville
praises the American system of indirect election of the President. He sees there a way
to avoid revolutions as well as the temptation to resort to dictatorship. In a letter of 1853
(partially reproduced in OCB, VI, pp. 212–20), he will share with W. R. Greg, English
essayist and ardent defender of free trade, extremely lucid views on French electoral laws
under the monarchy and the republic.
among the different parties less probable and less perilous than anywhere
else. Until now, the political circumstances in which the nation has found
itself during elections have not presented any real danger. [<Finally, the
power of the President is so dependent and so limited that the passions of
the candidates and those of their partisans can never be either very ardent
or very long-lasting.>]
But the moment of the election of the President of the United States
can still be considered a period of national crisis.
The influence that the President exercises on the course of public affairs
is undoubtedly weak and indirect, but it extends over the entire nation; the
choice of President has only a moderate importance for each citizen, but
it matters to all citizens. Now, an interest, however small, assumes a char-
acter of great importance from the moment it becomes a general interest.
Compared to a king of Europe, the President has certainly few means
to create partisans for himself; nonetheless, the places he has at his disposal
are numerous enoughq for several thousands of the voters to be either di-
rectly or indirectly interested in his cause.
In the United States as elsewhere, moreover, parties feel the need to
gather around a man, in order to be more easily understood by the crowd.
So they generally use the name of the candidate for President as a symbol;
in him, they personify their theories. Thus, parties have a great interest in
determining the election in their favor, not so much for making their doc-
trines triumph with the help of the elected President, as for showing, by
his election, that these doctrines have won the majority.
Long before the fixed moment arrives, the election becomes the greatest
and, so to speak, the sole matter that preoccupies minds. Factions redouble
their ardor [the administration finds itself attacked from all directions;
{slanders, insults, rantings of all types are thrown lavishly against it}]; all
the artificial passions that can be imagined, in a happy and tranquil coun-
try, are stirred up at this moment in full view.
q. Hervé de Tocqueville: “Check if that agrees with page 324 where it is said: no
candidate, until now, has been able to raise, etc.” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 15).
On his side, the President is absorbed by the care to defend himself. He

no longer governs in the interest of the State, but in that of his re-election;
he grovels before the majority; and often, instead of resisting its passions,
as his duty requires, he runs ahead of its caprices.
As the election approaches, intrigues become more active; agitation,
more intense and more widespread. The citizens divide into several camps,
each taking the name of its candidate. The entire nation falls into a feverish
state; the election is then the daily story of the public papers, the subject
of individual conversations, the goal of all moves, the object of all
thoughts, the sole interest of the moment. [⫽The danger certainly is more
apparent than real.⫽]
It is true that as soon as fortune has decided, this ardor dissipates; ev-
erything becomes calm, and the river, once overflowing, retreats peacefully
to its bed. But shouldn’t we be astonished that the storm could arise? [<For
the choice that so strongly preoccupied the nation can influence its pros-
perity and its dreams only in a very indirect way; the passions that arose
did not find their source in those real interests and penchants [doubtful
reading (ed.)] that so profoundly trouble the human heart [v: society] [v:
stirring the deepest levels of the human heart and turning society upside
down to be satisfied]. For the election of the President of the United States
cannot put into play any of those dangerous human passions that find their
source in profound beliefs or in great positive interests.>]
Of the Re-election of the President

When the head of the executive power is eligible for re-election, it
is the State itself that schemes and corrupts.—Desire to be re-
elected that dominates all the thoughts of the President of the
United States.—Disadvantage of re-election, special to
America.—The natural vice of democracies is the gradual
subservience of all powers to the slightest desires of the
majority.—The re-election of the President favors this vice.
Were the law-makers of the United States wrong or right to allow the re-
election of the President?r
To prevent the head of the executive power from being re-elected seems,
at first glance, contrary to reason.s We know what influence the talents or
character of one man exercise over the destiny of an entire people, especially
in difficult circumstances and in times of crisis. Laws that forbid citizens
to re-elect their primary magistrate would deny them the best means of
ensuring the prosperity of the State or of saving it. You would, moreover,
arrive at this bizarre result, that a man would be excluded from the gov-
ernment at the very moment when he would have finally proved that he
was capable of governing well.t
These reasons are certainly powerful; but can’t they be opposed by still
stronger ones?u
r. In the Souvenirs, Tocqueville reproaches himself for having supported, in the com-
mittee to draft the Constitution of 1848, Beaumont’s proposal that urged that a president
leaving office not be re-elected. “On this occasion, we both fell into a great error that, I
am very afraid, will have very damaging consequences,” wrote Tocqueville in March 1851
(Souvenirs, OC, XII, p. 190). The impossibility of being re-elected was, we know, one
of the reasons that pushed Louis Napoleon to the coup d’état.
s. In the margin: “⫽Eight years, term indicated by experience.⫽” See note y p. 229.
t. In the margin: “⫽1. The great end of the laws is to mingle individual interest and
State interest.
2. Weakening of the executive power, capital vice to avoid in republics.⫽”
u. Variant:
<The great object of the laws [v: of the law-maker] must always be intimately to
mingle individual interest and State interest. Certainly laws can never reach such a
Intrigue and corruption are the natural vices of elective governments.

But when the head of the State can be re-elected, these vices spread indef-
initely and compromise the very existence of the country. When an ordi-
nary candidate wants to succeed by intrigue, his maneuvers can only be
degree of perfection, but it can be said that the more difficult it is to separate these
two interests, the better the laws.
If the President were not eligible for re-election, he would have only one goal, to
leave a great recollection in the memory of men and to return to private life sur-
rounded by the respect as well as the love of his fellow citizens. To obtain this goal,
he could hardly follow another path than to govern well; for at the bottom of the
human heart, there is a secret instinct that constantly calls out that the approval of
the present [v: the sincere approval of contemporaries] and the admiration of pos-
terity belong to virtue alone.
In place of this entirely non-material and distant interest, the American laws have
given the President a positive and current interest that, if not contrary to, is at least
distinct from that of the State.
The President has naturally two goals to pursue: to govern well and to be re-elected.
I know you will stop me here by saying: the two interests are the same, for the only
way to be re-elected is to govern well. This argument is far from satisfying to me; it
goes back to the argument that the majority is not subject to error, that it has neither
prejudice to be flattered nor passions to be inflamed, that favor [added: and intrigue]
have no hold on it, a proposition that cannot be sustained and that does not merit
the effort to refute. It is incontestable that there are two ways for the President to be
re-elected. The first, it is true, consists of governing well, but that is within reach of
only great souls. Even then, success is always uncertain. Washington had lost the
majority when he voluntarily removed himself from public activities. The second,
easier and more within the reach of ordinary minds, is to buy partisans at any cost,
to make offices the recompense for services rendered to the President, not to the
country, to exploit public power in favor of individual interests, and to turn all laws
into a combination of personal and party interests.
It is impossible to examine the ordinary course of public affairs in the United States
without noticing that the desire to be re-elected dominates the thoughts of the Pres-
ident, that the entire policy of his administration focuses on this point, that his
slightest declarations are subordinated to this end, that above all, as the moment of
crisis nears, the interest of the State becomes more and more incidental to him and
re-election becomes his principal interest.
By allowing re-election of the President, the Americans introduced intrigue and
corruption [v: a new element] into government.>
⫽That is still not the most frightening result of the system of re-election. Certain
physicians believe that when each man comes into the world, he already has the seed
of the illness that one day will kill him. This remark may be applied to government.⫽
Each government . . .
extended over a circumscribed space. When, on the contrary, the head of

the State himself gets into the fray, he borrows for his own use the strength
of the government.v
In the first case, it is one man with his limited means; in the second, it
is the State itself with its immense resources that schemes and corrupts.
The ordinary citizen who uses reprehensible maneuverings to gain
power can harm public prosperity only in an indirect manner; but if the
representative of the executive power enters the lists, concern for the gov-
ernment becomes, for him, something of secondary interest; the main in-
terest is his election. Negotiations, like laws, are, for him, nothing more
than electoral schemes; positions become recompense for services rendered,
not to the nation, but to its leader. Even if the action of the government
would not always be contrary to the interest of the country, it would at
least no longer serve it. Yet the action of the government is undertaken for
its use alone.
It is impossible to consider the ordinary course of affairs in the United
States, without noticing that the desire to be re-elected dominates the
thoughts of the President; that the entire policy of his administration leads
to this point; that his smallest steps are subordinated to this end; that above
all, as the moment of crisis approaches, individual interest replaces general
interest in his mind.
So the principle of re-election makes the corrupting influence of elective
government more widespread and more dangerous. It tends to degrade the
political morality of the people and to replace patriotism with cleverness.
In America, it attacks the sources of national existence even more
fundamentally.
Every government carries within itself a natural vice that seems attached
to the very principle of its life; the genius of the law-maker is to discern
v. Hervé de Tocqueville: “Isn’t Alexis drawing too excited a picture there, relative to
what precedes? He tried hard in several places to show us that the President has only
limited means at his disposal. Here he exalts his strength and his immense resources.
Perhaps the imagination of the author has sought to prove too much, for fear of not
proving enough” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 16).
this well.w A State can overcome many bad laws, and the evil they cause is
often exaggerated. But every law whose effect is to develop this seed of death
cannot miss becoming fatal in the long run, even if its bad effects do not
immediately make themselves felt.
The principle of ruin in absolute monarchies is the unlimited and un-
reasonable expansion of royal power. A measure that removes the coun-
terweight that the constitution left to this power would therefore be radi-
cally bad, even if its effects seemed unnoticeable for a long time.
In the same way, in countries where democracy governs and where the
people constantly draw everything to themselves, laws which make their
action more and more immediate and irresistible attack, in a direct way, the
existence of the government.
The greatest merit of the American law-makers is to have seen this truth
clearly and to have had the courage to put it into practice. [{The greatest
glory of this people is to have known how to appreciate it and to submit
themselves to it.}]
They understood that beyond the people there needed to be a certain
number of powers that, without being completely independent of the peo-
ple, nonetheless enjoyed in their sphere a fairly large degree of liberty; so,
though forced to obey the permanent direction of the majority, they could
nevertheless struggle against its caprices and refuse its dangerous demands.
To this effect, they concentrated all the executive power of the nation
in one pair of hands; they gave the President extensive prerogatives, and
armed him with a veto, to resist the encroachments of the legislature.x
w. Cf. Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, particularly books II and VIII.

x. Hervé de Tocqueville:
This locution seems contradictory to what has been said and repeated earlier about the
slight power of the President. Isn’t it to be feared that Alexis will be accused of reducing
or augmenting this power as his theory requires? Perhaps this chapter has the fault of
not coming to a conclusion. It is clear that the author blames re-election, and I believe
he is right. What would he want in its place? Four years in office are very few.
It doesn’t seem to me that there is a contradiction here. They armed the President
with great power and took from him the will to make use of it. That is why this power,
strong in appearance, is weak in reality.
But by introducing the principle of re-election, they have partially de-

stroyed their work. They have granted great power to the President, and
have taken from him the will to use it.
Not re-eligible, the President was not independent of the people, for he
did not cease being responsible to them; but the favor of the people was
not so necessary to him that he had to bend in all cases to their will.
Re-eligible (and this is true above all in our time when political morality
is becoming lax and when men of great character are disappearing), the
President of the United States is only a docile instrument in the hands of
the majority. He loves what it loves, hates what it hates; he flies ahead of
its will, anticipates its complaints, bends before its slightest desires. The
law-makers wanted him to lead the majority, and he follows it.
Thus, in order not to deprive the State of the talents of one man, they
have rendered his talents almost useless; and to arrange for a resource in
extraordinary circumstances, they have exposed the country to daily
dangers.y
Of the Federal Courts24

Political importance of the judicial power in the United
States.—Difficulty in treating this subject.—Utility of the
judicial system in confederations.—What courts could the Union
Everything has its advantages and disadvantages. Here Alexis presents those of the
principle of election, without claiming, by doing so, that it must be destroyed (YTC,
CIIIb, 3, pp. 17–18).
y. “In my opinion the President of the United States should be chosen for a longer
term and not be re-eligible” (YTC, CVh, 1, p. 58).
24. See ch. VI entitled “Of the Judicial Power in the United States.” This chapter
shows the general principles of the Americans in the matter of the judicial system. Also see the
federal Constitution, art. 3.
See the work with the title: The Federalist, Nos. 78–83 inclusive. Constitutional Law,
Being a View of the Practice and Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, by
Thomas Sergeant.
See Story [ Commentaries (ed.)], pp. 134–62, 489–511, 581–668. See the organic law of
September 24, 1789, in the collection entitled: Laws of the United States, by Story, vol. I,
p. 53.
[Kent’s Commentaries, vol. I, p. 275 [273 (ed.)] and following.]
use?—Necessity of establishing federal courts of justice.—

Organization of the federal judicial system.—The Supreme
Court.—How it differs from all the courts of justice that we know.
I have examined the legislative power and the executive power of the
Union. It still remains for me to consider the judicial power.
Here I must reveal my fears to readers.
The judicial institutions exercise a great influence on the destiny of the
Anglo-Americans; they hold a very important place among political insti-
tutions properly so called. From this point of view, they particularly merit
our attention.
But how to make the political action of the American courts understood,
without entering into some of the technical details of their constitution
and of their forms; and how to get into the details without discouraging,
by the natural dryness of such a subject, the curiosity of the reader? How
to remain clear and still be concise?
[<So I have said only what I believed indispensable for someone to judge
the political action of courts within the confederation.> So often, I have
assumed the reader’s pre-existent ideas on the administration of justice
among the people of the English race; even more often I counted on him
searching in the sources that I point out in order to fill out my ideas. In a
word, I have said only what I believed indispensable for someone to be able
to understand the political action of the federal courts.]
I do not flatter myself that I have escaped these different dangers. Men
of the world will still find that I go on too long; legal specialists will think
that I am too brief. But that is a disadvantage connected to my subject in
general and to the special matter that I am treating at this moment.
The greatest difficulty was not to know how the federal government
would be constituted, but how obedience to its laws would be assured.
Governments generally have only two means to overcome the efforts of
the governed to resist them: the physical force that they find within them-
selves; the moral force that the decisions of the courts bestow on them.
A government that would have only war to enforce obedience to its laws
would be very close to its ruin. One of two things would probably happen
to it. If it were weak and moderate, it would use force only at the last ex-
tremity and would let a host of incidents of partial disobedience go by

unnoticed; then the State would fall little by little into anarchy.
If it were audacious and powerful, it would resort daily to the use of
violence, and soon you would see it degenerate into pure military despo-
tism. Its inaction and its action would be equally harmful to the governed.
The great object of justice is to substitute the idea of law for that of
violence; to place intermediaries between the government and the use of
physical force.
The power of opinion generally granted by men to the intervention of
the courts is something surprising. This power is so great that it is still at-
tached to judicial form when the substance no longer exists; it gives flesh
to the shadow.
The moral force with which the courts are vested renders the use of
physical force infinitely rarer, substituting for it in most cases; and when,
finally, physical force must be exerted, its power is doubled by the moral
force that is joined with it.
A federal government, more than another government, must desire to
obtain the support of the judicial system, because it is weaker by its nature;
and efforts at resistance can more easily be organized against it.25 If it always
and immediately had to resort to the use of force, it would not be adequate
to its task.z
25. It is federal laws that most need courts, and yet federal laws have least accepted them.
The cause is that most confederations have been formed by independent states that had no
real intention of obeying the central government; and, while giving it the right to command,
they carefully reserved to themselves the ability to disobey.
z. The great interest of the law-maker is to substitute as many intermediaries as pos-
sible between man and the use of physical force. All men have known propensities,
based on known needs, interests and passions. The natural inclination of man will
always be to gain for himself what he desires, or to avoid what displeases him, by the
shortest and most effective of all means: physical force. It does not depend on the
laws to prevent men, absolutely and in all cases, from using physical force. But it does
depend on them to reduce the occasions greatly. For that, the legal means of action
and of resistance must be multiplied. Reduced in this way to using force only in
extremely rare circumstances, or for satisfying clearly evil passions, man will renounce
the use of violence almost completely. That is why, where the agents of the admin-
istration are open to attack before the courts, administrative power is more respected
within the circle of its attributions, and revolts are more rare.
To make citizens obey its laws, or to repel the aggressions that would be
directed against it, the Union therefore had a particular need for courts.
But what courts could it use? Each state already had a judicial power
organized within it. Would it be necessary to resort to these courts? Would
it be necessary to create a federal judicial system? It is easy to prove that the
Union could not adapt to its use the judicial power established in the states.
It is undoubtedly important to the security of each person and to the
liberty of all that the judicial power should be separated from all the others;
but it is no less necessary to national existence that the different powers of
the State have the same origin, follow the same principles and act in the
same sphere, in a word, that they are correlative and homogeneous. No one,
I imagine, has ever thought to have crimes committed in France judged by
foreign courts in order to be more certain of the impartiality of the
magistrates.
The Americans form only a single people, in relation to their federal
government. But in the midst of this people, political bodies, dependent
on the national government on certain points and independent on all the
others, have been allowed to continue to exist; they have their particular
origins, their own doctrines and their special means of action. To entrust
the enforcement of the laws of the Union to courts instituted by these
political bodies, was to deliver the nation to foreign judges.
When the American Union had only ⫽war to make the different states obey, it
was not obeyed at all; and if the Union had wanted to be, it would have enveloped
America in a series of violent scenes. From the moment when it was able to use the
courts [text interrupted (ed.)]⫽ There is such a social state1 where power, to exist,
needs the prompt and passive obedience of its agents. (This is the case of several
European nations.) Then, it avoids the legal impediments that would hamper its
march and prefers to risk insurrections more than trials. But the closer you get to this
situation, the further you get from civilization. In Turkey, where there is only a single
intermediary between obedience and revolt, either you submit to the Sultan or you
strangle him.
1. There are governments for which the rapidity of enforcement is a condition of
life (YTC, CVb, pp. 21–22).
Cf. note m for p. 90, where Hervé de Tocqueville also refers to strangling the Sultan of
Turkey. For Montesquieu and his entire period, the government of this country was the
best possible example of oriental despotism.
Even more, each state is not only a foreigner in relation to the Union,
but it is also a daily adversary, since the sovereignty of the Union can only
be lost to the profit of that of the states.
So by having the laws of the Union applied by the courts of the indi-
vidual states, the nation would be delivered, not only to foreign judges, but
also to partial judges.
It was not their character alone, moreover, that made the state courts
incapable of serving a national end; it was above all their number.
At the moment when the federal Constitution was formed, there were
already in the United States thirteen supreme courts of justice from which
there was no appeal. Today they number twenty-four. How to accept that
a State can endure when its fundamental laws can be interpreted and ap-
plied in twenty-four different ways at once! Such a system is as contrary to
reason as to the lessons of experience.
So the law-makers of America agreed to create a federal judicial power,
in order to apply the laws of the Union and to decide certain questions of
general interest which were carefully defined in advance.
All of the judicial power of the Union was concentrated in a single tri-
bunal called the Supreme Court of the United States. But to facilitate the
dispatch of affairs, inferior courts were added to assist and were charged
with judging with sovereign power cases of little importance or with ruling
on more important disputes in the first instance. The members of the Su-
preme Court were not elected by the people or the legislature; the President
of the United States had to choose them with the advice of the Senate.
In order to make them independent of the other powers, they were made
irremovable, and it was decided that their salary, once fixed, would be be-
yond the control of the legislature.26
26. The Union was divided into districts; in each [*] of these districts a federal judge was
seated. The court where this judge presided was called the district court.
In addition, each of the judges of the Supreme Court must travel annually over a certain
part of the territory of the Republic, in order to decide certain more important cases on site;
the court over which this magistrate presides was given the name circuit court.
It was easy enough to proclaim the establishment of a federal judicial

system in principle, but a host of difficulties arose the moment its attri-
butions had to be set.
Way of Determining the JurisdictionTN 5

of the Federal Courts
Difficulty of determining the jurisdiction of the various courts in
confederations.—The courts of the Union given the right to
determine their own jurisdiction.—Why this rule attacks the
portion of sovereignty that the individual states reserved to
themselves.—The sovereignty of these states limited by laws and
Finally, the most serious matters must come, either directly or on appeal, before the Supreme
Court where all the judges of the circuit courts gather once each year to hold a formal session.
The jury system was introduced in federal courts, in the same way as in state courts, and
in similar cases.
There is hardly any analogy at all, as you see, between the Supreme Court of the United
States and our Cour de cassation. The Supreme Court can be apprised of a case in the first
instance, and the Cour de cassation can be only in the second or third instance.a The
Supreme Court indeed forms, like the Cour de cassation, a single court charged with
establishing a uniform jurisprudence; but the Supreme Court judges fact as well as law,
and decides itself, without sending the matter to another court; two things that the cour de
cassation cannot do.
See the organic law of September 24, 1789, Laws of the United States, by Story, vol. I,
p. 53.
[*]. “⫽See, for the organization, the organic law of 1789, Kent’s Commentaries, vol.
I, p. 273 and following. Sargent’s [sic: Sergeant’s ] Constitutional Law.⫽”
a. In the manuscript: “only in the third instance.”
This is inexact. The Cour de cassation can be apprised of any judgment or decision
made in the last resort; and many judgments are made in the last resort without having
been appealed. Such are judgments about simple offenses, judgments of the justices
of the peace not exceeding 50 francs; id. of courts of the first instance not exceeding
1,000 francs, etc. You must say in the second or third instance (YTC, CIIIb, 3, pp. 28–
29).
Translator’s Note 5: Compétence, in relation to the courts, has a more narrowly
legal, a more restricted meaning in French than competence would have in English; the
English word jurisdiction is closer to the meaning.
by the interpretation of laws.—The individual states thus risk a

danger more apparent than real.
A first question arose. The Constitution of the United States set up, face
to face, two distinct sovereignties, represented in terms of judicial structure
by two different court systems; no matter what care was taken to establish
the jurisdiction of each of these two court systems, you could not prevent
frequent conflicts between them. Now, in this case, who would have the
right to establish jurisdiction?
Among peoples who form only one and the same political society, when
a question of jurisdiction arises between two courts, it is usually brought
before a third that serves as arbiter.
This is easily done because, among these peoples, questions of judicial
jurisdiction do not have any relation to questions of national sovereignty.
But above the highest court of an individual state and the highest court
of the United States, it was impossible to establish any kind of court that
was not either one or the other.
So one of these two courts had to be given the right to judge in its own
case and to take or accept cognizance of the matter in dispute. This privilege
could not be granted to the various courts of the states; that would have
destroyed the sovereignty of the Union in fact, after having established it
in law; for interpretation of the Constitution would soon have given back
to the individual states the portion of independence that the terms of the
Constitution took away from them.
By creating a federal court, the desire had been to remove from the courts
of the states the right to settle, each in its own way, questions of national
interest and, by doing so, to succeed in shaping a uniform body of juris-
prudence for the interpretation of the laws of the Union. The goal would
not have been reached at all if the courts of the individual states, while
abstaining from judging cases considered federal, had been able to judge
them by pretending that they were not federal.
The Supreme Court of the United States was therefore vested with the
right to decide all questions of jurisdiction.27
27. Moreover, to make the cases of jurisdiction less frequent, it was decided that, in a very
That was the most dangerous blow brought against the sovereignty of
the states. It thus found itself limited not only by the laws, but also by the
interpretation of the laws; by a known limit and by another that was un-
known; by a fixed rule and by an arbitrary one. It is true that the Consti-
tution had set precise limits to federal sovereignty; but each time this sov-
ereignty is in competition with that of the states, a federal court must
decide.
The dangers, moreover, with which this way of proceeding seemed to
menace the sovereignty of the states were not as great in reality as they
appeared to be.
We will see further along that, in America, real strength resides more in
the provincial governments than in the federal government. Federal judges
sense the relative weakness of the power in whose name they act; and they
are more likely to abandon a right of jurisdiction in cases where it is granted
to them by law, than they are led to claim it illegally.
Different Cases of Jurisdiction

The matter and the person, bases of federal jurisdiction.—
Proceedings against ambassadors,—against the Union,—against
an individual state.—Judged by whom.—Proceedings that arise
from the laws of the Union.—Why judged by the federal
courts.—Proceedings relating to breach of contracts judged by the
federal judicial system.—Consequence of this.
After having recognized the means to set federal jurisdiction, the law-
makers of the Union determined the cases in which that jurisdiction must
be exercised.
large number of federal cases, the courts of the individual states would have the right to decide
concurrently with the courts of the Union; but then the losing party would always have the
right to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of Virginia
contested the right of the Supreme Court of the United States to hear an appeal of its decisions,
but unsuccessfully. See Kent’s Commentaries, vol. I, pp. 300, 370, and following. See Story’s
Commentaries, p. 646, and the organic law of 1789, Laws of the United States, vol. I,
p. 53.
They acknowledged that there were certain litigants who could only be
judged by the federal courts, no matter what the subject of the proceedings.
They then established that there were certain proceedings that could
only be decided by these same courts, no matter what the qualification of
the litigants.
So the person and the matter became the two bases of federal juris-
diction.
Ambassadors represent nations friendly to the Union; everything that
involves ambassadors involves in a way the entire Union. When an am-
bassador is party to a legal proceeding, the proceeding becomes an affair
that touches on the welfare of the nation; it is natural that a federal court
decides.
The Union itself can be the subject of proceedings; in this case, it would
have been contrary to reason as well as to the custom of nations, to bring
it for judgment before courts representing a sovereignty other than its own.
It is for the federal courts alone to decide.
When two individuals, belonging to two different states, have a legal
proceeding, you cannot, without disadvantage, have them judged by the
courts of one of the two states. It is safer to choose a court that cannot
incite the suspicion of any of the parties, and the court that very naturally
presents itself is that of the Union.
When the two litigants are no longer isolated individuals, but states, this
reason for equity is joined by a political reason of the first order. Here the
status of the litigants gives a national importance to all proceedings; the
smallest litigious issue between two states involves the peace of the entire
Union.28
Often the very nature of the proceedings must serve as a rule of juris-
28. The Constitution says as well that the proceedings that can arise between a state and
the citizens of another state will be under the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Soon the
question arose of knowing if the Constitution meant all proceedings that can arise between
a state and the citizens of another state, whether the ones or the others were plaintiffs. The
Supreme Court decided affirmatively; but this decision alarmed the individual states who
feared being brought despite themselves, for the slightest reason, before the federal court system.
So an amendment was introduced to the Constitution, by virtue of which the judicial power
of the Union could not extend to judging the cases that had been initiated against one of the
United States by the citizens of another. See Story’s Commentaries, p. 624.
diction. Thus all questions that are related to maritime commerce must be
settled by federal courts.29
The reason is easy to point out: nearly all these questions get into an
estimation of the law of nations. From this perspective, they essentially
involve the whole Union in relation to foreigners. Since the sea, moreover,
does not fall into one judicial circumscription rather than another, only the
national court system can have a claim on legal proceedings that have a
maritime origin.
The Constitution has enclosed in a single category nearly all the pro-
ceedings that, by their nature, must be under the jurisdiction of the federal
courts.
In this regard, the rule that it indicates is simple, but it comprises in itself
alone a vast system of ideas and a multitude of facts.
The federal courts, it says, must judge all proceedings that arise in the
laws of the United States.
Two examples will make the thought of the law-maker perfectly clear.
The Constitution forbids the states the right to make laws on the cir-
culation of money; despite this prohibition, a state makes such a law. In-
terested parties refuse to obey it, understanding that it is contrary to the
Constitution. The matter must be brought before a federal court, because
the grounds for the case are drawn from the laws of the United States.
Congress establishes a tariff law. Difficulties arise over the understanding
of this law. Again, the matter must be presented before the federal courts,
because the cause for the proceeding is in the interpretation of a law of the
United States.
This rule is in perfect agreement with the bases adopted for the federal
Constitution.
The Union, as constituted in 1789, had, it is true, only a limited sov-
ereignty, but the desire was that, within this circle, the Union formed only
one and the same people.30 Within this circle, it is sovereign. This point
29. Example: all acts of piracy.

30. A few restrictions were certainly placed on this principle by introducing the individual
states as independent powers in the Senate, and by having them vote separately in the House
of Representatives in the case of election of the President; but these are exceptions. The opposite
principle is the dominant one.
set forth and accepted, all the rest becomes easy; for if you recognize that
the United States, within the limits posed by their Constitution, form
only one people, the rights belonging to all peoples must surely be granted
to them.
Now, since the origin of societies, this point is agreed upon: each people
has the right to have all questions relating to the enforcement of its own
laws judged by its courts. But you answer: the Union is in the singular
position that it forms one people only relative to certain matters; for all
others, it is nothing. What is the result? At least for all the laws that relate
to these matters, the Union has the rights that would be granted to complete
sovereignty. The real point of difficulty is knowing what those matters are.
This point settled (and we have seen above, while treating jurisdiction, how
it was settled), no question truly speaking remains; for once you have es-
tablished that a proceeding was federal, that is, came within the portion of
sovereignty reserved to the Union by the Constitution, it naturally followed
that a federal court alone would decide.
So whenever someone wants to attack the laws of the United States, or
invoke them in self-defense, it is the federal courts that must be addressed.
Thus, the jurisdiction of the courts of the Union expands or contracts
depending on whether the sovereignty of the Union itself expands or
contracts.
We have seen that the principal aim of the law-makers of 1789 had been
to divide sovereignty into two distinct portions. In one, they placed the
direction of all the general interests of the Union; in the other, the direction
of all the interests particular to some of its parts.
Their principal concern was to arm the federal government with enough
power for it to be able to defend itself, within its sphere, against the en-
croachments of the individual states.
As for the latter, the general principal adopted was to leave them free in
their sphere. Within that sphere, the central government can neither direct
them nor even inspect their conduct.
I have indicated in the chapter on the division of powers that this last
principle had not always been respected. There are certain laws that an in-
dividual state cannot enact, even though the laws apparently involve only
that state.
When a state of the Union enacts a law of this nature, the citizens who
are harmed by the execution of this law can appeal to the federal courts.b
Thus, the jurisdiction of the federal courts extends not only to all the
proceedings that have their source in the laws of the Union, but also to all
those that arise in the laws that the individual states have enacted uncon-
stitutionally.
The states are forbidden to promulgate ex post facto laws in criminal mat-
ters; the man who is sentenced by virtue of a law of this type can appeal
to the federal judicial system.
The Constitution also forbids the states to make laws that can destroy
or alter rights acquired by virtue of a contract (impairing the obligations
[sic: obligation ] of contracts ).31
From the moment when an individual believes that he sees a law of his
state that harms a right of this type, he can refuse to obey and appeal to
the federal justice system.32
b. “Other defect of federal jurisdiction. The federal courts can only be apprised by
an individual interest. Now, what would happen if a state passed an unconstitutional
act that harmed only the sovereignty of the Union? Nearly impossible case” (YTC, CVh,
1, pp. 50–51).
31. It is perfectly clear, says Mr. Story, p. 503, that every law that expands, contracts or
changes in whatever way the intention of the parties, such as result from the stipulations
contained in a contract, impairs this contract. In the same place, this same author carefully
defines what federal jurisprudence understands by a contract. The definition is very broad. A
concession made by a state to an individual and accepted by him is a contract, and cannot be
taken away by the effect of a new law. A charter granted by the state to a company is a contract,
and binds the state as well as the concessionary. The article of the Constitution that we are
speaking about therefore assures the existence of a great portion of vested rights, but not all.
I can very legitimately own a property without its having passed into my hands by a contract.
Its possession is for me a vested right, and this right is not guaranteed by the federal constitution.
32. Here is a remarkable example cited by Mr. Story, p. 508. Darmouth [ Dartmouth
(ed.)] College, in New Hampshire, had been founded by virtue of a charter granted to certain
individuals before the American Revolution. Its administrators formed, by virtue of this char-
ter, a constituted body, or, following the American expression, a corporation. The legislature
of New Hampshire believed it necessary to change the terms of the original charter and trans-
ferred to new administrators all the rights, privileges and immunities that resulted from this
charter. The former administrators resisted and appealed to the federal court, which agreed
to hear the case, understanding that, since the original charter was a true contract between
the state and the concessionaries, the new law could not change the disposition of this charter
without violating the vested rights of a contract and consequently violating article I, section
X, of the Constitution of the United States.
To me, this disposition seems to attack the sovereignty of the state more
profoundly than all the rest.c
The rights granted to the federal government, for ends clearly national,
are defined and easy to understand. Those that are indirectly conceded to
it by the article that I have just cited are not easily felt, and their limits are
not easily traced. There is, in fact, a multitude of political laws that act
upon the existence of contracts, and that could therefore furnish grounds
for encroachment by the central power.
The Federal Courts’ Way of Proceeding

Natural weakness of the judicial system in confederations.—
Efforts that law-makers must make to place, as much as possible,
only isolated individuals and not states before the federal
courts.—How the Americans succeeded in doing this.—Direct
action of the federal courts on ordinary individuals.—Indirect
attack against states that violate the laws of the Union.—The
decision of the federal judicial system does not destroy provincial
law; it enervates it.
I have made known the rights of the federal courts; it is no less important
to know how they are exercised.
The irresistible strength of the judicial system, in countries where sov-
ereignty is not divided, comes from the fact that, in those countries, the
courts represent the entire nation in a contest with a single individual who
has been struck by a judgment. To the idea of law is joined the idea of the
force that supports the law.
But in countries where sovereignty is divided, it is not always so. There,
the judicial system most often finds itself facing, not an isolated individual,
c. In a first version: “⫽. . . than all the rest. But it is so difficult to calculate in advance
the impact of laws, that it is not unusual to see the most numerous assemblies consecrate
long discussions to uninteresting points, while an article that will lead to the most char-
acteristic effect of the law is precisely the one that passes unnoticed and is revealed only
by experience.⫽”
but a fraction of the nation. Its moral power and its physical power are
diminished as a result.
So in federal States, the judicial system is naturally weaker; and the one
subject to trial, stronger.
The law-maker, in confederations, must constantly work to give the
courts a position analogous to the one they occupy among peoples who
have not divided sovereignty. In other words, his most constant efforts must
strive toward having the federal judicial system represent the nation, and
having the one subject to trial represent an individual interest.
A government, whatever its nature, needs to act on the governed in order
to force them to give the government what it is owed; it needs to take action
against them in order to defend itself from their attacks.
As for the direct action of the government on the governed, in order to
force them to obey the law, the Constitution of the United States saw to
it that the federal courts, acting in the name of these laws, never had any
dealing except with individuals (and that was its highest achievement). In
fact, since it had been declared that the confederation formed only one and
the same people within the circle drawn by the Constitution, the govern-
ment, created by this Constitution and acting within its limits, was, as a
result, vested with all the rights of a national government, the principal one
being to have its injunctions reach ordinary citizens without an interme-
diary. So when the Union levied a tax, for example, it did not have to apply
to the states to collect it, but to each American citizen, according to his
share. In turn, the federal judicial system charged with assuring the en-
forcement of this law of the Union, had to condemn not the recalcitrant
State, but the taxpayer. Like the judicial system of other peoples, it found
only an individual facing it.d
Note that here the Union itself has chosen its adversary. It has chosen a
weak one; it is entirely natural that he succumbs.
But when the Union, instead of attacking, is reduced to defending itself,
the difficulty increases. The Constitution recognizes the power of the states
d. In the margin: “⫽In this, the judicial power only follows the laws of its nature
which lead it to judge only on particular cases. Only a political court can break a legislative
measure.⫽”
to make laws. These laws can violate the rights of the Union. Here, nec-
essarily, the Union finds itself in conflict with the sovereignty of the state
that enacted the law. Nothing remains except to chose, from among the
means of action, the least dangerous. This means was indicated in advance
by the general principles that I stated before.33
You see that, in the case that I have just supposed, the Union would have
been able to cite the state before a federal court that would have declared
the law void; this would have followed the most natural course of ideas.
But, in this way, the federal judicial system would have found itself directly
facing a state, something it wanted to avoid as much as possible.
The Americans have thought that it was nearly impossible for a new law,
in its execution, not to harm some individual interest.
It is on this individual interest that the authors of the federal constitution
rely to attack a legislative measure about which the Union could complain.
To this individual interest, they offer a protection.
A state sells lands to a company; one year later, a new law disposes of
the same lands in another way, and thus violates the part of the Consti-
tution which forbids changing rights vested by contract. When the one who
bought by virtue of the new law presents himself in order to take posses-
sion, the owner, who holds his rights from the former law, brings an action
before the courts of the Union and has the title of the new owner voided.34
Therefore, in reality, the federal judicial system is grappling with the sov-
ereignty of the state; but it attacks that sovereignty only indirectly and on
an application of detail. It thus strikes the law in its consequences, not in
its principle. It does not destroy the law; it enervates it.
A final hypothesis remained.
Each state formed a corporation that had a separate existence and sepa-
rate civil laws; consequently, it could sue or be sued before the courts. A
state could, for example, bring suit against another state.
In this case, it was no longer a matter for the Union of attacking a pro-
vincial law, but of judging a case in which a state was a participant. It was
33. See the chapter entitled: “Of the Judicial Power in America [in the United States
(ed.)].”
34. See Kent’s Commentaries, vol. I, p. 387.
a case like any other; only the status of the litigants was different. Here the
danger noted at the beginning of this chapter still exists. But this time it
cannot be avoided; it is inherent in the very essence of federal constitutions
that they will always result in creating, in the midst of the nation, individ-
uals powerful enough to make it difficult to use the judicial system against
them.
Elevated Rank That the Supreme Court Occupies

among the Great Powers of the State
No other people have constituted a judicial power as great as the
Americans.—Extent of its attributions.—Its political
influence.—The peace and the very existence of the Union
depend on the wisdom of seven federal judges.
When, after examining the organization of the Supreme Court in detail,

you come to consider all of the attributions that it has been given, you easily
discover that never has a more immense judicial power been constituted
among any people.
The Supreme Court is placed higher than any known court, both by the
nature of its rights and by the type of those subject to trial.
In all the civilized nations of Europe, the government has always shown
a great reluctance to allow the ordinary judicial system to decide ques-
tions that involve the government itself. This reluctance is naturally
greater when the government is more absolute. As liberty increases, on
the contrary, the circle of the attributions of the courts is always going to
widen; but not one of the European nations has yet thought that every
judicial question, of no matter what origin, could be left to judges of
ordinary law.
In America, this theory has been put in practice. The Supreme Court
of the United States is the one and only national court.
It is charged with the interpretation of laws and of treaties; questions
relating to maritime trade, and all those generally relating to the law of
nations, are exclusively within its competence. You can even say that its
attributions are almost entirely political, although its constitution is entirely
judicial. Its unique purpose is to have the laws of the Union enforced. And
the Union determines only the relations of the government with the gov-
erned and of the nation with foreigners; nearly all of the relations of citizens
among themselves are governed by the sovereignty of the states.
To this first cause of importance, another still greater must be added. In
the nations of Europe, only individuals are subject to trial before the courts;
but you can say that the Supreme Court of the United States makes sov-
ereigns appear before it. When the bailiff, climbing the steps of the court,
comes to proclaim these few words: “The State of New York versus the
State of Ohio,” you feel that you are not within the realm of an ordinary
court of justice. And when you consider that one of these litigants repre-
sents a million men, and the other, two million, you are astonished at the
responsibility that weighs upon the seven judges whose decision is going to
delight or sadden such a large number of their fellow citizens.
In the hands of seven federal judges rest unceasingly the peace, pros-
perity, the very existence of the Union. Without them, the Constitution is
a dead letter. To them, the executive power appeals in order to resist the
encroachments of the legislative body; the legislature, to defend itself
against the undertakings of the executive power; the Union, to make the
states obey; the states, to repulse the exaggerated pretensions of the Union;
public interest against private interest; the spirit of conservation against
democratic instability. Their power is immense; but it is a power of opinion.
They are omnipotent as long as the people consent to obey the law; they can
do nothing once the people scorn the law. Now, the power of opinion is the
most difficult one to exercise, because it is impossible to know its limits ex-
actly. Often it is as dangerous to fall short, as to go beyond those limits.
So the federal judges must be not only good citizens, learned and upright
men, qualities necessary for all magistrates, but they must also be statesmen;
they must know how to discern the spirit of the times, to brave the obstacles
that can be overcome, and to change direction when the current threatens
to carry away, with them, the sovereignty of the Union and the obedience
due to its laws.
The President can fail without having the State suffer, because the Pres-
ident has only a limited duty. Congress can go astray without having the
Union perish, because above Congress resides the electoral body that can
change the spirit of Congress by changing its members.
But if imprudent or corrupt men ever came to compose the Supreme
Court, the confederation would have to fear anarchy or civil war.
But make no mistake; the root cause of the danger is not in the consti-
tution of the court, but in the very nature of federal governments. We have
seen that nowhere is it more necessary to constitute a strong judicial power
than among confederated peoples, because nowhere are individual exis-
tences, which can struggle against the social body, greater and in better
condition to resist the use of the physical force of the government.
Now, the more necessary it is that a power be strong, the more scope
and independence it must be given. The more extensive and independent
a power, the more dangerous is the abuse that can be made of it. So the
origin of the evil is not in the very constitution of this power, but in the
very constitution of the State that necessitates the existence of such a
power.
How the Federal Constitution Is Superior

to the State Constitutions
How the Constitution of the Union can be compared to those
of the individual states.—The superiority of the federal
Constitution must be attributed particularly to the wisdom of the
federal law-makers.—The legislature of the Union less
dependent on the people than those of the states.—The executive
power freer in its sphere.—The judicial power less subject to the
desires of the majority.—Practical consequences of this.—The
federal law-makers have mitigated the dangers inherent in
democratic government; the law-makers of the states have
heightened these dangers.
The federal Constitution differs essentially from the constitutions of the

states in the purpose that it intends, but it is highly similar in the means to
achieve this purpose. The object of government is different, but the forms
of government are the same. From this special point of view, they can use-
fully be compared.
I think that the federal Constitution is superior to all of the state con-
stitutions. This superiority stems from several causes.
The present Constitution of the Union was formed only after those of
most of the states; so the Union could profit from acquired experience.
You will be convinced, nonetheless, that this cause is only secondary, if
you consider that, since the establishment of the federal Constitution, the
American confederation has increased by eleven new states, and that these
new states have nearly always exaggerated rather than mitigated the defects
existing in the constitutions of their precursors.
The great cause of the superiority of the federal Constitution is in the
very character of the law-makers.
At the time when it was formed, the ruin of the American confederation
seemed imminent; it was obvious to all, so to speak. In this extremity, the
people chose, perhaps not the men they loved most, but those they re-
spected most.
I have already pointed out above that nearly all the law-makers of the
Union had been remarkable by their enlightenment and more remarkable
still by their patriotism.
They had all risen in the midst of a social crisis, during which the spirit
of liberty had constantly to struggle against a strong and dominating au-
thority. When the struggle ended, and while the excited passions of the
crowd were, as usual, still fixed on combating dangers that for a long time
no longer existed, these men had stopped; they had cast a calmer and more
penetrating eye on their country; they had seen that a definitive revolution
was accomplished, and that henceforth the perils that threatened the people
could only arise from the abuses of liberty.e What they thought, they had
the courage to say, because deep in their hearts they felt a sincere and pas-
sionate love for this very liberty; they dared to speak of limiting it, because
they were certain of not wanting to destroy it.35
e. In the manuscript: “of their power {of their liberty}.”

35. In this period, the celebrated Alexander Hamilton, one of the most influential framers
of the Constitution, was not afraid to publish the following in the Federalist, No. 71 [p. 307].
He said:
Most of the constitutions of the states give a term of one year to the
house of representatives and two years to the senate. In this way the mem-
bers of the legislative body are tied constantly and in the closest way to the
slightest desires of their constituents.
The law-makers of the Union thought that this extreme dependence of
the legislature distorted the principal effects of the representative system,
by placing in the people themselves not only the source of powers, but also
the government.
They increased the length of the electoral mandate in order to allow the
deputy greater use of his free will.
The federal Constitution, like the different constitutions of the states,
divided the legislative body into two branches.
But in the states, these two parts of the legislature were composed of
the same elements and followed the same mode of election. As a result, the
There are some,” he said, “who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the
executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best
recommendation. But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for
which government was instituted, as of the true means by which the public happiness may
be promoted.
The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should
govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it
does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every
transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their
prejudices to betray their interests.
It is a just observation that the people commonly intend the public good. This often
applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should
pretend that they always reason right about the means of promoting it. They know from
experience that they sometimes err; and the wonder is that they so seldom err as they do,
beset as they continually are by the wiles of parasites and sycophants, by the snares of the
ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate, by the artifices of men who possess their confidence
more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it.
When occasions present themselves in which the interests of the people are at variance
with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the
guardians of those interests to withstand the temporary delusion in order to give them time
and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection. Instances might be cited in which a
conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their own mis-
takes, and has procured lasting monuments of their gratitude to the men who had courage
and magnanimity enough to serve them at the peril of their displeasure.
passions and will of the majority emerged as easily and found an organ and
an instrument as rapidly in one as in the other of the houses. This gave a
fierce and hasty character to the making of laws.
The federal Constitution also had the two houses come out of the votes
of the people; but it varied the conditions of eligibility and the mode of
election. So, if one of the two legislative branches did not represent interests
different from those represented by the other, as in certain nations, at least
it represented a higher wisdom.
To be a Senator you had to have reached a mature age; and a small as-
sembly, itself already elected, was charged with the election.
Democracies are naturally led to concentrate all social force in the hands
of the legislative body. The latter, being the power that comes most directly
from the people, is also the one that most partakes of the omnipotence of
the people.
So, in the legislative body, you notice an habitual tendency that leads it
to gather all kinds of authority within itself.
This concentration of powers, at the same time that it singularly harms
the good management of public affairs, establishes the despotism of the
majority.
The law-makers of the states have frequently surrendered to these dem-
ocratic instincts; those of the Union always fought courageously against
them.
In the states, executive power is placed in the hands of a magistrate who
appears to be placed alongside the legislature, but who, in reality, is only a
blind agent and passive instrument of its will. From where would he draw
his strength? In the length of his term in office? Generally, he is named for
only one year. In his prerogatives? He has, so to speak, none at all. The
legislature can reduce him to impotence by granting the execution of its
laws to special committees drawn from its midst. If it wanted, it could, in
a way, nullify him by taking away his salary.
The federal Constitution has concentrated all the rights of the executive
power, as well as all of its responsibility, in a single man. It gave the President
a four-year term; it assured him his salary during the entire length of his
term in office; it created a group of supporters for him and armed him with
a qualified veto. In a word, after carefully drawing the sphere of executive
power, it sought, within this sphere, to give the executive power as strong
and as free a position as possible.
The judicial power, of all the powers, is the one that, in the state con-
stitutions, remained least dependent on the legislative power.
Nonetheless, in all the states, the legislature retained the authority to set
the salaries of judges, which necessarily subjected the former to immediate
legislative influence.
In certain states, judges are appointed only for a time, which again re-
moves a large part of their strength and freedom.
In others, legislative and judicial powers are entirely mixed. The Senate
of New York, for example, serves as the highest court of the state for certain
trials.
The federal Constitution has, on the contrary, carefully separated the
judicial power from all the others. In addition, it made judges independent
by declaring their salaries fixed and making their office irrevocable.
The practical consequences of these differences are easy to see. It is clear
to all attentive observers that the affairs of the Union are conducted infi-
nitely better than the particular affairs of any state.
The federal government is more just and more moderate in its action
than the state governments. There is more wisdom in its views, more con-
tinuity and intelligent design in its projects, more skill, steadiness and firm-
ness in the execution of its measures.
A few words suffice to summarize this chapter.
Two principal dangers menace the existence of democracies:
The complete subservience of the legislative power to the will of the
electoral body.
The concentration, in the legislative power, of all the other powers of
government.
The law-makers of the states favored the development of these dangers.
The law-makers of the Union did what they could to make them less to
be feared.
What Distinguishes the Federal Constitution

of the United States of America from
All Other Federal Constitutions
The American confederation outwardly resembles all
confederations.—Its effects are different, however.—
What causes that?—How this confederation stands apart
from all others.—The American government is not
a federal government, but an incomplete
national government.f
The United States of America has not presented the first and only example
of a confederation. Without mentioning antiquity, modern Europe has fur-
nished several. Switzerland, the German Empire, the Dutch Republic have
been or still are confederations.
When you study the constitutions of these different countries, you no-
tice with surprise that the powers they confer on the federal government
are more or less the same as those granted by the American Constitution
to the government of the United States. Like the latter, they give the central
power the right to make war or peace, the right to raise an army, to levy
taxes, to provide for general needs and to regulate the common interests of
the nation.
Among these different peoples, however, the federal government has al-
most always remained deficient and weak, while that of the Union conducts
public affairs with vigor and ease.
Even more, the first American Union could not continue to exist because
of the excessive weakness of its government. Yet this government, so weak,
f. In the margin: “Temporary alliance, league.

“Lasting alliance, confederation.
“Limited [v: incomplete] national government.
“Complete national government.
“The Union is not a confederation [v: federal government], but an incomplete na-
tional government.”
had received rights as extensive as the federal government of today. You can
even say that in certain respects its privileges were greater.g
So several new principles are found in the current Constitution of the
United States that are not striking at first, but make their influence pro-
foundly felt.
This Constitution, which at first sight you are tempted to confuse with
previous federal constitutions, rests as a matter of fact on an entirely new
theory that must stand out as a great discovery in the political science of
today.
In all the confederations that have preceded the American confederation
of 1789, peoples who combined for a common purpose agreed to obey the
injunctions of a federal government; but they retained the right to com-
mand and to supervise the execution of the laws of the Union at home.
The American states that united in 1789 agreed not only that the federal
government could dictate laws to them, but also that the federal govern-
ment itself would execute its laws.
In the two cases, the right is the same; only the exercise of the right is
different. But this single difference produces immense results. [Such is the
power of laws over the fate of societies.]h
In all the confederations that have preceded the American Union of to-
day, the federal government, in order to provide for its needs, applied to
the individual governments. In the case where the prescribed measure dis-
pleased one of them, the latter could always elude the need to obey. If it
was strong it appealed to arms; if it was weak, it tolerated a resistance to
the laws of the Union that had become its own, pretended weakness and
resorted to the power of inertia.
Consequently, one of these two things has constantly happened: the
g. “The old constitution gave Congress great power to command the different states
(illegible word) in order to compel them other than by war. It established a league among
independent states, not a federal government” (YTC, CVh, 1, p. 47).
h. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I believe that this paragraph could be deleted. It develops
an idea that springs from what precedes and comes naturally to the mind of the reader.
By removing it, the pace will be faster. Be careful about slowing the pace by reflections,
when they are not absolutely necessary. The last sentence of the paragraph is a useless
commonplace” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 22).
most powerful of the united peoples, taking hold of the rights of the federal
authority, has dominated all the others in its name;36 or the federal gov-
ernment has been left to its own forces. Then anarchy has become estab-
lished among the confederated peoples, and the Union has fallen into
impotence.37
In America, the Union governs not the states, but ordinary citizens.
When it wants to levy a tax, it does not apply to the government of Mas-
sachusetts, but to each inhabitant of Massachusetts. Former federal gov-
ernments faced peoples; the Union faces individuals. It does not borrow its
strength, but draws upon its own. It has its own administrators, courts,
officers of the law, and army.
Certainly the national [sic: state] spirit, collective passions, provincial
prejudices of each state still strongly tend to diminish the extent of federal
power so constituted, and to create centers of resistance to the will of the
federal power. Limited in its sovereignty, it cannot be as strong as a gov-
ernment that possesses complete sovereignty; but that is an evil inherent in
the federal system.
In America, each state has far fewer opportunities and temptations to
resist; and if the thought occurs, the state can act on it only by openly
violating the laws of the Union, by interrupting the ordinary course of
justice, and by raising the standard of revolt. In a word, it must suddenly
take an extreme position, something men hesitate to do for a long time.
In former confederations, the rights granted to the Union were causes
of war rather than of power, since these rights multiplied its demands with-
out augmenting its means of enforcing obedience. Consequently, the real
weakness of federal governments has almost always been seen to grow in
direct proportion to their nominal power.
36. This is what was seen among the Greeks under Philip, when this prince took charge
of enforcing the decree of the Amphictyons. This is what happened to the republic of the
Netherlands, where the province of Holland has always made the law. The same thing is still
going on today among the Germans. Austria and Prussia are the agents of the Diet and, in
its name, dominate the entire confederation.
37. It has always been so for the Swiss confederation.—Were it not for the jealousy of its
neighbors, Switzerland, for several centuries, would no longer exist.
This is not so for the American Union; the federal government, like most
ordinary governments, can do everything that it has the right to do.
The human mind invents things more easily than words; this is what
causes the use of so many incorrect terms and incomplete expressions.j
Several nations form a permanent league and establish a supreme au-
thority that, without acting on ordinary citizens as a national government
could, nonetheless acts on each of the confederated peoples, taken as a
group.
This government, so different from all the others, is given the name
federal.
Next, a form of society is found in which several peoples truly blend
together as one for certain common interests, and remain separate and only
confederated for all the others.
Here the central power acts without intermediary on the governed, ad-
ministering and judging them as national governments do, but it acts this
way only within a limited circle. Clearly that is no longer a federal govern-
ment; it is an incomplete national government. So a form of government,
neither precisely national nor federal, is found. But here things have
stopped, and the new word needed to express the new thing does not yet
exist.k
Because this new type of confederation was unknown, all unions have
arrived at civil war, or slavery, or inertia. The peoples who composed them
have all lacked either the enlightenment to see the remedy to their ills, or
the courage to apply them.
j. Hervé de Tocqueville: “In my opinion, this paragraph and the four following must
be deleted and replaced by one or two sentences. It is long and a bit heavy; its importance
does not justify its defects. I therefore advise pruning the grammatical discussion and
quickly going straight to the paragraph: Because this new type of confederation was un-
known . . .”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “I cannot share this opinion. This reflection seems very
profound to me. Moreover, if you went to the paragraph beginning Because this new type
. . . , it would have absolutely no sense, since it relates only to the deleted paragraph”
(YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 22).
k. In the margin: “⫽The thing is new [v: other], but an old word is still needed to
designate it.⫽”
The first American Union had also lapsed into the same faults.
But in America, the confederated states, before achieving independence,
had been part of the same empire for a long time; so they had not yet
contracted the habit of complete self-government, and national prejudices
had not been able to become deeply rooted. Better informed than the rest
of the world, they were equal to each other in enlightenment; they only
weakly felt the passions that ordinarily, among peoples, resist the extension
of federal power; and these passions were fought against by the greatest
citizens. The Americans, at the same time that they felt the evil, resolutely
envisaged the remedy. They corrected their laws and saved the country.
Of the Advantages of the Federal System in General,

and of Its Special Utility for America m
Happiness and liberty that small nations enjoy.—Power of large
nations.—Large empires favor the developments of
civilization.—That strength is often the first element of
prosperity for nations.—The purpose of federal systems is to
combine the advantages that peoples gain from the largeness and
the smallness of their territory.—Advantages that the United
States derives from this system.—The law yields to the needs of
the populations; the populations do not yield to the necessities of
the law.—Activity, progress, taste for and practice of liberty
among the American peoples.—The public spirit of the Union is
only the sum of provincial patriotism.—Things and ideas
circulate freely within the territory of the United States.—
The Union is free and happy, like a small nation;
respected, like a large one.
Among small nations, society keeps its eye on everything; the spirit of im-
provement gets down to the smallest details. Since the weakness of the
people profoundly tempers their ambition, their efforts and resources are
m. In the margin: “Perhaps this chapter should be shifted to the place where I will
talk about the future of the Union.”
almost entirely focused on their internal well-being and are not likely to be
wasted on the empty illusion of glory. Since the capacities of each one are
generally limited, desires are limited as well. The mediocrity of wealth
makes conditions nearly equal; and mores have a simple and peaceful air.
Thus, considering everything and taking into account various degrees of
morality and enlightenment, more comfort, population and tranquillityare
usually found in small nations than in large ones.
When tyranny establishes itself within a small nation, it is more trou-
blesome than anywhere else; acting inside a smaller circle, it extends to ev-
erything within this circle. Unable to undertake some great objective, it is
busy with a multitude of small ones; it appears both violent and meddle-
some. From the political world, which is strictly speaking its domain, it
penetrates into private life. After dictating actions, it aspires to dictate tastes;
after governing the State, it wishes to govern families. But that rarely hap-
pens; as a matter of fact, liberty forms the natural condition of small so-
cieties. There, government offers too little attraction to ambition, and the
resources of individuals are too limited, for sovereign power to be easily
concentrated in the hands of one man.n Should it happen, it is not difficult
for the governed to unite together and, by a common effort, to overthrow
the tyrant and the tyranny at the same time. [⫽Liberty is, moreover, some-
thing so natural and so easy within a small nation that abuse can hardly be
brought about.⫽]
So small nations have at all times been the cradle of political liberty. It
has happened that most of them have lost this liberty by growing larger,
which clearly reveals that liberty is due to the small size of a people and not
to the people themselves.
The history of the world provides no example of a large nation that
remained a republic for long;38 this has led men to say that the thing was
impractical. As for me, I think that it is very imprudent for man to want
to limit the possible and to judge the future; the real and the present elude
n. In the margin: “⫽The power of one man easily succeeds in putting itself above
the law and the interest of all.⫽”
38. I am not speaking here about a confederation of small republics, but of a large con-
solidated republic.
him every day, and he finds himself constantly surprised by the unexpected
in the things he knows best. What can be said with certainty is that the
existence of a large republic will always be infinitely more at risk than that
of a small one.o
All the passions fatal to republics grow with the extent of the territory,
while the virtues that serve to support them do not increase in the same
measure.p
The ambition of individuals increases with the power of the State; the
strength of parties, with the importance of the end that they have in mind;
but love of country, which must combat these destructive passions, is not
stronger in a vast republic than in a small one. It would even be easy to
prove that love of country there is less developed and less powerful. Great
riches and profound poverty, large cities, depravity of mores, individual
egoism, complexity of interests are so many perils that almost always result
from the large size of the State. Several of these things do not harm the
existence of a monarchy; some can even work toward its duration. In mon-
archies, moreover, government has a strength of its own; it makes use of
the people and does not depend on them; the more numerous the people,
the stronger the prince. But to these dangers, republican government can
oppose only the support of the majority. Now, this element of strength is
not proportionately more powerful in a vast republic than in a small one.
Thus, while the means of attack constantly increase in number and power,
the strength of resistance remains the same. It can even be said that it de-
creases, for the more numerous the people and the more varied the nature
o. “I suspect that this doctrine that presents small States to us as the only ones that
are suitable for republican forms will be refuted by experience. Perhaps it will be
recognized that in order to establish a republic in which justice reigns, the republic
must be large enough so that local egoism is never able to harm the whole, nor corrupt
the major part of those who lead it; so that on every question you will always be sure
to find in the councils a majority free of particular interests and capable of making
solely the principles of justice prevail.”
Jefferson to Davernois [d’Ivernois (ed.)], 6 February 1795. (YTC, CVh, 5, p. 2).
Citation from Louis P. Conseil, editor. Mélanges politiques et philosophiques extraits
des mémoires et de la correspondance de Thomas Jefferson (Paris: Paulin, 1833), vol. I,
pp. 407–9.
p. The wording of this sentence comes from Beaumont (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 34).
of minds and interests, the more difficult it is, as a result, to form a compact
majority.
[⫽Republican government is fragile by nature. It lasts much more be-
cause of the weakness of the attacks directed against it than because of a
strength of its own [v: its own power]. It relies only on a certain sentiment
of order, virtue and moderation on the part of the governed. The im-
moderate desires of parties, great riches and great poverty, vast cities,
and the profound corruption of mores that they engender, constantly
threaten the existence of republics. Now, all of these things are found only
among large nations alone. A government that has the source of its power
outside of the people can continue to exist for a long time, whatever the
opinions of the people; but a republican government has strength only
in the support of the majority; the more numerous the people, the harder
to form a majority. Here my reasoning is based only upon a numerical
calculation.⫽]
We have been able to note, moreover, that human passions acquired in-
tensity, not only from the greatness of the end that they wanted to attain,
but also from the multitude of individuals who felt them at the same time.
There is no one who does not find himself more moved in the middle of
an agitated crowd that shares his emotion than if he were to feel it alone.
In a large republic, political passions become irresistible, not only because
the objective that they pursue is immense, but also because millions of men
experience those political passions in the same way and at the same
moment.
So it is permissible to say that, in general, nothing is so contrary to the
well-being and to the liberty of men as large empires.
Large States have particular advantages, however, that must be recog-
nized.
In them, the desire for power is more passionate among common men
than elsewhere. So too the love of glory there is more developed among
certain souls who find in the applause of a great people an objective that is
worthy of their efforts and appropriate for raising them, in a way, above
themselves. There, thought in all fields is given a more rapid and powerful
impetus; ideas circulate more freely; large cities are like vast intellectual cen-
ters where all the lights of the human mind come to shine and combine.
This fact explains for us why large nations bring more rapid progress to
enlightenment and to the general cause of civilization than small ones.q It
must be added that important discoveries often require a development of
national strength of which the government of a small people is incapable;
among large nations, the government has a greater number of general ideas;
it is more completely free from the routine of antecedents and from local
egoism. There is more genius in its conceptions, more boldness in its ways
of doing things.
Internal well-being is more complete and more widespread among small
nations as long as they remain at peace; but a state of war is more harmful
to them than it is to large nations. In the latter, great distance from the
borders sometimes allows most people to remain far from danger for cen-
turies. For them, war is more a cause of discomfort than of ruin. [⫽Large
nations are at war more than small ones, but all things considered, among
the large ones, there are more men at peace.⫽]
Moreover, in this matter as in many others, there is a consideration that
predominates over all the rest: that of necessity.
If there were only small nations and not any large ones, humanity would
certainly be freer and happier; but the existence of large nations cannot be
avoided.
This introduces into the world a new element of national prosperity,
which is strength. What good is it for a people to present a picture of com-
fort and liberty, if they are exposed each day to devastation or conquest?
What good is it that they have manufacturing and commerce, if another
people commands the seas and establishes the law for all markets? Small na-
tions are often miserable, not because they are small, but because they are
weak; large nations prosper, not because they are large, but because they are
strong. So for nations, strength is often one of the first conditions of hap-
piness and even of existence. Because of that, barring particular circum-
stances, small peoples always end up being violently united with large ones
or uniting with them on their own. I know of no condition more deplorable
than that of a people able neither to defend itself nor to be self-sufficient.
q. This sentence and the preceding one have been corrected by Beaumont (YTC,
CIIIb, 3, pp. 34–35).
The federal system has been created to unite the various advantages that
result from the large and the small sizes of nations.r
It is enough to look at the United States of America to see all the good
that comes to those who adopt this system.
Among large centralized nations, the legislator is forced to give laws a
uniform character that does not allow for the diversity of places and mores;
never learning about individual cases, he can only proceed by general rules.
Men are then obliged to bend to the necessity of legislation, for legislation
cannot adapt to the needs and mores of men; this is a great cause of trouble
and misery.s
This disadvantage does not exist in confederations. The congress regu-
lates the principal actions of social existence; all the detail is left to the
provincial legislatures.
You cannot imagine to what degree this division of sovereignty serves
the well-being of each of the states that compose the Union. In these small
societies, not preoccupied by the need to defend themselves or to expand,
all public power and all individual energy are turned toward internal im-
provements.t The central government of each state, situated close to the
governed, is alerted daily to needs that make themselves felt. Consequently,
each year new plans are presented; these plans, discussed in town assemblies
or the state legislature and then reproduced in the press, excite universal
r. Rousseau made the following recommendation to the Poles: “Apply yourselves

to expanding and perfecting the system of federative governments, the only one that
unites the advantages of large and small States” (Considérations sur le gouvernement de
Pologne, chapter V, in Œuvres complètes, III, Paris: Pléiade, 1964, p. 971). The same
idea is set forth at the beginning of Jugement sur le projet de paix perpétuelle, and it
appears in a note at the end of chapter XV of book III of the Contrat social (ibid.,
p. 431). The advantages of the federal form had been equally praised by Montesquieu
in the first chapter of book IX of Esprit des lois (in Oeuvres complètes, Paris: Pléiade,
1951, II, p. 369).
s. Cf. conversation with Mr. Bowring (Voyage en Angleterre, OC, V, 2, p. 35).
t. “⫽Nevertheless, the greatest difficulty is not to find some peoples who know how
to manage their own affairs, but to find some with this habit who can understand federal
sovereignty and submit to it⫽” (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 4).
interest and the zeal of the citizens. This need to improve agitates the Amer-
ican republic constantly and does not trouble them; there, ambition for
power is replaced by the love of well-being, a more vulgar, but less dan-
gerous passion. It is an opinion generally shared in America that the exis-
tence and duration of republican forms in the New World depend on the
existence and the duration of the federal system. A great part of the miseries
engulfing the new States of South America is attributed to the desire to
establish large republics there, instead of dividing sovereignty.u
As a matter of fact, it is incontestable that in the United States the taste
and the practice of republican government were born in the towns and
within the provincial assemblies. In a small nation such as Connecticut,v
for example, where the important political matter is opening a canal or
laying out a roadway, where the state has no army to pay nor war to sustain,
and where the state can give to those who lead it neither wealth nor much
glory, you can imagine nothing more natural and more appropriate to the
nature of things than a republic. Now, this same republican spirit, these
mores and these habits of a free people, after being born and developing
in the various states, are then applied easily to the whole country. In a way,
the public spirit of the Union is itself only a summary of provincial pa-
triotism. Each citizen of the United States transfers, so to speak, the interest
inspired in him by his small republic to the love of the common native
land. By defending the Union, he defends the growing prosperity of his
district, the right to direct its affairs, and the hope of winning acceptance
there for the plans for improvement that are to enrich him himself: all things
that ordinarily touch men more than the general interests of the country
and the glory of the nation.
u. Hervé de Tocqueville: “All that precedes is very good. A thought however: Isn’t
the well-being that, for the states of the Union, results from the division of sovereignty
disturbed by the vices of their democratic organization that Alexis had pointed out?”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “It seems to me that this can only be related to the whole.
It is certain that the United States, as they are constituted, enjoy an enormous prosperity,
and that the nations of the South are in anarchy” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 24).
v. In the first version, the state cited was Massachusetts.
On the other hand, if the spirit and the mores of the inhabitants make
them more suitable than others to cause a large republic to prosper, the
federal system has made the task much less difficult. The confederation of
all the American states does not show the usual disadvantages of numerous
human agglomerations. The Union is a large republic in terms of expanse;
but in a way, it can be likened to a small republic, because of the small
number of matters that concern its government. Its acts are important, but
rare. Since the sovereignty of the Union is hindered and incomplete, the
use of this sovereignty is not dangerous to liberty. Nor does it excite those
immoderate desires for power and reputation that are so deadly to great
republics. Since everything there does not necessarily end up at a common
center, you see neither vast cities,w nor enormous wealth, nor great poverty,
nor sudden revolutions. Political passions, instead of spreading instanta-
neously like a firestorm over the whole surface of the country, are going to
break against the individual passions and interests of each state.
Within the Union, however, ideas and things circulate freely, as among
one and the same people. Nothing stops the rise of the spirit of enterprise.
Its government draws upon talents and enlightenment. Within the bound-
aries of the Union, as within the interior of a country under the same em-
pire, a profound peace reigns. Outside, the Union ranks among the most
powerful nations of the world; it offers to foreign trade more than eight
hundred leagues of coastline. Holding in its hands the keys to a whole
world, it enforces respect for its flag in the far reaches of the seas.x
w. Hervé de Tocqueville: “And New York which is so large?

Édouard de Tocqueville: “New York, it seems to me, is only a large city and not a
metropolis, in the true meaning of this word” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 24).
x. Hervé de Tocqueville: “This peroration is beautiful, but isn’t Alexis making Amer-
ica into too much of an El Dorado? It must not be forgotten that he thinks himself
obliged to disenchant us in the following chapters. Two sentences here appear too strong
to me: that of the profound peace that reigns within the interior—two recent examples
have shown that this peace is easily troubled—and that of respect for the flag, which
exists only because the European nations wish it or do not agree to humiliate it. Not
with its small fleet would America force the maritime powers to respect its flag.”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “Alexis shows in several places what the future dangers of
the American government are, and what its weak side is at the present time. But, if one
judges it now as a whole, one can say, as in the last sentence, ‘The Union is free and happy,
etc.’ ” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, pp. 24–25).
The Union is free and happy like a small nation, glorious and strong like
a large one.y
What Keeps the Federal System from Being within

the Reach of All Peoples; And What Has Allowed
the Anglo-Americans to Adopt It
There are, in all federal systems, inherent vices that the law-
maker cannot fight.—Complication of all federal systems.—
It requires from the governed the daily use of their intelligence.—
Practical knowledge of the Americans in the matter of
government.—Relative weakness of the government of the
Union, another vice inherent in the federal system.—The
Americans have made it less serious, but have not been able to
destroy it.—The sovereignty of the individual states weaker in
appearance, stronger in reality than that of the Union.—Why.—
So among confederated peoples, there must be natural causes of
union, apart from the laws.—What these causes are among the
Anglo-Americans.—Maine and Georgia, 400 leagues apart, more
naturally united than Normandy and Brittany.—That war is
the principal danger to confederations.—This proved by the very
example of the United States.—The Union has no great wars to
fear.—Why.—Dangers that the peoples of Europe would run by
adopting the federal system of the Americans.
[Of all beings, man is assuredly the one best known; and yet his prosperity
or miseries are the product of unknown laws of which only a few isolated
and incomplete fragments come into our view. Absolute truth is hidden
and perhaps will always remain hidden.] The law-maker sometimes suc-
ceeds, after a thousand efforts, in exercising an indirect influence on the
destiny of nations, and then his genius is celebrated. While often, the geo-
y. See the conversation with Mr. MacLean (non-alphabetic notebooks 2 and 3, YTC
BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 127).
graphic position of the country, over which he has no influence; a social

state that was created without his support; mores and ideas, whose origin
is unknown to him; a point of departure that he does not know, impart to
society irresistible movements that he struggles against in vain and that
carry him along as well.
The law-maker resembles a man who plots his route in the middle of the
sea. He too can navigate the ship that carries him, but he cannot change its
structure, raise the wind, or prevent the ocean from heaving under his feet.
I have shown what advantages the Americans gain from the federal sys-
tem. It remains for me to explain what allowed them to adopt this system;
for not all peoples are able to enjoy its benefits.
Accidental vices arising from the laws are found in the federal system;
these can be corrected by law-makers. Others are encountered that are in-
herent in the system; these could not be destroyed by the peoples who adopt
it. So these peoples must find within themselves the strength to withstand
the natural imperfections of their government.
Among the vices inherent to all federal systems, the most visible of all
is the complication of means that they use. This system necessarily brings
two sovereignties face to face. The law-maker succeeds in making the move-
ments of these two sovereignties as simple and as equal as possible, and he
can enclose both of them within clearly defined spheres of action. But he
cannot make it so that there is only one of them, nor prevent them from
being in contact at some point.
[The federal system of the United States consists of combining two gov-
ernments: one, provincial; the other, national.
It is already not so easy to find a people who have the taste and, above
all, the habit of provincial government. I have already remarked earlier that,
among enterprises that can be attempted, certainly one of the most difficult
was to persuade men to attend to their own affairs. It follows that the federal
system is hardly ever established except among nations who, independent
of one another for a long time, have naturally contracted this taste and these
habits to a high degree. Notably, this is what happened in the United States.
Before the Revolution, they all recognized the authority of the mother
country, but each of them had its individual government as well and did
not depend on its neighbor.
Nonetheless, the great difficulty is not finding some peoples who know
how to run their own affairs, but finding some who can understand federal
sovereignty and submit to it.]
So no matter what is done, the federal system rests on a complicated
theory whose application requires, in the governed, the daily use of the light
of their reason.z
In general, only simple conceptions take hold of the mind of the peo-
ple. An idea that is false, but clear and precise, will always have more power
in the world than a true, but complicated, idea. It follows that parties,
which are like small nations within a large one, are always quick to adopt,
as a symbol, a name or a principle that often represents only very incom-
pletely the end that they propose and the means that they employ. But
without this symbol, they would be able neither to subsist nor to stir.
Governments that rest only on a single idea or single sentiment, easy to
define, are perhaps not the best, but they are assuredly the strongest and
the most durable.
On the contrary, when you examine the Constitution of the United
States, the most perfect of all known federal constitutions, you are alarmed
by the many varieties of knowledge and by the discernment that it assumes
among those whom it must govern. The government of the Union rests
almost entirely on legal fictions. The Union is an ideal nation that exists
only in the mind so to speak; intelligence alone reveals its extent and its
limits.
Once the general theory is well understood, the difficulties of applica-
tion remain; they are innumerable, for the sovereignty of the Union is so
entangled with the sovereignty of the states that it is impossible at first
z. In the fourth lecture of his course on civilization in Europe, Guizot insisted on this
point:
The federative system, logically the most simple, is in fact the most complex; in order
to reconcile the degree of independence, of local liberty, that it allows, with the degree
of general order, of general submission that it requires and assumes in certain cases,
a very advanced civilization is clearly required. . . . The federative system is therefore
the one that clearly requires the greatest development of reason, of morality, of civ-
ilization, in the society to which it applies (Histoire générale de la civilisation en Europe,
Brussels, Société belge de Librairie, 1839, lesson IV, p. 41).
glance to perceive their limits. Everything is by convention and by artifice

in such a government, and it can only suit a people accustomed, for a long
time, to running their own affairs, a people among whom political knowl-
edge has penetrated to the lowest levels of society. I have never admired the
good sense and practical intelligence of the Americans more than in the
way in which they escape the innumerable difficulties that arise from their
federal constitution. I almost never met a common man in America who
did not, with surprising ease, discriminate between the obligations arising
from the laws of Congress and those originating in the laws of his state,
and who, after distinguishing the matters that were among the general at-
tributions of the Union from those that the local legislature had to regulate,
could not indicate the point at which the jurisdiction of the federal courts
began and the limit at which that of the state courts ended.
The Constitution of the United States resembles those beautiful crea-
tions of human industry that shower glory and wealth on those who invent
them, but that remain sterile in other hands.
This is what Mexico has demonstrated in our times.
The inhabitants of Mexico, wanting to establish the federal system, took
as a model and almost completely copied the federal constitution of the
Anglo-Americans, their neighbors.39 But while importing the letter of the
law, they could not at the same time import the spirit that gives it life. So
they are seen constantly encumbered by the mechanism of their double
government. The sovereignty of the states and that of the Union, leaving
the circle that the constitution had drawn, penetrate each other daily. Still
today, Mexico is constantly dragged from anarchy to military despotism,
and from military despotism to anarchy.
[But even if a people were advanced enough in civilization and versed
enough in the art of government to submit intelligently to so complicated
a political theory, it would still not mean that the federal system could meet
all their needs.
There is, in fact, a vice inherent in this system that will manifest itself
no matter what is done. That is the relative weakness of the government
of the Union.]
39. See the Mexican constitution of 1824.

The second and more destructive of all the vices, which I regard as in-
herent in the federal system itself, is the relative weakness of the government
of the Union.
The principle on which all confederations rest is the division of sover-
eignty. Law-makers make this division hardly noticeable; they even hide it
from view for awhile, but they cannot keep it from existing. Now, divided
sovereignty will always be weaker than complete sovereignty.
In the account of the Constitution of the United States, we saw how
artfully the Americans, while enclosing the power of the Union within the
limited circle of federal governments, succeeded in giving it the appearance
and, to a certain extent, the strength of a national government.
By acting in this way, the law-makers of the Union reduced the natural
danger of confederations; but they were not able to make it disappear
entirely.
The American government, it is said, does not address itself to the states;
it applies its injunctions directly to the citizens and bends them, separately,
to the work of the common will.
But if federal law collided with the interests and prejudices of a state,
should it not be feared that each of the citizens of this state would believe
himself interested in the cause of the man who refuses to obey? When all
the citizens of the state found themselves thus harmed at the same time
and in the same way by the authority of the Union, the federal government
would seek in vain to isolate them in order to combat them. They would
instinctively feel that they must unite to defend themselves, and in the por-
tion of sovereignty left for their state to enjoy, they would find an orga-
nization already prepared. Fiction would then disappear and give way to
reality, and you would be able to see the organized power of one part of
the territory joining battle with the central authority.
[This is, moreover, the spectacle most recently presented by South Caro-
lina. The regulations of the United States concerning the tariff had become
completely unpopular in Carolina; the state legislature took the initiative
and suspended the enforcement of the federal law. This result is inevitable.
When the interest or passions of men are left a powerful means of satis-
faction, you can be assured that legal fictions will not long prevent them
from noticing and making use of that means. ⫽This is so well understood
even in America that, no matter how large certain states already are, care
has been taken not to create district assemblies that could represent a col-
lective resistance. The legislature never has to make anything obey, other
than towns, without links to each other.⫽
Former federal constitutions obliged the states to act. The Constitution
of the United States only obliges them to allow action, an essential differ-
ence that makes resistance very rare; for it is very much easier to refuse to
act than to prevent someone else from acting. But once what you resolved
simply to endure reaches a certain level of pain, the reluctance that men
have to take initiative does not take long to disappear, and the precaution
of the law-maker is found wanting.
The principle of federal law is that the Court of the United States must
endeavor to judge only individuals. In this way, it does [not (ed.)] generally
attack the laws of the states, which reduces the danger of a collision between
the two sovereignties. But if, in a particular interest, it violates an important
state law, or harms a general state principle or interest, the precautions of
the law-maker are again useless; and the struggle, real if not obvious, is
between the harmed state, represented by a citizen, and the Union, rep-
resented by its courts. The Constitution gives the Union . . . [text of note
40 (ed.)].
It is enough, moreover, to see in what a persuading and conciliatory
manner the federal government calls for the execution of laws, in order to
judge that, despite appearances and the efforts of the law-maker, the federal
government constantly finds itself facing not individuals, but sovereigns.
It is even easy to go further, and it must be said with the famous Ham-
ilton in the Federalist that of the two sovereignties, the stronger is assuredly
the sovereignty of the state.
You can even go further . . . [cf. infra (ed.)] . . . ]
I will say as much about the federal judicial system. If, in a particular
trial, the courts of the Union violated an important state law, the real, if
not obvious, struggle would be between the harmed state, represented by
a citizen, and the Union, represented by its courts.40
40. Example: The Constitution gave the Union the right to have unoccupied lands sold
for its benefit. I suppose that Ohio claims this same right for those that are enclosed within its
You must have little experience in the ways of this world to imagine that,
after leaving the passions of men a means of satisfaction, you will always
prevent them, with the aid of legal fictions, from noticing and making use
of that means.
So the American law-makers, while making the struggle between the
sovereignties less probable, did not destroy the causes.
You can even go further and say that they were not able to secure pre-
ponderance to the federal power in case of conflict.a
They gave the Union money and soldiers, but the states retain the love
and the prejudices of the people.
The sovereignty of the Union is an abstract thing connected to only a
small number of external matters. The sovereignty of the states is felt by
all the senses; it is understood without difficulty; every moment, it is seen
in action. One is new; the other was born with the people themselves.
The sovereignty of the Union is a work of art. The sovereignty of the
states is natural; it exists by itself, without effort, like the authority of the
father of a family.
The sovereignty of the Union touches men only through a few general
interests; it represents an immense and distant country, a vague and indef-
inite sentiment. The sovereignty of the states envelops each citizen in a way
and catches him every day by details. It is the state that takes responsibility
borders, under the pretext that the Constitution only meant territory not yet submitted to the
jurisdiction of any state; and that consequently Ohio itself wanted to sell the lands. The
judicial question would be posed, it is true, between the buyers who held their title from the
Union and the buyers who held their title from the state, and not between the Union and
Ohio. But if the court of the United States ruled that the federal buyer was in possession, and
the courts of Ohio maintained the holdings of his competitor, then what would become of
the legal fiction?
a. With a bracket that goes from this paragraph to the one that ends with the words
“that carry them toward peace”:
To note.
I say the same thing with more development in the last chapter on the future. Ask
for advice?”
Hervé de Tocqueville: “Do not put it here. One can do without it.”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “The more I reread the passage, the more I regret that
there is a question of deleting it, even more because I have not read the one that it
repeats” (YTC, CIIIb, 3, p. 25).
for guaranteeing his prosperity, his liberty, his life; at every moment, it in-
fluences his well-being or his misery. The sovereignty of the states rests on
memories, on habits, on local prejudices, on the egoism of province and
of family; in a word, on all the things that make the instinct for native land
so powerful in the heart of man. How can its advantages be doubted?
Since the law-makers cannot prevent the occurrence of dangerous col-
lisions between the two sovereignties that are brought face to face by the
federal system, their efforts to turn confederated peoples away from war
must be joined with particular dispositions that carry them toward peace.
It follows that the federal pact cannot exist for long if, among the peoples
to whom it applies, a certain number of conditions for union are not
found that make this common life easy for them and facilitate the task of
government.
Thus, to succeed, the federal system needs not only good laws, but also
favorable circumstances.
All peoples who have been seen to form a confederation have had a cer-
tain number of common interests that serve as the intellectual bonds of
the association.
But beyond material interests, man still has ideas and sentiments. For a
confederation to last for a long time, there must be no less homogeneity in
the civilization than in the needs of the diverse peoples who constitute it.
The civilization of a canton in Vaud compared with that of a canton in Uri
is like the XIXth century compared with the XVth; so Switzerland has never
truly had a federal government. The union among the different cantons
exists only on the map; and that would be clearly seen if a central authority
wanted to apply the same laws over the whole territory.b
b. Before the 1836 visit, Tocqueville probably went to Switzerland in 1829 and 1832
(Cf. Luc Monnier, “Tocqueville et la Suisse,” in Alexis de Tocqueville. Livre du centenaire,
Paris: Editions du C.N.R.S., 1960, pp. 101–13).
André Jardin indicates that in his view Tocqueville must have visited Switzerland at
least five times between 1823 and 1836. The notes of the voyage to Switzerland in 1836
are known to us thanks to the text published in the Oeuvres complètes, Beaumont edition.
André Jardin (“Tocqueville et la décentralisation,” in La décentralisation, VI colloque
d’histoire, Aix-en-Provence: Publication des Annales de la Faculté des Lettres, 1961,
pp. 89–117, 97) has nonetheless remarked that certain similarities between these notes
[There are men who pretend that one of the advantages of federal con-
stitutions is to allow each portion of the same empire to live entirely in its
own way, without ceasing to be united. That is true, if confederation means
a kind of offensive and defensive league, by means of which different peo-
ples unite to repel a common danger and remain strangers to each other
for everything else. But if, among confederated peoples, you want to create
a common existence and a true national government, it is absolutely nec-
essary that their civilization be homogeneous in nature. This necessity
makes itself felt even much more in confederations than in monarchies,
because in order to be obeyed, government has much more need for the
support of the governed in the first than in the second.
The federal system allows and favors diversity in laws dealing with spe-
cifics, which is a great good; but it often resists uniformity in general laws,
which is a great evil.]
In the United States there is a fact that admirably facilitates the existence
of the federal government. The different states not only have more or less
the same interests, the same origin and the same language, but also the same
degree of civilization; this almost always makes agreement among them
easy. I do not know if there exists any European nation, however small,
that, in its different parts, does not present a less homogeneous face than
the American people whose territory is as large as half of Europe.
From the state of Maine to the state of Georgia, there are about four
hundred leagues. However, less difference exists between the civilization of
Maine and that of Georgia than between the civilization of Normandy and
that of Brittany. So Maine and Georgia, placed at two extremities of a vast
and Democracy lead to the thought that these texts, published by Beaumont as dating
from 1836, are perhaps the fruit of an earlier voyage (Voyages en Angleterre, Irelande, Suisse
et Algérie, OC, V, 2, pp. 173–88). In his “Rapport fait à l’Académie des sciences morales
et politiques sur l’ouvrage de M. Cherbuliez, entitled De la démocratie en Suisse” (Séances
et travaux de l’Académie des sciences morales et politiques, XII, 1848, pp. 97–119, reproduced
as an appendix to Democracy beginning with the twelfth edition), Tocqueville comments
on the Swiss confederation in terms entirely similar to those of this chapter, and con-
cludes that Switzerland possesses the most ineffective federal constitution that could
exist.
empire, naturally find more real ease in forming a confederation, than Nor-
mandy and Brittany, which are separated only by a stream.
With these opportunities, which the mores and habits of a people offer
to the American law-makers, are joined others that arise from the geo-
graphic position of the country. It is principally to the latter that the adop-
tion and maintenance of the federal system must be attributed.c
[Despite all these obstacles, I believe federal governments still more ap-
propriate for maintaining internal peace and for favoring, over a vast em-
pire, the peaceful development of social well-being, than for strugglingwith
advantage against foreign enemies.
It is the difficulty that confederations find in sustaining great wars that
makes so many peoples incapable of enduring federal government.]
The most important of all the actions that can mark the life of a people
is war. In war, a people acts as a single individual vis-à-vis foreign peoples;
it fights for its very existence.
As long as it is only a question of maintaining peace within the interior
of a country and of favoring prosperity, skill in the government, reason
among the governed, and a certain natural attachment that men almost
always have for their country can easily suffice. But for a nation to be able
to wage a great war, the citizens must impose numerous and painful sac-
rifices on themselves. To believe that a large number of men will be capable
of submitting themselves to such social exigencies, is to know humanity
very badly. [Were the necessity of war to be universally acknowledged, the
natural inclination of the human mind is to reject the annoying conse-
c. In the margin:
⫽General ideas./
Insular position of the Union.
Indians, nothing. 4,000 soldiers. Attacked from a distance, defended close by./
Impossibility of taxes. Federalist./
Difficulties over the militias in the War of 1812./
Inability of the large nations of Europe to live federally./
Fortunate Americans.⫽
quences of the principle that it previously accepted. So once the principle

of war is accepted, an authority capable of forcing individuals to bear its
consequences must be found somewhere.]
It follows that all peoples who have had to wage great wars have been
led, almost despite themselves, to augment the forces of the government.
Those who have not been able to succeed in doing so have been conquered.
A long war almost always puts nations in this sad alternative; their defeat
delivers them to destruction, and their triumph, to despotism.
[There is a great nation in Europe where the forces of society [v: gov-
ernmental forces] are centralized in such a way that in case of war, a drum-
beat assembles the entire nation, so to speak, around its leader, like the
inhabitants of a village. This nation, apart from its courage, must have a
great advantage over others for waging war; on several occasions, therefore,
we have seen it dominate all of Europe by force of arms.
The fact is that to draw from people the enormous sacrifices of men and
money that war requires and to concentrate, in one place and at a given
time, all national forces, nothing less is required than the efforts of complete
sovereignty.
Now, the inevitable evil of confederations, I have already said, is the
division of sovereignty. In the federal system, not only is there no admin-
istrative centralization or anything approaching it, but also governmental
centralization itself exists only very incompletely. That is always a great
cause of weakness when it is a question of defense against peoples among
whom governmental centralization exists.
In the federal Constitution of the United States . . . [cf. infra (ed.)]].
So, in general, it is during a war that the weakness of a government is
revealed in a most visible and dangerous manner; and I have shown that
the inherent vice of federal governments was to be very weak.
In the federal system, not only is there no administrative centralization
or anything approaching it, but also governmental centralization itself ex-
ists only incompletely. That is always a great cause of weakness, when de-
fense is necessary against peoples among whom governmental centraliza-
tion is complete.
In the federal Constitution of the United States, of all federal consti-
tutions, the one where the central government is vested with the most real
strength, this evil still makes itself acutely felt. [The law gives Congress, it
is true, the right to take all measures required by the interest of the country,
but the difficulty is to exercise such a right. If Congress, pressed by urgent
needs, comes to impose on the governed sacrifices equal to the dangers, the
discontent of those individuals who suffer does not fail to find a place of
support in the sovereignty of the states, or at least in the ambition of those
who lead the states and who, in turn, want the support of the malcontents.
The states that do not want to wage war, or to whom the war is useless or
harmful, easily find in the interpretation of the Constitution the means to
refuse their support. The physical and, above all, the moral force of the
nation is considerably reduced by it, for even the possibility of such an event
renders the federal government weak and slow to act; it fills the government
with hesitations and fears and prevents it from even attempting all that it
could do.
“It is evident,” says Hamilton in the Federalist, no. 12, “from the state
of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have
had on the point itself that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable
sums by direct taxation.” The direct tax is in fact the most visible and bur-
densome of taxes; but at the same time, it is the only one that can always
be resorted to during a war.]
A single example will allow the reader to judge.
The Constitution gives Congress the right to call the state militias into
active duty when it is a matter of suppressing an insurrection or repelling
an invasion. Another article says that in this case the President of the United
States is the Commander in Chief of the militia.
At the time of the War of 1812, the President ordered the militias of the
North to move toward the national borders; Connecticut and Massachusetts,
whose interests were harmed by the war, refused to send their contingents.
The Constitution, they said, authorizes the federal government to use
the militias in cases of insurrection or invasion; but in the present situation
there was neither insurrection nor invasion. They added that the same Con-
stitution that gave the Union the right to call the militias into active service,
left the states the right to appoint the officers. It followed, according to
them, that even in war, no officer of the Union had the right to command
the militias, except the President in person. But this was a matter of serving
in an army commanded by someone other than him.
These absurd and destructive doctrines received not only the sanction
of the Governors and the legislature, but also that of the courts of justice
of these two states; and the federal government was forced to find elsewhere
the troops that it needed.41
[A fact of this nature proves, better than all that I could say, the inability
the American Union would have to sustain a great war, even with the im-
proved organization that the 1789 Constitution gave it.
Allow for a moment the existence of such a nation in the midst of the
aggressive peoples of Europe where sovereignty is unified and omnipotent,
and the relative weakness of the American Union will become for you a
proven and plain truth.]
So how is it that the American Union, all protected as it is by the relative
perfection of its laws, does not dissolve in the middle of a great war? It is
because it has no great wars to fear.e
[In general, we must give up citing the example of the United States to
prove that confederations can sustain great wars, for the Union has never
had a single one of this nature.
Even that of 1812, which the Americans speak about with such pride,
was nothing compared to the smallest of those that the ambition of Louis
XIV or the French Revolution brought about in Europe. The reason is
simple.]
Placed in the center of an immense continent, where human industry
41. Kent’s Commentaries, vol. I, p. 244. Note that I have chosen the example cited above
from the time after the establishment of the current Constitution. If I had wanted to go back
to the period of the first confederation, I would have pointed out even more conclusive facts.
[{Nothing more miserable can be imagined than the way the central government conducted
the War of Independence and yet}] Then true enthusiasm reigned in the nation; the Revo-
lution was represented by an eminently popular man; and yet, in that period, Congress had
no resources at all, so to speak. Men and money were needed at every moment; the best laid
plans failed in the execution; and the Union, always at the brink of perishing, was saved much
more by the weakness of its enemies than by its own strength.d
d. At first, the text of this note was found before “[In general . . . ].”
e. In the beginning, note 41 was found at this place in the manuscript.
can expand without limits, the Union is almost as isolated from the world
as if it were enclosed on all sides by the ocean.f
Canada numbers only a million inhabitants; its population is divided
into two enemy nations. The rigors of climate limit the extent of its ter-
ritory and close its ports for six months of the year.
From Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, there are still a few, half-destroyed,
savage tribes that six thousand soldiersg drive before them.
In the South, the Union at one point touches the empire of Mexico;
probably great wars will come from there one day [if the Anglo-Americans
and the Mexicans each continue to form a single, unified nation. In Mexico,
in fact, there is a numerous population that, different from its neighbors
by language, religion, habits and interest [broken text (ed.)]]. But, for a
long time still, the little developed state of its civilization, the corruption
of its mores and its poverty will prevent Mexico from taking an elevated
rank among nations. As for the great powers of Europe, their distance
makes them little to be feared.O
So the great happiness of the United States is not to have found a federal
constitution that allows it to sustain great wars, but to be so situated that
there are none to fear.
No one can appreciate more than I the advantages of the federal system.
There I see one of the most powerful devices favoring prosperity and hu-
man liberty. I envy the fate of nations permitted to adopt it. But I refuse,
nonetheless, to believe that confederated republics could struggle for long,
with equal strength, against a nation where governmental power would be
centralized.
The people who, in the presence of the great military monarchies of
Europe, would come to divide sovereignty, would seem to me to abdicate,
by this fact alone, its power and perhaps its existence and its name.
Admirable position of the New World where man has only himself as
an enemy. To be happy and free, he only has to want to be.
f. In the margin, with a bracket that includes this paragraph and the two following:
“To note.
I also say part of all of this at the future. Quid?”
g. The figure 4,000 appears in the manuscript as well as in a few other places.
s4s4s4s4s4
part ii
Until now, I have examined the institutions, I have surveyed the written
laws, I have depicted the current forms of political society in the United
States.
But above all institutions and beyond all forms resides a sovereign power,
that of the people, which destroys or modifies institutions and forms as it
pleases.
I have yet to make known by what paths this power, which dominates
the laws, proceeds; what its instincts, its passions are; what secret motivating
forces push, slow or direct it in its irresistible march; what effects its om-
nipotence produces, and what future is reserved for it.a
a. In the margin:
⫽Of freedom of the press.
Of associations.
Of parties.
Of elections. Democratic choices. Electoral mores.
Democratic omnipotence, omnipotence of the majority.
Its tyrannical effects. Political demoralization.
Its counterweights in the laws,1 in the mores and in the local circumstances.
Jury.
1. Judicial power, above all that of the Union, in that it prevents retroactive laws.
Lack of administrative centralization.⫽
277
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 1
How It Can Be Strictly Said That in the
United States It Is the People Who Govern
In America, the people name the one who makes the law and the one who
executes it; the people themselves form the jury that punishes infractions
of the law. Institutions are democratic not only in their principle, but in
all their developments as well; thus the people name their representatives
directly and generally choose them every year, in order to keep them more
completely dependent. So it is really the people who lead, and, although
the form of the government is representative, clearly the opinions, preju-
dices, interests, and even the passions of the people cannot encounter any
lasting obstacles that can prevent them from appearing in the daily lead-
ership of society.
In the United States, as in all countries where the people rule, the ma-
jority governs in the name of the people.b
This majority is composed principally of peaceful citizens who, either
by taste or by interest, sincerely desire the good of the country. In con-
stant motion around them, parties seek to draw them in and gain their
support.c
b. In the margin: “⫽An action external to society exercised on society resembles the
medicine that often aids nature but still more often harms it. Despotism often appears
useful, but I mistrust its benefits.⫽”
c. Cf. note a of p. 402.
278
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 2
Of Parties in the United States
A great division among parties must be made.—Parties that

differ among themselves like rival nations.—Parties strictly
speaking.—Difference between great and small parties.—In
what times they arise.—Their different characters.—America
had great parties.—It no longer has them.—Federalists.—
Republicans.—Defeat of the Federalists.—Difficulty of
creating parties in the United States.—What is done to
succeed in creating them.—Aristocratic or democratic
character that is found in all parties.—Struggle of
General Jackson against the Bank.
First I must establish a great division among parties.

There are countries so vast that the different populations living there,
though united under the same sovereignty, have contradictory interests that
give rise to a permanent opposition among them. Then, the various por-
tions of the same people do not form parties strictly speaking, but distinct
nations; and if civil war happens to break out, there is a conflict between
rival peoples rather than a struggle between factions.
[⫽What I call truly a party is a gathering of men who, without shar-
ing the bond of a common birth, view certain points in a certain
way.⫽]
But when citizens differ among themselves on points that interest
all portions of the country equally, such as the general principles of
government, for example, then what I will call truly parties are seen to
arise.
279
280 of parties in the united states
Parties are an evil inherent in free governments; but they do not have
the same character and the same instincts in all periods of time.
There are periods of time when nations feel tormented by such great ills
that the idea of a total change in their political constitution occurs to their
mind. There are other periods when the malaise is even more profound and
when the social state itself is compromised. That is the time of great rev-
olutions and great parties.
Between these centuries of disorders and miseries, you find others when
societies are at rest and when the human race seems to catch its breath. In
truth, that is still only outward appearance. The march of time does not
stop for peoples any more than for men; both advance each day toward an
unknown future; and when we believe them stationary, it is because their
movements escape us. They are men who are walking; to those who are
running, they seem immobile.
[<Similar to the hand that marks the hours; everyone can tell the path
it has already followed, but the hand must be watched for a long time to
discover that it is moving.>]
Be that as it may, there are periods when the changes that take place in
the political constitution and social state of peoples are so slow and so im-
perceptible, that men think they have arrived at a final state; the human
mind then believes itself firmly seated on certain foundations and does not
look beyond a certain horizon.
This is the time of intrigues and of small parties.
What I call great political parties are those that are attached to principles
more than to their consequences, to generalities and not to particular cases,
to ideas and not to men. In general, these parties have more noble traits,
more generous passions, more real convictions, a more candid and bold
appearance than the others. Here, particular interest, which always plays
the greatest role in political passions, hides more cleverly behind the veil of
public interest; sometimes it even manages to hide from the view of those
whom it arouses and brings into action.
Small parties, on the contrary, are generally without political faith. Since
they do not feel elevated and sustained by great objectives, their character
is stamped by an egoism that occurs openly in each of their acts. They get
worked up from a cold start; their language is violent, but their course is
of parties in the united states 281
timid and uncertain. The means they use are miserable, like the very end
that they propose. That is why, when a time of calm follows a violent rev-
olution, great men seem suddenly to disappear and souls withdraw into
themselves.
Great parties turn society upside down; small ones trouble it; the ones
tear it apart and the others deprave it. [<Both have a common trait, how-
ever: to reach their ends, they hardly ever use means that conscience ap-
proves completely. There are honest men in nearly all parties, but it can be
said that no party should be called an honest man.>] The first sometimes
save society by shaking it up; the second always disturb it to no profit.
America had great parties; today they no longer exist. From that it has
gained a great deal in happiness, but not in morality.a
a. The ideas of this paragraph and the three preceding ones are found again almost
literally in a note of 14 January 1832 from Notebook E of the American journey (YTC,
BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 260–61) and in a nearly identical note from pocket note-
books 4 and 5 (YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 197–98). The last paragraph con-
tinues in this way:
I do not know of a more miserable and more shameful spectacle in the world than
the one presented by the different coteries (they do not deserve the name parties) that
divide the Union today. Within them, you see stirring, in full view, all the petty and
shameful passions that ordinarily take care to hide deep within the human heart. As
for the interest of the country, no one considers it; and if someone speaks about it,
it is a matter of form. The parties put it at the head of their articles of association,
just as their fathers did, in order to conform to long-standing usage. It has no more
relation to the rest of the work than the license of the king that our fathers printed
on the first page of their books.
It is pitiful to see what a flood of coarse insults, what petty, malicious gossip, and
what coarse slanders fill the newspapers that all serve as organs of the parties; with
what shameless contempt for social proprieties, they bring the honor of families and
the secrets of the domestic hearth before the court of opinion each day.
In a letter dated 1 October 1858 and addressed to William R. Greg (OCB, VI, pp. 455–
56), Tocqueville comments on an article by the latter on political parties (“The State of
the Parties,” National Review 7, no. 13 (1858): 220–43). He notes as well another danger
tied to the absence of great political parties:
When there are no more great parties, well bound together by shared interests and
passions, foreign policy hardly ever fails to become the primary element of parlia-
mentary activity. . . . Now, I regard such a state of things as contrary to the dignity
When the War of Independence finally ended and it was a matter of

establishing the foundations of the new government, the nation found it-
self divided between two opinions. These opinions were as old as the world,
and they are found under different forms and given various names in all
free societies. One wanted to limit popular power; the other, to expand it
indefinitely.
Among the Americans, the struggle between these two opinions never
took on the violent character that has often marked it elsewhere. In Amer-
ica, the two parties were in agreement on the most essential points. Neither
one had to destroy an old order or turn an entire social state upside down
in order to win. Consequently, neither one bound a large number of in-
dividuals’ lives to the triumph of its principles. But they touched upon non-
material interests of the first order, such as love of equality and of inde-
pendence. That was enough to arouse violent passions.
The party that wanted to limit popular power sought, above all, to apply
its doctrines to the Constitution of the Union, which earned it the name
Federalist.
The other, which claimed to be the exclusive lover of liberty, took the
title Republican.b
and security of nations. Foreign affairs, more than all other matters, need to be treated
by a small number of men, with consistency, in secret.
And further on he adds:
I find that, with rare sagacity, you have indicated the conditions under which great
parties, well disciplined, can exist in a free country. As you say, each of them must be
the representative of one of the two great principles that eternally divide human so-
cieties, and that, to be brief, can be designated by the names aristocracy and democracy.
b. The history of the Federalists and the Republicans owes a great deal to a conver-
sation with Mr. Biddle, President of the Bank of the United States (non-alphabetic
notebooks 2 and 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 122–23). The idea that, in
America, there are no real parties had already appeared in April 1831, in a conversation
with Mr. Schermerhorn on the Havre, during the crossing of the Atlantic (notebook E,
YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 292–93). Beaumont will report this conversation
to his father in a letter of 16 May 1831 (Lettres d’Amérique, p. 40), and will mention it in
Marie (I, p. 360).
On Tocqueville’s theory of parties, see especially Nicola Matteucci, “Il problema de
partito politico nelle riflessioni d’Alexis de Tocqueville,” Pensiero politico 1, no. 1 (1968):
America is the land of democracy. So the Federalists were always a mi-

nority; but they counted in their ranks nearly all the great men who had
emerged from the War of Independence, and their moral power was very
extensive. Circumstances, moreover, favored them. The ruin of the first
confederation made the people afraid of falling into anarchy, and the Fed-
eralists profited from this temporary frame of mind. For ten or twelve years,
they led affairs and were able to apply, not all of their principles, but some
of them; for, day by day, the opposing current became too violent for any-
one to dare to struggle against it.
In 1801, the Republicans finally took possession of the government.
Thomas Jefferson was named President; he brought them the support of
a celebrated name, a great talent, and an enormous popularity.
The Federalists had only survived thanks to artificial means and with
the aid of temporary resources; the virtue or talents of their leaders, as
well as the good fortune of circumstances, had brought them to power.
When the Republicans, in turn, gained power, the opposing party was as
if enveloped by a sudden flood. An immense majority declared against it,
and the party found itself at once in such a small minority that it im-
mediately gave up hope. From that moment, the Republican or Demo-
cratic party has marched from conquest to conquest and has taken pos-
session of the entire society.
The Federalists, feeling defeated, without resources, and finding them-
selves isolated within the nation, divided; some joined the victors; others
put down their banner and changed their name. They entirely ceased to
exist as a party a fairly great number of years ago.
The transitional period when the Federalists held power is, in my opin-
ion, one of the most fortunate events that accompanied the birth of the
great American union. The Federalists struggled against the irresistible in-
clination of their century and country. Their theories, however excellent
or flawed, had the fault of being inapplicable as a whole to the society that
the Federalists wanted to govern; so what happened under Jefferson would
39–92; and Gerald M. Bonetto, “Alexis de Tocqueville’s Concept of Political Parties,”

American Studies, 22, no. 2 (1981): 59–79.
have happened sooner or later. But at least their government let the new
republic have time to get established and allowed it afterward to bear, with-
out difficulty, the rapid development of the doctrines that they had fought.
A great number of their principles ended up, moreover, being accepted into
the creed of their adversaries; and the federal Constitution, which still con-
tinues to exist in our time, is a lasting monument to their patriotism and
wisdom.c
So today great political parties are not seen in the United States. Parties
that threaten the future of the Union abound there; but none exist that
appear to attack the present form of government and the general course of
society. The parties that threaten the Union rest, not on principles, but on
material interests. In the different provinces of so vast an empire, these
interests constitute rival nations rather than parties.d That is how the North
c. Parties./
.-.-.- great parties that shared the first times of the Union .-.-.- but their principles
are found again. That one of the two, it is true, attained an immense superiority.
That from there came the miserable party spirit of today. Principles no longer being
in question, but men, or at least principles forced to hide behind interests and men.
Analogous example in France. There was grandeur in the struggle of the liberal party
with the royalist party. But since the first triumphed, there is only pettiness in the
debates that stir within it (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 35).
d. Gustave de Beaumont:
Is this a theory safe from criticism? So you call great parties only those that rest on a
political theory, and you deny this name to those that have immense interests for their
base. That is arbitrary.
I see clearly that the moral and political consequences of the different parties are
not the same. They are parties nonetheless.
Do you get out of it well by saying: these are rival nations rather than parties?
But the parties concerned (for example, those for and against free trade) are not
only from province to province, but also in each province, from citizen to citizen.
It would have been more correct, I believe, to establish a distinction between great
parties that have political theories as objectives and great parties that are tied to ma-
terial interests. Certainly America, turned upside down and threatened with disso-
lution by the question of free trade, has within it great parties; though different from
ours, they are no less great. Note that these parties would be powerful among us, if
we did not have others. After all, the developments of the author lead to the same
result (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 57–58).
was recently seen to uphold the system of commercial tariffs, and the South,
to take arms in favor of free trade. The sole reason is that the North engages
in manufacturing and the South in agriculture,e and the restrictive system
works to the profit of the one and to the detriment of the other.
For lack of great parties, the United States swarms with small ones, and
public opinion splinters infinitely on questions of details. The pain that is
taken there to create parties cannot be imagined; it is not an easy thing to
do in our time.f In the United States, there is no religious hatred, because
religion is universally respected and no one sect is dominant; no class hatred,
because the people are everything and no one still dares to struggle against
them; finally there are no public miseries to exploit, because the material
state of the country offers such an enormous scope to industry that leaving
man to himself is enough for him to work wonders. But [particular] am-
bition must indeed succeed in creating parties, because it is difficult to
throw someone who holds power out of office for the sole reason that you
want to take his place. So all the skill of politicians consists of forming
parties. A politician, in the United States, seeks first to discern his interest
and to see what analogous interests could be grouped around his; then he
busies himself finding out if, by chance, a doctrine or principle exists in
the world that could be placed conveniently at the head of the new asso-
ciation, to give it the right to come into being and to circulate freely. It
amounts to what would be called the license of the king that our fathers
used to print on the first sheet of their works and incorporated into the
book, even though it was not part of it.g
e. The manuscript says: “. . . and the South only in producing and the restrictive
system . . .”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “Economists will find that this term only in producing is
incorrect. Manufacturers being producers, like farmers or makers of sugar” (YTC, CIIIb,
2, p. 51).
f. “Cite the birth of the masons and the anti-masons to show how parties form and
recruit in the United States” (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 35). See the story of the freemason Mor-
gan in Beaumont, Marie, I, pp. 353–55.
g. In the manuscript: “. . . had no relation to the object of the book.”
Gustave de Beaumont: “I beg your pardon; all the licenses of the king were related
to the book and to its objective. So say: that our fathers used to print on the first sheet of
their works and incorporated into the book, even though it was not part of it” (YTC, CIIIb,
2, p. 59).
This done, the new power is introduced into the political world.
To a foreigner, nearly all the domestic quarrels of the Americans seem,
at first view, incomprehensible or childish, and you do not know if you
should pity a people who seriously keeps itself busy with such miseries or
envy it the good fortune of being able to keep busy in that way.
But when you come carefully to study the secret instincts that govern
factions in America, you easily discover that most of them are more or less
linked with one or the other of the two great parties that have divided men
since free societies have existed. As you enter more profoundly into the
intimate thought of these parties, you notice that some of them work to
narrow the use of public power, others, to expand it.
I am not saying that American parties always have as their open aim, or
even as their hidden aim, making aristocracy or democracy prevail in the
country. I am saying that aristocratic or democratic passions are easily found
at the bottom of all the parties, and, although hidden from view, they form
the tender spot and the soul of the parties.
I will cite a recent example. The President attacks the Bank of the United
States. The country is aroused and divided; the enlightened classes generally
side with the Bank; the people favor the President. Do you think that the
people knew how to discern the reasons for their opinion in the middle of
the twists and turns of such a difficult question, where experienced men
hesitate? Not at all. But the Bank is a great establishment that has an in-
dependent existence; the people, who destroy or raise all powers, can do
nothing to it; that astonishes them. Amid the universal movement of so-
ciety, this immobile point shocks their sight, and they want to see if they
cannot succeed in getting it moving like the rest.
Of the Remnants of the Aristocratic Party

in the United States
Secret opposition of the rich to democracy.—They withdraw into
private life.—Taste that they show inside their residences for
exclusive pleasures and luxury.—Their simplicity outside.—
Their affected condescension for the people.
Sometimes among a people divided by opinions, when the equilibrium

among parties is broken, one of them acquires an irresistible preponder-
ance. It crushes all obstacles, overwhelms its adversary and exploits the en-
tire society to its profit. The vanquished, then despairing of success, hide
or fall silent. A universal immobility and silence develop. The nation seems
united by the same idea. The conquering party stands up and says: “I have
brought peace to the country; you owe me thanks.”
But beneath this apparent unanimity, profound divisions and a real op-
position are still hidden.
This is what happened in America. When the democratic party gained
preponderance, you saw it take exclusive possession of the leadership of
public affairs. Since then, it has not ceased to model the mores and laws
after its desires.h
Today you can say that, in the United States, the wealthy classes of so-
ciety are almost entirely out of public affairs, and that wealth, far from being
a right, is a real cause of disfavor and an obstacle to reaching power.
So the rich prefer abandoning the contest to sustaining an often unequal
struggle against the poorest of their fellow citizens. Not being able to take
a rank in public life analogous to the one they occupy in private life, they
h. There is an often very effective means to reestablish peace in a country divided by

opinion; it is to give so complete a preponderance to one of the parties that the other
disappears or falls into silence. Experience has proved that this was buying peace at
a high price. When Ferdinand and Isabella chased the Moors from Spain, they made
a great cause of internal troubles disappear; but they impoverished the country and
delivered a blow to its industry from which it has never recovered.
The democratic party acted in the same way in America. Once in power, it took
exclusive possession of the leadership of public affairs and modeled the mores and
laws after its desires (YTC, CVh, 4, pp. 40–41).
abandon the first in order to concentrate on the second. In the middle of

the State, they form something like a society apart with its own tastes and
enjoyments.
The rich man submits to this state of things as to an evil without remedy;
with great care, he even avoids showing that it wounds him. So you hear
him publicly praise the sweet pleasures of republican government and the
advantages of democratic forms. For, next to hating their enemies, what is
more natural to men than flattering them?
Do you see this opulent citizen? Wouldn’t you say, a Jew of the Middle
Ages who is afraid of arousing suspicion of his wealth? His attire is simple;
his gait is modest. Within the four walls of his dwelling, he adores luxury;
into this sanctuary, he lets only a few chosen guests that he arrogantly calls
his equals. You meet no nobleman in Europe who appears more exclusive
in his pleasures than he, more envious of the slightest advantages that a
privileged position assures. But here he is, leaving his house, to go to work
in a tiny, dusty room that he occupies in the business center of the city,
where everyone is free to come to meet him. Along his path, his shoemaker
happens by, and they stop. They begin to converse with each other. What
can they be saying? These two citizens are dealing with the affairs of the
State, and they will not part without shaking hands.
At the bottom of this enthusiasm for convention and in the midst of
these obsequious forms toward the dominant power, it is easy to notice in
the rich a great disgust for the democratic institutions of their country. The
people are a power that they fear and despise. If, one day, the bad govern-
ment of democracy led to a political crisis, if monarchy ever presented itself
in the United States as something feasible, you would soon discover the
truth of what I am advancing.
The two great weapons that parties use to succeed are newspapers and
associations.j
j. “General picture. A mass, not impassioned, wanting the good. In the middle of it,
parties that seek to create a majority to legalize their ideas” (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 40).
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 3
Of Freedom of the Press in the United States
Difficulty of limiting freedom of the press.—Particular reasons

that certain peoples have for valuing this liberty.—Freedom of
the press is a necessary consequence of the sovereignty of the
people as it is understood in America.—Violence of the language
of the periodical press in the United States.—The periodical press
has its own instincts; the example of the United States proves
it.—Opinion of the Americans about the judicial suppression of
the crimes of the press.—Why the press is less powerful in the
United States than in France.
Freedom of the press not only makes its power felt over political opinions,
but also over all of the opinions of men. It modifies not only laws, but also
mores. In another part of this work, I will seek to determine the degree of
influence that freedom of the press has exercised over civil society in the
United States; I will try to discern the direction it has given to ideas, the
habits it has imparted to the mind and sentiments of the Americans.a For
now, I only want to examine the effects produced by freedom of the press
in the political world.
[{The greatest problem of modern societies is to know how to use free-
dom of the press.} I love freedom of the press enough to have the courage
to say everything that I think about it.]
I admit that to freedom of the press I do not bring that complete and
instantaneous love that is given to things supremely good by their nature.
a. See chapter VI of the second part of the second volume.
289
290 of freedom of the press in the united states
[I do not see freedom of the press in the same way that I consider patriotism
or virtue, for example.]b I love it much more from consideration of the evils
it prevents than for the good things that it does.c
If someone showed me an intermediate position where I could hope to
stand firm between complete independence and total subservience of
thought, I would perhaps take my position there; but who will find this
intermediate position?d You start from license of the press, and you march
in rank order; what do you do? First, you submit writers to juries. But the
juries acquit them, and what was only the opinion of an isolated man be-
comes the opinion of the country. So you have done too much and too
little. You have to move further. You deliver authors to permanent magis-
trates; but judges are obliged to hear before condemning. What someone
was afraid to avow in a book, is proclaimed with impunity in the defense
plea. Thus, what was said obscurely in one account is found repeated in a
thousand others. The expression is the external form, and, if I can express
myself in this way, the body of the thought; but it is not the thought itself.
Your courts arrest the body, but the soul escapes them and subtly slips
through their hands. So you have done too much and too little; you must
b. Gustave de Beaumont: “Patriotism is a virtue, so there is no alternative. Moreover,

why compare a political institution to a virtue? If you want to make your comparison
with a political institution that you consider as essentially and absolutely good, begin by
searching your mind. Is there a principle, an institution that appears so to you? Why
don’t you take individual liberty?” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 60).
c. Hervé de Tocqueville:
In general the author should stay in the background in order to allow only his book
to speak. His opinions should be appreciated by the reader because of a deduction
of the ideas that the work develops. If you depart from this rule, it must at least be
in the briefest possible way. I believe that the two paragraphs, the one beginning with
the words I admit, the second with the words I love it, could be deleted. They have
the disadvantage of delineating the author too openly, but without giving this picture
very clear contours. There is a bit of obscurity both in the thought and in its ex-
pression. My proposition accepted, you will pass immediately to the paragraph that
begins with the words: if someone” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 42–43).
The phrasing of the last sentence of this paragraph is by Beaumont (YTC, CIIIb, 2,
p. 60). In the manuscript, it finishes this way: “. . . from consideration of the evils that
follow its ruin than for the good things that it does.”
d. The manuscript says a marker. Beaumont suggested putting an intermediate po-
sition (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 60).
of freedom of the press in the united states 291
continue to move.e Finally you abandon writers to censors. Very good; we

are getting closer. But isn’t the political rostrum free? So you still haven’t
done anything. I am wrong; you have made things worse. Would you, by
chance, take thought for one of those material powers that grow with the
number of their agents? Would you count writers like soldiers in an army?
In contrast to all material powers, the power of thought often increases with
the small number of those who express it. The spoken word of a powerful
man, which spreads alone through the passions of a silent assembly, has
more power than the confused cries of a thousand orators. And if only
someone can speak freely in a single public place, it is as if he has spoken
publicly in each village. So you must destroy the freedom to speak as well
as to write. This time, here you are at your destination: everyone is quiet.
But where have you arrived? You began from the abuses of liberty, and I
find you under the feet of a despot.
You have gone from extreme independence to extreme servitude without
finding, on such a long journey, a single place where you could rest.
Some peoples, apart from the general reasons that I have just set
forth, have particular reasons that must attach them to freedom of the
press.
In certain nations claiming to be free, each of the agents of power can
violate the law with impunity, and the constitution of the country does not
give the oppressed the right to complain to the judicial system. Among these
peoples, the independence of the press must no longer be considered as one
of the guarantees, but as the sole remaining guarantee for liberty and for
the security of the citizens.
So if the men who govern these nations spoke about taking indepen-
dence away from the press, the whole people could respond to them: Allow
e. This reflection is similar to the one that appears in the discussion about Malesherbes
and freedom of the press in Essai sur la vie, les écrits et les opinions de M. de Malesherbes
(Paris: Treuttel et Würtz, 1819–1821, I, pp. 179–83) of Count Boissy-d’Anglas. On the
general ideas of this chapter, see the conversation with Spencer (non-alphabetic note-
book 1, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 69–70), and Beaumont, Lettresd’Amérique,
p. 101.
us to prosecute your crimes before ordinary judges, and perhaps then we

will consent not to appeal to the court of opinion.f
In a country where the dogma of sovereignty of the people openly reigns,
censorship is not only a danger, but also a great absurdity.g
When you grant each person a right to govern society, you must rec-
ognize his capacity to choose between the different opinions that trouble
his contemporaries and to appreciate the different facts, the knowledge of
which can guide him.
So sovereignty of the people and freedom of the press are two entirely
correlative things. Censorship and universal suffrage are, on the contrary,
two things that contradict each other and that cannot exist together for long
in the political institutions of the same people. Among the twelve million
men who live within the territory of the United States, not a single one has
yet dared to propose limiting freedom of the press.
When I arrived in America, the first newspaper that came before my eyes
contained the following article, which I translate faithfully:
Throughout the whole of this affair, the tone and language of Jackson
[the President] was that of a heartless despot, alone intent on preserving
his power. Ambition is his crime and will yet prove his curse. Intrigue is
his vocation, and will yet overthrow and confound him. Corruption is his
element and will yet react upon him to his utter dismay and confusion.
He has been a successful as well as a desperate political gangster, but the
hour of retribution is at hand; he must disgorge his winnings, throw away
his false dice, and seek the hermitage, there to blaspheme and execrate his
folly, for to repent is not a virtue within the capacity of his heart to obtain
(Vincennes Gazette ).
f. “Freedom of the press is the sole guarantee for a people who cannot attack the
agents of power through the courts, something seen among us. If the men who govern
us allow us to prosecute their misdeeds and crimes before ordinary judges, perhaps we
will consent not to attack their absurdities and their vices before the court of public
opinion” (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 93).
g. In the margin: “⫽After the people themselves, the press is the most irresistible
power that exists in America.⫽”
Many men in France imagine that the violence of the press among us is
due to the instability of the social state, to our political passions and to the
general malaise that follows. So they are constantly waiting for a time when,
after society has regained a tranquil footing, the press in turn will become
calm. As for me, I would willingly attribute the extreme ascendancy that
the press has over us to the causes indicated above; but I do not think that
these causes influence its language much. The periodical press seems to me
to have its own instincts and passions, apart from the circumstances in
which it works. What happens in American really proves it for me.
America is perhaps at this moment the country in the world that contains
within it the fewest seeds of revolution. In America, nevertheless, the press
has the same destructive tastes as in France, and the same violence without
the same reasons for anger. [<⫽Most often it feeds on hate and envy; it
speaks more to passions than to reason; it spreads falsehood and truth all
jumbled together.⫽>] In America, as in France, the press is an extraordinary
power, a strange mixture of good and evil; liberty cannot live without it
and order can hardly be maintained with it.h
What must be said is that the press has much less power in the United
States than among us. Nothing, however, is rarer in that country than seeing
a judicial proceeding directed against the press. The reason is simple: the
Americans, while accepting among themselves the dogma of sovereignty
of the people, have applied it sincerely. They did not have the idea of es-
tablishing, with elements that change every day, constitutions that endured
forever. So to attack existing laws is not criminal, as long as you do not want
to evade them by violence.
They believe, moreover, that the courts are powerless to moderate the
press; that because the flexibility of human languages constantly escapes
judicial analysis, crimes of this nature in a way slip out of the hand that
reaches out to seize them. They think that to be able to act effectively on
the press, a court would have to be found that was not only devoted to the
h. Variant: “The American press, like ours, is a power that you can speak ill of in
quiet and that you bow before in public, that you can fight by surprise, but that no power
can attack head on” Cf. note o of p. 78.
existing order, but was also able to stand above the public opinion that
stirs around it, a court that judged without allowing publicity, ruled with-
out justifying its decisions, and punished the intention even more than
the words. Whoever had the power to create and to maintain such a court
would waste his time pursuing freedom of the press; for then he would
be absolute master of society itself and would be able to rid himself of
writers and their writings at the same time. In the matter of the press,
therefore, there is really not a middle ground between servitude and li-
cense. To reap the inestimable advantages that freedom of the press as-
sures, you must know how to submit to the inevitable evils that it pro-
duces. Wanting to gain the first while escaping from the second is to give
yourself over to one of these illusions that usually delude sick nations
when, tired by struggles and exhausted by efforts, they seek the means to
allow hostile opinions and opposite principles to coexist at the same time
on the same soil.
The little power of newspapers in America is due to several causes; here
are the principal ones:
The freedom to write, like all other freedoms, is that much more to be
feared, the newer it is. A people who has never heard the affairs of State
treated in front of it believes the first popular orator who appears.
Among the Anglo-Americans, this liberty is as old as the founding of
the colonies. Moreover, the press, which knows so well how to inflame
human passions, cannot create those passions by itself. [{What feeds
freedom of the press, what gives it a hold on human will are political
passions.}] Now, in America, political life is active, varied, even agitated,
but it is rarely troubled by profound passions; rarely do the latter arise
when material interests are not jeopardized, and in the United States
these interests prosper. To judge the difference that exists on this point
between the Anglo-Americans and us, I have only to glance at the news-
papers of the two peoples. In France, the commercial advertisements
occupy a very limited space; even the news items are few; the vital part of
a newspaper is where the political discussions are found. In America,
three quarters of the immense newspaper put before your eyes are filled
by advertisements; the rest is usually occupied by political news or simple
stories; only now and then, in an obscure corner, do you notice one
of those heated discussions that among us are the daily food of the
reader.
Every power augments the action of its forces as their control is cen-
tralized; that is a general law of nature that examination demonstrates to
the observer and that an even more certain instinct has always shown to
the least of despots.
In France, the press combines two distinct types of centralization.
Nearly all of its power is concentrated in the same place and, so to speak,
in the same hands, for the organs of the press are very few in number.
Constituted in this way, in the middle of a skeptical nation, the power
of the press is necessarily almost without limit. It is an enemy with which
a government can reach a shorter or longer truce; but it is difficult for a
government to live in confrontation with the press for long.
Neither one nor the other of the two types of centralization that I have
just spoken about exists in America.
The United States has no capital.j [⫽In America the press is even less
centralized than the government it attacks.⫽] Enlightenment, like power,
is disseminated in all the parts of this vast country. There, the beams of
human intelligence, instead of coming from a common center, cut across
each other in all directions; the Americans have placed the general direction
of thought nowhere, any more than they have that of public affairs.
That is due to local circumstances that do not depend on men. But here
are the ones that come from the laws:
In the United States, there are no licenses for printers, no stamps or
registration for newspapers; the rule of surety bonds is unknown.
As a result, the creation of a newspaper is a simple and easy undertak-
ing; a fewk subscribers suffice for the journalist to cover his expenses. The
j. In the manuscript: “is fortunate enough not to have a capital.”

Hervé de Tocqueville: “I would remove fortunate enough. With a single phrase, the
author comes to a decision offhandedly on a question that is very susceptible to contro-
versy. That is at least unnecessary” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 45).
k. In the manuscript a blank indicates that Tocqueville thought about putting here
the precise number of subscribers. Following this sentence you find: “The most reliable
reports put it at [blank (ed.)] in 1832.”
number of periodical or semi-periodical writings in the United States

therefore surpasses all belief. The most enlightened Americans attribute
the little power of the press to this incredible scattering of its forces. It is
an axiom of political science in the United States that the only means to
neutralize the effects of newspapers is to multiply their number. I cannot
imagine that a truth so obvious has not yet become more common among
us. I understand without difficulty that those who want to make revolu-
tions with the aid of the press try to give it only a few powerful organs;
but what I absolutely cannot conceive is that the official partisans of the
established order and the natural supporters of existing laws believe that,
by concentrating the press, its action can be attenuated. The governments
of Europe seem to me to act toward the press in the same way that knights
used to act toward their enemies. They had noticed from their own ex-
perience that centralization was a powerful weapon, and they wanted to
provide it to their enemy, most probably to gain more glory in resisting
him.
In the United States, there is hardly any small town without its news-
paper. It can be easily understood that, among so many combatants, nei-
ther discipline nor unity of action can be established. Therefore each one
raises his banner. Not that all the political newspapers of the Union are
lined up for or against the administration; but they attack and defend it
in a hundred different ways. So in the United States newspapers cannot
establish those great waves of opinions that rise up or overwhelm the most
powerful dikes. This division of the forces of the press produces still other
no less remarkable effects. Because the creation of a newspaper is so easy,
everyone can do it. On the other hand, competition means that a news-
paper cannot hope for very great profits; this prevents great industrial tal-
ents from getting involved in enterprises of this type. Even if newspapers
were a source of riches, they are so excessively numerous that there would
not be enough talented writers to run them. So in general journalists in
the United States do not have a very high [social] position; their education
is only rudimentary; and the turn of their ideas is often vulgar. Now, in
all things the majority makes the law; it establishes certain behaviors to
which each person then conforms. The ensemble of these common habits
is called a spirit;m there is the spirit of the bar, the spirit of the court. The
spirit of the journalist, in France, is to discuss in a violent, but elevated
and often eloquent way, the great interests of the State; if this is not always
so, it is because every rule has its exceptions. The spirit of the journalist,
in America, is to attack in a coarse way, unaffectedly and without art, the
passions of those whom he addresses, to leave principles behind in order
to grab men, to follow men in their private life, and to lay bare their weak-
nesses and their vices [treat the secrets of the domestic hearth and the
honor of the marital bed].
Such an abuse of thought must be deplored. Later I will have the op-
portunity to inquire into what influence newspapers have on the taste and
morality of the American people; but I repeat that at the moment I am only
dealing with the political world. You cannot hide from the fact that the
political effects of this license of the press contribute indirectly to the main-
tenance of public tranquillity. The result is that men who already have an
elevated position in the opinion of their fellow citizens do not dare to write
in the newspapers; and they thereby lose the most formidable weapon that
they could use to stir popular passion to their profit.1 The result is, above
all, that the personal views expressed by journalists have no weight, so to
speak, in the eyes of readers. What readers seek in a newspaper is knowledge
of facts; only by altering or misrepresenting these facts can a journalist gain
some influence for his opinion.
Reduced to these resources alone, the press still exercises an immense
power in America. It makes political life circulate in all parts of this
vast territory. Always watchful, the press constantly lays bare the secret
m. In the manuscript: “what is called a spirit.”

I do not like that. Here is how I would conceive the sentence: I would delete what is
called a spirit, which is certainly bad (there are many other things that are called a
spirit, without counting the author) and I would say: in all, there is what is called the
spirit of the thing. There is the spirit of the bar, the spirit of the court. Journalism also
has its own. In France it consists . . .” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 62).
1. They write in newspapers only in the rare cases when they want to address the people
and speak in their own name; when, for example, slanderous charges have been spread about
them, and they want to reestablish the true facts.
motivating forces of politics and compels public men, one by one, to ap-
pear before the court of opinion. It rallies interests around certain doc-
trines and formulates the creed of parties. Through the press, interests
speak together without seeing each other, agree without having contact.
When a large number of the organs of the press manage to follow the
same path, their influence eventually becomes nearly irresistible; and pub-
lic opinion, always struck from the same side, ends by yielding to their
blows.
In the United States, each newspaper individually has little power; but
the periodical press, after the people, is still the first of powers.A
That the Opinions Established under the Dominion

of Freedom of the Press in the United States Are
Often More Tenacious Than Those That Are Found
Elsewhere under the Dominion of Censorship. n
In the United States, democracy constantly leads new men to the leadership
of public affairs; so the government has little coherence and order in its
measures. But the general principles of government there are more stable
than in many other countries, and the principal opinions that rule society
are more lasting. When an idea, whether sound or unreasonable, takes hold
of the mind of the American people, nothing is more difficult than to erad-
icate it.
The same fact has been observed in England, the European country in
which, for a century, the greatest freedom of thought and the most invin-
cible prejudices have been seen.
I attribute this effect to the very cause that, at first view, should seemingly
prevent it, freedom of the press. Peoples among whom this freedom exists
are attached to their opinions by pride as much as by conviction. They love
them because they seem sound to them, and also because they have chosen
n. In the margin: “⫽But this is due to the political institutions and not to freedom
of the press.⫽”
them. And they hold them not only as something true, but also as some-
thing of their own.
There are still several other reasons.
A great man has said that ignorance is at the two ends of knowledge.o
Perhaps it would have been more true to say that deep convictions are
found only at the two ends, and that doubt is in the middle. In fact, you
can consider human intelligence in three distinct and often successive
states.
A man strongly believes, because he adopts a belief without going deeper.
When objections appear, he doubts. Often he succeeds in resolving all these
doubts; and then he begins to believe again. This time, he no longer grasps
truth haphazardly and in the shadows; but he faces it and walks directly
toward its light.2
When freedom of the press finds men in the first state, it leaves them
for yet a long time with this habit of believing strongly without reflection;
only it changes the object of their unthinking beliefs each day. So, over the
whole intellectual horizon, the mind of man continues to see only one point
at a time; but this point is constantly changing. This is the time of sudden
revolutions. Woe to the generations that are the first suddenly to allow free-
dom of the press!
Soon, however, the circle of new ideas is nearly covered. Experience ar-
rives, and man is plunged into doubt and a universal distrust.
You can be assured that the majority of men will always stop at one of
these two states. The majority will believe without knowing why, or will
not know exactly what should be believed.
As for the other type of thoughtful and self-confident conviction that is
born out of knowledge and arises from the very midst of the agitations of
doubt, it will never be granted except in response to the efforts made by a
very small number of men to attain it.
o. Pascal, Pensées, number 83 in Lafuma edition.

2. Still, I do not know if this thoughtful and self-confident conviction ever elevates man
to the degree of ardor and devotion that dogmatic beliefs inspire.
Now, it has been observed that, in centuries of religious fervor, men

sometimes changed belief; while in centuries of doubt, each one stubbornly
kept his belief. This is how things happen in politics, under the rule of
freedom of the press. Since all social theories, one by one, have been con-
tested and fought, those who are attached to one of them keep it, not so
much because they are sure that it is good, as because they are not sure that
there is a better one.
In these centuries, you do not risk death as easily for your opinions; but
you do not change them. And, at the very same time, fewer martyrs and
fewer apostates are found.
To this reason, add another still more powerful. When opinions are
doubted, men end up being attached solely to instincts and to material
interests, which are much more visible, more tangible and more permanent
by their nature than opinions are.
To know whether democracy or aristocracy governs better is a very dif-
ficult question to decide. But clearly democracy hinders one man and ar-
istocracy oppresses another.p
That is a self-evident truth; there is no need to discuss it; you are rich
and I am poor.
[⫽When, as often happens, freedom of the press is combined with sov-
ereignty of the people, the majority is sometimes seen to decide clearly in
favor of an opinion. Then, the opposite opinion no longer has a way to be
heard; those who share it fall silent, while their adversaries triumph out
loud.
Suddenly there is an unimaginable silence of which we Europeans can
have no idea. Certain thoughts seem suddenly to disappear from the mem-
ory of men. Then freedom of the press exists in name, but in fact censorship
p. In the manuscript: “that democracy hinders you and aristocracy oppresses me.”
Gustave de Beaumont: “It is not the author’s intention to enter on stage and to appear
as a proletarian crushed by the aristocrats. So this form must be dropped; say: But clearly
democracy hinders one man and aristocracy oppresses another. Then you could finish by
saying: You are rich and I am poor. Why? Because then it is clearly seen that this is only
a convention of language” (YTC, CIIIb, e, pp. 63, 54).
reigns, a censorship a thousand times more powerful than that exercised by

power./
Note. I know of no country where freedom of the press exists less than
in America on certain questions. There are few despotic countries where
censorship does not concern the form rather than the substance of thought.
But in America there are subjects that cannot be touched upon in any
way⫽].
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 4
Of Political Association in the United States
Daily use that the Anglo-Americans make of the right of

association.—Three types of political associations.—How the
Americans apply the representative system to associations.—
Dangers that result for the State.—Great convention of 1831
relating to the tariff.—Legislative character of this
convention.—Why the unlimited exercise of the right of
association is not as dangerous in the United States as
elsewhere.—Why it can be considered necessary there.—
Utility of associations among democratic peoples.
Of all the countries in the world, America has taken greatest advantage of
association and has applied this powerful means of actiona to the greatest
variety of objectives.
Apart from permanent associations created by the law, known as towns,
cities and counties, a multitude of others owe their birth and development
only to individual wills.
The inhabitant of the United States learns from birth that he must de-
pend on himself in the struggle against the ills and difficulties of life; he
looks upon social authority only with a defiant and uneasy eye, and calls
upon its power only when he cannot do without it. This begins to be no-
ticed as early as school where children, even in their games, submit to their
a. Variant: “⫽Of all the countries in the world, America is where government is least
centralized. It is also the one that has taken greatest advantage of association. There is a
correlation between these two things.⫽”
302
of political association 303
own rules and punish their own infractions.b The same spirit is found in
all the actions of social life. An obstruction occurs on the public road; the
way is interrupted; traffic stops; the neighbors soon get together as a delib-
erative body; out of this improvised assembly will come an executive power
that will remedy the difficulty, before the idea of an authority pre-dating
that of those interested has occurred to anyone’s imagination. If it is a
matter of pleasure, the Americans will associate to give more splendor and
order to the festival. Lastly, they unite to resist entirely intellectual enemies:
together they fight intemperance. In the United States, they associate for
purposes of public security, commerce and industry, [pleasure], morality
and religion. There is nothing that human will despairs of achieving by the
free action of the collective power of individuals.
Later I will have the opportunity to speak about the effects that associ-
ation produces in civil life.c At the moment, I must stay within the political
world.
[⫽After the press, association is the great means that parties use to get
into public affairs and to gain the majority.
In America the freedom of association for political ends is unlimited.
The freedom of assembly in order to discuss together the views of the as-
sociation is equally unlimited.⫽]
Once the right of association is recognized, citizens can use it in different
ways.
An association consists only of the public support that a certain num-
ber of individuals give to such and such doctrines and of the promise
that they make to work in a particular way toward making those doc-
trines prevail. Thus the right to associate almost merges with freedom to
b. “So how to move hearts and develop love of country and its laws? Dare I say?
By the games of children; by institutions, pointless in the eyes of superficial men, but
which form cherished habits and invincible attachments” (Rousseau, Considérations
sur le gouvernement de Pologne, chapter I, in Œuvres complètes [Paris: Pléiade, 1964],
III, p. 955).
c. In the margin: “⫽Perhaps the chapter should begin here and what precedes should
be kept for the chapter on ordinary associations?⫽”
304 of political association
write;d but the association already has more power than the press. When
an opinion is represented by an association, it is forced to take a clearer and
more precise form. It counts its partisans and involves them in its cause.
The latter learn to know each other, and their ardor increases with their
number. The association gathers the efforts of divergent minds into a net-
work and vigorously pushes them toward a single, clearly indicated goal
[<even if it did not provide material means of action, its moral force would
still be very formidable>].
The second level in the exercise of the right of association is the power
to assemble. When a political association is allowed to locate centers of
action at certain important points of the country, its activity becomes
greater and its influence more extensive. There, men see each other; the
means of action combine; opinions are expressed with the force and heat
that written thought can never attain.
Finally, in the exercise of the right of association in political matters,
there is a last level. The partisans of the same opinion can meet in electoral
colleges and name representatives to go to represent them in a central as-
sembly. Strictly speaking, this is the representative system applied to a
party.
So, in the first case, men who profess the same opinion establish a purely
intellectual bond among themselves; in the second, they meet in small as-
semblies that represent only a fraction of the party; finally, in the third, they
form, so to speak, a separate nation within the nation, a government within
the government.e Their representatives, similar to the representatives of the
majority, represent in themselves alone the whole collective force of their
partisans; just like the representatives of the majority, they arrive with an
d. In the manuscript: “This type of association almost merges with freedom of the
press.”
Hervé de Tocqueville: “This sentence lacks clarity. The idea is not well developed,
and its expression is not good. What is an association that merges with a liberty, a material
thing with something not material?” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 48).
e. Note in the margin: “⫽Government within the government. Printing there [illeg-
ible word (ed.)]. See conversation with Ingersol [Ingersoll (ed.)].⫽” It concerns Charles
J. Ingersoll. See George W. Pierson, Tocqueville and Beaumont in America, pp. 480–82.
appearance of nationhood and all the moral power that results from that.
It is true that, unlike the representatives of the majority, they do not have
the right to make laws; but they have the power to attack the laws that exist
and to formulate in advance those that should exist.
I assume a people who is not perfectly used to the practice of liberty or
among whom deep political passions are stirring. Alongside the majority
that makes the laws, I put a minority that only attends to preambles and
stops at plans of action; and I cannot keep myself from believing that public
order is exposed to great hazards [<⫽for man is made in such a way that,
in his mind, there is only a step, the easiest of all to take, between proving
that something is good and doing it.⫽>]
Between proving that one law is better in itself than another, and proving
that it must be substituted for the other, there is certainly a great distance.
But where the minds of enlightened men see a great distance remaining,
the imagination of the crowd no longer sees any. There are times, moreover,
when the nation is almost equally divided between two parties, each claim-
ing to represent the majority. If, next to the governing power, a power arises
whose moral authority is almost as great, can we believe that it will limit
itself for long to speaking without acting?
Will it always stop before the metaphysical consideration that the pur-
pose of associations is to lead opinions and not to force them, to recom-
mend law and not to make it?
The more I contemplate the principal effects of the independence of
the press, the more I am convinced that among modern peoples indepen-
dence of the press is the capital and, so to speak, the constituent element
of liberty. So a people who wants to remain free has the right to require that
the independence of the press be respected at all cost. But the unlimited
freedom of association in political matters cannot be completely confused
with the freedom to write. The first is both less necessary and more dangerous
than the second. A nation can set limits on the first without losing control
over itself; sometimes it must set limits in order to continue to be in control.
In America, the freedom of association for political ends is unlimited.
An example will show, better than all I could add, the degree to which
it is tolerated.
You recall how the question of the tariff or free trade has stirred minds
up in America. The tariff favored or attacked not only opinions, but also
very powerful material interests. The North attributed a portion of its pros-
perity to the tariff; the South, nearly all of its misfortunes. It can be said
that, for a long time, the only political passions that have agitated the Union
have arisen from the tariff.
In 1831, when the quarrel was most bitter, an obscure citizen of Massa-
chusetts thought to propose, in the newspapers, that all the enemies of the
tariff send deputies to Philadelphia, in order to consult together about the
ways to reestablish free trade. In a few days, the proposal circulated from
Maine to New Orleans due to the power of the printed word. The enemies
of the tariff adopted it ardently. They met everywhere and named deputies.
Most of these were men who were known, and some of them were famous.
South Carolina, seen afterward to take up arms in the same cause, sent sixty-
three delegates on its behalf. The first of October 1831, the assembly, which,
following the American habit, had taken the name “convention,” formed
in Philadelphia; it numbered more than two hundred members. The dis-
cussions were public and, from the first day, took on an entirely legislative
character. The deputies examined the extent of congressional powers, the
theories of free trade, and finally the various provisions of the tariff. At the
end of ten days, the assembly dispersed after having drafted an address to
the American people. This address stated: 1. that Congress did not have the
right to pass a tariff and that the existing tariff was unconstitutional; 2. that
the lack of free trade was not in the interest of any people, and particularly
not the American people.
It must be recognized that, until now, unlimited freedom of association
in political matters has not produced, in the United States, the harmful
results that could perhaps be expected elsewhere. There, the right of as-
sociation is an English import, and it has existed in America since the be-
ginning. Today, the use of this right has passed into the habits and into the
mores. [{perhaps today it has even become a necessary guarantee against
parliamentary tyranny as well}].
In our time, freedom of association has become a necessaryf guarantee
f. The manuscript reads “almost necessary.”

against the tyranny of the majority.g In the United States, once a party has
become dominant, all public power passes into its hands; its particular
friends hold all posts and have the use of all organized forces. Not able to
break through the barrier that separates them from power, the most distin-
guished men of the opposite party must be able to establish themselves
outside of it; with its whole moral strength, the minority must resist the
material power that oppresses it. So one danger is set against another more
to be feared.
The omnipotence of the majority appears to me to be such a great peril
for the American republics that the dangerous means used to limit it still
seem good to me.
Here I will express a thought that will recall what I said elsewhere about
town liberties. There are no countries where associations are more neces-
sary, to prevent the despotism of parties or the arbitrariness of the prince,
than those where the social state is democratic. Among aristocratic nations,
secondary bodies form natural associations that stop the abuses of power.h
In countries where such associations do not exist, if individuals cannot ar-
tificially and temporarily create something that resembles those natural as-
sociations, I no longer see any dike against any sort of tyranny; and a great
people can be oppressed with impunity by a factious handful of individuals
or by a man.
[⫽There is a cause that is hardly suspected and that, in my view, renders
political associations less dangerous in America than elsewhere; it is uni-
g. Cf. note a for p. 402.

h. Aristocracy to democracy./
Aristocracies are natural associations that need neither enlightenment nor calcu-
lations to resist the great national association that is called the government. As a result
they are more favorable to liberty than democracy is. It is possible for associations to
be formed in a democracy, but by dint of enlightenment and talents; and they are
never enduring. In general, when an oppressive government has been able to form
in a democracy, it finds itself facing only isolated men and no collective forces. Hence
its irresistible strength. What gives the judicial system that immeasurable force over
the person on trial? It has the use of the forces of the entire society against one man.
Extreme example of the power of association and the weakness of isolation (YTC,
CVh, 1, p. 82).
versal suffrage. In Europe, associations act in two ways: by the material

strength that their organization brings to them, or by the moral power given
to them by the support of the majority that they always claim to represent.
In the United States this last element of strength is lacking. In countries
where universal suffrage is allowed, there is never a doubtful majority, be-
cause no party can establish itself as the representative of those who did
not vote.
Thus, in America, associations can never pretend to represent the ma-
jority; they only aim to convince it. They do not want to act, but to per-
suade; in that, above all, they are different from the political associations
of Europe.⫽]
The meeting of a great political convention (for there are conventions
of all types) can often become a necessary measure. Even in America, such
a meeting is a serious event, one that the friends of their country can only
contemplate with fear.
This was seen very clearly in the convention of 1831, where all the efforts
of the distinguished men who were part of the assembly tended to mod-
erate its language and to limit its objectives. Probably, the convention of
1831 exercised, in fact, a great influence on the mind of the discontented
and prepared them for the open revolt that took place in 1832 against the
commercial laws of the Union.
You cannot conceal the fact that, of all liberties, the unlimited freedom
of association, in political matters, is the last one that a people can bear.j
If unlimited freedom of association does not make a people fall into an-
archy, it puts a people on the brink, so to speak, at every moment. This
j. Nations are not able in all periods of their history to bear the same degree of
freedom of association. You find some peoples among whom the relative positions
and the strength of parties make certain associations dangerous; among others, des-
potism has taken care to keep men in such great ignorance that they do not under-
stand what can be done by associating together. Only time and the gradual devel-
opment of free institutions can teach them.
The society that cannot take the right of association away from citizens without
destroying itself is, therefore, sometimes required to modify it, depending on the
times and mores (YTC, CVh, 3, pp. 92–93).
See José Marı́a Sauca Cano, La ciencia de la asociación de Tocqueville (Madrid: Centro
de Estudios Constitucionales, 1995).
liberty, so dangerous, offers guarantees on one point, however; in countries

where associations are free, secret societies are unknown. In America, there
are agitators, but not conspirators.
Different Ways in Which the Right of Association Is

Understood in Europe and in the United States, and
the Different Use That Is Made of That Right
After the liberty of acting alone, the liberty most natural to man is to com-
bine his efforts with the efforts of his fellows and to act in common. So to
me, the right of association seems almost as inalienable by nature as indi-
vidual liberty. The legislator would not want to destroy it without attacking
society itself. But if there are some peoples among whom the liberty to unite
together is only beneficial and fruitful in prosperity, there are also others
who, by their excesses, distort it and turn an element of life into a cause of
destruction. It seemed to me that a comparison of the different paths that
associations follow, in countries where the liberty is understood and in those
where this liberty turns into license, would be useful both to governments
and to parties.
Most Europeans still see the association as a weapon that is hastily made
to try out immediately on the field of battle.
They join together for the purpose of talking, but the next thought, that
of acting, preoccupies all minds. An association is an army; they talk in
order to take stock and to come to life; and then they march on the enemy.
In the eyes of those who compose the association, legal resources can appear
to be means, but they are never the only means of success.
That is not the way the right of association is understood in the United
States. In America, citizens who form the minority join together, first, to
determine their number and, in this way, to weaken the moral dominion
of the majority; the second objective of those associated is to test and, in
this way, to discover the arguments most suitable for making an impression
on the majority; for they always hope to attract the majority and then, in
its name, to have the use of power. [⫽So in America, the purpose of as-
sociations is to convince and not to compel.⫽]
Political associations in the United States therefore are peaceful in their

objective and legal in their means; and when they claim to want to triumph
only through law they are, in general, speaking the truth.
On this point the noticeable difference between the Americans and us
is due to several causes.
In Europe parties exist that differ so much from the majority that they
can never hope to gain their support; and these very parties believe they are
strong enough by themselves to struggle against the majority. When a party
of this type forms an association, it does not want to convince, but to fight.
In America, menk who are so removed from the majority by their opinion
can do nothing against the power of the majority; all others hope to win
it over.
So the exercise of the right of association becomes dangerous in pro-
portion to how impossible it is for great parties to become the majority. In
a country like the United States, where opinions differ only by nuances,
the right of association can, so to speak, remain unlimited.
What still leads us to see, in freedom of association, only the right to
make war against those governing, is our inexperience in liberty. When a
party gains strength, the first idea that comes to its mind, as to that of a
man, is the idea of violence. The idea of persuasion only comes later; it
arises from experience.
The English, who are divided among themselves in so profound a way,
rarely abuse the right of association, because they have used it longer.
In addition, among us, such a passionate taste for war exists that no un-
dertaking, however insane, even if it must turn the State upside down, lacks
adherents who see themselves as glorious for dying on the field of battle.
But of all the causes in the United States that work together to moderate
the violence of political association, perhaps the most powerful is universal
suffrage. In countries where universal suffrage is accepted, the majority is
never in doubt, because no party can reasonably set itself up as the repre-
sentative of those who have not voted. So the associations know, and ev-
eryone knows, that they do not represent the majority. This results from
k. The manuscript reads: “the parties.”

the very fact of their existence; for, if they represented the majority, they
would change the law themselves instead of asking for its reform.
The moral force of the government they are attacking is greatly in-
creased; theirs, much weakened.
In Europe, there is hardly any association that does not claim to represent
or believe it represents the will of the majority. This claim or this belief
prodigiously increases their strength, and serves marvelously to legitimate
their actions. For what is more excusable than violence in order to gain
victory for the oppressed cause of right?
Thus, in the immense complication of human laws, sometimes extreme
liberty corrects the abuses of liberty, and extreme democracy prevents the
dangers of democracy.
In Europe, associations consider themselves, in a way, the legislative
and executive council of the nation that cannot speak for itself; starting
from this idea, they act and command. In America, where, in everyone’s
eyes, associations represent only a minority of the nation, they talk and
petition.
The means used by associations in Europe agree with the end that they
propose.
Since the principal end of these associations is to act and not to talk,
to fight and not to persuade, they are led naturally to adopt an organi-
zation that is not at all civil and to introduce military habits and maxims.
Thus you can see them centralize the control of their forces, as much as
possible, and deliver the power of all into the hands of a very small num-
ber of men.m
The members of these associations respond to an order like soldiers at
war; they profess the dogma of passive obedience, or rather, by uniting
together, they have at one stroke made the complete sacrifice of their judg-
ment and free will. Thus, within these associations, a tyranny often reigns
that is more unbearable than the one exercised within the society in the
name of the government that is attacked.
This greatly diminishes their moral force. In this way, they lose the sacred
m. In the margin: “⫽They use legal resources as a stopgap means and not as the
means.⫽”
character attached to the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors.

For how can he who, in certain circumstances, consents to obey slavishly
a few of his fellows, to surrender his will to them and to submit even his
thoughts to them, how can that man possibly claim that he wants to be
free?
The Americans have also established a government within associations.
But, if I can express myself in this way, it is a civil government. Individual
independence plays a role. As in society, all men there march at the same
time toward the same end. But no one is forced to march exactly in the
same path. No one sacrifices his will and his reason; but his will and his
reason are applied to making the common enterprise succeed.
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 5
Of the Government of
Democracy in America
I know that I am walking here on fiery ground. Each of the words of this
chapter must in some respects offend the different parties dividing my
country. I will, nonetheless, express my whole thought.
In Europe, we have difficulty judging the true character and permanent
instincts of democracy, because in Europe there is a struggle between two
opposite principles. And we do not know precisely what should be attrib-
uted to the principles themselves or to the passions that the conflict has
produced.
It is not the same in America. There, the people dominate without ob-
stacles; there are no dangers to fear or wrongs to revenge.
So, in America, democracy is given over to its own inclinations. Its pace
is natural, and all its movements are free. That is where it must be judged.
And for whom would this study be interesting and profitable, if not for us,
who are dragged along each day by an irresistible movement and who march
blindly, perhaps toward despotism, perhaps toward the republic, but def-
initely toward a democratic social state?
Of Universal Suffrage
I said previously that all the states of the Union had allowed universal
suffrage. It is also found among populations situated at different levels of
[{civilization}] the social scale. I have had the opportunity to see its ef-
fects in various places and among races of men made nearly strangers to
each other by their language, their religion, or their mores, in Louisiana
as in New England, in Georgia as in Canada. I noted that, in America,
313
314 of the government of democracy
universal suffrage was far from producing all the good and all the evil that
are expected in Europe, and that, in general, its effects were other than
those supposed.a
Of the Choices of the People and of the Instincts of

American Democracy in Its Choices
In the United States the most outstanding men are rarely called
to the leadership of public affairs.—Causes of this
phenomenon.—The envy that animates the lower classes in
France against the upper classes is not a French sentiment, but
democratic.—Why, in America, distinguished men often move
away on their own from political careers.
Many people in Europe believe without saying, or say without believing,

that one of the great advantages of universal suffrage is to call men worthy
of public confidence to the leadership of public affairs.b It is said that a
people cannot govern itself, but always sincerely wants the good of the
State, and its instinct hardly ever fails to point out those who are animated
by the same desire and who are most capable of holding power.c
I must say that, for me, what I saw in America does not authorize me to
think that this is so. Upon my arrival in the United States, I was struck
a. Marginal note: “⫽For that I do not know what to do. The interests that divide
men are innumerable, but truth is singular and has only one way to come about.⫽”
b. “⫽What is most important to a nation is not that those who govern are men of
talent, but that they have no interests contrary to the mass of their fellow citizens⫽”
(YTC, CVh, 4, p. 90).
c. Repetition of an argument from Montesquieu, who asserts in chapter II of book
II of the Esprit des lois:
The people are admirable for choosing those to whom they must entrust some part
of their authority. In order to decide they have only things that they cannot ignore
and facts that are tangible. . . . But would they be able to conduct a matter, to know
the places, the occasions, the moments, how to profit from them? No, they will not.
. . . The people, who have enough capacity to understand the management of others,
are not fit to manage by themselves (Œuvres complètes [Paris: Pléiade, 1951], II,
pp. 240–41. Cf. note e for p. 93).
of the government of democracy 315
with surprise to find out how common merit was among the governed and
how uncommon it was among those governing.d Today it is a constant fact
in the United States that the most outstanding men are rarely called to
public office, and we are forced to recognize that this has occurred as de-
mocracy has gone beyond all its former limits. Clearly the race of American
statesmen has grown singularly smaller over the past half century.
Several causes of this phenomenon can be indicated.
It is impossible, no matter what you do, to raise the enlightenment of
the people above a certain level. Whatever you do to make human learning
more accessible, improve the methods of instruction and make knowledge
more affordable, you will never be able to have men learn and develop their
intelligence without devoting time to the task.
So the greater or lesser facility that the people have for living without
working sets the necessary limit to their intellectual progress. This limit is
further away in certain countries, closer in certain others; but for there to
be no limit, it would be necessary for the people not to have to be occupied
with the material cares of life; that is, for them no longer to be the people.e
So it is as difficult to imagine a society in which all men are very enlightened,
as a State in which all citizens are rich; these are two correlative difficulties.
I will admit without difficulty that the mass of citizens very sincerely wants
the country’s good. I go even further, and I say that, in general, the lower
classes of society seem to me to mingle fewer calculations of personal in-
terest with this desire than do the upper classes; but what they always more
or less lack is the art of judging the means while sincerely desiring the end.
d. Why, when civilization spreads, do prominent men decline in number? Why,

when learning becomes the privilege of all, do great intellectual talents become more
rare? Why, when there are no more lower classes, are there not more upper classes?
Why, when understanding of government reaches the masses, are great geniuses miss-
ing from the leadership of society? America clearly poses these questions. But who
will be able to resolve them? (pocket notebook 3, 6 November 1831, YTC, BIIa, and
Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 188).
e. “As the cares of material life demand less time, the development of the intelligence
of the people will be greater. The one concerned with none of these cares will always
have an intellectual advantage over those who are obliged to be concerned with them”
(YTC, CVh, 4, p. 37).
What long study, what diverse notions are necessary to get an exact idea of
the character of a single man! There the greatest geniuses go astray, and the
multitude would succeed! The people never find the time and the means
to give themselves to this work. They must always judge in haste and attach
themselves to the most salient objects. As a result, charlatans of all types
know very well the secret of pleasing the people, while their true friends
most often fail. [<In most of the states of the Union I saw positions oc-
cupied by men who had succeeded in gaining them only by flattering the
slightest passions and bowing before the smallest caprices of the people.>]
Moreover, it is not always the capacity to choose men of merit that de-
mocracy lacks, but the desire and the taste.
The fact must not be concealed that democratic institutions develop the
sentiment of envy in the human heart to a very high degree, not so much
because they offer each person the means to become equal to others, but
because these means constantly fail those who use them. Democratic in-
stitutions awaken and flatter the passion for equality without ever being
able to satisfy it entirely. Every day, at the moment when people believe
they have grasped complete equality, it escapes from their hands and flees,
as Pascal says,f in an eternal flight. People become heated in search of this
good, all the more precious since it is close enough to be known, but far
enough away not to be savored. The chance to succeed rouses the people;
the uncertainty of success irritates them. They get agitated, grow weary,
become embittered. Then, everything that is in some way beyond them
seems an obstacle to their desires, and there is no superiority, however le-
gitimate, that they do not grow tired of seeing.
Many people imagine among us that the secret instinct that leads the
lower classes to keep the upper classes away from the leadership of public
affairs as much as they can is found only in France. That is an error: the
instinct that I am speaking about is not French, it is democratic. Political
circumstances have been able to give it a particular character of bitterness,
but they did not give birth to it.
In the United States, the people have no hatred for the upper classes of
society; but they feel little goodwill toward them and carefully keep them
f. Pensées, number 390 in the Lafuma edition.

out of power; they do not fear great talents, but they appreciate them little.g
In general, you notice that everything that arises without their support gains
their favor with difficulty.
While the natural instincts of democracy lead the people to keep dis-
tinguished men away from power, an instinct no less strong leads the latter
to remove themselves from a political career in which it is so difficult for
them to remain entirely themselves, and to operate without debasing
themselves. This thought is very ingenuously expressed by Chancellor
Kent. The celebrated author about whom I am speaking, after giving great
praise to the part of the Constitution that grants the nomination of judges
to the executive power, adds: “The fittest men would probably have too
much reservedness of manners, and severity of morals, to secure an elec-
g. Here Tocqueville seems to invoke the difference that Guizot and most of the Doc-
trinaires establish between democracy, the political form that destroys the legitimate
inequality of intelligence and virtue existing among men and that leads to the despotism
of the greatest number, and representative government that divides power according to
reason. “Representative government therefore is not that of the numerical majority pure
and simple, it is that of the majority of those who are capable (des capables ),” writes
François Guizot ( Journal des cours publics, Paris: au bureau du journal, 1821–1822, vol.
I, lecture 7, p. 98). If Tocqueville radically rejects Guizot’s conclusion that makes the
middle class the most capable class, his problem remains nonetheless the same: how to
make the best govern? This question, which marks the entire history of political thought,
had been explained in this way by Tocqueville to Louis de Kergorlay: “The most rational
government is not the one in which all those interested take part, but the one that the
most enlightened and most moral classes of society lead” (Letter from Yonkers, 29 June
1831, Correspondance avec Kergorlay, OC, XIII, 1, p. 234). Four years later, just after the
publication of the first part of his book, Tocqueville wrote to Mill:
It is much less a matter for the friends of democracy to find the means to make the
people govern than to make the people choose those most capable of governing, and
to give the people enough authority over the latter for the people to be able to direct
the whole of their conduct and not the detail of actions or the means of execution.
That is the problem. I am deeply persuaded that on its solution depends the future
fate of modern nations (letter of 3 December 1835, Correspondance anglaise, OC, VI,
1, pp. 303–4).
Tocqueville, however, seems only to repeat what Mill had written in his review of the
first part of Democracy: “The best government [ . . . ] must be the government of the
wisest” ( John Stuart Mill, “De Tocqueville on Democracy in America,” London and
Westminster Review, 30, 1835, pp. 110–11). See Luiz Dı́ez del Corral, “Tocqueville and the
Political Thought of the Doctrinaires,” Alexis de Tocqueville. Livre du centenaire (Paris:
Editions du CNRS, 1960), pp. 57–70.
tion resting on universal suffrage” (Kent’s Commentaries, vol. I, p. 272 [273

(ed.)].) This was published without contradiction in America in the year
1830.
This demonstrated to me that those who regard universal suffrage as a
guarantee for good choices are under a complete illusion. Universal suffrage
has other advantages, but not that one.
Of the Causes That Can Partially Correct

These Democratic Instincts
Opposite effects produced on peoples as on men
by great perils.—Why America saw so many remarkable men
at the head of its public affairs fifty years ago.—
Influence that enlightenment and mores exercise on the choices of
the people.—Example of New England.—States of
the Southwest.—How certain laws influence the choices of
the people.—Indirect election.—Its effects on the
composition of the Senate.
When great perils threaten the State, you often see people happily choose
the citizens most appropriate to save them.
It has been remarked that, in pressing danger, man rarely remains at his
usual level; he rises well above, or falls below. The same thing happens to
peoples themselves. Extreme perils, instead of elevating a nation, some-
times finish demoralizing it; they arouse its passions without guiding
them; and, far from enlightening its mind, they trouble it. The Jews still
slit their own throats amid the smoking ruins of the Temple. But, among
nations as among men, it is more common to see extraordinary virtues
arise from very present dangers. Then great characters appear like those
monuments, hidden by the darkness of night, that suddenly stand out
against the glow of a fire. Genius is no longer averse to reappearing on its
own, and the people, struck by their own dangers, temporarily forget their
envious passions. Then, it is not uncommon to see celebrated names
emerge from the electoral urn. I said above that in America the statesmen
of today seemh greatly inferior to those who appeared at the head of

public affairs fifty years ago. This is due not only to laws, but also to
circumstances. When America fought for the most just of causes, that of
one people escaping from the yoke of another people; when it was a mat-
ter of having a new nation emerge in the world, all souls rose to reach the
lofty goal of their efforts. In this general excitement, superior men courted
the people and the people, embracing them, placed them at their head. But
such events are rare; judgment must be based on the ordinary course of
things.
If temporary events sometimes succeed in combating the passions of
democracy, enlightenment and, above all, mores exercise a no less powerful
and more enduring influence on its inclinations. This is clearly noticed in
the United States.
In New England, where education and liberty are the daughters of mo-
rality and religion, where society, already old and long settled, has been able
to form maxims and habits, the people, while escaping from all the supe-
riorities that wealth and birth have ever created among men, have become
used to respecting and submitting to intellectual and moral superiorities
without displeasure; consequently, you see democracy in New England
make better choices than anywhere else.
In contrast, as you descend toward the south, in the states where the
social bond is less ancient and less powerful, where instruction is less wide-
spread, and where the principles of morality, religion, and liberty are less
happily combined, you notice that talents and virtues become more and
more rare among those governing.
When, finally, you enter the new states of the Southwest, where the social
body, formed yesterday, still presents only an agglomeration of adventurers
or speculators, you are astounded to see what hands hold the public power,
and you wonder by what force independent of legislation and men the State
can grow and society prosper there.
h. The manuscript says “were.”

There are certain laws of a democratic nature, however, that succeed in

partially correcting these dangerous democratic instincts.
When you enter the House chamber in Washington, you feel struck by
the vulgar aspect of the great assembly. Often your eye searches in vain for
a celebrated man within the assembly. Nearly all its members are obscure
persons, whose names bring no image to mind. They are, for the most part,
village lawyers, tradesmen, or even men belonging to the lowest classes. In
a country where instruction is nearly universal, it is said that the represen-
tatives of the people do not always know how to write correctly.j
[<If they speak, their language is usually without dignity and the ideas
they express are devoid of scope and loftiness.>]
Two steps from there opens the Senate chamber, whose narrow enclosure
contains a large portion of the famous men of America. You notice hardly
a single man there who does not evoke the idea of recent celebrity. They
are eloquent lawyers, distinguished generals, skilled magistrates, or known
statesmen. All the words that issue from this [august] assembly would do
honor to the greatest parliamentary debates of Europe.
What causes this bizarre contrast? Why is the nation’s elite found in this
chamber rather than in the other? Why does the first assembly gather so
many vulgar elements, while the second seems to have a monopoly of tal-
ents and enlightenment? Both come from the people, however; both are
j. The manuscript says: “the representatives of the people do not know . . .”

Elections./
When the right to vote is universal, and deputies are paid by the State, the choices
of the people can descend and stray to a singular degree.
Two years ago, the inhabitants of the district in which Memphis is the capital,
sent to the House of Representatives of Congress an individual named David Crock-
ett, who has no education, can scarcely read, has no property, no fixed abode, but
spends his life hunting, selling his game to make a living, and living constantly in the
woods. His competitor was a man of talent and moderate wealth who lost. Memphis,
20 December 1831 (YTC, BIIa, notebook E, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 274–75).
the result of universal suffrage, and, until now, no voice has been raised in
America to maintain that the Senate might be the enemy of popular in-
terests. So what causes such an enormous difference? I see only a single fact
that explains it. The election that produces the House of Representatives
is direct; the one producing the Senate is subject to two stages. The uni-
versality of citizens names the legislature of each state, and the federal Con-
stitution, transforming each of these legislatures into electoral bodies,
draws from them the members of the Senate. So the Senators express the
result of universal suffrage, though indirectly. For the legislature, which
names the Senators, is not an aristocratic or privileged body that derives its
electoral right from itself; it is essentially dependent on the universality of
citizens. In general it is elected by them annually, and they can always direct
its choices by remaking it with new members. But it is sufficient for the
popular will to pass through this chosen assembly in order, in a sense, to
be transformed and to emerge clothed in more noble and more beautiful
forms. So the men elected in this way always represent exactly the governing
majority of the nation; but they represent only the elevated thoughts that
circulate in its midst, the generous instincts that animate it, and not the
small passions that often trouble it and the vices that dishonor it.
It is easy to see a moment in the future when the American republics
will be forced to multiply the use of two stages in their electoral system,
under pain of getting miserably lost among the pitfalls of democracy.k
I will have no difficulty in admitting it; I see in indirect election the only
means to put the use of political liberty within reach of all classes of the
people. Those who hope to make this means the exclusive weapon of one
party, and those who fear this means, seem to me to be equally in error.
k. On the contrary, the seventeenth amendment to the American Constitution, ap-

proved 31 May 1913, establishes direct election of Senators, by regularizing in large part
a preexisting situation, by which the second voters committed themselves to scrupulously
following the desires expressed by the votes of the first voters.
Influence That American Democracy

Has Exercised on Electoral Laws m
The rarity of elections exposes the State to great crises.—
Their frequency keeps it in a feverish agitation.—
The Americans have chosen the second of these two evils.—
Variableness of the law.—Opinion of Hamilton,
Madison and Jefferson on this subject.
When election recurs only at long intervals, the State runs the risk of up-
heaval at each election.
Partiesn then make prodigious efforts to grasp a fortune that comes so
rarely within reach; and since the evil is almost without remedy for can-
didates who fail, everything must be feared from their ambition driven to
despair. If, in contrast, the legal struggle must soon be renewed, those who
are defeated wait.
When elections follow one another rapidly, their frequency maintains a
feverish movement in society and keeps public affairs in a state of constant
change.
Thus, on the one hand, there is a chance of uneasiness for the State; on
the other, a chance of revolution; the first system harms the goodness of
government, the second threatens its existence.
The Americans have preferred to expose themselves to the first evil rather
than to the second. In that, they have been guided by instinct much more
than by reasoning, since democracy drives the taste for variety to a passion.
The result is a singular mutability in legislation.
Many Americans consider the instability of the laws as a necessary con-
sequence of a system whose general effects are useful.o But there is no one
m. In the margin: “I believe this small chapter decidedly bad. Hackneyed ideas.”
n. “Political men” in the manuscript. The change was suggested by Beaumont (YTC,
CIIIb, 2, p. 30).
o. Democracy-Aristocracy./
Legislative instability in America./
I have just found one of the strongest proofs of this instability in the laws of
Massachusetts (the most stable state in the Union).
in the United States, I believe, who pretends to deny that this instability
exists or who does not regard it as a great evil.
Hamilton, after having demonstrated the utility of a power that could
prevent or at least slow the promulgation of bad laws, adds: “It may perhaps
be said that the power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing
good ones. . . . But this objection will have little weight with those who can
properly estimate the mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the
laws, which form the greatest blemish in the character and genius of our gov-
ernments” (Federalist, No. 73.)p
“[The] facility and excess of lawmaking,” says Madison, “seem to be the
diseases to which our governments are most liable” (Federalist, No. 62).
Jefferson himself, the greatest democrat who has yet emerged from
within the American democracy, pointed out the same perils.
The instability of our laws is really a very serious disadvantage, he says.
I think that we will have to deal with that by deciding that there would
always be an interval of a year between the proposal of a law and the
definitive vote. It would then be discussed and voted, without being able
to change a word, and if circumstances seemed to require a more prompt
resolution, the proposed law could not be adopted by a simple majority,
but by a two-thirds majority of both houses.1
From 1803 to 1827, the administrative attributions of the Court of Sessions were
changed many times in order to convey them to the Court of Common Pleas. See
Laws of Massachusetts, vol. II, p. 98 (YTC, CVb, p. 24). The quotations included in
the text follow.
p. This paragraph and the one preceding belonged to chapter VII of this second part
(p. 407).
1. Letter to Madison, 20 December 1787, translation of Mr. Conseil.q
q. The second sentence reads differently in the French translation of Conseil (volume
I, pp. 310–18; the citation is found on page 318).
Of Public Officials under the Dominion

of American Democracy
Simplicity of American officials.—Lack of official dress.—All
officials are paid.—Political consequences of this fact.—In
America, there is no public career.—What results from that.
Public officials in the United States remain mixed within the crowd of
citizens; they have neither palaces, nor guards, nor ceremonial dress [but
they are all paid]. This simplicity of those who govern is due not only to
a particular turn of the American spirit, but also to the fundamental prin-
ciples of the society.
In the eyes of the democracy, government is not a good, but a necessary
evil. A certain power must be accorded to officials; for, without this power,
what purpose would they serve? But the external appearances of power are
not indispensable to the course of public affairs; they needlessly offend the
sight of the public.
Officials themselves are perfectly aware that, by their power, they have
not obtained the right to put themselves above others, except on the con-
dition of descending, by their manners, to the level of all.
I can imagine nothing plainer in his ways of acting, more accessible to
all, more attentive to demands, and more civil in his responses, than a public
figure in the United States.
I like this natural look of the government of democracy;r in this internal
r. In the manuscript: “I like this simple look . . .”

I am afraid that a bit of the enthusiasm of a young man may be seen in this admiration
for American simplicity. In our old Europe, there is often a need to catch the imag-
ination by a certain pomp, and the simplicities of Louis-Philippe have attracted as
much scorn as his villainies. The author is bold to pronounce himself categorically
against one of the most general ideas. When you have this boldness, you must at least
try to justify your opinion by an example whose truth is striking and perceptible to
everyone. At the end of the second paragraph, which finishes with the words solely
to his own merit, the example would have to be cited of jurors in tail coats who are
more imposing than magistrates in red robes (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 24–25).
strength that is attached more to the office than to the official, more to the
man than to the external signs of power, I see something manly that I
admire.
As for the influence that official dress can exercise, I believe that the
importance that it must have in a century such as ours is greatly exaggerated.
I have not noticed that in America the official, by being reduced solely to
his own merit, was greeted with less regard and respect in the exercise of
his power.s
From another perspective, I strongly doubt that a particular garment
leads public men to respect themselves when they are not naturally disposed
to do so; for I cannot believe that they have more regard for their outfit
than for their person.
When, among us, I see certain magistrates treat parties brusquely or ad-
dress them with false courtesy, shrug their shoulders at the means of defense
and smile with complacency at the enumeration of charges, I would like
someone to try to remove their robe, in order to discover if, finding them-
selves dressed as simple citizens, they would not be reminded of the natural
dignity of the human species.t
No public official in the United States has an official dress, but all receive
a salary.u
Still more naturally than what precedes, this follows from democratic
principles. A democracy can surround its magistrates with pomp and cover
them with silk and gold without directly attacking the principle of its ex-
istence. Such privileges are temporary; they are attached to the position,
and not to the man. But to establish unpaid offices is to create a class of
rich and independent officials, to form the kernel of an aristocracy. If the
s. In the margin: “⫽I do not even know if a particular costume does not make what
is lacking in the one wearing it, more salient in the eyes of the public.⫽”
t. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I believe this paragraph should be removed. It would be
good if the book were to be read only by the French; but as it will probably be sought
out by foreigners, I do not know if it is suitable to expose our base acts to them” (YTC,
CIIIb, 2, p. 25).
u. This paragraph is missing in the 1835 edition. It appears in the manuscript, but the
wording is a bit different.
people still retain the right to choose, the exercise of the right then has
necessary limits.
When you see a democratic republic make paid officials unsalaried, I
believe that you can conclude that it is moving toward monarchy. And when
a monarchy begins to pay unsalaried offices, it is the sure sign that you are
advancing toward a despotic state or toward a republican state.v
So the substitution of salaried offices for unpaid offices seems to me to
constitute, in itself alone, a true revolution.
I regard the complete absence of unpaid offices as one of the most visible
signs of the absolute dominion that democracy exercises in America. Ser-
vices rendered to the public, whatever they may be, are paid there; more-
over, each person has, not only the right, but also the possibility of ren-
dering them.
If, in democratic States, all citizens can gain positions, not all are
tempted to try to obtain them. It is not the conditions of candidacy, but
the number and the capacity of the candidates that often limit the choice
of the voters.w
For peoples among whom the principle of election extends to every-
thing, there is no public career strictly speaking. In a way men reach offices
only by chance, and they have no assurance of remaining there. That is
true above all when elections are annual. As a result, in times of calm,
v. Public offices./
Little power of officials, their large number, their dependence on the people, little
stability in their position, the mediocrity of their emoluments, the ease of making a
fortune in another way, fact that few capable persons aspire to the leadership of so-
ciety, except in times of crisis.
Disposition that tends to make government less skillful, but that assures liberty./
Every position that demands a certain apprenticeship and a special knowledge
must usually be poorly filled in America. Who would want to prepare at length to
gain what a caprice or even the ordinary order of things can take away from you from
one moment to another?” (YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 4–5).
w. This paragraph does not appear in the manuscript. The following note is found
in the margin: “⫽Influence of election and of repeated election on the personnel of
officials. More public careers in ordinary times. Example of the Romans ready for any-
thing because elected.⫽”
public offices offer little lure to ambition. In the United States, it is men
of moderate desires who commit themselves to the twists and turns of
politics. Great talents and great passions generally move away from power,
in order to pursue wealth; and often someone takes charge of leading the
fortune of the State only when he feels little capable of conducting his
own affairs.
The great number of vulgar men who occupy public offices must be
attributed to these causes as much as to the bad choices of democracy.
In the United States, I do not know if the people would choose superior
men who bid for their votes, but it is certain that the latter do not bid for
them.
Of the Arbitrariness of Magistrates 2 under the

Dominion of American Democracy x
Why the arbitrariness of magistrates is greater under
absolute monarchies and in democratic republics than
in limited monarchies.—Arbitrariness of magistrates
in New England.
There are two types of government in which a great deal of arbitrariness

is joined with the action of magistrates; it is so under the absolute govern-
ment of one man and under the government of democracy.y
2. Here, I understand the word magistrate in its broadest sense; I apply it to all those who
are charged with executing the laws.
x. “Put this chapter next to the one that deals with the despotism of the majority.
Despotism and arbitrariness are two. For this chapter, see pocket notebook number 3,
p. 15. All the main ideas are there. To find examples” (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 74). See the note
for 14 October 1831, pocket notebook 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 183.
y. Hervé de Tocqueville: “Yes, there can be a great deal of arbitrariness under the
absolute government of one man. Under the regular government of democracy there is
free will and not arbitrariness, which is very different. I observe that despotism as the
author depicts it exists only in Turkey, but is found to this extent in no other European
State” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 27). Hervé repeats this same observation about arbitrariness
in other places (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 27 and 34).
This same result comes from almost analogous causes.

In despotic States, no one’s fate is assured, not that of public officials
any more than that of simple individuals. The sovereign, always holding
in his hand the life, fortune and sometimes the honor of the men he em-
ploys, thinks that he has nothing to fear from them; and he leaves them
great freedom of action, because he thinks he is assured that they will never
use that freedom against him.
In despotic States, the sovereign is so in love with his power that he fears
the constraint of his own rules; and he loves to see his agents go more or
less haphazardly in order to be sure never to find among them a tendency
contrary to his desires.
Nor in democracies does the majority fear that power will be used against
it, because every year it can remove power from the hands of those to whom
power has been confided. Able at every moment to make its will known to
those who govern, the majority prefers to abandon them to their own efforts
rather than to bend them to an invariable rule that, by limiting those who
govern, would in a sense limit the majority itself.
You even discover, looking closely, that under the dominion of democ-
racy, the arbitrariness of the magistrate must be still greater than in despotic
States.
This entire chapter is very obscure and the mind must work to follow the connection
of ideas. That comes about partly because the author sometimes used certain words
that do not exactly have the meaning that he wants to give them. Starting with the
title, the word arbitrariness loses meaning, because arbitrariness is commonly un-
derstood as the action of a power that is placed or puts itself above the law, and acts
without concern for legal prescriptions. Such is not the type of action of magistrates
in America. The law leaves infinitely more to their judgment than anywhere else. But
there is no arbitrariness there. I propose to put, in place of arbitrariness, the free will
of magistrates, etc. Next, I do not know why the author struggles so much to tell us
about despotic government, which is not in his subject, and throws himself into
abstract though ingenious definitions in order to tell us a truth that could be expressed
with less difficulty, to know that the Americans leave great latitude and great freedom
of action to their magistrates, because frequent elections banish all fear of the abuse
that they could make of it (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 26–27).
In these States, the sovereign can punish in a moment all the misdeeds
that he notices, but he cannot flatter himself that he notices all the misdeeds
that he should punish. In democracies, on the contrary, the sovereign is
simultaneously omnipotent and omnipresent. You see, therefore, that
American officials are much freer within the circle of action that the law
traces for them than any official in Europe. Often the Americans limit
themselves to showing officials the end toward which they must aim, leav-
ing them with the authority to choose the means.
In New England, for example, the duty to draw up the jury list is referred
to the selectmen of each town. The only rule that is stipulated is this: they
must choose the jurors from among those citizens who enjoy the right to
vote and who are of good reputation.3
In France, we would believe the lives and liberty of men at risk if we
confided the exercise of so fearsome a right to an official, whoever he was.
In New England, these same magistrates can have the names of drunk-
ards posted in taverns and, by penalty of a fine, prevent the occupants from
providing them with wine.4
Such a censorial power would outrage people in the most absolute mon-
archy; here, however, people submit without difficulty.
Nowhere has the law left a larger portion of arbitrariness than in dem-
ocratic republics, because there does not seem to be any reason to fear ar-
bitrariness. You can even say that, as the right to vote expands and as the
term in office becomes more limited, the magistrate becomes freer.
3. See the law of 27 February 1813. General Collection of the Laws of Massachusetts,
vol. II, p. 331. It must be said that afterward the jurors are drawn by lot from the lists.
4. Law of February 28, 1787. See General Collection of the Laws of Massachusetts,
vol. I, p. 302. Here is the text:
That the selectmen in each town shall cause to be posted up in the houses and shops of all
taverners, innholders and retailers [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] a list of the names of all persons reputed
common drunkards, [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] or common gamesters, misspending their time and
estate in such houses. And every keeper of such house or shop, after notice given him, as
aforesaid, that shall be convicted, [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] of entertaining or suffering any of the
persons, in such a list, to drink or tipple, or game, in his or her house, [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] or
of selling them spirituous liquor, as aforesaid, shall forfeit and pay [the sum of thirty
shillings (ed.)].
That is why it is so difficult to have a democratic republic become a

monarchy. The magistrate, while ceasing to be elective, usually keeps the
rights and preserves the customs of the elected magistrates. Then you arrive
at despotism.z
Only in limited monarchies does the law, while drawing a circle of action
around public officials, still take care at the same time to guide them at each
step. The reason for this fact is easy to state.
In limited monarchies, power is divided between the people and the
prince. Both are interested in having the position of the magistrate stable.
The prince does not want to put the fate of officials back into the hands
of the people, for fear that the officials will betray his authority; on their
side, the people are afraid that the magistrates, placed in absolute depen-
dence on the prince, will help to crush liberty; so, in a way, the magistrates
are made to depend on no one.
The same reason that leads the prince and the people to make the official
independent, leads them to seek guarantees against the abuse of his inde-
pendence, so that he does not turn against the authority of the one or the
liberty of the other. Both agree, therefore, on the need to trace in advance
a line of conduct for the public official, and find it in their interest to impose
rules on him that are impossible for him to evade.
z. This idea is found in Montesquieu, who asserts: “There is no authority more ab-
solute than that of a prince who succeeds the republic: for he finds himself with all the
power of the people who were not able to limit themselves” (Considérations sur les causes
de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, chapter XV, in Oeuvres complètes, Paris:
Pléiade, 1951, II, p. 150). In the Republic (Book VIII, 564), Plato had already noted that
extreme liberty would necessarily be followed by extreme subjection.
Administrative Instability in the United States

In America, the actions of society often leave fewer traces than
the actions of a family.—Newspapers, the only historical
memorials.—How extreme administrative instability
harms the art of governing.
Men hold power only for an instant and then are lost in a crowd that, itself,
changes face every day; as a result, the actions of society in America often
leave less trace than the actions of a simple family.a Public administration
there is, in a way, oral and traditional. Nothing is put in writing, or what
is put in writing flies away with the slightest wind, like the leaves of the
Sybil, and disappears forever.
The only historical memorials of the United States are newspapers. If
an issue happens to be missing, the chain of time is as if broken: present
and past are no longer joined. I do not doubt that in fifty years it will be
more difficult to gather authentic documents about the details of the social
existence of the Americans of today, than about the administration of the
French of the Middle Ages; and if an invasion of barbarians happened to
surprise the United States, it would be necessary, in order to know some-
thing about the people who live there, to resort to the history of other
nations.
Administrative instability began by entering into habits; I could almost
say that today each person has ended up by acquiring the taste for it. No
one is worried about what was done before. No method is adopted; no
collection is assembled; no documents are gathered, even when it would be
easy to do so. When by chance someone has them in his possession, he
hardly holds onto them. Among my papers, I have original pieces that were
given to me in the offices of the public administration in order to answer
some of my questions. In America, society seems to live from day to day,
like an army in the field. Yet, the art of administration is definitely a science;
a. Variant: “<⫽. . . a singular instability in the course of administrative affairs. No

one finishes what he began; no one hopes to finish what he begins.⫽>”
and all sciences, to progress, need to link together the discoveries of dif-
ferent generations as they succeed each other. One man, in the short space
of a life, notices a fact, another conceives an idea; this one invents a method,
that one finds a formula; humanity gathers along the way these various
fruits of individual experiences and forms the sciences. It is very difficult
for American administrators to learn anything from one another. There-
fore, they bring to the conduct of society the knowledge that they find
widespread in society, but not the learning that is their own.b So democracy,
pushed to its extreme limits, harms progress in the art of governing.c From
this perspective, it is better suited to a people whose administrative edu-
cation is already formed than to a people who are inexperienced novices in
public affairs.
This, moreover, does not relate uniquely to administrative science.d
Democratic government, which is based upon such a simple and natural
idea, always supposes the existence of a very civilized and learned society.5
At first you would think it contemporaneous with the earliest ages of the
world; looking more closely, you easily discover that it could have come
about only during the last.e
[If nations had begun with democratic government, I doubt they would
ever have become civilized.]
b. In the margin: “⫽Dem[ocratic (ed.)] government, the chef-d’oeuvre of civilization

and enlightenment.⫽”
c. “Legislative instability in America, its effects, its causes./
“Mutability of public officials. Madison proves very ingeniously that this mutability,
apart from its recognized ill effects, diminishes the responsibility of officials. New prop-
osition, Federalist, p. 271 [No. 63 (ed.)]” (YTC, CVb, p. 25).
“After the electoral system, a small chapter on legislative and administrativeinstability
in America is absolutely necessary. Show how, since nothing has any follow-up, no one
can finish what he began. In this way responsibility diminished instead of increased, as
is believed (Federalist, p. 268 [No. 62 (ed.)])” (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 27).
d. On Tocqueville and the science of administration, see Roland Drago, “Actualité
de Tocqueville (Tocqueville et l’administration),” Revue des sciences morales et politiques,
139, 1984, pp. 633–49.
5. It is unnecessary to say that here I am talking about democratic government applied to
a people and not to a small tribe.
e. In the margin: “Is this clear and developed enough? Ask G[ustave (ed.)] and
L[ouis(ed.)]?”
Of Public Expenses under the Dominion

of American Democracy
In all societies, citizens are divided into a certain
number of classes.—Instinct that each of these classes brings to
the management of the finances of the State.—Why public
expenses must tend to increase when the people govern.—
What renders the lavish expenditures of democracy less to fear in
America.—Use of public monies under democracy.
Is democratic government economical? First of all, we must know to what

we mean to compare it.
The question would be easy to resolve if we wanted to establish a parallel
between a democratic republic and an absolute monarchy [v: despotic
State]. We would find that public expenditures in the first are more con-
siderable than in the second.f But this is the case in all free States, compared
to those that are not free. It is certain that despotism ruins men more by
preventing them from being productive, than by taking the fruits of pro-
duction from them; it dries up the source of wealth and often respects ac-
quired wealth. Liberty, in contrast, gives birth to a thousand times more
goods than it destroys, and, among nations that know liberty, the resources
of the people always increase faster than taxes.g
f. In chapter VIII of book III of the Social Contract (Contrat social ), Rousseau had
asserted, on the contrary, that the democratic form was the least costly.
g. Édouard de Tocqueville:
This entire paragraph seems to me to leave much to be desired. The first sentence
presents, with the tone of affirmation, a proposition that is in no way evident; there
have been and there still are very economical absolute monarchies; witness Austria,
Prussia today. What I criticize most in this piece is that you seem to confuse two
perfectly distinct things: the comparatively high level of public expenses and the
sources of wealth; it is certain that generally the latter must increase with liberty; as
for the reduction of public expenses, that is less sure. All that one can say is that, with
an absolute government, economy can never be permanent because a prodigal prince
may succeed an economical prince, but this economical prince can be found and is
found often enough. So I would propose softening the beginning of this paragraph
What is important to me at this moment is to compare free peoples, and

among the latter to note what influence democracy exercises on the finances
of the State.
Societies, just as organized bodies do, follow certain rules in their for-
mation that they cannot evade. They are composed of certain elements that
are found everywhere and in all times.
It will always be easy to divide each people ideally into three classes.
The first class will be composed of the rich. The second will include
those who, without being rich, live well-off in all things. The third will
contain all those who have only few or no properties and who live particu-
larly from the work provided to them by the first two classes.
The individuals included in these different categories can be more or less
numerous, depending on the social state [added: and the laws]; but you
cannot make these categories cease to exist.
It is evident that each of these classes will bring its own distinctive in-
stincts to the handling of the finances of the State.
Suppose that the first makes the laws. Probably it will be little concerned
with economizing public monies, because a tax that happens to strike a
considerable fortune only takes what is superfluous and produces an effect
that is little felt.h
and finishing the first page as follows: Still this principle can have some exceptions,
but what is beyond doubt is that despotism ruins peoples much more by preventing them
from being productive than by taking the fruits of production from them. That way the
two ideas are distinct (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 6–7).
h. Édouard de Tocqueville:
This proposition can be and will be contested; in most States, the rich are not so rich
as to be indifferent to the total amount of the tax that strikes their fortune. I do not
even know if they have ever been seen to be so; and in France in the time of the great
lords and great fortunes, it was the rich who screamed the most when taxes were
increased. So this paragraph is applicable only to the class of courtiers that one tried
hard to confuse with all of the nobility, but that had never been more than a very
small portion. All the nobles of the provinces and the rich who did not dissipate their
income at the court desired economy in finances and saw public expenses increase
with great disgust (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 7).
Assume, on the contrary, that the middle classes alone make the law. You
can count on the fact that they will not be lavish with taxes, because there
is nothing so disastrous as a heavy tax that happens to strike a smallj fortune.
It seems to me that, among free governments, the government of the
middle classes must be,k I will not say the most enlightened, nor, especially,
the most generous, but the most economical.m
Now I suppose that the last class is exclusively charged with making the
law; I clearly see the chance for public expenses to increase instead of de-
crease, and this for two reasons.
Since the greatest portion of those who in that case vote the law have
no taxable property, all the money expended in the interest of society seems
to be only to their profit, never to their harm; and those who have some
bit of property easily find the means to fix the tax so that it hits only the
rich and profits only the poor, something that the rich cannot do in their
case when they are in control of the government.
So countries in which the poor6 would exclusively be charged with mak-
j. Hervé de Tocqueville: “The word small is badly used applying to the middle class.
Mediocre or something equivalent should be used” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 11).
k. In the manuscript: “. . . the government of the middle classes is the most eco-
nomical . . .”
Gustave de Beaumont: “I find the assertion presented in much too strong a form.
Theoretically that appears true to me. And yet it is only a theory. I would put ‘seems to
be so by its nature’ ” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 20–21).
The assertion of the author is contradicted by the example of France. Never has more
been wasted, never have there been larger budgets than since the middle class has
governed. I will observe in passing that the government of the middle class is, at
bottom, only a small aristocracy on a larger scale. Attached to democracy by number,
to aristocracy by the insolence and harshness of the parvenu, this government would
be well able to have the vices of both. I urge Alexis to reflect on this again (YTC,
CIIIb, 2, p. 11).
6. You clearly understand that here, as in the rest of the chapter, the word poor has a
relative sense and not an absolute meaning. The poor of America, compared with those of
Europe, could frequently appear rich; you can correctly call them the poor, however, when
you contrast them to those of their fellow citizens who are richer than they.n
ing the law could not hope for great economy in public expenditures; these
expenditures will always be considerable, either because taxes cannot reach
those who vote, or because they are fixed so as not to reach them. In other
words, the government of democracy is the only one in which the one who
votes the taxes can escape the obligation to pay them.
You will object in vain that the well understood interest of the peopleo
is to handle the fortune of the rich carefully, because it would not take long
for the people to feel the effects of any difficulties caused. But isn’t it also
the interest of kings to make their subjects happy, and that of the nobles
to know how to open their ranks opportunely? If long-term interest could
prevail over the passions and needs of the moment, there would never have
been tyrannical sovereigns or exclusive aristocracies.
You will stop me here, saying: Who ever imagined charging the poor
alone with making the law? Who! Those who have established universal
suffrage. Is it the majority or the minority that makes the law? Undoubtedly
the majority; and if I prove that the poor always make up the majority,
won’t I be correct to add that in countries where the poor are called to vote,
they alone make the law?
Now, it is certain that until now, among all the nations of the world, the
greatest number has always been composed of those who had no property,
or of those whose property was too limited for them to be able to live com-
fortably without working. So universal suffrage really gives the government
of society to the poor.
The poor must be deleted everywhere; on the one hand, it does not present a suffi-
ciently clear idea and, on the other hand, does not agree with the condition in America
of the class that the author wants to indicate. He says further along that this class
lives in affluence, and an effort must always be made to connect ideas to America.
Without that, there would be no unity in the composition. I would put here in place
of poor, the country in which the last class that I named, etc.
To the side, in the handwriting of Alexis de Tocqueville according to the copyist: “The
word poor has a relative, not an absolute meaning. The American poor could often appear
rich compared to those of Europe. But they [above: count as] are always the poor [above:
the class of the poor] if you compare them to those of their fellow citizens who are richer
than they” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 12).
o. The manuscript says “the lower classes.”
The unfortunate influence that popular power can sometimes exercise

over the finances of the State made itself clear in certain democratic re-
publics of antiquity, in which the public treasury was exhausted to help
indigent citizens, or to give games and spectacles to the people.
It is true to say that the representative system was almost unknown in
antiquity.p Today, popular passions arise with more difficulty in public af-
fairs; you can, however, count on the fact that, in the long run, the delegate
will always end by conforming to the spirit of his constituents and by mak-
ing their propensities as well as their interests prevail.
[This same tendency is even more noticeable in England with the poor
tax, the only tax that is established by the people, that profits only them,
and that has a democratic origin and object.]
The profusions of democracy are, moreover, less to be feared the more
people become property owners, because then, on the one hand, the people
have less need for the money of the rich and, on the other hand, they en-
counter more difficulties establishing a tax that does not hit them. From
this perspective, universal suffrage would be less dangerous in France than
in England, where nearly all taxable property is gathered in a few hands.
America, where the great majority of citizens own property, is in a more
favorable situation than France.
Still other causes can raise the sum of public expenditures in democ-
racies.q
When the aristocracy governs, the men who conduct State affairs escape
all needs by their very position; content with their lot, they ask above all
p. Of the principle of representation./

It is the principle of representation that eminently distinguishes modern republics
from ancient republics.
Partially known in antiquity however. See Federalist, p. 273 [No. 63 (ed.)].
Superiority that it gives to the modern ones, practicability of the republic.
It tends to be weakened more and more in America.
Frequency of elections. Dependence of power on the people. Binding mandates.
Public vote (YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 5–6).
q. In the manuscript, what follows forms a section entitled: other causes that
make public expenditures rise higher under democratic government
than under others.
for power and glory from society; and, placed above the anonymous crowd
of citizens, they do not always see clearly how the general welfare necessarily
works toward their own grandeur. It is not that they see the sufferings of
the poor without pity; but they cannot feel the miseries of the poor as
though they shared them themselves. As long as the people seem to be con-
tent with their own fortune, these men consider themselves satisfied and
expect nothing more from the government. Aristocracy thinks more about
maintaining than improving.r
When, on the contrary, public power is in the hands of the people, the
sovereign power seeks everywhere for something better, because it has a
sense of unease.
The spirit of amelioration then extends to a thousand different objects;
it gets down to infinite details and is applied, above all, to types of ame-
lioration that cannot be achieved except by paying; for it is a matter of
improving the condition of the poor who cannot help themselves.
In addition there exists in democratic societies an agitation without a
specific aim; a sort of permanent fever reigns there that turns toward all
kinds of innovation, and innovations are nearly always costly.
r. In the manuscript: “When the aristocracy governs society, the only necessary care
it has for the people is to prevent an uprising against it.”
This sentence is harsh though true. But let us not forget that the violent acts of the
Revolution came from the fact that this truth had penetrated the people too deeply.
Let us not once again put on the foreheads of the upper classes this mark that has
been so deadly to them. It is more than useless for Alexis to alienate himself from
these classes. So this sentence must be cut or softened. It can be cut without disad-
vantage to what follows. Then the chapter would begin in this way: When the gov-
erning power is placed in the people, the spirit of amelioration is extended to a host of
objects.
If Alexis absolutely does not want to sacrifice it, this must be inserted: The aris-
tocracy has often been reproached for not having a care for the people, etc. Then it is not
he who pronounces and condemns; he is only reporting an opinion current in the
world.
Édouard de Tocqueville: “This observation seems just to me” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 13–
14).
Gustave de Beaumont: “Idea much too absolute that is suitable to modify” (YTC,
CIIIb, 2, p. 21).
In monarchies and in aristocracies, the ambitious flatter the natural taste

that carries the sovereign power toward fame and power, and they often
push it therefore toward great expenditures.
In democracies, where the sovereign power is needy, you can hardly gain
its good will except by increasing its well-being; that can hardly ever be
done except with money.s
Moreover, when the people themselves begin to reflect on their position,
a host of needs arises that they had not felt at first and that can only be
satisfied by turning to the resources of the State. As a result, public expenses
seem generally to increase with civilization, and you see taxes rise as en-
lightenment spreads.t
Finally, a last cause often makes democratic government more expensive
than another. Sometimes the democracy wants to economize on its expen-
ditures, but it cannot succeed in doing so, because it does not have the art
of being economical.
As the democracy frequently changes views and, still more frequently,
changes agents, it happens that enterprises are poorly conducted or remain
incomplete. In the first case, the State makes expenditures disproportionate
s. In the margin: “Isn’t this subtle?”

t. In the manuscript, this paragraph finishes in this way: “. . . taxes generally increase
with enlightenment; and public expenses with civilization which should seemingly make
them almost unnecessary.”
Hervé de Tocqueville: “This is nothing less than clear [sic ]. I do not understand why
civilization should make public expenses nearly unnecessary.”
Édouard de Tocqueville: “Nor do I” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 14).
Here are two divisions of the chapter devoted to generalities. But the author comes
to no conclusion, and the reader will not fail to complain about it. He proves very
well that democratic government is and must be expensive. But he does not arrive at
the application that is indispensable to justify a theory. Is American democratic gov-
ernment proportionately more expensive than another; are public expenditures
higher there? Not only must the author say so, but he must also explain why, give
certain examples. If he has refrained because he is going to do so later, he must indicate
it here. It is impossible for this division to end in this way, in a vague way.
Édouard de Tocqueville: “That is very true” (YTC, CIII b, 2, p. 14).
to the grandeur of the end that it wishes to achieve; in the second, it makes
unproductive expenditures.
Of the Instincts of American Democracy in

Determining the Salaries of Officials
In democracies, those who institute large salaries
do not have the chance to profit from them.—Tendency of the
American democracy to raise the salaries of secondary officials
and to lower those of principal officials.—Why this is so.—
Comparative picture of the salary of public officials in the
United States and in France.
One great reason leads democracies, in general, to economize on the salaries

of public officials.
In democracies, since those who institute the salaries are very numerous,
they have very little chance ever to get them.
In aristocracies, on the contrary, those who institute large salaries almost
always have a vague hope to profit from them. These salaries are capital that
they create for themselves, or at the very least resources that they prepare
for their children.
It must be admitted, however, that democracy appears to be very par-
simonious only toward its principal agents.
In America, officials of secondary rank are paid more than elsewhere,
but high officials are paid much less. [{There are states in which the Gov-
ernor receives less money as a salary than one of our sub-prefects.}]
These opposite effects are produced by the same cause; the people, in
both cases, set the salaries of public officials. They think about their own
needs, and this comparison guides them. Since they themselves live in great
comfort, it seems natural to them that those who are serving them share
it.7 But when it is time to set the lot of the great officers of the State, this
rule escapes them, and they proceed only haphazardly.
7. The comfort in which secondary officials live in the United States is also due to another
The poor man does not have a clear idea of the needs that the superior
classes of society may feel. What would appear to be a modest sum to a
rich man, appears to be a prodigious sum to the poor man who contents
himself with what’s necessary; and he considers that the Governor of the
state, provided with his two thousand écus, should still be happy and excite
envy.8
If you try to make him understand that the representative of a great
nation must appear with a certain splendor in the eyes of foreigners, he will
understand you at first. But when, thinking about his simple dwelling and
about the modest fruits of his hard labor, he thinks about all that he could
do with this very salary that you judge insufficient, he will find himself
surprised and almost frightened by the sight of such riches.
Add that the secondary official is nearly at the level of the people, while
the other towers above them. So the first can still excite their interest, but
the other begins to arouse their envy.
This is seen very clearly in the United States, where salaries seem in a
way to decrease as the power of the officials grows greater.9
cause. This one is foreign to the general instincts of democracy: every type of private career is
highly productive. The State would not find secondary officials if it did not agree to pay them
well. So it is in the position of a commercial enterprise, obliged, whatever its tastes for economy,
to sustain a burdensome competition.
8. The state of Ohio, which has a million inhabitants, gives the Governor only 1,200 dollars
in salary or 6,504 francs.
9. To make this truth clear to all, it is sufficient to examine the salaries of some of the
agents of the federal government.u I thought the salary attached, in France, to the analogous
office should be placed in juxtaposition, in order for the comparison to enlighten the reader.
United States
Treasury Department
Attendant 3,734 fr.
The lowest paid clerk 5,420 fr.
The highest paid clerk 8,672 fr.
Chief Clerk 10,840 fr.
Secretary of State [sic: of the Treasury] 32,520 fr.
The President 135,000 fr.
Under the dominion of aristocracy, on the contrary, high officials receive

very large emoluments, while lower level ones often have hardly enough on
which to live. It is easy to find the reason for this fact in causes analogous
to those that we have indicated above.w
If the democracy does not imagine the pleasures of the rich man or
envies them, the aristocracy from its perspective does not understand the
miseries of the poor man; or rather it is unaware of them. The poor man
is not, strictly speaking, similar to the rich man; he is a being of another
species. So the aristocracy worries very little about the fate of its lower level
agents. It raises their salaries only when they refuse to serve for too small a
price.
The parsimonious tendency of democracy toward principal officials has
caused great economical propensities to be attributed to democracy that it
does not have.
It is true that democracy gives scarcely what is needed to live honestly
to those who govern it, but it spends enormous sums to relieve the needs
France
Ministry of Finance
Attendant of the Minister 1,500 fr.
The lowest paid clerk 1,000 to 1,800 fr.
The highest paid clerk 3,200 to 3,600 fr.
Chief Clerk 20,000 fr.
Minister 80,000 fr.
The King 12,000,000 fr.
Perhaps I was wrong to take France as the point of comparison. In France, where, daily,
democratic instincts increasingly penetrate the government, you already notice a strong ten-
dency that leads the Chambers to raise small salaries and above all to lower the large ones.v
Thus the Minister of Finance, who, in 1834, receives 80,000 fr., received 160,000 under the
Empire; the general directors of finance, who receive 20,000, then received 50,000.
u. In various articles about public expenditures in the United States and in France,
which we will speak about later (see note j for p. 349), comparisons of this type abound.
v. “Ask Mr. Livingston if apart from the clerks in the American Treasury Department,
there are still lower paid employees” (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 11).
w. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I ask for the deletion of this paragraph and the following
for the reason that I gave on page 135. They are, moreover, superfluous and entirely
unnecessary, because the author is not treating aristocracy. In addition, they are written
with a bitterness against the aristocracy that cannot come from the pen of Alexis and
that will bring his impartiality into question” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 15). Cf. note r for p. 338.
or to facilitate the pleasures of the people.10 That is a better use of the tax
revenue, not an economy.
In general, democracy gives little to those who govern and a great deal
to the governed. The opposite is seen in aristocracies where the money of
the State profits above all the class that leads public affairs.
Difficulty of Discerning the Causes That Lead the

American Government to Economy x
[⫽In the silence of his study, the observer draws up general rules, and he
believes that he has grasped the truth. But a fact, the first cause of which
is often lost in the night, appears in his thoughts, and it seems to him that
truth is escaping from him.⫽]
The man who searches among facts for the real influence exercised by
laws on the fate of humanity is exposed to great errors, for there is nothing
so difficult to appreciate as a fact.
One people is naturally thoughtless and enthusiastic; another, reflective
10. See among other items, in American budgets, what it costs for the support of the poor
and for free education.
In 1831, in the state of New York, the sum of 1,200,000 francs was spent for the support
of the poor. And the sum devoted to public education was estimated to amount to 5,420,000
francs at least (William’s New York Annual Register, 1832, pp. 205 and 243).
The state of New York in 1830 had only 1,900,000 inhabitants, which is not double the
population of the département du Nord.
x. Former title: that reasons taken from the mores of a people often
disrupt or modify general arguments.
The title [This concerns the definitive title (ed.)] of this division does not seem good
to me for two reasons. First, it establishes a sort of contradiction with the preceding
chapters, which established that democratic government is not economical; then the
difficulty is suddenly resolved in the chapter. I propose changing this title and putting:
of the causes for the economy of the american government for cer-
tain objects. As for the rest, the chapter is very good. I will make only one ob-
servation to which I do not attach great importance; the author assumes preliminary
knowledge in his reader. He reasons as if the reader already knew that the Americans
like neither the luxury of festivals, nor that of buildings (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 16).
and calculating. This is due to their physical constitution itself or to distant

causes that I do not know.y
You see peoples who love show, noise and pleasure, and who do not regret
spending a million that goes up in smoke. You see others who value only
solitary pleasures and who seem ashamed to appear contented.
In certain countries, a great price is attached to the beauty of buildings.
In certain others, no value whatsoever is placed on objects of art, and what
has no return is scorned. Finally, there are some in which fame is loved, and
others in which money is placed before all else.
Apart from the laws, all these causes influence in a very powerful way
the management of the finances of the State.
If the Americans have never happened to spend the people’s money on
public festivals, it is not only because, among them, the people vote the tax;
it is because the people do not like to enjoy themselves.
If they reject ornament in their architecture and prize only material and
real advantages, it is not only because they are a democratic nation, but also
because they are a commercial people.
The habits of private life are continued in public life; and among the
Americans the economies that depend on institutions and those that follow
from habits and mores must be clearly distinguished.z
y. Fragment of a first version in the manuscript:

⫽There is indeed in the bent of the ideas and tastes of a people a hidden force that
struggles with advantage against revolutions and time. This intellectual physiognomy
of nations, which is called their character, is found throughout all the centuries of
their history and amid the innumerable changes that take place in the social state,
beliefs and laws. A strange thing! What is least perceptible and most difficult to define
among a people is at the same time what you find most enduring among them. Ev-
erything changes among them except the character, which disappears only with na-
tions themselves.⫽
z. In the margin: “⫽The beginning of the chapter does not exactly correspond to the
end. The beginning contains a general idea on national character; the end contains a
clear and precise observation on what gives the Americans their character.⫽”
[Influence of the Government of

Democracy on the Tax Base
{and on the Use of the Tax Revenues}] a
[The form of government greatly influences the tax base. The instinct of
the aristocracyb leads it to handle the producer carefully {and to burden the
consumer} because the aristocracy holds the sources of wealth. It is the
opposite for the democracy, which willingly takes on the producer and han-
a. “The advice of L[ouis (ed.)]. is that the ideas of this chapter are questionable, that
in any case they are presented too succinctly and in a superficial way” (YTC, CVh, 3,
p. 90).
A first version of this part is found in YTC, CVh, 3, pp. 74–80; it presents numerous
differences from the manuscript version. Notably, the opening of this draft states:
I know that minds are much preoccupied with comparing the expenses of the United
States with ours. If such were not the disposition of the public, I would not have
done this chapter. For I am convinced that such a comparison is necessarily incom-
plete and, consequently, unproductive and that, were it complete, the truth would
not be self-evident. It can be useful only to those who are looking for figures to support
their ideas and not to those who want truth to emerge from figures (p. 74).
b. Hervé de Tocqueville:
I do not believe the word aristocracy is very applicable here. The same thing would
happen in a democracy in which the governing party was, in the majority, composed
of owners of landed properties, large or small.
This division has the same fault as one of the preceding ones; it leaves the reader
almost completely wanting in terms of facts. We see clearly that the Americans have
not wanted one tax, but you do not say what taxes they do want. A detailed account
of this subject would be useless. But at least it would be necessary to tell us the nature
of the taxes and to justify, with examples, the truth of the theory that the author is
establishing. If by chance in America there was no contribution based on land, as I
believe, and the producer was thus treated very carefully, then the chapter would come
crashing down and it would have to be revised. I have a vague memory of having
heard that there were only indirect taxes in America, and we know that indirect taxes
weigh particularly on the consumer. I believe that the customs duties are the principal
revenue of the American government (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 16–17).
dles the consumer carefully, because the resources of the peoplec scarcely
reach the level of the ordinary prices of objects of consumption.
Among the English, land has not been taxed and indirect taxes have
been multiplied. All the exemptions have been made in favor of the rich,
while taxes that hit only the poor have always continued to grow. In
America, when the legislature attempted to establish a tax on fermented
liquors, a revolt ensued and in 1794 the legislature was forced to repeal
the law.[*]
Only the despotism of one man is indifferent to the tax base. Its in-
stinct leads it only to strike the taxpayer most able to give and least able
to resist.]d
[Influence of Democratic Government

on the Use of Tax Revenues]
[The partisans of democracy claim that the government of democracy is
more economical than any other, and I think they are mistaken. If they
said, instead, that, of all governments, democratic government is the one
that generally makes best use of tax revenues, they would put themselves,
I believe, on their true ground.
c. Édouard de Tocqueville:
This sentence is completely unintelligible to me; the resources of the people hardly
reach the level of the price of the most ordinary objects of consumption would seem
understandable, but the thought still would not seem sound to me. Here you fall, I
think, into the fault, almost inevitable for a European, of using the word people for
low people or populace. Well, even in France the resources of the people, of the mass,
often reach beyond the price of ordinary consumer objects, that is to say, food and
clothing; with greater reason, can you say that in America, where the greatest comfort
reigns for the mass, in such a country can you say that the people willingly take on
the producer? I do not believe it, for they would be taking on themselves as consumers.
The more economical the price of production, the more the objects of consumption
fall within reach of the people; and when the latter have tasted these consumer ob-
jects, the objects become needs for them (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 9).
[*]. See Marshall, Life of Washington, and Pitkin.
d. Cf. Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois, book XIII, chapter XIV, in Oeuvres complètes
(Paris: Pléiade, 1951), II, pp. 467–68, and Rousseau, Discours sur l’économie politique, in
Oeuvres complètes (Paris: Pléiade, 1964), III, pp. 241–78.
I spoke above about the squanderings of democracy {bread and spec-

tacles the Romans of the decline would say}, but such excesses are rare and
are ordinarily found during the centuries when enlightenment is weak and
corruption very great. If the government of democracy levies more con-
siderable sums on society than another government, it generally uses public
monies for objects of a more certain and more extensive utility and uses
them to relieve more real needs.e Incontestably, democracies have never
built the palace of Versailles, nor based the political world on money as the
aristocracy of England has done.f
Apart from its direct influence on the object of public expenditures, the
government of democracy exercises still another influence, no less great,
on how they are handled. Democratic institutions tend to make habits sim-
pler and to remove, if not the taste for luxury and ostentation, the usual
appendage to the inequality of fortunes, at least the possibility of indulging
in that taste. As a result of this general spirit of the nation, expenditures
are made on more modest and more economical plans.g
e. In the margin, under a paper glued into place: “⫽It uses it for schools, for roads,
for measures of order and health.⫽”
f. To the side:
⫽Democracy shows itself parsimonious toward its agents.
This is due to two causes.
The first is that the poor man, who then makes the law, measures by his own scale
the needs of those who serve him. What appears to be a modest sum to a rich man,
appears to be a prodigious sum to him who has nothing; and he feels that a public
official [v: the Governor of the state], with his puny salary, should still be happy and
excite envy. The second is that since those who institute the salaries are very numerous
under the dominion of democracy, they have very little chance to get them.
This parsimony of democracy for the principal ones among its agents gives an
illusion about its economical inclinations. But if it limits itself to giving public of-
ficials what is needed to live, it spends enormous sums to relieve the needs {to establish
free schools} or to facilitate the pleasures of the people {to aid the poor}. It is a better
use of the tax revenue, but not an economy. In general, democracy gives little to those
who govern and a great deal to the governed, against aristocratic governments where
the money .-.-.-.- above all the class that .-.-.-.- public affairs.⫽
g. In the margin, under a paper glued into place: “Perhaps put at the end of the
chapter, the chapter on mores placed above.”
In all that precedes I have kept to subjects as a whole and not to details.
I happened to notice many times in America that public expenditures were
not applied to the most useful objects or that they were made without econ-
omy; but it appeared to me that these were particular cases and that they
should be blamed much less on a natural tendency of the government of
democracy than on the poor choice of its agents. For, of all masters, the
people are assuredly the worst served.]h
h. Hervé de Tocqueville:
I do not believe this idea developed enough. This last division of the chapter presents
a great imperfection in my eyes. The good faith of the author leads him to admit that
several facts in America contradict his theory. In several of the preceding divisions,
facts, unstated, did not support the theory. Here, in certain respects, they are opposed
to it. Alexis has too much wisdom not to sense that by operating thus, he gives a wide
scope to criticism. Overall, he has changed his way of writing, and I regret it. In the
first volume, facts led naturally to theory that seemed a natural consequence. Here
theory precedes facts, and sometimes does without them; that is dangerous. The
reader willingly submits to the author’s opinion when it seems to be a deduction, so
to speak, from facts, because then the author does not seem to want to impose his
opinion. It would be otherwise if it preceded facts and, above all, if facts were lacking
to support it. Then the intelligence of the author exercises over that of the reader a
sway to which the latter does not always adapt and against which he sometimes takes
a strong stand. I acknowledge with great pleasure that this last chapter is very well
written and that it contains new and ingenious insights. But this merit does not com-
pensate for the disadvantage of the absence of facts to support the theory.
In my opinion, every time Alexis is led to develop general insights, he must hasten
to connect them to America. Without that, his work would lose its unity of com-
position, which is a major disadvantage in works of the mind. The reader glimpses
in this case two aims without being able to set exactly the limits of each of the things
that relate to each other; and a kind of confusion arises in his mind that forces him
to a tedious effort that displeases him.
I have conscientiously examined if the paragraphs on aristocracy are necessary to
establish a useful parallel between it and democracy. I am convinced of the opposite.
Not only are they unnecessary, but they come as irrelevant, because aristocracy is in
no way within the author’s subject. There is no point, without a pressing need, in
turning the upper classes against him. Alexis has been carried away by his natural
frankness and also by a generous sentiment, that of knowing how to put himself
above the prejudices of his class. All that he says was appropriate when the aristocracy
was powerful. At present, I believe that one must abstain from doing it. I do not need
to expand on the reasons.
Can the Public Expenditures of the United States

Be Compared with Those of France j
Two points to be established in order to appreciate the extent of
public expenses: national wealth and taxation.—Fortune and
expenses in France are not known exactly.—Why you cannot
hope to know fortune and expenses in the Union.—Research of
the author to learn the total amount of taxes in Pennsylvania.—
General signs by which you can recognize the extent of the
expenses of a people.—Result of this examination for the Union.
Some have been much occupied recently with comparing the public ex-
penditures of the United States with ours. All of these efforts have been
without result, and a few words will suffice, I believe, to prove that it must
be so.
To the side, written by Alexis, according to the copyist: “and that it (three illegible
words) it would not have (illegible word) at State expense to buy the younger branches
of certain families as the English aristocracy did” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 17–19).
General observation. This entire chapter needs, in my opinion, to be altered. Eco-
nomic questions are not treated in it with enough assurance; there are several prop-
ositions that can be questioned. Certain thoughts are inadequately developed. All in
all, I do not find this chapter at the same level as the preceding ones. The author here
does not seem to be as perfectly in control of his subject (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 10).
j. This section does not exist in the manuscript; it does not appear in the criticisms
of family and friends. It seems to have been included following a polemic on the economy
of republican government, in which the United States was generally taken as the ex-
ample. In September 1831, Sebastien L. Saulnier, official voice of the government, prefect
of police and editor of the Revue Britannique, published “Rapprochements entre les
dépenses publiques de la France et celles des États-Unis” (Revue Britannique, n.s., VI,
1831, pp. 272–324, reprinted in various publications), in which he claimed that the United
States had an extremely expensive form of government and that American finances were
consequently in chaotic condition. Since the moment for discussion in the Chamber of
Deputies of the proposed budget for 1832 was at hand, Lafayette saw in this article an
attempt on the part of the government to influence the parliamentary debate. He solic-
ited the opinions of James Fenimore Cooper and of General Bernard, following which
In order to be able to appreciate the extent of public expenses among a

people, two operations are necessary: first, you must learn the wealth of
this people, and then what portion of this wealth they devote to State ex-
penditures. The person who researches the total amount of taxes without
showing the extent of the resources that must provide them, would be pur-
suing unproductive work; for it is interesting to know not the expenditure,
but the relation of the expenditure to the revenue.
The same tax that a wealthy taxpayer easily bears will succeed in reducing
a poor man to poverty.
The wealth of peoples is made up of several elements: real estate holdings
form the first, personal property constitutes the second.k
he published a brochure that circulated among the deputies (Le général Lafayette à ses
collègues de la Chambre des députés, Paris: Paulin, 1832, 68 pp.) The letter of Cooper had
been published separately, in English (Letter of J. Fenimore Cooper to Gen. Lafayette, on
the expenditure of the United States of America, Paris: Baudry, December 1831, pp. 50, iii,
and also in the Revue des deux mondes, n.s., V, January 1832, pp. 145–82). Saulnier an-
swered with two new writings: “Nouvelles observations sur les finances des États-Unis,
en réponse à une brochure publiée par le Général Lafayette” (Revue Britannique, n.s.,
VIII, pp. 195–260), and a letter to the editor of the same review (n.s., IX, November
1833, pp. 164–94). In 1834, Francisque de Corcelle published an article, “Administration
financière des États-Unis” (Revue des deux mondes, 3rd series, I, 1834, pp. 561–84), with
new statistics obtained from an inquiry into the American financial system done by Ed-
ward Livingston. New data, Corcelle argued, would demonstrate that the Americans paid
lower taxes than the French. The article by Corcelle had probably attracted Tocqueville’s
attention, because he wrote to D. B. Warden on 21 July 1834 (YTC, CId), asking him
for “the brochures of Bernard, Lafayette and Cooper.” Regarding this, the following
note is also found in the drafts: “Brochure of General Bernard and of Mr. Cooper on
the finances of the United States appeared in the middle of 1831. I believe that General
Lafayette’s aide-de-camp published something on the same subject” (YTC, CVh, 4,
pp. 21–22). See note 51 for p. 156.
k. In the 1835 edition: “The wealth of peoples is made up of several elements: popu-
lation is the first; real estate holdings form the second, and personal property constitutes
the third.
“Of these three elements, the first is easily discovered. Among civilized peoples you
can easily reach an exact count of the citizens; but it is not the same with the other two.
It is difficult to . . .”
The correction is probably due to a criticism from Nassau William Senior in a letter
to Tocqueville of 17 February 1835:
I cannot think that population is an element of wealth. It may rather be said to be
an element of poverty. The wealth or poverty of the people of a country depends on
It is difficult to know the extent of land suitable for cultivation that a

nation possesses and its natural or acquired value. It is still more difficult
to estimate all of the personal property that a people has at its disposal.
Personal property, because of its diversity and amount, eludes almost all
efforts of analysis.
Consequently we see that the oldest civilized nations of Europe, even
those in which the administration is centralized, have not yet established
the state of their wealth in any precise way.
In America, no one has even conceived the idea of trying. And how could
you think to succeed in this new country where society has not yet peace-
fully and finally settled down, where the national government does not find
at its disposal, as ours does, a multitude of agents whose efforts can be
simultaneously commanded and directed; where, finally, statistics are not
studied, because no one is found who has the power to gather the docu-
ments or the time to look through them?
So the constituent elements of our calculations cannot be obtained. We
do not know the comparative wealth of France and of the Union. The
wealth of the one is not yet known, and the means to establish that of the
other do not exist.
But, for a moment, I agree to put aside this necessary term of compar-
ison; I give up knowing the relationship of tax to revenue, and I limit myself
to wanting to establish what the taxes are.
The reader is going to recognize that by narrowing the circle of my re-
search, I have not made my task easier.
I do not doubt that the central administration of France, aided by all
the officials at its disposal, might succeed in discovering exactly the total
amount of direct or indirect taxes that weigh upon the citizens. But this
the proportion between their numbers and the aggregate wealth of that country.
Diminish their numbers, the wealth remaining the same, and they will be, individ-
ually, richer. The people of Ireland, and indeed of England, would be richer if they
were fewer. I do call a country like China, where there is an immense population,
individually poor, a rich country, though the aggregate wealth of China is greater
than the aggregate wealth of Holland, where the population is, comparatively, in-
dividually rich (Correspondence and Conversations of Alexis de Tocqueville with Nassau
William Senior, London: Henry S. King & Co., 1872, I, p. 4).
work, which an individual cannot undertake, the French government itself

has not yet finished, or at least it has not made the results known. We know
what the State expenses are; the total of the departmental expenses is
known; we do not know what happens in the French towns. So no one can
say, as of now, what amount public expenditures in France total.
If I now return to America, I notice difficulties that become more nu-
merous and more insurmountable. The Union makes public the exact
amount of its expenses; I can obtain for myself the individual budgets of
the twenty-four states that constitute the Union; but who will teach me
what the citizens spend for the administration of the county and of the
town?11
Federal authority cannot extend to forcing the provincial governments
to enlighten us on this point; and if these governments themselves wanted
to lend us simultaneously their support, I doubt that they would be able
to satisfy us. Apart from the natural difficulty of the enterprise, the political
11. The Americans, as you see, have four types of budgets: The Union has its; the states,
counties, and towns have theirs as well. During my stay in America, I did extensive research
to know the total amount of public expenditures in the towns and in the counties of the
principal states of the Union. I was able easily to obtain the budget of the largest towns, but
it was impossible for me to get that of the small towns. So I cannot form any exact idea of
town expenditures. For what concerns the expenditures of the counties, I possess some docu-
ments that, though incomplete, are perhaps the kind that are worthy of the reader’s curiosity.
I owe to the goodness of Mr. Richards, former m mayor of Philadelphia, the budgets of thirteen
counties of Pennsylvania for the year 1830, those of Lebanon, Center, Franklin, Fayette,
Montgomery, Luzerne, Dauphin, Butler, Alleghany [Allegheny (ed.)], Columbia, North-
umberland, Northampton, Philadelphia. In 1830, there were 495,207 inhabitants. If you cast
your eyes on a map of Pennsylvania, you will see that these thirteen counties are dispersed in
all directions and subject to all the general causes that can influence the state of a country; so
that it would be impossible to say why they would not provide an exact idea of the financial
state of the counties of Pennsylvania. Now, these very counties spent, during the year 1830,
1,808,221 francs, which yields 3.64 fr. per inhabitant. I calculated that each of the same in-
habitants, during the year 1830, devoted to the needs of the federal Union 12.70 fr., and 3.80
fr. to those of Pennsylvania; the result is that in the year 1830 the same citizens gave to society,
to meet all public expenditures (except town expenditures), the amount of 20.14 fr. This result
is doubly incomplete, as you see, because it applies only to a single year and to one part of
public expenses; but it has the merit of being certain.
m. The word “former” appears only after the first editions.
organization of the country would still conflict with the success of their
efforts. The magistrates of the town and of the county are not appointed
by administrators of the state, and do not depend on them. So it may be
believed that if the state wanted to obtain the information we need, it would
meet great obstacles in the carelessness of the lower level officials it would
be forced to use.12
Useless, moreover, to try to find out what the Americans would be able
to do in such a matter, because certainly until now they have done nothing.
So today in America or in Europe not a single man exists who can teach
us what each citizen of the Union pays annually to meet the expenses of
society.13
12. Those who have wanted to establish a parallel between the expenditures of the Amer-
icans and ours have clearly felt that it was impossible to compare the total of the public ex-
penditures of France to the total of the public expenditures of the Union; but they have sought
to compare detached portions of these expenditures. It is easy to prove that this second way of
operating is no less defective than the first.
To what will I compare, for example, our national budget? To the budget of the Union?
But the Union is occupied with far fewer objects than our central government, and its expenses
must naturally be much less. Will I contrast our departmental budgets to the budgets of the
individual states that make up the Union? But in general the individual states attend to more
important and more numerous interests than the administration of our departments; so their
expenditures are naturally more considerable. As for the budgets of the counties, you find
nothing in our system of finance that resembles them. Will we add expenditures made there
to the budget of the state or to that of the towns? Town expenditures exist in the two countries,
but they are not always analogous. In America, the town assumes several needs that in France
are left to the department or to the State. How, moreover, must town expenditures in America
be understood? The organization of the town differs depending on the states. Will we take as
the rule what happens in New England or in Georgia, in Pennsylvania or in the state of
Illinois?
It is easy to see, between certain budgets of two countries, a sort of analogy; but since the
elements that constitute them always differ more or less, you cannot establish a serious com-
parison between them.
13. Should you succeed in knowing the precise sum that each French or American citizen
pays into the public treasury, you would still have only one part of the truth.
Governments ask not only money from the taxpayers, but also personal efforts that have a
monetary value. The State raises an army; apart from the balance that is charged to the entire
nation to supply it, the soldier must still give his time, which has a greater or lesser value
depending on the use that he would make of it if he remained free. I will say as much about
the service of the militia. The man who is part of the militia temporarily devotes a precious
Let us conclude that it is as difficult to compare fruitfully the social ex-

penditures of the Americans with ours, as it is to compare the wealth of
the Union to that of France. I add that it would even be dangerous to
attempt it. When statistics are not based on rigorously true calculations,
they mislead rather than guide. The mind is easily led astray by the false
air of exactitude that statistics conserve even in their discrepancies, and it
rests untroubled in the errors that it thinks are cloaked in the mathematical
forms of truth.
So let us abandon numbers and try to find our proof elsewhere.
Does a country present an aspect of material prosperity; after paying the
State, does the poor man still have resources and the rich man superfluity;
do both appear satisfied with their lot, and do they still seek to improve it
each day, so that industry never lacks capital and capital in turn does not
lack industry? Lacking positive documents, it is possible to resort to such
indicators to know if the public expenses that burden a people are pro-
portionate to its wealth.
The observer who kept to this evidence would undoubtedly judge that
the American of the United States gives to the State a less significant portion
of his income than the Frenchman.
But how could you imagine that it would be otherwise?
time to public security, and really gives to the State what he fails to acquire for himself. I have
cited these examples; I would have been able to cite many others. The government of France
and that of America collect taxes of this nature; these taxes burden the citizens. But who can
appreciate with exactitude their total amount in the two countries?
This is not the last difficulty that stops you when you want to compare the public expen-
ditures of the Union to ours. The State has certain obligations in France that it does not
assume in America, and reciprocally. The French government pays the clergy; the American
government leaves this concern to the faithful. In America, the State takes care of the poor;
in France, it leaves them to the charity of the public. We give all our officials a fixed salary;
the Americans allow them to collect certain fees. In France, service charges occur only on a
small number of roads; in the United States, on nearly all roads. Our roads are open to
travelers who can travel on them without paying anything; in the United States there are
many toll roads. All these differences in the way in which the taxpayer acquits himself of the
expenses of the society make comparison between the two societies very difficult; for there are
certain expenditures that the citizens would not make or that would be less, if the State did
not take it upon itself to act in their name.
One part of the French debt is the result of two invasions; the Union
has nothing to fear about that. Our position obliges us as a rule to keep a
numerous army under arms; the isolation of the Union allows it to have
only 6,000 soldiers. We maintain nearly 300 ships; the Americans have only
5214 of them. How could the inhabitant of the Union pay to the State as
much as the inhabitant of France?
So there is no parallel to establish between the finances of countries so
differently placed.
It is by examining what happens in the Union, and not by comparing
the Union with France, that we can judge if American democracy is truly
economical.
I cast my eyes on each of the various republics that form the confeder-
ation, and I discover that their government often lacks perseverance in its
designs, and that it does not exercise continuous surveillance over the men
it employs. From this I naturally draw the conclusion that it must often
spend the money of the taxpayers uselessly, or devote more of their money
than necessary to its undertakings.
I see that, faithful to its popular origin, it makes prodigious efforts to
satisfy the needs of the lower classes of society, to open the paths to power
to them, and to spread well-being and enlightenment among them. It sup-
ports the poor, distributes millions each year to the schools, pays for all
services, and generously recompenses its least important agents. If such a
means of governing seems useful and reasonable to me, I am forced to rec-
ognize that it is expensive.
I see the poor man who leads public affairs and has national resources
at his disposal; and I cannot believe that, profiting from State expenditures,
he does not often drag the State into new expenditures.
So I conclude, without resorting to incomplete figures and without
wanting to establish risky comparisons, that the democratic government
of the Americans is not, as is sometimes claimed, an inexpensive govern-
14. See the detailed budgets of the Ministry of the Navy in France, and for America, the
National Calendar of 1833, p. 228.n
n. The budget of the American navy is found on pages 290–91. On page 228, the list
of warships is found; the total is 53 (Tocqueville seems to have eliminated from the list
a barge, a small unarmed galley with about twenty oars aboard).
ment; and I am not afraid to predict that, if great difficulties came one day
to assail the peoples of the United States, you would see taxes among them
rise as high as in most of the aristocracies or monarchies of Europe.
Of the Corruption and Vices of Those Who Govern

in Democracy; Of the Effects on Public Morality
That Result from That Corruption and Those Vices
In aristocracies, those who govern sometimes seek to corrupt.—
Often, in democracies, they prove to be corrupt themselves.—In
the first, vices directly attack the morality of the people.—In the
second, vices exercise an indirect influence on the morality of the
people that is still more to be feared.
Aristocracy and democracy mutually reproach each other with facilitating

corruption; it is necessary to distinguish.
In aristocratic governments, the men who come to public affairs are rich
men who only want power. In democracies, the statesmen are poor and
have their fortune to make.
It follows that, in aristocratic States, those who govern are not very open
to corruption and have only a very moderate taste for money, while the
opposite happens among democratic peoples.
But, in aristocracies, since those who want to arrive at the head of public
affairs have great riches at their disposal, and since the number of those
who can make them succeed is often circumscribed within certain limits,
the government finds itself, in a way, up for sale.o In democracies, on the
It is clear that in this picture the author has England in view, but all aristocracies are
not like that of England, which, however omnipotent it is, needs the people. There
were other aristocracies, such as that of Venice and I believe that of Berne, that were
self-sufficient, the people remaining outside; was corruption at work in the last ones?
The author cites a mixed government rather than a clear-cut aristocracy. Some would
probably object to him about it; to avoid it I would like him to put: “in aristocracies
in which the popular vote is necessary” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 5).
contrary, those who aspire to power are hardly ever rich, and the number
of those who contribute to gaining power is very great. Perhaps, in de-
mocracies, men are for sale no less, but there are hardly any buyers, and,
besides, too many people would have to be bought at once to achieve the
end. [⫽As a result of this difference, in democracies corruption acts upon
those who govern and in aristocracies upon the governed. In the one, public
officials are corrupted; in the other, the people themselves.⫽
Thus, corruption finds some way to be exercised in the two governments:
its object alone varies.]
Among the menp who have occupied power in France during the past
forty years, several have been accused of having made a fortune at the ex-
pense of the State and its allies; a reproach that was rarely made to the public
men of the old monarchy. But, in France, there is almost no example of
someone buying the vote of an elector for money,q while this is notoriously
and publicly done in England.
[In aristocracies corruption is generally exercised in order to gain power.
In democracies it is linked to those who have gained power. So in demo-
p. In the manuscript: “Nearly all the men . . .”

Édouard de Tocqueville (?):
That reproach was not addressed to anyone during the fifteen years of the Restora-
tion. I do not know if it was generally addressed to Bonaparte’s ministers, M. de
Talleyrand excepted, although it was addressed to his generals. So we are left then
with the ministers of the Republic and, above all, those of the Directory. A great
number of the ministers of the Restoration entered power poor and still remain so.
So you cannot with justice say: during the past forty years nearly all the men, etc.
Couldn’t you say: “Nearly all the men who have occupied power after the establish-
ment of the French republic and during its existence, that is to say, when citizens,
until then obscure and poor, suddenly found themselves carried to the head of public
affairs, nearly all these men, I say, have been accused . . .”? (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 4).
Hervé de Tocqueville: “In this paragraph what Alexis says is not true. Most of the min-
isters since the Directory were beyond suspicion of mischief, and several ministers under
the old regime were regarded as great knaves” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 5).
q. Hervé de Tocqueville: “It is true that they are rarely bought for cash money, but
often enough by the lure of places or other advantages, which is a corruption that differs
only by the means. The government candidate at Cherbourg had promised the same
place of juge de paix to 15 persons” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 6).
cratic States corruption harms the public treasury more than the morality
of the people. It is the opposite in aristocracies.]
I have never heard it said that in the United States someone used his
riches to win over the governed; but I have often seen the integrity of public
officials called into question. Still more often I have heard their success
attributed to low intrigues or to guilty maneuvers.
[It must be said, moreover, that the result is not as fearsome in America
as it would be in Europe.
Great robberies can only be practiced among powerful democratic na-
tions in which the government is concentrated in few hands and in which
the State is charged with executing immense enterprises.]r
So if the men who lead aristocracies sometimes seek to corrupt, the heads
of democracies are corrupted themselves. In the one, the morality of the
people is directly attacked; in the other, an indirect action is exerted on the
public conscience that must be feared even more.
Among democratic peoples, those who head the State are almost always
exposed to deplorable suspicions; so they give the support of the govern-
ment, in a way, to the crimes of which they are accused. Thus they present
dangerous examples to still struggling virtue, and provide glorious com-
parisons to hidden vice.
You would say in vain that dishonest passions are met at all levels; that
they often accede to the throne by the right of birth; that deeply despicable
men can thus be found at the head of aristocratic nations as well as within
democracies.
This response does not satisfy me. In the corruption of those who gain
power by chance, something crude and vulgar is disclosed that makes it
contagious to the crowd; on the contrary, there reigns, even in the deprav-
r. Édouard de Tocqueville (?): “What, so the United States is not a powerful democratic
nation? And then the word robbery seems inadmissible to me in an elevated style; great
misappropriations or great embezzlements is needed. Finally, how can power be concen-
trated in few hands in a democratic nation? That to me would seem impossible. This
small paragraph must be revised” (YTC, CIIIb, 2, pp. 4–5).
What follows this paragraph, until the end of the section, does not exist in the
manuscript.
ities of great lords, a certain aristocratic refinement, an air of grandeur that

often prevents its spread.s
The people will never penetrate the dark labyrinth of court spirit; it will
always be difficult for them to discover the baseness hidden beneath the
elegance of manners, the pursuit of taste, and the grace of language. But
to rob the public treasury or to sell State favors for money, that the first
wretch understands and can claim to be able to do in turn.
What is to be feared, moreover, is not so much the sight of the immor-
ality of the great as that of immorality leading to greatness. In democracy,
simple citizens see a man who emerges from their ranks and who in a few
years achieves wealth and power; this spectacle excites their surprise and
envy; they try to find out how the one who was their equal yesterday is
today vested with the right to lead them. To attribute his elevation to his
talents or his virtues is uncomfortable, for it means admitting that they
themselves are less virtuous and less skillful than he. So they place the prin-
cipal cause in some of his vices, and often they are right to do so. In this
way, I do not know what odious mixture of the ideas of baseness and power,
of unworthiness and success, of utility and dishonor comes about.
s. “There, I confuse two things: corruption and embezzlements.

“There is corruption when you seek to obtain something which is not your due
by sharing some stake with the one who gives it.
“There is corruption on the part of the candidate who pays for the votes of the
voter.
“There is corruption on the part of the individual who obtains a favor from an
official for money.
“But when officials draw for their own account from the State treasury, it is not
corruption; it is theft ” (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 88).
Of What Efforts Democracy Is Capable

The Union has fought for its existence only a single time.—
Enthusiasm at the beginning of the war.—Cooling at the end.—
Difficulty of establishing conscription or registration of sailors in
America.—Why a democratic people is less capable than another
of great sustained efforts.
I forewarn the reader that here I am speaking about a government that

follows the real will of the people, and not about a government that restricts
itself only to commanding in the name of the people.
There is nothing so irresistible as a tyrannical power that commands in
the name of the people, because, while vested with the moral power that
belongs to the will of the greatest number, it acts at the same time with the
decisiveness, promptitude and tenacity that a single man would have.
It is quite difficult to say what degree of effort a democratic government
is capable of in time of national crisis.
A great democratic republic has never been seen until now. It would be
an insult to republics to give this name to the oligarchy that reigned over
France in 1793.t The United States alone presents this new spectacle.
Now, since the Union was formed a half-century ago, its existence has
been put in question only once, at the time of the War of Independence.
At the beginning of this long war, there were extraordinary acts of en-
thusiasm for serving the country.15 But as the struggle continued, you
saw individual egoism reappear. Money no longer arrived at the public
treasury; men no longer presented themselves for the army; the people
still wanted independence, but they drew back from the means to obtain
t. Variant in the margin, under a paper glued into place: “The name republic given
to the oligarchy of 1793 has never been anything except a bloody veil behind which was
hidden the tyranny of some and the oppression of all.”
15. One of the most singular, in my opinion, was the resolution by which the Americans
temporarily renounced the use of tea. Those who know that men generally cling more to their
habits than to their life will undoubtedly be astonished by this great and obscure sacrifice
obtained from an entire people.
it.[*] [⫽This languor of public spirit, the only motivating force [doubtful
reading (ed.)] of democracies, put the liberty of America in danger several
times, and yet the nature of the country alone and its expanse made con-
quest impossible.⫽] “Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods
to enforce the collection have in vain been tried,” says Hamilton in the
Federalist (No. 12):
the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries
of the States have remained empty. The popular system of administration,
inherent in the nature of popular government, coinciding with the real
scarcity of money incident to a languid and mutilated state of trade, has
hitherto defeated every experiment for extensive collections, and has at
length taught the different legislatures the folly of attempting them.
Since this period, the United States has not had to sustain a single serious
war.
To judge what sacrifices democracies know how to impose on them-
selves, we must therefore await the time when the American nation will be
forced to put into the hands of its government half of the revenue of its
property, like England, or must throw one twentieth of its population all
at once onto the field of battle, as France did.
In America, conscription is unknown; men are enrolled there for money.
Forced recruitment is so contrary to the ideas and so foreign to the habits
of the people of the United States that I doubt that anyone would ever
dare to introduce it in the laws. What is called conscription in France as-
suredly is the heaviest of our taxes; but, without conscription, how would
we be able to sustain a great continental war?
The Americans have not adopted English impressment. They have noth-
ing that resembles our registration of sailors. The navy, like the merchant
marine, recruits by voluntary enlistments.
Now, it is not easy to conceive that a people could sustain a great mar-
itime war without resorting to one of the two means indicated above. Con-
sequently, the Union, which has already fought with glory at sea, has never
[*]. See the Life of Washington by Marshall.

had large fleets, and the cost of manning the small number of its ships has
always been very expensive.
I have heard American statesmen admit that the Union will have diffi-
culty maintaining its rank on the seas, if it does not resort to impressment
or to registration of sailors; but the difficulty is to force the people, who
govern, to bear impressment or registration of sailors.u
Incontestably, free peoples, when in danger, generally display an infi-
nitely greater energy than those who are not free, but I am led to believe
that this is true, above all, for free peoples among whom the aristocratic
element predominates.v
Democracy seems to me much more appropriate for leading a peaceful
society, or for making a sudden and vigorous effort as needed, than for
braving for a long time the great storms in the political lives of peoples.
The reason for it is simple. Men expose themselves to dangers and priva-
tions out of enthusiasm, but they remain exposed for a long time only from
reflection. In what is called instinctive courage itself, there is more calcu-
lation than we think; and although, in general, passions alone bring about
the first efforts, efforts continue with the result in mind. You risk a portion
of what is dear in order to save the rest.w
u. On the back of the page: “⫽Difficulty of establishing conscription as in France.

Even impressment does not exist, though of English origin. Impossibility, however, of
navy without impressment. See opinion Gallatin, non-alphabetic notebook 1, p. 25.⫽”
See YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 62.
v. In a first version: “It is not that the first impulse of democracy is often to assist the
evil. Nothing is more impetuous than the movements of democracy, but enthusiasm,
like all the other passions, soon burns itself out. In men [who (ed.)] expose themselves
to dangers for a long time and submit to great sacrifices to attain an end, there is a great
mixture of passion and calculation.”
w. Hervé de Tocqueville:
The entire paragraph preceding these words is very well put, and yet I have an ob-
servation to make that does not seem unimportant. Free countries make more ef-
forts when in danger, because love of country predominates there more than in
monarchies; this point granted, it seems that the devotion to public things should
be greater in democracies than in aristocracies, for the author has proved well in
the preceding chapters that democratic government is the one in which the people
Now, this clear perception of the future, based on learning and expe-
rience, must often be missing in democracy. The people feel much more
than they reason; and if the present difficulties are great, the fear is that
they will forget the greater difficulties that perhaps await them in case of
defeat.
Still another cause must make the efforts of a democratic government
less long-lasting than the efforts of an aristocracy.
The people not only see less clearly than the upper classes what can be
hoped or feared in the future, but the people also suffer the troubles of the
present quite differently from the upper classes. The nobleman, by exposing
his person, runs as many chances for glory as perils. By giving the State the
greater part of his income, he temporarily deprives himself of some of the
pleasures of his wealth. But, for the poor man, death has no prestige, and
the tax that bothers the rich man often attacks the poor man’s sources of
life.
This relative weakness of democratic republics in time of crisis is perhaps
the greatest obstacle opposing the establishment of such a republic in Eu-
rope. For the democratic republic to survive without difficulty among a
European people, it would have to be established at the same time among
all the other European peoples.
I believe that the government of democracy must, in the long run, in-
crease the real forces of society; but it cannot assemble all at once, at one
place, and at a given moment, as many forces as an aristocratic government
or an absolute monarchy. If a democratic country remained under repub-
lican government for a century, you can believe that at the end of the cen-
tury it would be richer, more populated and more prosperous than neigh-
boring despotic States; but during this century, it would have run the risk
several times of being conquered by them.
are attached to the State by the most bonds; I know that there is nothing to bring
up against the fact. But here the fact appears to me in contradiction with the theory,
and the author, with Montesquieu. Perhaps it would be necessary for him to de-
velop his idea a bit more. The following paragraph begins, moreover, to explain it
well (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 110).
Of the Power That American Democracy

Generally Exercises over Itself
That the American people only go along with something in the
long run, and sometimes refuse to do what is useful for their
well-being.—Ability that the Americans have to make mistakes
that can be corrected.
This difficulty that democracy has in vanquishing passions and silencing

the needs of the moment with the future in mind is noticeable in the United
States in the smallest things.
The people, surrounded by flatterers [and sycophants], succeed with dif-
ficulty in triumphing over themselves. Every time you want them to impose
a privation or discomfort on themselves, even for an end their reason ap-
proves, they almost always begin by refusing. The obedience that Ameri-
cans give to laws is rightly praised. It must be added that in America leg-
islation is made by the people and for the people. So in the United States,
the laws appear favorable to those who, everywhere else, have the greatest
interest in violating it. Thus, it may be believed that a bothersome law,
which the majority felt had no present utility, would not be put into effect
or would not be obeyed.
In the United States, no legislation exists relating to fraudulent bank-
ruptcies. Would it be because there are no bankruptcies? No, on the con-
trary, it is because there are many of them. The fear of being prosecuted
as a bankrupt surpasses, in the mind of the majority, the fear of being ru-
ined by bankruptcies; and in the public conscience there is a sort of culpable
tolerance for the crime that each person condemns individually.
In the new states of the Southwest, the citizens almost always take justice
into their own hands, and murdersx happen constantly. That stems from
the habits of the people being too rough and enlightenment being spread
x. In the manuscript: “are more frequent than fistfights among us.” The expression
had been unanimously rejected by the readers: YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 107 (Édouard de
Tocqueville?), p. 105 (Gustave de Beaumont), and CIIIb, 2, p. 1 (Hervé de Tocqueville).
too little in these wilderness areas for anyone to feel the utility of giving the
law some force. There they still prefer duelsy to trials.
Someonez said to me one day, in Philadelphia, that nearly all crimes in
America were caused by the abuse of strong liquors that the lower classes
could use at will, because it was sold to them at a very low price. “Why,” I
asked, “don’t you put a duty on brandy?” “Our legislators have often con-
sidered it,” he replied, “but it is a difficult undertaking. They fear a revolt;
and besides, the members who voted for such a law would very surely not
be reelected.” “So,” I responded, “among you, drinkers are the majority,
and temperance is unpopular.”
When you point out these things to statesmen, they simply respond: Let
time pass; feeling the evil will enlighten the people and will show them what
they need. This is often true. If democracy has more chances to make a
mistake than a king or a body of nobles, it also has more chances to return
to the truth, once enlightenment comes; within a democracy there are gen-
erally no interests that are contrary to the interest of the greatest number
and that fight reason. But democracy can only gain the truth by experience,
and many peoples cannot wait for the results of their errors without
perishing.
So the great privilege of the Americans is not only to be more enlightened
than others, but also to have the ability to make mistakes that can be
corrected.
Add that, in order to profit easily from the experience of the past, de-
mocracy must already have reached a certain degree of civilization and
enlightenment.
We see some peoples whose first education has been so perverted, and
whose character presents such a strange mixture of passions, of ignorance
and erroneous notions about everything, that they cannot by themselves dis-
cern the cause of their miseries; they succumb to evils that they do not know.
y. Édouard de Tocqueville (?): “The word duel does not apply well to a half-civilized
people. Couldn’t you say: the majority still prefers fights to trials?” (YTC, CIIIb, 1,
pp. 107–8).
z. Mr. Washington Smith (in pocket notebook 3, 25 October 1831, YTC, BIIa, and
Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 184). See George W. Pierson, Tocqueville and Beaumont in America,
p. 459.
I have traveled across vast countries formerly inhabited by powerful In-

dian nations that today no longer exist; I have lived among already muti-
lated tribes that, everyday, see their number decline and the splendor of
their savage glory disappear; I have heard these Indians themselves foretell
the final destiny reserved to their race. There is no European, however, who
does not see what would have to be done to preserve these unfortunate
peoples from inevitable destruction. But they do not see it; they feel the
misfortunes that, each year, accumulate on their heads, and they will perish
to the last man while rejecting the remedy. Force would have to be used to
compel them to live.
We are astonished to see the new nations of South America stir, for a
quarter century, amid constantly recurring revolutions; and each day we
expect to see them recover what is called their natural state. But who can
assert that today revolutions are not the most natural state of the Spanish
of South America? In this country, society struggles at the bottom of an
abyss from which it cannot escape by its own efforts.
The people who inhabit this beautiful half of a hemisphere seem ob-
stinately bound to eviscerate themselves; nothing can divert them. Ex-
haustion makes them come to rest for an instant, and rest soon brings them
back to new furies. When I consider them in this alternating state of mis-
eries and crimes, I am tempted to believe that for them despotism would
be a benefit.
But these two words will never be found united in my thought.
Of the Manner in Which American Democracy

Conducts the Foreign Affairs of the State
Direction given to the foreign policy of the United States by
Washington and Jefferson.—Nearly all the natural defects of
democracy make themselves felt in the conduct of foreign affairs,
and its qualities are felt little there.
We have seen that the federal Constitution places the permanent leadership
of the foreign interests of the nation in the hands of the President and of
the Senate,16 which to a certain extent puts the general policy of the Union
outside of the direct and daily influence of the people. So we cannot say
in an absolute manner that, in America, it is democracy that conducts the
foreign affairs of the State.
There are two men who gave the policy of the Americans a direction
that is still followed today; the first is Washington, and Jefferson is the
second.
Washington said, in this admirable letter addressed to his fellow citizens
that forms the political testament of this great man:
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending
our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection
as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be
fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very
remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the
causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore
it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the or-
dinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and col-
lisions of her friendships, or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a
different course. If we remain one People, under an efficient government,
the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external
annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality
we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when bel-
ligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us,
will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose
peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our
own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with
16. “[The President],” says the Constitution, art. 2, sect. II, paragraph 2, “shall have
Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties.” The reader
must not lose sight of the fact that the term of Senators lasts six years, and that, chosen by the
legislators of each state, they are the result of indirect election.
that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils
of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice?
’Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances with any por-
tion of the foreign world. So far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it;
for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing
engagements (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private
affairs, that honesty is always the best policy). I repeat it, therefore, let those
engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is
unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to
keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive
posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary
emergencies.
Previously Washington had expressed this excellent and sound idea:

“The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an
habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or
to its affection.”
The political action of Washington always aimed to follow his maxims.
He succeeded in keeping his country at peace, when all the rest of the uni-
verse was at war, and he established as a point of doctrine that the well
understood interest of Americans was never to take part in the internal
quarrels of Europe.
Jefferson went still farther, and he introduced to the policy of the Union
this other maxim: “That the Americans should never ask for privileges from
foreign nations, so that they are never obligated themselves to grant such
privileges.”[*]
These two principles, which due to their obvious soundness were easily
grasped by the crowd, have extremely simplified the foreign policy of the
United States.
Not mixing into Europe’s affairs, the Union has, so to speak, no foreign
interests to discuss, for it does not yet have powerful neighbors in America
[{it had to be grossly and groundlessly provoked in 1812 for it to consider
taking up arms}]. Placed by its situation as much as by its will outside the
[*]. Washington had already indicated this maxim, but Jefferson put it into practice
and introduced it into the ideas and mores of his country.
passions of the Old World, the Union does not have to protect itself from
them anymore than to espouse them. As for the passions of the New World,
they are still hidden in the future.
[The Union grows constantly larger; it appears different each year, for
its prosperity has something revolutionary about it. So the clear interest of
the Union, which changes daily, is not to create lasting ties. Ties useful today
could soon hamper its course and compromise its future.]
The Union is free from previous commitments; so it profits from the
experience of the old peoples of Europe, without being obliged, like them,
to make use of the past and to adapt the past to the present;a it is not forced,
as they are, to accept an immense heritage handed down by its fathers, a
mixture of glory and misery, of national friendships and hatreds. The for-
eign policy of the United States is eminently one of wait-and-see; it consists
much more of refraining from action than of doing.
So it is very difficult to know, for now, what skill American democracy
will develop in the conduct of the foreign affairs of the State.b On this
point, its adversaries as well as it friends must suspend their judgment.
As for me, I will have no difficulty in saying: it is in the leadership of
the foreign interests of society that democratic governments seem to me
decidedly inferior to others.[*] In democracy, experience, mores, and edu-
a. In the margin: “⫽America appears amid the civilized world with the strength of
{youth and the experience of mature age.}⫽” Cf. conversation with Mr. Latrobe, 3
November 1831 (non-alphabetic notebooks 2 and 3, YTC, BIIc, and Voyage, OC, V, 1,
p. 120).
b. To the side: “⫽So we must wait until matters become complicated and difficulties
appear in order to be able to judge the degree to which American democracy will be
capable of conducting the public affairs of society.⫽”
Tocqueville’s short experience at the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, from
June to October 1849, confirmed his fears about the inferiority of democracies in foreign
affairs (see his Souvenirs,OC, XII, p. 246). On this question, see Stephen A. Garrett,
“Foreign Policy and the Democracies: De Tocqueville Revisited,” Virginia Quarterly
Review 48, no. 4 (1972): 481–500.
[*]. ⫽Note, moreover, that the federal Constitution places the permanent leadership
of the foreign interests of the nation in the hands of the President and the Senate, which
to a certain extent places the general policy of the Union outside the daily influence of
the democracy.⫽
cation almost always end by creating the sort of everyday practical wisdom
and the skill in the small events of life that is called good sense. Good sense
suffices for the ordinary routine of society; and among a people whose edu-
cation is already accomplished, democratic liberty applied to the internal
affairs of the State produces greater good than the evil that can be caused
by the errors of democratic government. But it is not always so in the re-
lations of one people with another.
Foreign policy requires the use of almost none of the qualities that be-
long to democracy and, on the contrary, demands the development of
nearly all those qualities that it lacks. Democracy favors the growth of the
internal resources of the State; it spreads comfort, develops public spirit;
strengthens respect for law in the different classes of society; all things that
have only an indirect influence on the position of a people vis-à-vis another.
But only with difficulty can democracy coordinate the details of a great
undertaking, settle on one plan and then follow it stubbornly across all
obstacles. It is little capable of devising measures in secret and patiently
awaiting their result. These are the qualities that belong most particularly
to a man or to an aristocracy. Now, in the long run it is precisely these
qualities that make a people, like an individual, predominate in the end.
If, on the contrary, you pay attention to the natural defects of aristoc-
racy,c you will find that the effect that these defects can produce can be felt
hardly at all in the leadership of the foreign affairs of the State. The capital
vice for which the aristocracy is reproached is to work only for itself alone
c. Hervé de Tocqueville:
It is absolutely necessary to add the words in internal administration in order to es-
tablish clearly the division between internal and external, so that the author cannot
be accused of praising here the institution that he blamed above. In fact, history
proves that the aristocracy, very strong externally, because it is led solely by the interest
of the State, commits many mistakes internally, because its personal interest misleads
it. The aristocracy of Rome had been absolute in regard to the plebeians. That of
France committed enormous mistakes, and that of England for fifty years has not
been much wiser (YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 3).
and not for the mass. In foreign policy, it is very rare for the aristocracy to
have an interest distinct from that of the people.
The inclination that leads democracy in policy matters to obey senti-
ments rather than reasoning, and to abandon a long developed plan for the
satisfaction of a momentary passion, clearly revealed itself in America when
the French Revolution broke out. The simplest insights of reason would
suffice then, as today, to make the Americans understand that it was not in
their interest to get engaged in the struggle that was going to cover Europe
in blood, and from which the United States could suffer no harm.
The sympathies of the people in favor of France came out with such
violence, however, that nothing less was required to prevent a declaration
of war against England than the unyielding character of Washington and
the immense popularity that he enjoyed.d And yet, the efforts made by the
austere reason of this great man to combat the generous but unthinking
passions of his fellow citizens very nearly deprived him of the only rec-
ompense that he had ever expected, the love of his country. The majority
pronounced against his policy; now, the whole people approve it.17
If the Constitution and public favor had not given Washington the lead-
ership of the foreign affairs of the State, the nation would certainly have
done then precisely what it condemns today.e
d. In the margin: “{see the History of Pitkin.}”

17. See the fifth volume of the Life of Washington by Marshall. “In a government es-
tablished as that of the United States,” he says, page 314, “the chief executive, whatever his
firmness, cannot long present a barrier to the torrent of popular opinion; and the popular
opinion that then prevailed seemed to lead to war. In fact, in the session of Congress held at
this time, it was seen very frequently that Washington had lost the majority in the House of
Representatives. Outside, the violence of the language used against him was extreme; in a
political meeting, some were not afraid to compare him indirectly with the traitor Arnold
(p. 265). Those who belonged to the opposing party,” says Marshall again (p. 353), “claimed
that the partisans of the administration were an aristocratic faction that was submissive to
England and, wanting to establish a monarchy, was therefore the enemy of France; a faction
whose members constituted a kind of nobility, that had shares of the Bank as titles, and that
was so afraid of any measure that could influence its capital, that it was insensitive to the
insults that both the honor and the interest of the nation demanded to be rejected.”
e. Cf. note h for p. 190.
Nearly all the peoples who have acted strongly on the world, those who
have conceived, followed and executed great designs, from the Romans to
the English, were led by an aristocracy; and how can you be surprised
[⫽when you see the part that must be attributed to the continuous effect
of the same will in human events⫽]?
In this world, what is most steady in its views is an aristocracy. The mass
of people can be seduced by its ignorance or its passions. You can catch the
mind of a king unawares and make him vacillate in his plans; and, besides,
a king is not immortal. But an aristocratic body is too numerous to be won
over, too few in number to yield easily to the intoxication of unthinking
passions. An aristocratic body is a firm and enlightened man who does
not die.f
f. The Pennsylvania Historical Society retains a commentary by Tocqueville on the

question of French indemnities in the United States and American foreign policy. (This
document had been catalogued by mistake as belonging to Democracy in America. ) The
reference to the correspondence of Livingston and the possibility that the latter had not
yet left France when Tocqueville wrote his commentary led to the thought that these
pages date from April or the beginning of May 1835, that is, a few months after the
publication of the first part of the book. Nor is there any indication in the Yale Collection
that allows a relationship to be established between these pages and the manuscript of
the work. Perhaps documents in the hands of the Commission charged with the edition
of Tocqueville’s works would be able to offer some decisive information as to the origin
of this commentary. This text, to an unknown recipient, is part of the collection of man-
uscripts of Ferdinand Dreer, even though the catalogue of the collection, edited by Dreer
himself (A Catalogue of the Collection of Autographs formed by Ferdinand Julius Dreer, Phila-
delphia: printed for private distribution, 1890, 2 vols.), mentions no document of Tocque-
ville. This unedited manuscript had been utilized by William E. Lingelbach, in his com-
mentary “American Democracy and European Interpreters,” Pennsylvania Magazine of
History and Biography 61, no. 1 ( January 1937): 1–25 (in pages 8 and 9).
Here is the text:
First here is what the Constitution says. Then I will examine the commentaries and
the practice.
The second section of Article II of the constitution reads: “[The President] shall
have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the
Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors.”
In section three of the same Article, you read: “[The President] shall receive Am-
bassadors and other public Ministers.”/
Commentaries.
I consulted the three most respected commentaries. They are the Federalist, work
published by three of the principal draftsmen of the federal Constitution, the com-
mentaries of Chancellor Kent, and those of Justice Story.
[In the margin: Federalist, No. 43–64, vol. 2.
Story’s Commentaries, pp. 556 and 576.]
Here are the doctrines that result. I will put my authorities in the margin.
The Senate of the United States is an assembly vested with a double character; it
is at the same time a legislative body and an administrative body. In the first case, its
deliberations are public; they are secret in the other case. The Senate in its quality of
administrative body is charged jointly with the President with making treaties. As
such it would clearly have the right to take part in negotiations,1 but it has been wisely
admitted in practice that the Senate had to leave to the President, sole intermediary
of the nation with foreign ministers, the right to start, direct, and provisionally con-
clude treaties. They are afterward submitted to the Senate, which approves, rejects
or modifies them, depending on its views.
It was a great question in the United States to know if a treaty concluded in this
way still had to be submitted to Congress or if it bound the nation ipso facto.
The House of Representatives declared in 17962 that when the enforcement of
certain clauses required the passage of a law, Congress had the right, in regard to this
law, to deliberate on the treaty itself. Washington in a message that same year refused
to recognize such a power in Congress.
This opinion of Washington, says Kent, seems to have become the prevailing one in
America. The House of Representatives in 1816 had the occasion to show that it shared it.
To a certain degree, this opinion explains the language of General Jackson; it served
him as pretext and support for saying [that (ed.)] France would fail to meet its agree-
ments if the Chamber of Deputies rejected the treaty.
It is clear to me from the texts, and from the commentaries that I have just cited,
as well as from what I learned myself in America, that the Constitution and practice
made the President of the United States the usual and sole representative of the na-
tion vis-à-vis foreigners. Ministers address themselves to him alone; all words and all
pieces pass through him to reach the Senate.
Now, if President Jackson by his message, which is after all only the speech of
an official, did not involve the American nation in a quarrel with the French nation,
at least it is certain that, as an individual, he gravely offended France. Can France,
respecting its honor, continue to accept this man as the sole and necessary interme-
diary between itself and the American nation, at least until this man has given some
honorable explanations? I do not think so, neither as an individual, nor as a
Frenchman.
Far from President Jackson appearing disposed during three months to retract his
outrageous insinuations, his conduct has continued to be more and more arrogant.
His letter to Mr. Livingston indicated that with pleasure he would have seen the
Ambassador of the United States immediately leave France at the moment when
passports had been offered to him.
In summary, I think that the Chamber, by adopting the principle of the law, by
agreeing to separate (which is not already to act like Louis XV) the American nation
from its President, the Chamber, I say, can do nothing less than declare that it only
acted in this way because it was persuaded that the ministers will not accredit any
diplomatic agent close to the President of the United States except in the case that
the latter would give a satisfactory explanation for his words.
By acting in this way, only a temporary embarrassment in relations can result, since
the term of the President expires in two years.
1. Mr. Story says, p. 558: “The Senate has very rarely, if ever, been consulted before
the clauses of the treaty were settled; the treaty was then submitted to the Senate for
ratification.”
2. See Kent’s Commentaries, vol. I, p. 267.
With the kind permission of the Pennsylvania Historical Society.
The edition of the Federalist cited here by Tocqueville is probably the French trans-
lation, in two volumes, published by Buisson, which appeared in Paris in 1792. See note
n for p. 193.
s4s4s4s4s4
c h a p t e r 6a
What Are the Real Advantages That
American Society Gains from the
Government of Democracy?
[Before beginning this chapter I feel the need to explain myself. I do not
want my thought enclosed within limits that I have not set.
When I speak generally about the advantages of {that a country can gain
from} the government of democracy, I am not talking only about the gov-
ernment that democracy has provided for itself in America, but about all
types of government that emanate from democracy.
Every time that the government of a people is the sincere and permanent
a. Édouard de Tocqueville:
I criticize this whole chapter for being very favorable to the government of democracy
at the expense of other governments. It seems to me that America is too young, that
its society is too new and, you could even say, still too incomplete to draw arguments
so positively advantageous to the government that it is attempting; it cannot be denied
that the basis of your thought in this chapter seems to be sympathetic to American
institutions; now, it would be unfortunate if someone were to believe that you came
back from America American, following the usual inclination of men, and of French-
men above all, who greatly admire what they go to seek far away, while deprecating
what is found at home. So I believe it would perhaps be good to show democratic
government a little less favorably and make a bit more use of the dubitative form,
perhaps to be a bit more severe as well about the bad things and the vicious aspects
of this government, which would make your impartiality emerge more fully; finally,
remove all the expressions that seem like those of a young man and that do not con-
stitute true warmth of style (YTC, CIIIb, 1, pp. 101–2).
375
376 advantages of democracy
expression of the will of the greatest number, that government, whatever

the forms, is democratic.b
So democracy can rule over a unified nation as over a confederation, in
a monarchy as in a republic.
I admit that of all governments the one that seems to me most natural
to democracy is republican government. When the social state of a people
turns toward democracy, the republic becomes for them a probable con-
sequence of this social state; but I do not believe that it is a necessary
consequence.
If the majority of all the citizens do violence to the instincts of equality
that are natural to them and, favoring order and governmental stability,
consent to vest the attributes of executive power in a family or a man who,
while still leading, depends on them, there is nothing in that that shocks
reason. So the rule of all and the government [v: the administration] of
one man can be seen at the same time. I confess that this much reduces
royal majesty, but the time is coming when, if kings do not want to take
the places left [v: still offered] to them, they will no longer find any to take.]c
Before beginning the present chapter, I feel the need to remind the reader
of what I have already pointed out several times in the course of this book.
The political constitution of the United States seems to me one of the
forms that democracy can give to its government; but I do not consider
American institutions as either the only or the best that a democratic people
should adopt.
So by making known what good things the Americans gain from the
government of democracy, I am far from claiming or thinking that such
advantages can only be obtained with the help of the same laws.
b. To the side: “To retouch all of this small chapter. According to L[ouis (ed.)], my
purpose is not seen clearly enough. One doesn’t know if this isn’t a carefully phrased
remark in favor of despotism or of L[ouis (ed.)]. P[hilippe (ed.)].”
c. This fragment also appears in YTC, CVh, 3, pp. 38–39, accompanied (p. 38) by the
following comment in the margin: “All of this preamble seems to me of questionable
utility, because the thought that led to writing it does not emerge clearly. As I am going
to say things favorable to democracy, I am afraid that someone might suppose that I
wanted to praise the American republic, and given this fear, I wanted to extend what I
said about America to democracy in general. But I do not know if my intention is
grasped.”
advantages of democracy 377
Of the General Tendency of Laws under the

Dominion of American Democracy, and Of the
Instinct of Those Who Apply Them
The vices of democracy are immediately apparent.—Its
advantages are seen only in the long run.—American democracy
is often clumsy, but the general tendency of its laws is
beneficial.—Public officials, under American democracy, have no
permanent interests that differ from those of the greatest
number.—What results from that.
The vices and weaknesses of the government of democracy are easily

seen; they are demonstrated by obvious facts, while its salutary influence
is exerted in an imperceptible and, so to speak, hidden way. Its draw-
backs are striking at first sight, but its qualities are revealed only in the
long run.
The laws of American democracy are often defective or incomplete; it
happens that they violate vested rights or sanction dangerous ones. Were
they good, their frequency would still be a great evil. All of this is seen at
first glance.
So why do the American republics live on and prosper?
In laws, the end that they seek must be carefully distinguished from the
way in which they move toward that end; their absolute goodness, from
goodness that is only relative.d
d. In legislation, three things must be carefully discerned: 1. its general tendency, 2.

its perfection (once its direction is given), and 3. the manner in which it is executed.
A perfect law would be the one that would have the most useful tendency, that would
move toward this end by the most skillful and most effective provisions, and that
would be executed by the best agents. But this perfection is hardly ever found.
The laws of democracy are decidedly defective in the last two objects. But I am
tempted to believe that they are superior in the first, and in this way I explain their
general result, which often seems in general contradiction to reason and daily expe-
rience. See the example of England (YTC, CVh, 4, pp. 77–78).
I suppose that the purpose of the legislator is to favor the interests of

the few at the expense of those of the many; his measures are devised in a
way to obtain the result that he wants in the least time and with the least
possible effort. The law will be well made; its aim, bad. It will be dangerous
in proportion to its very effectiveness.
The laws of democracy tend, in general, toward the good of the greatest
number, for they emanate from the majority of all citizens; the majority
can be mistaken, but cannot have an interest against itself.
Those of aristocracy tend, on the contrary, to monopolize wealth and
power in the hands of the few, because the aristocracy by its nature always
forms a minority.
So we can say, in a general way, that the purpose of democracy, in its
legislation, is more useful to humanity than the purpose of aristocracy in
its legislation.
But its advantages end there.
Aristocracy is infinitely more skillful in the science of lawmaking than
democracy can be. Having self-control, aristocracy is not subject to passing
impulses; it has long-term plans that it knows how to develop until the
favorable opportunity presents itself. Aristocracy proceeds skillfully; it
knows the art of bringing together at the same time, toward the same point,
the collective force of all its laws.
Not so with democracy; its laws are nearly always defective or ill-timed.
[In the eyes of the world, laws badly made or made at the wrong time
discredit the legislative spirit of democracy.]e
e.
democracy. aristocracy.
Imperfect laws. Succession of laws, a Tendency of laws contrary to the in-
great evil. terests of the greatest number.
Incapable or vice-ridden officials, but Capable and honest officials, but hav-
not having an interest contrary to the ing an interest contrary to the greatest
greatest number. number and acting either with their con-
sent or without their knowledge.
Laws badly made or made [v: inter- Less wisdom in each effort, but a
preted] wrong on purpose, that is what greater result produced by the sum of
discredits the legislative spirit of efforts.
democracy.
So the means of democracy are more imperfect than those of aristocracy.

Democracy, without wanting to, often works against itself; but its end is
more useful.
Imagine a society that nature, or its constitution, had organized in a way
to bear the transient effect of bad laws, a society that, without perishing,
can await the result of the general tendency of the laws; f and you will un-
derstand that, of all governments, the government of democracy, despite
its flaws, is still the most appropriate to make this society prosper.
This is precisely what happens in the United States; here I repeat what
I have already expressed elsewhere: the great privilege of the Americans is
to be able to make mistakes that can be corrected.
I will say something analogous about public officials.
It is easy to see that American democracy is often wrong in its choice of
the men to whom it confides power; but it is not as easy to say why the
State prospers in their hands.
Note first that, in a democratic State, if those who govern are less honest
or less capable, the governed are more enlightened and more attentive.
In democracies, the people, constantly occupied as they are with their
affairs and jealous of their rights, prevent their representatives from de-
parting from a certain general line drawn by the interest of the people.
If democracy could direct the spirit of legislation and aristocracy could make the
laws.
This tie that binds men with or without their knowledge to the consequences of
the principle that they accepted is one of the greatest miseries and greatest humilia-
tions of our nature (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 75).
If a society made only bad laws, the effect of these laws would be to bring about bad
tendencies, and everything would go to the devil.
This subject is extremely abstract, and needs to be reviewed and considered again.
I believe that the difficulty comes from the fact that Alexis seems to assume that most
of the American laws are bad; I imagine that it is the opposite. Without that, the
system that the author puts forth would not be tenable (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 93).
Note too that if the democratic magistrate exercises power worse than
another, he generally holds it for less time.g
But there is a more general and more satisfying reason than the latter.
It is undoubtedly important for the good of nations that those who gov-
ern have virtues and talents; but perhaps it is even more important to them
that those who govern have no interests contrary to the mass of the gov-
erned; for, in this case, virtues could become nearly useless, and talents,
destructive.
I said it was important that those who govern have no interests contrary
to or different from the mass of the governed; I did not say it was important
that they had interests similar to those of all the governed, for I am not
aware that such a thing has yet been seen.
The political form has not yet been found that equally favors the de-
velopment and the prosperity of all the classes that make up society. These
classes have continued to form like so many distinct nations in the same
nation, and experience has proved that it was nearly as dangerous to put
the fate of the others completely in the hands of any one of them as to
make one people the arbiter of the destiny of another people. When the
rich alone govern, the interest of the poor is always in danger; and when
the poor make the laws, the interest of the rich runs great risks. So what is
the advantage of democracy? The real advantage of democracy is not, as
some have said, to favor the prosperity of all, but only to serve the well-
being of the greatest number.
Those charged, in the United States, with leading public affairs are often
In my view, that is the true, often noted reason why, in the republics of antiquity,
the more clearly it was noticed that officials abused their power, the more the term
of office was shortened. Thus, in Athens the archons for life were reduced to ten
years, and then to one year. In Rome, the power of the consuls, which lasted only
one year, was much less dangerous than that of the tribunes, which lasted five years;
the dictatorship, despite its omnipotence, only became dangerous to liberty when it
dared to go beyond the limit of six months that had been set by law (YTC, CIIIb, 1,
p. 94).
Here, as elsewhere, Hervé uses arguments taken from Montesquieu (cf. chapter III of
book II of L’esprit des lois ).
inferior in capacity and morality to the men whom aristocracy would bring
to power; but their interest merges and is identified with that of the ma-
jorityh of their fellow citizens. So they can commit frequent infidelities and
serious errors, but they will never systematically follow a tendency hostile
to this majority; and they can never impart an exclusive and dangerous
direction to the government.
The bad administration of a magistrate, under democracy, is moreover
an isolated fact that has influence only during the short term of the ad-
ministration. Corruption and incompetence are not common interests that
can bind men together in a permanent way.
A corrupt or incompetent magistrate will not combine his efforts with
another magistrate for the sole reason that the latter is, like him, incom-
petent and corrupt; and these two men will never work in unison to make
corruption and incompetency flower among their descendants. On the
contrary, the ambition and the maneuvering of the one will serve to unmask
the other. In democracies, the vices of the magistrate are, in general, entirely
personal.
But public men, under the government of aristocracy, have a class in-
terest that, if it sometimes merges with the interest of the majority, often
remains distinct from it. This interest forms a common and lasting bond
among these public men; it invites them to unite and to combine their
efforts toward an end that is not always the happiness of the greatest num-
ber. It not only links those who govern with each other; it also links them
with a considerable portion of the governed, for many citizens, without
holding any office, are part of the aristocracy.
So the aristocratic magistrate finds a constant support in society, at the
same time that he finds one in government.
This common objective that, in aristocracies, unites magistrates with the
interest of a part of their contemporaries, also identifies them with and, so
to speak, subjects them to future races. They work for the future as well as
for the present. So the aristocratic magistrate is pushed simultaneously to-
ward the same point, by the passions of the governed, by his own, and I
could almost say by the passions of his posterity.
h. In the manuscript: “of the greatest number.”

How can we be surprised if he doesn’t resist? Consequently, in aristoc-

racies we often see even those not corrupted by class spirit dragged along
by it and unknowingly made to adapt society little by little to their own
use and to prepare it for their descendants.
I do not know if an aristocracy has ever existed as liberal as that of En-
gland, and that has, without interruption, provided the government of the
country with men as worthy and as enlightened.
It is easy to recognize, however, that in English legislation the good of
the poor has often ended by being sacrificed to that of the rich,j and the
j. This sentence provoked the immediate reaction of two English readers. In a letter
of 17 February 1835, Nassau Senior remarked:
I do not think that in England the wealth of the poor has been sacrificed to that of
the rich. As far as my investigations extend, the wages of the English labourer are
higher than those of any labourer. He has no landed property, because it is more
profitable to him to work for another than to cultivate; but this depends on the same
ground which makes it more profitable to work for a cotton manufacturer than to
make stockings for his own use. It is a part of the division of labour, of which la
grande culture is only an instance (Correspondence and Conversations of Alexis de
Tocqueville and Nassau William Senior, London: Henry S. King & Co., 1872, I, pp. 4–
5).
Tocqueville replied:
It seems to me that you give to the expression le bien du pauvre a confined sense that
was not mine: you translate it wealth, a word especially applied to money. I meant
by it all that contributes to happiness: personal consideration, political right, easy
justice, intellectual enjoyments, and many other indirect sources of contentment. I
shall believe, till I have proof of the contrary, that in England the rich have gradually
monopolized almost all the advantages that society bestows upon mankind. Taking
the question in your own restricted sense, and admitting that a poor man is better
paid when he works on another man’s land than when he cultivates his own, do you
not think that there are political, moral, and intellectual advantages, which are a more
than sufficient and, above all, a permanent compensation for the loss that you point
out? (letter of 21 February 1835, ibid., p. 7).
He replied in slightly different terms to Basil Hall, officer in the English navy and author
of the controversial work on the United States Travels in North America in the Years 1827
and 1828:
You reproach me for having said that the interests of the poor were sacrificed in England
to those of the rich. I confess that this thought, exposed in so few words, thrown out
in passing, without commentary, naturally tends to present a meaning much more
absolute than what I intended to give it, and my intention has always been to modify
rights of the greatest number to the privileges of a few. Therefore, within

England today all the greatest extremes of fortune are present together, and
miseries are found there that nearly equal its power and glory.k
In the United States, where public officials have no class interest to
insist upon, the general and continuous course of government is benefi-
cial, even though those who govern are often lacking in skill and some-
times contemptible.
So there is, at the heart of democratic institutions, a hidden tendency
that often makes men work toward the general prosperity, despite their vices
or errors, while in aristocratic institutions a secret inclination is sometimes
uncovered that, despite talents and virtues, carries them toward contrib-
uting to the miseries of their fellows. In this way, in aristocratic govern-
ments, public men can do evil without wanting to do so, and in democ-
racies, they can produce good without thinking to do so.m
it when I would be able to revise my work. What I principally wanted to say is that
England is a country where wealth is the necessary preliminary to a multitude of things
that elsewhere can be obtained without it. So that in England there is a multitude of
careers that are much more closed to the poor than they are in several other countries.
This would still require a great number of explanations to be well understood. I am
obliged to postpone them until the moment when I will have the pleasure of seeing
you again. Château de Baugy, 19 June 1836. With the kind permission of the library
of Princeton University (General Manuscripts [MISC] Collection, Manuscripts Di-
vision, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections). See note d for pp. 819–
21 of volume II.
k. In the manuscript: “Thus England today has reached a level of misery that nearly
equals its power . . .”
Hervé de Tocqueville: “The word England presents too absolute an idea that reason
immediately contests. I believe that it would be necessary to put: the lower class in England
has reached, etc.” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 95).
m. The world is a book entirely closed to man.
So there is at the heart of democratic institutions a hidden tendency that carries
men toward the good [v: to work toward general prosperity] despite their vices and
errors; while in aristocratic institutions a secret inclination is sometimes uncovered
that, despite talents and virtues, leads them to contribute to the miseries of the great-
est number of their fellows.
If a hidden force independent of men did not exist in democratic institutions, it
would be impossible to explain satisfactorily the peace and prosperity that reign
within certain democracies (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 76).
[If it were not so, who could understand what happens among men?
We would see some peoples enjoy a greater mass of well-being and
prosperity than other peoples and, when we came to examine the detail
of their government, we would find something to correct in each of its
actions.
Other peoples would have something more than the usual state of hu-
man miseries as their share, and their public affairs would seem wisely
conducted.
So is prosperity in the world the reward of error and folly; are miseries
the recompense for skill and wisdom?/
This involuntary obedience of man to his own laws seems to me one of
the great miseries of our nature.
Who could say within what narrow limits what we call our free will is
exercised? Man obeys first causes of which he is unaware, secondary causes
that he cannot foresee, a thousand caprices of his fellows; in the end, he
puts himself in chains and binds himself forever to the fragile work of his
hands.]n
Of Public Spirit in the United States o

Instinctive love of country.—Thoughtful patriotism.—Their
different characters.—That peoples must tend with all their
might toward the second when the first disappears.—Efforts that
the Americans have made to succeed in doing so.—The interest of
the individual intimately bound to that of the country.
There exists a love of country that has its source principally in the unthink-
ing, disinterested and indefinable sentiment that binds the heart of the man
to the places where the man was born. This instinctive love is mingled with
n. In the first chapter of the Social Contract, Rousseau asserts that if man is born free,
he finds himself everywhere in chains. The image is customary at that time.
o. To the side: “{Mr. Parier [?(ed.)] will leave blank what I} enclosed in lines.” (It
probably involves the copyist of the manuscript. Here and there fragments in his hand
are found in the manuscript.)
the taste for ancient customs, with respect for ancestors, and the memory
of the past; those who experience it cherish their country as one loves the
paternal home. They love the tranquillity that they enjoy there; they are
fond of the peaceful habits that they contracted there; they are attached to
the memories that it offers, and even find some sweet pleasure in living there
in obedience. Often this love of country is intensified even more by reli-
gious zeal, and then you see it accomplish miracles. It is itself a kind of
religion; it does not reason, it believes; it feels; it acts. Some peoples have
been found who have, in some way, personified the country and have caught
sight of it in the prince. So they have transferred to him a part of the sen-
timents that compose patriotism; they have boasted about his triumphs and
have been proud of his power. There was a time, under the old monarchy,
when the French felt a sort of joy in feeling themselves given, without re-
course, to the arbitrariness of the monarch, and said with pride: “We live
under the most powerful king in the world.”p
Like all unthinking passions, this love of country encourages great ep-
isodic efforts rather than continuity of efforts. After saving the State in
time of crisis, it often leaves it to decline amid peace. [⫽This love of coun-
try is found in the cradle of societies; it presides during the early ages of
peoples.⫽]
When peoples are still simple in their mores and firm in their beliefs;
when society rests gently upon an old order of things, whose legitimacy is
uncontested, you see this instinctive love of country reign.q
There is another love of country more rational than that one; less gen-
erous, less ardent perhaps, but more fruitful and more durable; this one
arises from enlightenment; it develops with the help of laws; it grows with
the exercise of rights; and it ends up merging, in a way, with personal in-
terest. A man understands the influence that the well-being of the country
has on his own; he knows that the law allows him to contribute to bringing
p. Hervé de Tocqueville: “All of this piece is charming; nonetheless the words caught
sight of are not good” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 95).
q. “If God had granted me the power to change societies at will, and if I found along
my way a people who had remained in this state, I would hesitate a long time, I admit,
before trying to draw them out of that state” (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 5).
this well-being into being, and he interests himself in the prosperity of his
country, first as something useful to him and then as his work.
But sometimes, in the life of peoples, a moment occurs when ancient
customs are changed, mores destroyed, beliefs shaken, the prestige of mem-
ories has vanished, yet when enlightenment has remained incomplete and
political rights poorly guaranteed or limited. Then men no longer see the
country except in a weak and doubtful light; they no longer locate it either
in the soil, which in their eyes has become an inanimate land, or in the
customs of their ancestors, which they have been taught to regard as a bur-
den; or in religion, which they doubt; or in the laws, which they do not
make, or in the legislator, whom they fear and scorn. So they see it nowhere,
not under its own features any more than under any other, and they with-
draw into a narrow and unenlightened egoism. These men escape preju-
dices without recognizing the empire of reason; they have neither the in-
stinctive patriotism of monarchy, nor the thoughtful patriotism of the
republic; but they have stopped between the two, in the middle of con-
fusion and misery.
What is to be done in such a state? Go back. But peoples do not return
to the sentiments of their youth any more than men to the innocent tastes
of early years; they can regret them, but not make them come again. So it
is necessary to move ahead and hasten to unite, in the eyes of the people,
individual interest and the interest of the country, for disinterested love of
country flies away never to return.r
r. I see in Europe an innumerable multitude that finds itself entirely excluded from
the administration of its country. I think at first that these men, seeing themselves
reduced to such a state [v: bondage] are going to become indignant, but no, they
rejoice in it.
For my part, what I most reproach despotism for are not its rigors. I would pardon
it for tormenting men if it did not corrupt them. Despotism creates in the soul of
those who are subjected to it a blind passion for tranquillity, a kind of depraved taste
for obedience, a sort of inconceivable self-contempt that ends up making them in-
different to their interests and enemies of their own rights.
Then they wrongly persuade themselves that by losing in this way all the privileges
of civilized man, they escape all his burdens and evade all his duties. So they feel free
and count in society like a lackey [v: valet] in the house of his master; and think that
they have only to eat the bread that is left for them, without concerning themselves
about the cares of the harvest.
I am surely far from claiming that to reach this result we must suddenly
grant the exercise of political rights to all men; but I say that the most
powerful means, and perhaps the only one remaining to us, to interest men
in the fate of their country, is to make them participate in its government.
Today, civic spirit seems to me inseparable from the exercise of political
rights; and I think that from now on, we will see the number of citizens in
Europe increase or decrease in proportion to the extension of these rights.
How is it that in the United States, where the inhabitants arrived yes-
terday on the soil that they occupy, where they brought neither customs,
nor memories; where they meet for the first time without knowing each
other; where, to put it in a word, the instinct for native land can hardly
exist; how is it that each person is involved in the affairs of his town, of his
district, and of the entire State as his very own? Because each person, in his
sphere, takes an active part in the government of society.
The common man in the United States has understood the influence
that general prosperity exercises over his own happiness, an idea so simple
and yet so little known by the people. He has, moreover, become accus-
tomed to regarding this prosperity as his work. So, in public fortune, he
sees his own, and he works for the good of the State, not only by duty or
by pride, but I would almost dare to say by cupidity.
When a man has reached this point, I will call him, if you want, a peaceful in-
habitant, an honest settler, a good family man. I am ready for everything, provided
that you do not force me to give him the name of citizen.
I am surely far from claiming that the exercise of political rights can be suddenly
granted to all men. But I say that civic spirit is nearly inseparable from the exercise
of political rights. So the number of citizens always increases or decreases in a coun-
try in proportion to the extension of these rights, and where the exercise can be
granted to all, the development of civic spirit is nearly without limits (YTC, CVh,
1, pp. 2–4).
A note dated 1840, when Tocqueville was a deputy and was occupied in the Chamber
with the electoral issue, specified, however: “As for electoral reform, here is my sentiment.
The mode of election: I absolutely refuse all lowering of the electoral qualification or
equivalent additions.—I do not want a more radical election law, but a more moral
one—an electoral system that makes corruption by patronage more difficult—1840.”
Note reproduced in Pierre Roland-Marcel, Essai politique sur Alexis de Tocqueville, Paris:
Félix Alcan, 1910, p. 211.
[He values his rights as a citizen as his rights as a proprietor, and he takes
an interest in the State as in his cottage or in the field that his labors have
made fruitful.]
It is not necessary to study the institutions and the history of the Amer-
icans to know the truth of the preceding; the mores alert you to it well
enough. The American, taking part in all that is happening in this country,
believes it is in his interest to defend all that you criticize there; for it is not
only his country that you then attack, it is himself. Consequently, you see
his national pride resort to all the artifices and descend to all the puerilities
of individual vanity.
[An American in his country resembles a lover of gardens on his grounds.
Don’t you admire this rock? Is there anything more graceful than the con-
tour of this stream? Aren’t these trees planted well and to good effect?
Whatever you say, do not hope to satisfy him. The reason is simple. You
admire what is good, and he admires his work.]
There is nothing more annoying in the experience of life than this ir-
ritable patriotism of the Americans. The foreigner would gladly agree to
praise a great deal in their country; but he would want them to allow him
to find fault with something, and that is what they absolutely refuse.
So America is a country of liberty, where, to hurt no one, the foreigner
must not speak freely about individuals, nor the State, nor the governed,
nor those who govern, nor public enterprises, nor private enterprises, about
nothing in fact that you find there, except perhaps for climate and soil; even
then you find some Americans ready to defend the one and the other as if
they had taken part in their formation.s
Today it is necessary to know how to make up your mind and dare to
s. American patriotism is already mentioned in the first letter that Tocqueville sent
to his family during his voyage to the United States: “These people seem to me to stink
of national pride; it pokes through all of their politeness” (Letter to his mother, 26 April
1831, YTC, BIa2; this sentence does not appear in the edition of Tocqueville’s works
done by Beaumont). Beaumont, on his side, writes in his novel: “The writers, in the
United States, who want to find readers are obliged to praise all that belongs to the
Americans, even their rigorous climate, about which they can assuredly change nothing.
In this way, Washington Irving, despite all of his intelligence, believes himself forced to
admire the temperate heat of the summers and the mildness of the winters in North
America” (Marie, I, pp. 360–61).
choose between the patriotism of all and the government of a few, for you
cannot at the same time combine the social strength and activity given by
the first with the guarantees of tranquillity sometimes provided by the
second.
Of the Idea of Rights in the United States

There are no great peoples without the idea of rights.—What is
the way to give the people the idea of rights.—Respect for rights
in the United States.—What gives rise to it.
After the general idea of virtue, I do not know any more beautiful than that
of rights, or rather, these two ideas merge. The idea of rights is nothing
more than the idea of virtue introduced into the political world.
With the idea of rights, men have defined what license and tyranny were.
Enlightened by it, each person has been able to show himself independent
without arrogance and submissive without servility. The man who obeys
violence yields and abases himself; but when he submits to the right of
command that he acknowledges in his fellow, he rises, in a way, above even
the one commanding him. There are no great men without virtue; without
respect for rights, there is no great people. You can almost say that there is
no society; for what is a gathering of rational and intelligent beings bound
together only by force?t
t. In the world there are two kinds of respect for rights that must not be confused;
one, unthinking, arises from custom and grows stronger in ignorance. What for a
long time has been powerful and strong is respected, and the right to command is
judged by the fact of command. This respect for rights only guarantees the existence
of the strong, not that of the weak. Where it reigns, there is tranquillity, but there
is no liberty; neither prosperity nor independence is found.
Authority based on this instinctive respect for (illegible word) [v: {for rights}] is
absolute as long as no one contests its right; the day it is disputed, it is reduced almost
to nothing.
There is another kind of respect for rights. The latter is reciprocal and guarantees
the privileges of the subject as well as those of the prince. This respect for rights was
based on reason and experience. Once it reigns in society, it is very difficult to
destroy it.
I wonder what way there is today to inculcate men with the idea of rights
and to make it apparent to their senses, so to speak; and I only see a single
one; it is to give all of them the peaceful exercise of certain rights. You see
that clearly with children, who are men, except for strength and experience.
When a child begins to move among external objects, instinct leads him to
put everything that comes within reach to his own use; he has no idea of
the property of others, not even that of existence; but as he is informed
about the cost of things and as he discovers that things can, in turn, be
taken from him, he becomes more circumspect and ends by respecting in
his fellows what he wants them to respect in him.
What happens to the child concerning toys, happens later to the man
concerning all the objects belonging to him. Why in America, country of
democracy par excellence, does no one raise against property in general the
complaints that often resound in Europe? Is it necessary to say? In America
there are no proletarians. Each person, having an individual possession to
defend, recognizes in principle the right of property.
In the political world, it is the same. In America the common man has
conceived a high idea of political rights, because he has political rights; he
does not attack the rights of others, so that no one violates his. And while
in Europe this same man has no regard even for the sovereign authority,
the American submits without murmuring to the power of the least of his
magistrates.
This truth appears even in the smallest details of the existence of peoples.
In France, there are few pleasures exclusively reserved for the upper classes
of society; the poor man is admitted almost everywhere the rich man is able
[In the margin: The one is a sentiment rather than an idea. The other is based on
an idea rather than on a sentiment. The one is instinctive; the other is rational.]
But there are centuries when peoples, having lost the habit of respecting what they
do not know, still have not learned to know what they must respect. Then peoples
are tormented by a profound illness, tossing and turning without rest, like a sick man
stretched out aboard ship on his unsteady sickbed; there are even some who perish
during this transition [from (ed.)] custom to reason.
[In the margin: You could more easily turn a river back upon its source than make
this instinctive respect for rights reappear.]
I wonder what the way is . . . (YTC, CVh, 3, pp. 11–13).
to enter. Consequently you see him conduct himself with decency and re-
spect all that is useful for the enjoyments that he shares. In England, where
wealth has the privilege of pleasure, like the monopoly of power, the com-
plaint is that when the poor man succeeds in getting furtively into the place
destined for the pleasures of the rich man, he loves to cause pointless dam-
age. Why be astonished by this? Care has been taken so that he has nothing
to lose.
The government of democracy makes the idea of political rights descend
to the least of citizens, as the division of property puts the idea of the right
of property in general within reach of all men. That is one of its greatest
merits in my view.
I am not saying that it is an easy thing to teach all men to use political
rights; I am only saying that, when it is possible, the effects that result are
great.
And I add that if there is a century when such an enterprise must be
attempted, that century is our own.
Don’t you see that religions are growing weaker and that the divine no-
tion of rights is disappearing? Don’t you find that mores are becoming
corrupted and that, with them, the moral notion of rights is fading away?
Don’t you see, on all sides, beliefs giving way to reasoning, and senti-
ments, to calculation? If, in the midst of this universal disturbance, you do
not succeed in linking the idea of rights to personal interest, which offers
itself as the only fixed point in the human heart, what will you have left
for governing the world, if not fear?u
u. It is because I see the rights of governments disputed, that I think it necessary to

hasten to give rights to those governed.
It is because I see democracy triumphing, that I want to regulate democracy.
[In the margin: If morality was strong enough by itself, I would not regard it as
so important to rely on what is useful.
If the idea of what is just was more powerful, I would not speak so much about
the idea of what is useful.]
You say to me that, since morality has become lax, new rights will be new items
for the passions of today; that since governments are already weak, new rights will
give new weapons to their enemies to use against them; that democracy is already too
strong in society without further introducing it into government.
So when you say to me that laws are weak, and the governed, turbulent;
that passions are intense, and virtue, powerless, and that in this situation
you must not think about increasing the rights of democracy, I answer that,
because of these very things, I believe you must think about it; and in truth,
I think that governments have still more interest in it than society does, for
governments perish, and society cannot die.v However, I do not want to
abuse the example of America.
In America, the people were vested with political rights in a period when
it was difficult for them to make poor use of those rights, because the cit-
izens were few and had simple mores. While growing, the Americans have
not increased the powers of democracy; rather they have extended its
sphere. [That is an invaluable advantage.]
It cannot be doubted that the moment when political rights are granted
to a people who have, until then, been deprived of them is a moment of
crisis, a crisis often necessary, but always dangerous.
The child inflicts death when he is unaware of the value of life; he takes
property from others before knowing that someone can rob him of his.
The common man, at the moment when he is granted political rights, finds
himself, in relation to his rights, in the same position as the child vis-à-vis
all of nature. In this case the celebrated phrase [of Hobbes] applies to him:
Homo puer robustus.w
I will answer that it is because I see that morality is weak that I want to put it under
the safeguard of interest; it is because I see governments impotent that I would like
to accustom the governed to respecting them; it is [broken text (ed.)] (YTC, CVh,
4, p. 30).
v. To the side: “⫽I am not saying that political rights must be granted as of today to
the universality of citizens; I am saying the unlimited extension of rights is the end
toward which you must always tend.⫽”
w. Tocqueville cites De Cive (see the critical edition of Howard Warrender, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1983, p. 33), but what precedes the citation is more similar to Discours
sur l’origine de l’inégalité (Oeuvres complètes, Paris: Pléiade, 1964, III, pp. 153–54), in
which Rousseau, who cites the same fragment, reproaches Hobbes for not knowing that
ethical values are born with society and are not a product preceding society. Tocqueville
pointed out in this same part of the chapter that a society cannot survive if its only bond
is force and its only government, fear; on this point, this also makes him closer to Rous-
seau than to Hobbes. This proximity of ideas must not hide divergences on the concept
of rights, which has scarcely any place in the theory of Rousseau.
This truth is even revealed in America. The states in which citizens have
enjoyed their rights for the longest time are those in which the citizens know
best how to make use of their rights.
It cannot be said too much. There is nothing more fruitful in wonders
than the art of being free; but there is nothing harder than apprenticeship
in liberty. It is not the same with despotism. Despotism often presents itself
as the repairer of all the misfortunes suffered; it is the support of legitimate
rights, the upholder of the oppressed, and the founder of order. Peoples
fall asleep amid the temporary prosperity that it brings forth; and when
they awaken, they are miserable. Liberty, in contrast, is usually born amid
storms; it is established painfully in the midst of civil discord, and only
when it is already old can its benefits be known.
Of the Respect for the Law in the United States x

Respect of the Americans for the law.—Paternal love that
they feel for it.—Personal interest that each one finds in
increasing the power of the law.
It is not always possible to call the whole people, either directly or indirectly,
to the making of the law; but it cannot be denied that, when it is practicable,
the law thereby acquires a great authority. This popular origin, which often
harms the goodness and wisdom of the legislation, contributes singularly
to its power.y
In the expression of the will of an entire people, there is a prodigious
strength. When it comes clearly to light, even the imagination of those who
would like to fight against it is as though overwhelmed.
x. Title in the manuscript: of the point of view from which the people
consider the law in the united states.
y. In the margin: “⫽There are two types of moral force:
“The one because the law conforms to justice and to reason.
“The other because it conforms to the will of the greatest number./
“The law draws its moral force from two sources.
“The one is reason; the other is the consent of the greatest number.⫽”
The truth of this is well known by parties.

Consequently, you see them contest the majority wherever they can.
When they lack the majority of those who voted, they place it among
those who have abstained from voting; and when, even there, the ma-
jority escapes them, they find it among those who do not have the right
to vote.
In the United States, except for slaves, servants, and the poor provided
for by the towns, there is no one who is not a voter and who, as such, does
not indirectly contribute to the law. So those who want to attack the laws
are reduced to doing conspicuously one of two things; they must either
change the opinion of the nation, or trample its will underfoot.
Add to this first reason another more direct and more powerful, that in
the United States each person finds a kind of personal interest in having
everyone obey the laws; for the one who is not part of the majority today
will perhaps be among its ranks tomorrow; and this respect that he now
professes for the will of the legislator, he will soon have the occasion to
demand for his own will. So, however annoying the law, the inhabitant of
the United States submits without trouble, not only as a work of the great-
est number, but also as his own; he considers it from the point of view of
a contract to which he would have been a party.
So in the United States, you do not see a numerous and always turbulent
crowd who, seeing the law as a natural enemy, only looks upon it with fear
and suspicion. On the contrary, it is impossible not to see that all classes
show a great confidence in the legislation that governs the country and feel
a kind of paternal love for it.
I am wrong in saying all classes. In America, since the European scale of
powers is reversed, the rich find themselves in a position analogous to that
of the poor in Europe; they are the ones who often distrust the law. I have
said it elsewhere: the real advantage of democratic government is not to
guarantee the interests of all, as has sometimes been claimed, but only to
protect those of the greatest number. In the United States, where the poor
man governs, the rich have always to fear that he will abuse his power against
them.
This disposition of the mind of the rich can produce a muted discon-
tent; but society is not violently troubled by it; for the same reason that
prevents the rich man from giving his confidence to the legislator prevents
him from defying his commands. He does not make the law, because he is
rich; and he does not dare to violate it, because of his wealth. In general,
among civilized nations, only those who have nothing to lose revolt. There-
fore, if the laws of democracy are not always respectable, they are nearly
always respected; for those who generally violate the laws cannot fail to obey
the laws that they have made and from which they profit, and the citizens
who could have an interest in breaking them are led by character and by
position to submit to whatever the will of the legislator is. Moreover, the
people, in America, not only obey the law because it is their work, but also
because they can change it when by chance it injures them; they submit to
it first as an evil that they imposed on themselves, and then as a temporary
evil.
Activity That Reigns in All Parts of the

Political Body in the United States;
Influence That It Exercises on Society
It is more difficult to imagine the political activity that reigns in
the United States than the liberty or equality that is found
there.—The great movement that constantly agitates the
legislatures is only an episode, a prolongation of this universal
movement.—Difficulty that the American has occupying himself
only with his own affairs.—Political agitation spreads into civil
society.—Industrial activity of the Americans coming in part
from this cause.—Indirect advantages that society gains from the
government of democracy.
When you pass from a free country into another that is not, you are struck
by a very extraordinary spectacle: there, everything is activity and move-
ment; here, everything seems calm and immobile. In the one, the only ques-
tion is improvement and progress; you would say that society, in the other,
having gained all good things, aspires only to rest in order to enjoy them.
The country that gets so worked up to be happy is, however, generally richer
and more prosperous than the one that seems so satisfied with its lot. And
in considering the one and the other, you have difficulty imagining how so
many new needs make themselves felt each day in the first, while so few
seem to be experienced in the second.z
If this remark is applicable to free countries that have retained monar-
chical form and to those in which aristocracy dominates, it is very much
more applicable to democratic republics. There, it is no longer a portion
of the people that sets out to improve the state of society; the whole people
take charge of this concern. It is a matter of providing for the needs and
conveniences not only of a class, but of all classes at the same time.a
It is not impossible to imagine the immense liberty that the Americans
enjoy. You can also have an idea of their extreme equality, but what you
cannot understand, without having already witnessed it, is the political ac-
tivity that reigns in the United States.
Scarcely have you landed on American soil than you find yourself in the
middle of a sort of tumult; a confused clamor arises on all sides; a thousand
voices reach your ear at the same time; each one expresses various social
needs. Around you, everything stirs: here, the people of a neighborhood
have gathered to know if a church should be built; there, some are working
on choosing a representative; farther along, the deputies of a district go as
fast as they can to the city, in order to see to certain local improvements;
in another place, it is the farmers of the village who abandon their fields to
go to discuss the plan of a road or of a school. Some citizens assemble for
the sole purpose of declaring that [{freemasonry menaces the security of
the State}] they disapprove of the government’s course; while others gather
z. In the margin: “<⫽What is even much more surprising is that often [v: sometimes]
the people who do nothing to improve their lot, find themselves as satisfied with their
destiny as the people who stir themselves to make theirs better. The second wonders that
one can be so happy in the midst of so much misery; and the first, that one can go to so
much trouble to become happy.⫽>”
a. In the margin: “⫽A European would be very unhappy if you forced him to pursue
well-being with so much effort.
“It is difficult to believe that men are happy when they make so much effort to become
happier.
“It is the story of the rich tradesman who dies of boredom when he is forced to
abandon his business.⫽”
to proclaim that the men in office are the fathers of the country. Here are
still others who, seeing drunkenness as the principal source of the evils of
the State, come to pledge solemnly to give an example of temperance.1
The great political movement that constantly agitates American legis-
latures, the only one that is noticed outside, is only an episode and a sort
of prolongation of the universal movement that begins in the lowest ranks
of the people and then reaches, one by one, all classes of citizens. You can-
not work harder to be happy.
It is difficult to say what place political concerns occupy in the life of
a man in the United States. To get involved in the government of society
and to talk about it, that is the greatest business and, so to speak, the only
pleasure that an American knows. This is seen even in the smallest habits
of his life; women themselves often go to public assemblies and, by lis-
tening to political speeches, relax from household cares. For them, clubs
replace theatrical entertainments to a certain point. An American does not
know how to converse, but he discusses; he does not discourse, but he
holds forth. He always speaks to you as to an assembly; and if he happens
by chance to get excited, he will say: Gentlemen, while addressing his
interlocutor.
In certain countries, the inhabitant accepts only with a kind of re-
pugnance the political rights that the law grants him; dealing with
common interests seems to rob him of his time, and he loves to enclose
himself within a narrow egoism exactly limited by four ditches topped by
hedges.
In contrast, from the moment when the American would be reduced to
attending only to his own affairs, half of his existence would be taken away
1. Temperance societies b are associations whose members pledge to abstain from strong
liquor. At the time of my visit to the United States, temperance societies already counted more
than 270,000 members, and their effect had been to diminish, in the state of Pennsylvania
alone, the consumption of strong liquors by 500,000 gallons annually.
b. See chapter V of this part (p. 365) and Écrits sur le système pénitentiaire en France
et à l’étranger (OC, IV, 1), pp. 327–28, appendix VII of Système pénitentiaire.
from him; he would feel an immense emptiness in his days, and he would
become unbelievably unhappy.2
I am persuaded that if despotism ever succeeds in becoming established
in America, it will have even more difficulties overcoming the habits that
liberty has engendered than surmounting the love of liberty itself.
This constantly recurring agitation that the government of democracy
has introduced into the political world passes afterward into civil society.
Everything considered, I do not know if that is not the greatest advantage
of democratic government, and I praise it much more for what it causes to
be done than for what it does.
Incontestably the people often direct public affairs very badly; but the
people cannot get involved in public affairs without having the circle of
their ideas expand, and without seeing their minds emerge from their or-
dinary routine. The common man who is called to the government of so-
ciety conceives a certain esteem for himself. Since he is then a power, very
enlightened minds put themselves in the service of his. People speak to him
constantly in order to gain his support, and by seeking to deceive him in a
thousand different ways, they enlighten him. In politics, he takes part in
enterprises that he did not conceive, but that give him a general taste for
enterprises. Every day new improvements to make to common property
are pointed out to him, and he feels the desire to improve his personal prop-
erty arise. Perhaps he is neither more virtuous nor more happy, but he is
more enlightened and more active than his predecessors. I do not doubt
that democratic institutions, joined with the physical nature of the country,
are the cause, not direct, as so many people say, but indirect of the prodi-
gious movement of industry that is noticed in the United States. It is not
the laws that give birth to it, but the people learn to produce it by making
the law.d
2. The same fact was already observed in Rome under the first Caesars.
Montesquieu remarks somewhere c that nothing equaled the despair of certain Roman
citizens who, after the agitations of a political existence, returned suddenly to the calm of
private life.
c. Probably in Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur déca-
dence, chapter XI, in Œuvres complètes, Paris: Pléiade, 1951, II, p. 131.
d. In the margin: “⫽Superiority of the strength of the people which is worth more
When the enemies of democracy claim that one man does what he un-
dertakes better than the government of all, it seems to me that they are
right. The government of one man, supposing equality of enlightenment
on both sides, brings more consistency to its enterprises than that of the
multitude; it shows more perseverance, more of an idea of the whole, more
perfection in details, a more correct discernment in the choice of men. [{So
a republic is not administered as well as a monarchy, supposing equality of
enlightenment on both sides.}] Those who deny these things have never
seen a democratic republic, or have judged only on a small number of ex-
amples. Democracy, even when local circumstances and the dispositions of
the people allow it to persist, does not offer the sight of administrative
regularity and methodical order in government; that is true. Democratic
liberty does not execute each of its enterprises with the same perfection as
intelligent despotism; often it abandons them before gaining the fruit, or
chances dangerous ones; but in the long run it produces more than des-
potism; it does not do each thing as well, but it does more things. Under
its dominion, it is, above all, not what the public administration executes
that is great, but what is executed without it and outside of it. Democracy
does not give the people the most skillful government, but it does what the
most skillful government is often impotent to create; it spreadse throughout
the social body a restless activity, a superabundant force, an energy that
never exists without it and that, if only circumstances are favorable, can
bring forth wonders. Those are its true advantages.
In this century, when the destinies of the Christian world appear to be
in suspense, some hasten to attack democracy like a powerful enemy, while
it is still growing; others already adore it as a new god coming out of noth-
ingness; but both know only imperfectly the object of their hate or their
desire; they fight in the shadows and strike only at random.
than the government. It is difficult to make the people listen to reason, but when they
hear it, they advance toward reason with a much stronger step and with a much more
powerful effort. Criminal investigation in America. Smuggling.⫽”
e. The manuscript adds: “in a way unknowingly.”
What do you ask of society and its government? We must understand

one another.
Do you want to give the human spirit a certain nobility, a generous fash-
ion of envisioning the things of this world? Do you want to inspire in men
a sort of contempt for material goods? Do you desire to bring about or to
maintain profound convictions and prepare great devotions?
Is it a matter for you of polishing mores, of elevating manners, of mak-
ing the arts shine? Do you want poetry, fame, and glory?
Do you claim to organize a people in a way to act strongly on all others?
Do you intend it to attempt great undertakings, and, whatever the result
of its efforts, to leave an immense trace in history?
If such, in your view, is the principal object that men must propose for
themselves in society, do not opt for the government of democracy; it
would not lead you surely to the goal.
But if it seems useful to you to divert the intellectual and moral activity
of man toward the necessities of material life, and to use it to produce well-
being; if reason appears to you more profitable to men than genius; if your
object is not to create heroic virtues, but peaceful habits; if you like to see
vices more than crimes, and prefer to find fewer great actions, on the con-
dition of encountering fewer cases of heinous crimes; if, instead of acting
within the bosom of a brilliant society, it is enough for you to live in the
midst of a prosperous society; if, finally, in your view, the principal object
of a government is not to give the entire body of the nation the most
strength or the most glory possible, but to provide for each of the individ-
uals that make up the society the most well-being and to avoid the most
misery; then equalize conditions and constitute the government of
democracy.f
If there is no more time to make a choice, and a force superior to men
is already carrying you, without consulting your desires, toward one of
f. See appendix V of this edition, particularly pp. 1369–71.

these two governments, seek at least to derive from it all the good that it
can do; and knowing its good instincts, as well as its bad inclinations, en-
deavor to limit the effect of the second and to develop the first.g
g. Note in the manuscript at the end of the chapter: “⫽Perhaps, in place of these
generalities, it would be better to develop this single idea that if the government of
democracy is not favorable to the first part of the picture, it has the advantage of serving
the well-being of the greatest number.
“Perhaps put all this at the end of the advantages of democracy like a kind of
summary.⫽”
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 7
Of the Omnipotence of the Majority in the
United States and Its Effects a
a. Hervé de Tocqueville:
Before beginning the notes on this chapter, I want to make two general reflections:
1. Isn’t there a kind of contradiction between this chapter and the last paragraph
of page 3 of the second volume, where the author expresses himself this way: “In the
United States, as in all countries where the people rule, the majority governs in the
name of the people. This majority is composed principally of a mass of men who,
either by taste or by interest, sincerely desire the good of the country; agitating around
this quite peaceful mass, parties work to draw it toward them and gain its support”?
2. I do not know if this chapter is well placed in the book. In one of the preceding
chapters, entitled Of the Right of Association, the author says, p. 67: “In our time, the
right of association has become a guarantee against the tyranny of the majority.”
The logical order of ideas demands that the disadvantages be cited before the rem-
edy. I observe, moreover, that the author must revise the sentence I have just tran-
scribed and make it less absolute, if he does not want it to harm singularly the effect
of the chapter on omnipotence (YTC, CIIIb, 1, pp. 81–83).
It seems that the idea of the tyranny of the majority is mentioned for the first time
on the occasion of a conversation with Sparks, 29 September 1831 (non-alphabetic note-
books 1 and 2, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 96). John Stuart Mill, following
Tocqueville, will take up this expression again and use it in his famous essay On Liberty.
Nonetheless, as Joseph Hamburger points out (“Mill and Tocqueville on Liberty,” in
John M. Robson and M. Laine, eds., James and John Stuart Mill. Papers of the Centenary
Conference, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976, pp. 111–25), if Mill uses the
term, the consequences he derives from it are quite far removed from those of Tocque-
ville. H. O. Pappe as well is skeptical about the possible influence of Tocqueville on Mill
(“Mill and Tocqueville,” Journal of the History of Ideas 25, no. 2 (1964): 217–44).
Ludovic, the protagonist in Marie, also insists on the sway of opinion in America (I,
pp. 165, 172–74, and 203).
402
the omnipotence of the majority 403
Natural strength of the majority in democracies.—Most of the

American constitutions have artificially increased this natural
strength.—How.—Binding mandates.—Moral dominion of the
majority.—Opinion about its infallibility.—Respect for its
rights.—What augments it in the United States.
The very essence of democratic governments is that the dominion of the

majority be absolute; for, in democracies, nothing outside of the majority
can offer resistance.
Most of the American constitutions have also sought to augment this
natural strength of the majority artificially.1
Of all political powers, the legislature is the one that most willingly obeys
the majority. The Americans have wanted the members of the legislature
to be named directly by the people, and for a very short term, in order to
force them to submit not only to the general views, but also to the daily
passions of their constituents.
They have taken the members of the two houses from the same classes
and named them in the same way; in this way, the movements of the leg-
islative body are almost as rapid and no less irresistible than those of a single
assembly.c
1. We have seen, at the time of the examination of the federal Constitution, that the law-
makers of the Union made contrary efforts.b The result of these efforts was to make the federal
government more independent in its sphere than the government of the states. But the federal
government is scarcely in charge of anything except foreign affairs; the state governments really
run American society.
b. ⫽So in democratic republics the majority forms a true power. And after it, the
body that represents it. The political body that best represents the majority is the
legislature. To augment the prerogatives of this body is to augment the power of the
majority.
Nonetheless, this power of the majority can be moderated in its exercise by the
efforts of the law-maker. The authors of the federal Constitution worked in this
direction. They sought to hinder the march of the majority. In the individual states,
one tried hard, in contrast, to make the march of the majority more rapid and more
irresistible⫽ (YTC, CVh, 5, p. 14).
c. Hervé de Tocqueville: “If this is so, we do not see clearly why the American con-
stitutions created two houses; it is probable that there is something too absolute in the
author’s phrasing” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 83).
404 the omnipotence of the majority
Within the legislature thus constituted, the Americans gathered together

nearly the entire government.
At the same time that the law increased the strength of powers that were
naturally strong, it weakened more and more those that were naturally
weak. It gave to the representatives of the executive power neither stability
nor independence; and, by subjecting them completely to the caprices of
the legislature, it took from them the little influence that the nature of
democratic government would have allowed them to exercise.d
In several states, the law delivered the judicial power to election by the
majority; and in all, it made the existence of the judicial power dependent,
in a way, on the legislative power, by leaving to the representatives the right
to fix the salaries of judges annually.e
Customs have gone still further than the laws.
In the United States, a custom is spreading more and more that will end
by making the guarantees of representative government empty; it happens
very frequently that the voters, while naming a deputy, trace a plan of con-
duct for him and impose on him a certain number of definite obligations
from which he cannot deviate in any way. Except for the tumult, it is as if
the majority itself deliberated in the public square.
Several particular circumstances in America also tend to make the power
of the majority not only predominant, but irresistible.
The moral dominion of the majority is based in part on the idea that
there is more enlightenment and wisdom in many men combined than in
one man alone, more in the number than in the choice of legislators. It is
the theory of equality applied to minds. This doctrine attacks the pride of
d. “In America executive power is nothing and can do nothing. The entire strength
of government is entrusted to society itself, organized under the most democratic form
that has ever existed. In America all danger comes from the people; it is never born
outside” (YTC, CVh, 5, p. 21).
e. “Importance of the judicial power as barrier to democracy, its weakness. See Fed-
eralist, p. 332 [No. 78 (ed.)].
“In most states, judges are dependent upon the legislature for their salaries; in several,
elected by the legislature or by the people. Growing causes of tyranny” (YTC, CVe,
p. 64). Cf. conversations with Mr. Storer, Spencer, and Judge MacLean (non-alphabetic
notebooks 1, 2 and 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 69, 124 and 127).
man in its last refuge. Consequently the minority admits it with difficulty
and gets used to it only with time. Like all powers, and perhaps more than
any other, the power of the majority thus needs to last in order to seem
legitimate. When it is beginning to be established, it makes itself obeyed
by force; only after living under its laws for a long time do you begin to
respect it.
The idea that the right to govern society belongs to the majority because
of its enlightenment was carried to the soil of the United States by the
first inhabitants. This idea, which alone would be enough to create a free
people, has today passed into the mores, and you find it in the least habits
of life.
The French, under the old monarchy, held as a given that the king could
do no wrong;f and when he happened to do something wrong, they thought
that the fault was with his advisors. This facilitated obedience marvelously.
You could murmur against the law, without ceasing to love and respect the
law-maker. Americans have the same opinion about the majority.
The moral dominion of the majority is based as well on the principle
that the interests of the greatest number must be preferred to those of the
few. Now, it is easily understood that the respect professed for this right of
the greatest number naturally increases or decreases depending on the state
of the parties. When a nation is divided among several great irreconcilable
interests, the privilege of the majority is often unrecognized, because it be-
comes too painful to submit to it.
If a class of citizens existed in America that the legislator worked to
strip of certain exclusive advantages, held for centuries, and that he
wanted to bring down from an elevated position and restore to the ranks
of the multitude, it is probable that the minority would not easily submit
to his laws.
But since the United States was populated by men equal to each other,
f. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I do not know why Alexis applies to the old monarchy the
principle that the king could do no wrong. The Charter of 1814 and that of 1830 have
this principle as a basis” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 83).
no natural and permanent dissidence is yet found among the interests of

the various inhabitants.g
There is such a social state in which the members of the minority cannot
hope to attract the majority because to do so it would be necessary to aban-
don the very object of the struggle that the minority wages against the ma-
jority. An aristocracy, for example, cannot become a majority while pre-
serving its exclusive privileges, and it cannot allow its privileges to slip away
without ceasing to be an aristocracy. [In these countries, it is almost im-
possible for the moral power of the majority ever to succeed in being rec-
ognized by all.]
In the United States, political questions cannot be posed in as general
and absolute a way, and all parties are ready to recognize the rights of the
g. Majority./
The moral dominion of the majority is established with more difficulty than an-
other because it is based upon ideas of equality shocking to many minds that have
not become accustomed to it.
Like all other empires, it is lost by abuse. Tyranny of the majority leads to appeals
by minorities to physical force. From that, confusion, anarchy and the despotism of
one man. The American republics, far from raising the fear of anarchy at the present
moment, raise only the fear of despotism of the majority; anarchy will come only as
a consequence of this tyranny.
There is such a social state in which the minorities can never become majorities,
without losing enormously or even ceasing to be. In these countries, the dominion
of the majority can only be established with great difficulty and can only be main-
tained with even more difficulty. France in this case./
In America, the dominion of the majority will be overturned not because it lacks
strength, but wisdom. The government is centralized in such a way that the governing
majority is omnipotent. It will lack not physical force, but moral force. In all power
exercised by the people, there is something variable, something of scant wisdom.
I would like someone to explain to me what is meant when this banal phrase is
put forth: that an entire people cannot completely go beyond the limits of reason.
It is undoubtedly rare for an entire people to go beyond those limits. But what
generally does the will of the people mean? A majority; but what is a majority taken
as a whole if not an individual who has opinions and, most often, interests contrary
to another individual called the minority?
Now, if you admit that an individual vested with omnipotence can abuse it against
his adversaries, why would you not admit the same thing for the majority? As for me,
I see only God who can be vested with omnipotence without disadvantage (YTC,
CVj, 2, pp. 2–3).
majority, because all hope one day to be able to exercise those rights to their
profit.
So in the United States the majority has an immense power in fact and
a power of opinion almost as great; and once the majority has formed on
a question, there is, so to speak, no obstacle that can, I will not say stop,
but even slow its course and leave time for the majority to hear the cries of
those whom it crushes as it goes.
The consequences of this state of affairs are harmful and dangeroush for
the future.
How the Omnipotence of the Majority in America

Increases the Legislative and Administrative
Instability That Is Natural to Democracies
How the Americans increase legislative instability,
which is natural to democracy, by changing the legislator
annually and by arming him with an almost limitless power.—
The same effect produced in the administration.—In America a
force infinitely greater, but less sustained than in Europe is
brought to social improvements.
I spoke previously of the vices that are natural to the government of de-
mocracy; there is not one of them that does not grow at the same time as
the power of the majority.
And, to begin with the most obvious of all.
Administrative instability is an evil inherent in democratic government,
because it is in the nature of democracies to bring new men to power. But
this evil is greater or lesser depending on the power and the means of action
granted to the legislator.
In America sovereign power is handed over to the authority that makes
the laws. That authority can rapidly and irresistibly abandon itself to each
of its desires, and every year it is given other representatives. That is to say,
what has been adopted is precisely the combination that most favors dem-
h. The manuscript says: “. . . very harmful and highly dangerous for the future.”
ocratic instability and that allows democracy to apply its changeable will
to the most important objects. [⫽We have seen under the National Assem-
bly and the Convention how, by granting omnipotence to the legislative
body, the natural instability of law in republics increased more. These ex-
treme consequences of a bad principle cannot recur in the same way in
America because American society is not in revolution as French society
then was and because there has been a long apprenticeship in liberty in
America.⫽]
America today is, therefore, the country in the world where laws have
the shortest duration. Nearly all the American constitutions have been
amended during the last thirty years. So, during this period, there is no
American state that has not modified the principle of its laws.j
As for the laws themselves, it is sufficient to glance at the archives of the
different states of the Union to be persuaded that in America the activity
of the legislator never flags.k Not that the American democracy is by nature
more unstable than another, but in the formation of the laws, it has been
given the means to follow the natural instability of its inclinations.2
The omnipotence of the majority and the rapid and absolute manner
in which its will is executed in the United States not only make the law
unstable, but also exercise the same influence on the execution of the law
and on the action of public administration.
Since the majority is the only power important to please, the works that
it undertakes are ardently supported; but from the moment when its at-
j. In this place in the manuscript three paragraphs are found that Tocqueville will
later add to chapter V of this second part. (It concerns the passage that begins with:
“Many Americans consider . . .” and that concludes with the citation of Number 73 of
the Federalist, pp. 322–23.)
k. To the side: “⫽The omnipotence of the majority is not the first cause of the evil,
but it infinitely increases it.⫽”
2. The legislative acts promulgated in the state of Massachusetts alone, from 1780 to today,
already fill three thick volumes. It must be noted as well that the collection of which I speak
was revised in 1823, and that many former or pointless laws were discarded. Now, the state
of Massachusetts, which is no more populated than one of our departments, can pass for the
most stable state in the entire Union, and the one that puts the most coherence and wisdom
into its enterprises.
tention goes elsewhere, all efforts cease; whereas in the free States of Europe,
in which administrative power has an independent existence and an assured
position, the will of the legislator continues to be executed, even when he
is occupied by other objects.
In America, much more zeal and activity is brought to certain improve-
ments than is done elsewhere.
In Europe, an infinitely smaller, but more sustained social force is applied
to the same things.
[I saw some striking examples of what I am advancing in a matter that
I had particular occasion to examine in the United States.]
Several years ago some religious men undertook to improve the condi-
tion of prisons. The public was roused by their voice, and the regeneration
of criminals became a popular undertaking.
Then new prisons arose. For the first time, the idea of reforming the
guilty penetrated the jail at the same time as the idea of punishing him.
But the happy revolution that the public joined with so much fervor and
that the simultaneous efforts of citizens made irresistible could not be ac-
complished in one moment.
Alongside some new penitentiaries, the development of which was has-
tened by the desire of the majority, the old prisons still existed and contin-
ued to house a great number of the guilty. The latter seemed to become
more unhealthy and more corrupting as the new ones became more re-
forming and healthier. This double effect is easily understood: the majority,
preoccupied by the idea of founding the new establishment, had forgotten
the one that already existed. By each person averting his eyes from the object
that no longer attracted the regard of the master, supervision had ceased.
At first the salutary bonds of discipline were seen to relax and then, soon
after, to break. And alongside the prison, lasting monument of the mildness
and enlightenment of our time, was found a dungeon that recalled the
barbarism of the Middle Ages.
[In France, it would be very difficult to find prisons as good and as bad
as in the United States.]
Tyranny of the Majority m

How the principle of sovereignty of the people must be
understood.—Impossibility of conceiving a mixed government.—
The sovereign power must be somewhere.—Precautions that must
be taken to moderate its action.—These precautions have not
been taken in the United States.—What results.
I regard as impious and detestable this maxim that in matters of govern-

ment the majority of a people has the right to do anything, and yet I con-
sider that the will of the majority is the origin of all powers. Do I contradict
myself?
A general law exists that has been made, or at least adopted, not only by
the majority of such or such people, but by the majority of all men. This
law is justice.
So justice forms the limit of the right of each people [to command].
A nation is like a jury charged with representing universal society and
with applying justice, which is its law. Should the jury, which represents
society, have more power than the very society whose laws it applies?n
So when I refuse to obey an unjust law, I am not denying the right of
the majority to command; I am only appealing from the sovereignty of the
people to the sovereignty of the human race.
m. Title in the manuscript: tyrannical effects of the omnipotence of

the majority.
Concerning the idea of tyranny of the majority, Morton Horwitz (“Tocqueville and
the Tyranny of the Majority,” Review of Politics, 28, 1966, pp. 293–307) defends the idea
that Tocqueville, when speaking of the majority in numerical terms, is thinking about
France, not about America, and that he thinks about America only when he considers
the moral tyranny of the majority. Also see David Spitz, “On Tocqueville and the Tyr-
anny of Public Sentiment,” Political Science 9, no. 2 (1957): 3–13.
n. In the margin: “⫽Its effects:
on actions,
on words,
on character and thoughts.
“That it is by the abuse of the strength of their government and not by its weakness
that the American republics are threatened with perishing.⫽”
There are men who are not afraid to say that, in objects that concern
only itself, a people could not go entirely beyond the limits of justice and
reason, and that we should not be afraid, therefore, to give all power to the
majority that represents a people. But that is the language of a slave.
So what is a majority taken as a whole, if not an individual who has
opinions and, most often, interests contrary to another individual called
the minority. Now, if you admit that an individual vested with omnip-
otence can abuse it against his adversaries, why would you not admit the
same thing for the majority? Have men, by gathering together, changed
character? By becoming stronger, have they become more patient in the
face of obstacles?3 As for me, I cannot believe it; and the power to do
everything that I refuse to any one of my fellows, I will never grant to
several.o
Not that I believe that, to preserve liberty, several principles can be mixed
together in the same government, in a way that truly opposes them to each
other.
The government called mixed has always seemed to me a chimera. Truly
3. No one would want to maintain that a people is not able to abuse strength vis-à-vis
another people. Now, parties are like small nations within a large one; in relation to each
other, they are like foreigners.
If you agree that a nation can be tyrannical toward another nation, how can you deny
that a party can be so toward another party?
o. Democracy./
Tyranny of democracy. Confusion of all powers in the hands of the assemblies.
Weakness of the executive power to react against these assemblies of which it is only
an instrument. See very curious article of the Federalist on this subject, p. 213 [No.
48 (ed.)]; id., p. 205 [No. 46 (ed.)]; id., p. 224 [No. 51 (ed.)]./
Moreover, that is a required result of the rule of democracy. There is strength only
in the people; there can only be strength in the constitutional power that represents
the people./
In America the executive and judicial powers are absolutely dependent upon the
legislative power. It fixes their salaries in general, modifies their organization; and
nothing is provided for them to be able to resist its encroachments [word in English
in the original (ed.)]. Federalist, p. 205 [No. 46 (ed.)]./
Necessity of taking measures to avoid the abuse of all powers, even those that seem
most legitimate. Federalist, p. 223 [No. 51 (ed.)] (YTC, CVb, pp. 25–26).
speaking, there is no mixed government (in the sense that is given to this
term), because, in each society, you eventually discover a principle of action
that dominates all the others.
England of the last century, which was particularly cited as an ex-
ample of this sort of government, was an essentially aristocratic State,
although some large elementsp of democracy were found within it; for
the laws and the mores there were established in such a way that eventually
the aristocracy would always predominate and lead public affairs as it
willed.
The error arose because, seeing the interests of the great constantly in
conflict with those of the people, only the struggle was considered, instead
of paying attention to the result of this struggle, which was the important
point. When a society truly comes to have a mixed government, that is a
government equally divided among contrary principles, it enters into rev-
olution or dissolves.q
So I think that a social power superior to all others must always be
placed somewhere, but I believe liberty is in danger when this power en-
counters no obstacle that can check its courser and give it time to moderate
itself.
Omnipotence in itself seems to me something bad and dangerous.s Its
p. The manuscript says, on the other hand: “some democratic institutions.”

This paragraph makes direct reference to Montesquieu. Cf. note n of p. 28.
q. If here Tocqueville denies the existence of mixed government, he is, nonetheless,
about to explain in the following paragraphs his theory of a social and political organi-
zation in which every principle must necessarily be opposed by another. (The idea has
been mentioned in the editor’s introduction.)
r. In the manuscript: “that can, if not entirely stop, at least check its course . . .”
s. “Despotism is at the two ends of sovereignty, when one man rules and when the
majority governs. Despotism is attached to omnipotence, whoever the representative
may be” (YTC, CVe, p. 65).
Guizot defends a similar idea:
The partisans of divine right had said: there is only one God; so there should be only
one king, and all power belongs to him because he is the representative of God. The
partisans of sovereignty of the people have said: there is only one people; so there
should be only one legislative assembly; for it represents the people. In both cases the
error is the same, and it leads equally to despotism. There is only one God and there
exercise seems to me beyond the power of man, whoever he may be; and
I see only God who can, without danger, be all powerful, because his wis-
dom and his justice are always equal to his power. So there is no authority
on earth so respectable in itself, or vested with a right so sacred, that I would
want to allow it to act without control or to dominate without obstacles.
So when I see the right and the ability to do everything granted to whatever
power, whether called people or king, democracy or aristocracy, whether
exercised in a monarchy or a republic, I say: the seed of tyranny is there
and I try to go and live under other laws.
What I most criticize about democratic government as it has been or-
ganized in the United States, is not its weaknesses as many people in Europe
claim, but on the contrary, its irresistible strength.t And what repels me the
is only one people, that is certain; but this God is nowhere on earth, for neither one
man nor the whole people is God, knows his law perfectly and wants it constantly.
So no de facto power should be unique, for unity of the de facto power assumes com-
plete de jure power which no one possesses or can possess ( Journal des cours publics,
Paris: au bureau du Journal, 1821–1822, II, p. 293).
In another place, Guizot refers to Pascal for his argument: “ ‘Unity that is not multiple,’
says Pascal, ‘is tyranny.’ From that follows the necessity for two chambers” (ibid, p. 17).
The principle of Guizot’s representative system is nothing other than the destruction of
all absolute power. This principle requires the provision of the jury, freedom of the press,
the division of powers and the organization of the legislative power into two chambers.
These elements are repeated in Tocqueville’s theory.
t. How democracy leads to tyranny and will succeed in destroying liberty in America.
See the beautiful theory presented on this point in the Federalist, p. 225 [No. 51 (ed.)].
It is not because powers are not concentrated; it is because they are too concentrated
that the American republics will perish. The tyranny of one man will appear more
tolerable than the tyranny of the majority.
“A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government,
which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which
that object can be best attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qual-
ities; most governments are deficient in the first. [I (ed.)] Scruple not to assert that,
in the American governments, too little attention has been paid to the last. The federal
Constitution avoids this error.” Federalist, p. 268 [No. 62 (ed.)].
Tendency of republics to make the executive power only a passive agent, without
any strength whatsoever, id., p. 207 [No. 47 (ed.)] (YTC, CVb, p. 26).
most in America is not the extreme liberty that reigns there; it is the slight
guarantee against tyranny that is found.u
When a man or a party suffers from an injustice in the United States, to
whom do you want them to appeal? To public opinion? That is what forms
the majority. To the legislative body? It represents the majority and blindly
obeys it. To the executive power? It is named by the majority and serves it
as a passive instrument. To the police? The police are nothing other than
the majority under arms. To the jury? The jury is the majority vested with
the right to deliver judgments. The judges themselves, in certain states, are
elected by the majority. However iniquitous or unreasonable the measure
that strikes you may be, you must therefore submit to it [or flee. <What is
that if not the very soul of tyranny under the forms of liberty?>].4
u. “⫽It is very much easier to contest a principle than its consequences. You easily
prove to a king that he does not have the right to sacrifice the interest of the State to his
own, but when the majority oppresses you, you are forced to recognize its right before
attacking the use of that right⫽” (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 81).
4. In Baltimore, at the time of the War of 1812, a striking example was seen of the excesses
to which the despotism of the majority can lead.v At this time the war was very popular in
Baltimore. A newspaper that was strongly against the war aroused the indignation of the
inhabitants by its conduct. The people gathered, broke the presses, and attacked the newspaper
office. Some wanted to call the militia, but it did not answer the call. In order to save the
unfortunate journalists, who were threatened by the public furor, it was decided to put them
in jail, like criminals. This precaution was useless; during the night, the people gathered again;
the magistrates were unable to get the militia to come; the prison was forced open; one of the
journalists was killed on the spot; the others were left for dead; the guilty, brought before a
jury, were acquitted.
I said one day to an inhabitant of Pennsylvania: “Please explain to me why, in a state
founded by Quakers and renowned for its tolerance, emancipated Negroes are not allowed to
exercise the rights of citizens. They pay taxes; isn’t it just that they vote?”—“Don’t insult us,
he answered, by thinking that our legislators have committed such a gross act of injustice and
intolerance.”—“So, among you, Blacks have the right to vote?”—“Undoubtedly.”—“Then,
how come at the polling place this morning, I did not see a single one in the crowd?”—“This
is not the fault of the law,” the American said to me; “Negroes, it is true, have the right to
present themselves at elections, but they abstain voluntarily it seems.”—“That is very modest
of them.”—“Oh! it isn’t that they refuse to go, but they are afraid that they will be mistreated
there. Among us, it sometimes happens that the law lacks force when the majority does not
support it. Now, the majority is imbued with the greatest prejudices against Negroes, and
magistrates do not feel they have the strength to guarantee to the latter the rights that the
legislator has conferred.”—“What! the majority which has the privilege of making the law,
also wants to have that of disobeying the law?”
v. Mr. Cruse, editor of a newspaper in Baltimore, told this anecdote to Tocqueville
Suppose, in contrast, a legislative body composed in such a way that it

represents the majority, without necessarily being the slave of the majority’s
passions; an executive power that has a strength of its own; and a judicial
power independent of the two other powers; you will still have a democratic
government, but there will no longer be hardly any chances for tyranny.
[{If the effects of this tyranny are not felt more in America, it is because
America is a new country where political passions are still not very deep
and where so vast a field for human activity is presented that interests are
rarely opposed to each other.}]
I am not saying that at the present time in America tyranny is frequently
practiced; I am saying that no guarantee against tyranny is found there, and
that the causes for the mildness of government must be sought in circum-
stances and in mores, rather than in laws.w
Effects of the Omnipotence of the Majority on the

Arbitrariness of American Public Officials
Liberty that American law leaves to officials within the
circle that it draws.—Their power.
Arbitrariness must be carefully distinguished from tyranny. Tyranny can be

exercised by means of the law itself, and then it is not arbitrary; arbitrariness
can be exercised in the interests of the governed, and then it is not
tyrannical.x
(note of 4 November 1831, pocket notebook 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 187–
88). The interlocutor of the other conversation is George Washington Smith (conver-
sation of 24 October 1831, alphabetic notebook B, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1,
pp. 246–47).
w. “⫽The omnipotence of the majority seems to me the most serious disadvantage
attached to democratic governments and the source of their greatest dangers⫽” (YTC,
CVh, 4, p. 81).
x. In the manuscript: “⫽Arbitrariness must be carefully distinguished from tyranny,
and tyranny from arbitrariness. Arbitrariness can be not tyrannical, and tyranny can be
not arbitrary. In the United States there is almost never arbitrariness, but sometimes
there is tyranny.⫽”
To the side: “⫽When Louis XIV regulated by himself and with sovereign power the
Tyranny usually makes use of arbitrariness, but if necessary it knows

how to do without it.
In the United States, the omnipotence of the majority, at the same time
that it favors the legal despotism of the legislator, also favors the arbitrar-
iness of the magistrate. Because the majority has absolute control over mak-
ing the law and supervising its execution, and has equal control over those
governing and those governed, it regards public officials as its passive agents
and willingly relies on them to take care of serving its designs. So the ma-
jority does not enter in advance into the details of the duties of public
officials and scarcely takes the trouble to define their rights. It treats them
as a master would treat his servants, if, having their behavior always in view,
he could direct or correct their conduct at every moment.
In general, the law leaves American officials much more free than ours
within the circle that is drawn around them. Sometimes the majority even
allows them to go outside of this circle. Guaranteed by the opinion of the
greatest number and strong because of their support, they then dare things
that a European, accustomed to the spectacle of arbitrariness, still finds
astonishing. In this way, habits being formed within liberty that, one day,
will be able to become destructive to it.
Of the Power Exercised by the Majority

in America over Thought
In the United States, when the majority has irrevocably settled on
a question, it is no longer discussed.—Why.—Moral power that
the majority exercises over thought.—Democratic republics
immaterialize despotism.
When you come to examine how thought is exercised in the United States,
you notice very clearly to what extent the power of the majority surpasses
all the powers that we know in Europe.
commercial rights [doubtful reading (ed.)] of his subjects, he committed an arbitrary

but not a tyrannical act.
“When the National Assembly ordered [blank space in the manuscript (ed.)], it com-
mitted a tyrannical act but not an arbitrary act.⫽”
Thought is an invisible and almost imperceptible power that scoffs at all

tyrannies [that scoffs amid chains and executioners. {You could say of it
what Malherbe said of death: it does not stop at the gates of the Louvre
any more than at the door of the poor man}].y Today, the most absolute
sovereigns of Europe cannot prevent certain ideas hostile to their authority
from circulating silently within their States and even within their courts.
It is not the same in America; as long as the majority is uncertain, people
speak; but as soon as the majority has irrevocably decided, everyone is silent,
and friends as well as enemies then seem to climb on board together. The
reason for this is simple. There is no monarch so absolute that he can gather
in his hands all of society’s forces and vanquish opposition in the way that
a majority vested with the right to make and execute laws can [at will, vested
with the right and the force].
A king, moreover, has only a physical power that acts on deeds and can-
not reach wills; but the majority is vested with a strength simultaneously
physical and moral, which acts on the will as well as on actions and which
at the same time prevents the deed and the desire to do it.
I know of no country where, in general, there reigns less independence
of mind and true freedom of discussion than in America.
There is no religious or political theory that may not be freely preached
in the constitutional States of Europe and that does not penetrate into the
others [{and I do not know of} ⫽a European people so powerful and so
strong that it is not forced from time to time to hear hard truths. It is not
this way in America.⫽]; for there is no country in Europe so subject to a
single power that someone who wants to speak the truth does not find some
support capable of insuring him against the results of his independence.
If he has the misfortune to live under an absolute government, he often
has the people for him; if he lives in a free country, he can find shelter, as
needed, behind royal authority. The aristocratic part of society sustains
him in democratic countries, and democracy in the others. But within
a democracy organized as that of the United States, only a single power
y. In Consolation à Monsieur Du Périer, gentilhomme d’Aix-en-Provence, sur la mort de

sa fille.
is found, a single element of strength and success, and nothing outside

of it.z
In America, the majority draws a formidable circle around thought.
Within these limits, the writer is free; but woe to him if he dares to go
beyond them. It isn’t that he has to fear an auto-da-fé, but he is exposed to
all types of distasteful things and to everyday persecutions. A political career
is closed to him; he has offended the only power that has the ability to open
it to him. Everything is denied him, even glory. Before publishing his opin-
ions, he believed he had some partisans; it seems to him that he has them
no longer, now that he has revealed himself to all; for those who censure
him speak openly, and those who think as he does, without having his cour-
age, keep quiet and distance themselves. He gives in; finally, under the daily
effort, he yields and returns to silence, as though he felt remorse for having
told the truth.
Chains and executioners, those are the crude instruments formerly used
by tyranny; but today civilization has perfected even despotism itself, which
seemed however to have nothing more to learn.
Princes had, so to speak, materialized violence; the democratic republics
of today have made violence as entirely intellectual as the human will that
it wants to constrain. Under the absolute government of one man, des-
potism, to reach the soul, crudely struck the body; and the soul, escaping
from these blows, rose gloriously above it; but in democratic republics, tyr-
anny does not proceed in this way; it leaves the body alone and goes right
to the soul. The master no longer says: You will think like me or die; he
says: You are free not to think as I do; your life, your goods, everything
remains with you; but from this day on you are a stranger among us. You
will keep your privileges as a citizen, but they will become useless to you.
If you aspire to be the choice of your fellow citizens, they will not choose
you, and if you ask only for their esteem, they will still pretend to refuse it
to you. You will remain among men, but you will lose your rights to hu-
manity. When you approach your fellows, they will flee from you like an
impure being. And those who believe in your innocence, even they will
z. In the margin: “<⫽Base circumlocutions of the Federalists.⫽>”

abandon you, for people would flee from them in turn. Go in peace; I spare
your life, but I leave you a life worse than death.
Absolute monarchies had dishonored despotism. Let us be careful that
democratic republics do not rehabilitate it, and that, while making des-
potism heavier for some, they do not, in the eyes of the greatest number,
remove its odious aspect and its degrading character.
Among the proudest nations of the Old World, books have been pub-
lished that intended faithfully to portray the vices and absurdities of their
contemporaries. La Bruyère lived at the palace of Louis XIV when he com-
posed his chapter on the great, and Molière criticized the court in the plays
that he had performed before the courtiers. But the dominating power in
the United States does not understand being played in this way. The
slightest reproach wounds it; the smallest biting truth shocks it, and every-
thing from the forms of its language to its most solid virtues must be
praised. No writer, no matter how famous, can escape this obligation to
heap praise upon his fellow citizens. So the majority lives in perpetual self-
adoration; only foreigners or experience can bring certain truths to the ears
of Americans.
If America has not yet had great writers, we do not have to look elsewhere
for the reasons: literary genius does not exist without freedom of the mind,
and there is no freedom of the mind in America.a
The Inquisition was never able to prevent the circulation in Spain of
books opposed to the religion of the greatest number. The dominion of
the majority does better in the United States: it has removed even the
thought of publishing such books. Unbelievers are found in America, but
unbelief finds, so to speak, no organ there.b
a. Cf. chapter XIII of the first part of the second volume.

b. The ideas of this paragraph were suggested to Tocqueville by a doctor in Baltimore,
Mr. Stuart (non-alphabetic notebooks 2 and 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 115).
A note on a slip of paper attests to Tocqueville’s dissatisfaction concerning this part
of the chapter:
I have put two distinct ideas within the same expressions, which is a great defect./
That tyranny in America acts directly on the soul and does not torment the body
results from two causes:
You see governments that strive to protect morals by condemning the

authors of licentious books. In the United States, no one is condemned for
this kind of work; but no one is tempted to write them. It is not that all
citizens have pure morals, but the majority is steady in its morals.
Here, the use of power is undoubtedly good. I am, consequently, speak-
ing only about the power itself. This irresistible power is an unremitting
fact, and its good usage is only an accident. [Doesn’t the majority in Paris
acquire a taste for the filth that sullies our theatres daily?]
Effect of Tyranny of the Majority on the

National Character of the Americans;
Of the Courtier Spirit in the United States
Until now the effects of tyranny of the majority are felt on mores
more than on the running of society.—They arrest the
development of men of great character.—Democratic republics
organized like those of the United States put the courtier spirit
within reach of the greatest number.—Evidence of this spirit in
the United States.—Why there is more patriotism among the
people than among those who govern in their name.
The influence of what precedes is still felt only weakly in political society;
but its harmful effects are already noticeable on the national character of
the Americans. I think that the small number of outstanding men who
appear today on the political stage must be attributed, above all, to the
1. Because it is exercised by a majority and not by a man. A man, never able to

obtain the voluntary support of the mass, cannot inflict on his enemy the moral
torment that arises from isolation and public scorn. He is forced to act directly in
order to reach his enemy.
2. Because in fact mores have become milder and that despotism has been perfected
and intellectualized.
This same note also exists in YTC, CVh, 3, p. 59; (the copyist indicates that the original
is not in Tocqueville’s hand).
always increasing action of the despotism of the majority in the United

States.
When the American Revolution broke out, outstanding men appeared
in large number; then public opinion led and did not tyrannize over wills.
The famous men of this period, freely joining the movement of minds,
had a grandeur of their own; they shed their brilliance on the nation and
did not derive it from the nation.
In absolute governments, the great who are near the throne flatter the
passions of the master and willingly bow to his caprices. But the mass of
the nation does not lend itself to servitude; it often submits out of weak-
ness, habit or ignorance, sometimes out of love of royalty or the king.
We have seen peoples take a type of pleasure or pride in sacrificing their
will to that of the prince and, in this way, give a kind of independence
of soul to the very act of obedience. Among these peoples much less deg-
radation than misery is found. There is, moreover, a great difference be-
tween doing what you do not approve or pretending to approve what you
do; the one is done by a weak man, but the other belongs only to the habits
of a valet.c
In free countries, in which each person is more or less called to give his
opinion on matters of State; in democratic republics, in which public life
is constantly mingled with private life, in which the sovereign is ap-
proachable from all sides, and in which it is only a matter of raising one’s
voice to reach the sovereign’s ear, many more people are found who seek
to bank on the sovereign’s weaknesses and to live at the expense of the
sovereign’s passions, than in absolute monarchies. Not that men there are
naturally worse than elsewhere, but temptation is stronger and is offered
to more people at the same time. A much more general debasing of souls
results.
Democratic republics put the courtier spirit within reach of the greatest
number and make it penetrate into all classes at the same time. It is one of
the principal reproaches that can be made against them.
c. The manuscript says “lackey.”

Hervé de Tocqueville: “Trivial expression that, moreover, attacks an entire class that
at present is no less proud than another” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 87).
That is true, above all, in democratic states organized like the American
republics, in which the majority possesses such absolute and irresistible do-
minion, that, in a way, you must renounce your rights as a citizen and, so
to speak, your position as a man when you want to deviate from the road
marked out by the majority.
Among the immense crowd, in the United States, that pushes into a
political career, I saw very few men who showed this virile candor, this
manly independence of thought, that often distinguished Americans in for-
mer times and that, wherever it is found, forms the salient feature of great
characters. At first view, you would say that in America minds have all been
formed on the same model because they so exactly follow the same paths.
Sometimes, it is true, the foreigner will encounter some Americans who
deviate from the rigor of the formulas; these Americans happen to deplore
the vice of the laws, the variableness of democracy and its lack of enlight-
enment; often they even go so far as to notice the defects that are spoiling
the national character, and they indicate the measures that could be taken
to correct those defects. But no one, except you, is listening to them; and
you, to whom they confide these secret thoughts, you are only a passing
foreigner. They willingly give you truths that are useless to you, and, coming
into the public square, they use another language.
If these lines ever reach America, I am sure of two things: first, that
readers will all raise their voices to condemn me; second, that many among
them will absolve me deep down in their conscience.d
I have heard country spoken about in the United States. I have encoun-
tered true patriotism among the people; I have often searched in vain for
these two things among those who lead the people. This is easily understood
d. Democracy./
The greatest moral evil that results from the dominion of democracy is that it puts
the courtier spirit within reach of everyone.
[In the margin: Here the character of courtiers.]
In democratic republics the number of courtiers is immense; the only difference
from monarchies is that these are courtiers with bad taste.
The Americans have only two means to gain the truth, the voice of foreigners and
experience (YTC, CVe, pp. 62–63).
by analogy: despotism depraves the one submitted to it much more than

the one who imposes it. In absolute monarchies, the king often has great
virtues; but the courtiers are always vile.
[⫽What I blame democratic republics for is putting the courtier spirit
within reach of such a large number.⫽]
It is true that courtiers, in America, do not say: Sire and Your Majesty,
a grand and capital difference; but they talk constantly about the natural
enlightenment of their master. They do not raise the question of knowing
which one of the virtues of the prince most merits adoration; for they assert
that he possesses all virtues, without having acquired them and, so to speak,
without wanting to do so. They do not give him their wives and daughters
so that he would deign to elevate them to the rank of his mistresses; but
by sacrificing their opinions to him, they prostitute themselves.
Moralists and philosophers in America are not forced to envelop their
opinions in veils of allegory; but, before hazarding an annoying truth, they
say: We know that we are speaking to a people too far above human weak-
nesses ever to lose control of itself. We would not use such language, if we
did not address men whose virtues and enlightenment make them alone,
among all others, worthy of remaining free.
How could those who flattered Louis XIV do better?
As for me, I believe that in all governments, whatever they are, baseness
will attach itself to strength and flattery to power. And I know only one
way to prevent men from degrading themselves: it is to grant to no one,
with omnipotence, the sovereign power to debase them.
That the Greatest Danger to the American Republics

Comes from the Omnipotence of the Majority
Democratic republics risk perishing by the bad use of
their power, and not by powerlessness.—The government
of the American republics more centralized
and more energetic than that of the monarchies of Europe.—
Danger that results.—Opinion of Madison and
of Jefferson on this subject.
Governments usually perish by powerlessness or by tyranny. In the first

case, power escapes from them; in the other, it is wrested from them.e
Many men, seeing democratic Statesf fall into anarchy, have thought that
government in these States was naturally weak and powerless. The truth is
that, once war has flared up there among the parties, government loses its
effect on society. But I do not think that the nature of a democratic power
is to lack strength and resources; I believe, on the contrary, that it is almost
always the abuse of its forces and the bad use of its resources that make it
perish. Anarchy is almost always born out of its tyranny or its lack of skill,
but not out of its powerlessness.
Stability must not be confused with strength, the greatness of something
e. Washington, 15 January 1832.

There are two ways for a government to perish:
1. By lack of power (like the first Union, for example).
2. By bad use of power, like all tyrannies.
It is by this last evil that the American republics will perish.
The first mode is more rapid than the second. The latter is no less certain (YTC,
BIIb, p. 13).
This note does not appear in YTC, CVe and has not been published in Voyage, OC, V,
1. YTC, BIIb, and YTC, CVe are two different copies of the same original, but copy
BIIb, which is later, contains texts that do not appear in the first copy.
f. The manuscript says “free States.”
with its duration. In democratic republics, the power that leads5 society is
not stable, for it often changes hands and objectives. But, wherever it goes,
its strength is nearly irresistible.
The government of the American republics seems to me as centralized
and more energetic than that of the absolute monarchies of Europe. So I
do not think that they will perish from weakness.6
If liberty is ever lost in America, it will be necessary to lay the blame on
the omnipotence of the majority that will have brought minorities to de-
spair and will have forced them to appeal to physical force. Then you will
see anarchy, but it will arrive as a consequence of despotism.
President James Madison expressed the same thoughts (see the Feder-
alist, No 51.)
It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against
the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against
the injustice of the other part. [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] Justice is the end of gov-
ernment. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be
pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.
In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily
unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in
a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the
violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger in-
dividualsg are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit
to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in
the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually
induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all
parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted
that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and
left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government
5. Power can be centralized in an assembly; then it is strong, but not stable. It can be
centralized in a man; then it is less strong, but it is more stable.
6. It is useless, I think, to warn the reader that here, as in all the rest of the chapter, I am
speaking, not about the federal government, but about the individual governments of each
state that the majority leads despotically.
g. In the manuscript: “the strongest individuals.”
within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppres-

sions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of
the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose
misrule had proved the necessity of it.
[In another place he said: “[The] facility of lawmaking seems to be the

disease to which our government is most liable.”]
Jefferson also said: “The executive power, in our government, is not the
only, and perhaps not the principal object of my concern. The tyranny of
legislators is now and will be for many years to come the most formidable
danger. That of the executive power will come in its turn, but in a more
distant period.”7
In this matter, I like to cite Jefferson in preference to all others, because
I consider him the most powerful apostle democracy has ever had.j
7. Letter from Jefferson to Madison, 15 March 1789.h

h. In Conseil’s edition, vol. I, pp. 340–41. Tocqueville quotes correctly from the
French, but in the English Jefferson speaks about the “tyranny of the legislatures,” not
of the “legislators.”
j. Édouard de Tocqueville: “In this chapter, very well written moreover and of great
interest, you completely avoid the defect for which I reproached you in the notes for the
preceding chapter. Here you coldly judge democracy, without admiration and without
weakness; you tell the truth about it, all the while recognizing its qualities and its ad-
vantages” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 90).
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 8
Of What Tempers Tyranny of the Majority
in the United States
Absence of Administrative Centralization

The national majority does not have the idea of doing
everything.—It is forced to use town and county magistrates in
order to carry out its sovereign will.
Previously I distinguished two types of centralization; one, I called gov-

ernmental, and the other administrative.a
Only the first exists in America; the second is almost unknown there.
If the power that directs American societies found these two means of
government at its disposal, and combined, with the right to command ev-
erything, the ability and the habit of carrying out everything by itself; if,
after establishing the general principles of government, it entered into the
details of application, and after regulating the great interests of the country,
a. In America, there are a thousand natural causes that so to speak work by themselves
toward moderating the omnipotence of the majority. The extreme similarity that
reigns in the United States among all the interests, the material prosperity of the
country, the diffusion of enlightenment and the mildness of mores, which is the
necessary consequence of the progress of civilization, greatly favor the leniency of
government.
I have already pointed out the different causes; the time has come to examine what
barriers the institutions themselves have carefully raised against the power from which
they derive.
Previously I distinguished . . . (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 15).
427
428 the tyranny of the majority
it could reach as far as individual interests, liberty would soon be banished

from the New World.b
But, in the United States, the majority, which often has the tastes
and instincts of a despot, still lacks the most advanced instruments of
tyranny.
In none of the American republics has the central government ever taken
charge of anything other than a small number of objects whose importance
attracted its attention. It has never undertaken to regulate the secondary
things of society. Nothing indicates that it has ever even conceived the de-
sire to do so. The majority, while becoming more and more absolute, has
not increased the attributions of the central power; it has only made it
omnipotent in its sphere. Thus despotism can be very heavy at one point,
but it cannot extend to all.c
Besides, however carried away the national majority may be by its
passions; however ardent it is in its projects, it cannot in all places, in
the same way, and in the same moment, make all citizens yield to its de-
sires.d When the central government that represents the national majority
b. In the manuscript, the paragraph is written as follows: “The Americans must con-
sider themselves fortunate that this is so: if the majority in the United States found the
one, like the other, in its hands in order to compel obedience to its will, and if it com-
bined, with the right to do everything, the ability and the habit of carrying everything
out by its agents, its power would be, so to speak, without limits.”
c. In notes taken by Beaumont for the writing of Marie, this is found in Tocqueville’s
hand:
In the American republics the central government has never taken charge except of
a small number of objects whose importance attracted its attention. It has never un-
dertaken to direct the administration of the towns and counties [v: secondary things].
It does not seem ever to have conceived the desire to do so. Becoming more and more
absolute has allowed the rule of the majority to regulate these objects with more
sovereign authority, but has not increased the number of objects in its sphere. So
despotism can be great, but it cannot extend to everything (YTC, Beaumont, CIX).
d. Two causes.
1. Splitting up of sovereignty.
2. Splitting up of administration.
Tyranny can be very great but it cannot be popular.
The Union cannot present a tyrannical majority. Each state could do it, but town
administrations (illegible word).
the tyranny of the majority 429
has given orders as a sovereign, it must rely, for the execution of its com-
mand, on agents who often do not depend on it and that it cannot direct
at every moment. So the municipal bodies and county administrations
form like so many hidden reefs that slow or divide the tide of popular will.
Were the law oppressive, liberty would still find a refuge in the way in which
the law would be executed; the majority cannot get into the details, and,
if I dare say so, into the puerilities of administrative tyranny. The majority
does not even imagine that it can do so, for it is not entirely aware of its
power. It still knows only its natural strength and is unaware of how far art
could extend its limits.
This merits reflection.e If a democratic republic like that of the United
States ever came to be established in a country where the power of one man
had already established administrative centralization and introduced it into
habits, as well as into laws, I am not afraid to say that, in such a republic,
despotism would become more intolerable than in any of the absolute
monarchies of Europe. It would be necessary to look to Asia in order to
find something comparable.
The national majority finding itself opposed in its designs in this way by the ma-
jority of the inhabitants of a city or of a district, and tyranny [v: despotism] which
can be very great at some points cannot become general.
If the majority rules the state, it also rules the town and the county; and since these
two majorities can be opposed in their designs, liberty always finds some refuge, and
despotism which can be irresistibly exercised at several points of the territory cannot
become general, however (YTC, CVh, 3, pp. 53–54).
Tocqueville here is quite close to the idea that Madison expresses in Number 10 of the
Federalist, that the best barrier against tyranny is the great extent of the republic. None-
theless there is no reference to this Number of the Federalist in the drafts.
e. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I observe generally that in the whole work the author makes
extremely frequent use of this way of expressing himself.
“This chapter needs to be reviewed. I would in addition like the author to put there
what he said about associations as barriers to omnipotence. That would be better placed
here than in the chapter on associations where you speak about the remedy before in-
dicating the malady” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 71).
Of the Spirit of the Jurist in the United States, and

How It Serves as Counterweight to Democracy f
Usefulness of trying to find out what the natural instincts of the
spirit of the jurist are.—Jurists, called to play a great role in the
society that is trying to be born.—How the kind of work that
jurists devote themselves to gives an aristocratic turn to their
ideas.—Accidental causes that can oppose the development of
these ideas.—Facility that the aristocracy has in uniting itself
with jurists.—Advantage that a despot could draw from the
jurists.—How the jurists form the only aristocratic element that
is by nature able to combine with the natural elements of
democracy.—Particular causes that tend to give an aristocratic
f. Influence exercised by the judicial power on the power of the majority./

When you examine political society in the United States, you notice at first glance
only a single principle that seems to bind all the parts strongly together: the people
appear as the sole power. Nothing seems able to oppose their will or to thwart their
designs.
But here is a man who appears in a way above the people; he does not get his
mandate from them; he has, so to speak, nothing to fear from their anger, nor any-
thing to hope from their favor. He is vested, however, with more power than any one
of the representatives of the people; for, with a single blow, he can strike with sterility
the work emanating from the common will (YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 14–15).
Rousseau (Du contrat social, book II, chapter VII), not wanting to limit the sovereignty
of the people in any way, had to put the legislator outside of the political process.
Tocqueville, who acknowledged absolute sovereignty in no power, makes the legislator
a decisive element of political life.
Several conversations with American lawyers and jurists persuaded the author of the
foremost role that lawyers and jurists play in political life. Cf. the conversation with
Edward Everett of 24 January 1832 (non-alphabetic notebooks 2 and 3, YTC, BIIa, and
Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 151); the conversation with Mr. Latrobe of 30 October 1831 (ibid.,
p. 110) and more especially the conversation with Mr. Gallatin of 10 June 1831 (non-
alphabetic notebook 1, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 61), where the idea that
lawyers constitute a body that serves as a counterweight to democracy is mentioned; the
conversations with John C. Spencer of 17 and 18 July 1831 (ibid., pp. 68–69), on the con-
servative effects of the American legal mentality. When Tocqueville takes up the argu-
ment again, he is also thinking of Blackstone (Cf. Correspondence and Conversations of
Alexis de Tocqueville with Nassau William Senior, II, p. 44). Also see Gino Gorla, Com-
mento a Tocqueville. L’idea dei diritti (Milan: Dott. A Guiffrè Editore, 1948, pp. 259–
68).
turn to the spirit of the English and American jurists.—The

American aristocracy is at the lawyers’ bar and on the judges’
bench.—Influence exercised by jurists on American society.—
How their spirit enters into the legislatures, into the
administration, and ends by giving the people themselves
something of the instinct of magistrates.
[⫽I said elsewhere that the American magistracy was vested with a great
political power; it remains for me to see how it tends to exercise its power.
American judges are named by the executive power {or by the legisla-
ture}; they are hardly ever chosen by the people.
But had you made judges chosen directly by the people, by making them
irremovable, you would have given them instincts entirely different from
those of the people.
From the moment when a public official is vested with an office for life,
he takes a personal interest in society remaining immobile. If he is not
always the enemy of progress, he is definitely the enemy of revolutions,
and if this official is a man of the law, he is naturally carried by education
to prize stability and he becomes attached to stability by inclination.
In fact, in what could be called the spirit of the jurist there is something
singularly aristocratic.
Whoever will not allow himself to be preoccupied by a fact but by the
ensemble of facts, not by a particular period but by the succession of times,
will easily discover this tendency in the spirit of the jurist.⫽]
When you visit the Americans and study their laws, you see that the
authority that they have given to jurists and the influence that the Amer-
icans have allowed them to take in government form today the most pow-
erful barrier to the errors of democracy. To me this effect seems due to a
general cause that it is useful to try to determine, because it can recur
elsewhere.
Jurists have been mixed up in all the movements of political society in
Europe for five hundred years. Sometimes they have served as instruments
of the political powers; sometimes they have used the political powers as
instruments. In the Middle Ages, jurists cooperated wonderfully in ex-
tending the domination of kings; since then, they have worked powerfully
to restrict this very power. In England, they were seen to unite intimately
with the aristocracy; in France they revealed themselves as its most dan-
gerous enemies. So do jurists yield only to sudden and momentary im-
pulses, or, depending on circumstances, do they more or less obey instincts
that are natural to them and that always recur? I would like to clarify this
point; for jurists are perhaps called upon to play the first role in the political
society trying to be born.
Men who have made law their specialty have drawn from this work hab-
its of order, a certain taste for forms, a sort of instinctive love for the regular
succession of ideas, that make them naturally strongly opposed to the rev-
olutionary spirit and to the unthinking passions of democracy.
[{This effect is larger or smaller depending on how you study the
law.
In countries like France, where all legislation is written [the jurist (ed.)]
contracts the taste for what is regular and legal.}
⫽Furthermore, in countries where the law of precedents rules, such as
England and America, the taste and respect for what is old are almost always
merged in the soul of the jurist with the love of what is legal.
It is not the same in countries where, as in France, the whole legislation
is found written in codes.
The English jurist tries to determine what has been done; the French
jurist, what the intention was. The first wants⫽ evidence; the second,
arguments. The one wants decisions; the other wants reasons. [Cf. infra
(ed.)]]
The special knowledge that jurists acquire while studying the law as-
sures them a separate rank in society. They form a sort of privileged class
among intelligent people. Each day they rediscover the idea of this su-
periority in the exercise of their profession; they are masters of a necessary
science, the knowledge of which is not widespread; they serve as arbiters
among citizens, and the habit of leading the blind passions of the litigants
toward the goal gives them a certain contempt for the judgment of the
crowd. Add that they naturally form a corps. It isn’t that they agree among
themselves and head in concert toward the same point; but the commu-
nity of study and unity of methods link their minds, as interest could
unite their wills.
So you find hidden at the bottom of the soul of jurists a portion of the
tastes and habits of the aristocracy. Like the aristocracy, they have an in-
stinctive propensity for order, a natural love of forms; like the aristocracy,
they conceive a great distaste for the actions of the multitude and secretly
despise the government of the people.g
I do not want to say that these natural tendencies of jurists are strong
enough to bind them in an irresistible way. What dominates jurists, as all
men, is particular interest, and above all the interest of the moment.
There is a kind of society where men of the law cannot take a rank in
the political world analogous to the one that they occupy in private life;
you can be sure that, in a society organized in this way, the jurists [despite
their natural tastes] will be very active agents of revolution. But then you
must try to determine if the cause that leads them to destroy or to change
arises among them from a permanent disposition or from an accident. It is
true that jurists singularly contributed to overturning the French monarchy
in 1789.h It remains to be known if they acted in this way because they had
studied the laws, or because they could not contribute toward making
them.j
g. The manuscript says: “. . . always scorn the people.”

I do not know if jurists inwardly scorn the government of the people, but definitely
they never express this scorn; because they are sure that the ease with which they
handle words will always open a role for them in the government of the people. In
general, of all classes, jurists are the one in which vanity is the most developed by
popular successes. This vanity directs their outwardly expressed opinions and is the
foundation of their actions.
This vanity has much less effect when they have an established position as in Amer-
ica, but it will always be formidable when they have a position to establish, or when
superiorities are found that offend them, which will always happen in a monarchy
where absolute equality cannot be found and where they are too numerous for the
places and for the influence that reasonably can be given to them (YTC, CIIIb, 1,
p. 76).
h. Hervé de Tocqueville: “They contributed even more to overturning the Restora-
tion, although a part of their desires was fulfilled” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 77).
j. Hervé de Tocqueville: “There is a gap here. Alexis throws himself toward another
order of ideas before going deeply enough into those that precede. One or two more
paragraphs are necessary here in order to explain more clearly the motives for the conduct
of the jurists in 1789 and 1830” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 77).
Five hundred years ago, the English aristocracy put itself at the head of
the people and spoke in their name; today it upholds the throne and makes
itself the champion of royal authority.k The aristocracy, however, has in-
stincts and tendencies that are its own.
You must also guard against taking isolated members of the corps for
the corps itself.
In all free governments, of whatever form, you will find jurists among
the first ranks of all parties. This same remark is also applicable to the ar-
istocracy. Nearly all the democratic movements that have agitated the world
have been led by nobles.
An elite body can never be sufficient for all the ambitions that it contains;
there are always more talents and passions than posts, and you do not fail
to find a large number of men there who, not able to grow great quickly
enough by using the privileges of the corps, seek to grow great by attacking
its privileges.
So I do not claim that a period will come when all jurists, or that in
all times, most jurists must appear as friends of order and enemies of
change.
I am saying that in a society where jurists occupy without dispute the
elevated position that belongs to them naturally, [and with all the more
reason in the society where they occupy the first rank] their spirit will be
eminently conservative and will show itself to be antidemocratic.m
When the aristocracy closes its ranks to jurists, it finds in them enemies
k. Hervé de Tocqueville: “That is not exact; the English aristocracy only makes itself
the champion of its privileges and of those of the clergy” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, pp. 77–78).
m. Édouard de Tocqueville:
The sense of this paragraph must necessarily be changed, for this reflection could
apply to all those of ambition, to all agitators, to all the anarchists of the world, as
well as to jurists. There is no revolutionary who, reaching the first rank, does not
reveal a conservative spirit, that is to say, who does not want to conserve this rank, that
speaks for itself. So you must not, after saying that jurists do not have anarchic ten-
dencies, give as proof their conduct and their passions that from this paragraph are
precisely those of the anarchists of all times and in all places. Couldn’t you say: I am
saying that in a society where jurists will occupy without dispute the rank that legitimately
belongs to them, their spirit, etc? (YTC, CIIIb, 1, pp. 68–69).
all the more dangerous because, below the aristocracy in wealth and power,
they are independent of the aristocracy by their work and feel themselves
on its level by their enlightenment.
But every time the nobles have wanted to share some of their privileges
with the jurists, these two classes have found it very easy to join together
and have, so to speak, discovered themselves to be of the same family.
I am equally led to believe that it will always be easy for a king to make
jurists the most useful instruments of his power.n
There is infinitely more natural affinity between men of the law and the
executive power than between them and the people, although jurists often
have to overthrow the first; just as there is more natural affinity between
the nobles and the king than between the nobles and the people, even
though you have often seen the superior classes of society combine with
the others to struggle against royal power. [ Jurists often fear the king, but
they always despise the people.]
What jurists love above all things is the sight of order, and the greatest
guarantee of order is authority. It must not be forgotten, moreover, that if
they prize liberty, they generally put legality much above it; they fear tyr-
anny less than arbitrariness and, provided that the legislator himself sees
to taking independence away from men, they are more or less content.
So I think that the prince who, in the presence of an invasive democracy,
would seek to break down the judicial power in his States and to diminish
the political influence of jurists, would commit a great error. He would let
go of the substance of authority in order to seize its shadow.
I do not doubt that it would be more profitable for him to introduce
jurists into the government. After entrusting despotism to them in the form
As for me, I believe that this will always be a nearly insoluble problem for a king. It
would be necessary that near the sovereign there were neither court, nor in the State
any great superiority that offended the vanity of the jurists. One objects that they
love Louis-Philippe. That comes from the contempt that he inspires in them and that
precisely makes each one of them believe he has the right to consider himself above
Louis-Philippe, though he is the king. Alexis must take care not to be caught in a
paradox, as much here as in what follows (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 78).
of violence, perhaps he would rediscover it in their hands with the features

of justice and the law.
[As for me, I would never advise any people to leave to the courts the
care of guaranteeing its liberty. I would be afraid that the courts would
sacrifice it to monarchs or to themselves. This care concerns great political
assemblies.]
The government of democracy is favorable to the political power of
jurists. When the rich man, the nobleman and the prince are excluded from
government, the jurists arrive there by right, so to speak; for then they are
the only enlightened and skillful men that the people can choose outside
of themselves.o
If jurists are led naturally toward the aristocracy and the prince by their
tastes, they are led naturally toward the people by their interest.
Thus, jurists love the government of democracy, without sharing its ten-
dencies and without imitating its weaknesses, double cause to be powerful
by democracy and over democracy.
The people, in a democracy, do not distrust jurists, because they know
that the interest of jurists is to serve their cause; they listen to them without
anger, because they do not assume that jurists have an ulterior motive.p In
fact, jurists do not want to overturn the government that democracy has
established, but they strive constantly to lead it along a path that is not its
own and by means that are foreign to it. The jurist belongs to the people
by his interest and by his birth and to the aristocracy by his habits and his
tastes; he is like the natural liaison between these two, like the link that
unites them.
The body of jurists forms the only aristocratic element that can mingle
with the natural elements of democracy without effort and combine with
them in a happy and enduring way. I am not unaware of the faults inherent
o. “⫽In America the second guarantee of liberty is found in the constitution of the
judicial power. The absence of administrative centralization is a happy circumstance
more than a result of the wisdom of the law-maker. But the judicial power in the United
States is a barrier raised by design against the omnipotence of the majority. You can
consider it as the only powerful or real obstacle that the American laws have placed in
the path of the people⫽” (YTC, CVh, 4, pp. 16–17).
p. In the margin: “⫽It is to jurists that democracy owes the ability to govern.⫽”
in the spirit of jurists; without this mixture of the spirit of jurists with the
democratic spirit, I doubt, however, that democracy could govern society
for long, and I cannot believe that today a republic could hope to maintain
its existence, if the influence of jurists in public affairs did not increase in
proportion to the power of the people.
This aristocratic character that I see in the spirit of jurists is still more
pronounced in the United States and in England than in any other country.
This is due not only to the study of the law made by English and American
jurists, but also to the very nature of legislation and to the position that
these interpreters occupy among these two peoples.
The English and the Americans have kept the law of precedents, that is,
they continue to draw from the opinions and legal decisions of their fathers
the opinions that they must have in matters of the law and the decisions
they must render.
So with an English or American jurist, the taste and respect for what is
old is nearly always mingled with love of what is regular and legal.
This has still another influence on the turn of mind of jurists and con-
sequently on the course of society.
The English or American jurist seeks what has been done; the French
jurist, what you must have wanted to do; [the first, evidence; the second,
arguments] the one wants judgments, the other wants reasons.
When you listen to an English or American jurist, you are surprised to
see him so often cite the opinion of others, and to hear him speak so little
about his own, while among us the contrary happens.
No affair that the French lawyer agrees to handle is so small that he treats
it without introducing a system of his own ideas; and he will examine even
the constituent principles of the law so that the court be pleased in this
regard to have the boundary marker of a disputed inheritance moved back
about six feet.
This sort of abnegation of his own sense made by the English and Amer-
ican jurist in order to rely on the sense of his fathers; this type of servitude,
in which he is obliged to maintain his thought, must give the spirit of the
jurist more timid habits and make him acquire more stationary tendencies
in England and America than in France [for a fact is very much more im-
mobile than an idea or an argument].
Our written laws are often difficult to understand, but everyone can read
them; in contrast, there is nothing more obscure to the common people
and less accessible to them than legislation founded on precedents. This
need for the jurist in England and in the United States, this high idea of
his knowledge, separate him more and more from the people, and end by
putting him in a class apart. The French jurist is only a learned man, but
the English or American man of the law in a way resembles the priests of
Egypt; like them, he is the sole interpreter of an occult science.
The position that the men of the law occupy in England and in America
exercises an influence no less great on their habits and their opinions. The
aristocracy of England, which has taken care to draw to its bosom every-
thing that had some natural analogy to it, has given a very great portion of
consideration and power to jurists. In English society jurists are not at the
first rank, but they consider themselves content with the rank that they
occupy. They form something like the junior branch of the English aris-
tocracy, and they love and respect their seniors, without sharing all their
privileges. So the English jurists combine with the aristocratic interests of
their profession the aristocratic ideas and tastes of the society in which they
live.
Therefore in England, above all, you can see in relief the type of jurist
that I am trying to paint: the English jurist esteems the laws, not so much
because they are good as because they are old; and, if he sees himself re-
duced to modifying them on some point in order to adapt to the changes
that societies are subjected to by time, he resorts to the most incredible
subtleties in order to persuade himself that, by adding something to the
work of his fathers, he is only developing their thought and completing
their efforts. Do not hope to make him recognize that he is an innovator;
he will consent to go to absurd lengths before admitting himself guilty of
such a great crime. In England was born this legal spirit that seems indif-
ferent to the heart of things in order to pay attention only to the letter, and
that would rather go beyond reason and humanity than go beyond the law.
English legislation is like an ancient tree on which jurists have constantly
grafted the strangest shoots, in the hope that, while producing different
fruits, they will at least blend their foliage with the venerable stock that
supports them.
In America, there are no nobles nor men of letters, and the people dis-
trust the rich. So jurists form the superior political class and the most in-
tellectual portion of society.q Thus, they could only lose by innovating: this
adds a conservative interest to the natural taste that they have for order.
If you asked me where I place the American aristocracy, I would answer
without hesitating that it is not among the rich who have no common bond
that gathers them together. The American aristocracy is at the lawyers’ bar
and on the judges’ bench.r
The more you think about what happens in the United States, the more
you feel persuaded that in this country the body of jurists forms the most
powerful and, so to speak, the sole counterweight of democracy.
In the United States you easily discover how appropriate the spirit of
the jurist is, by its qualities, and I will say even by its faults, for neutralizing
the vices inherent in popular government.
When the American people allow themselves to be intoxicated by their
passions, or abandon themselves to the impetus of their ideas, jurists make
them feel an almost invisible brake that moderates and stops them. To their
democratic instincts, jurists secretly oppose their own aristocratic tenden-
cies; to their love of novelty, the jurists’ superstitious respect for what is
old; to the immensity of their designs, the jurists’ narrow views; to their
disdain for rules, the jurists’ taste for forms; and to their hotheadedness,
the jurists’ habit of proceeding slowly.
The courts are the most visible organs that the body of jurists uses to
act upon democracy.
The judge is a jurist who, apart from the taste for order and rules that
he acquired in the study of law, draws the love of stability also from
his irremovability from office. His legal knowledge had already assured
q. In the margin: “⫽Perhaps put here the large piece added at Baugy.⫽”
r. I am not saying that the aristocratic spirit in the United States is found only among
jurists; the rich in America, as everywhere else, certainly have great instincts for order
and preservation. But they do not form a corps; they are not united together by shared
habits, ideas, tastes. There is no intellectual bond that gathers their collective strength;
they do not make a corps. The people distrust them and do not mix them into public
affairs, while the jurists, who have more or less the same instincts as the rich, do not
cause the people any fear (YTC, CVj, 2, pp. 17–18).
him an elevated position among his fellows; his political power really
places him in a rank apart, and gives him the instincts of the privileged
classes.
Armed with the right of declaring laws unconstitutional, an American
magistrate enters constantly into public affairs.1 He cannot force the people
to make laws, but at least he compels them not to be unfaithful to their
own laws and to remain consistent.
I am not unaware that a secret tendency exists in the United States that
leads the people to reduce the judicial power; in most of the particular state
constitutions, the government, at the request of two legislative houses, can
remove judges from the bench. Certain constitutions make the members
of the courts elective and submit them to frequent reelection.t I dare to
predict that sooner or later these innovations will have harmful results and
that one day you will see that by diminishing the independence of the mag-
istrates in this way you have attacked not only the judicial power but also
the democratic republic itself.
It must not be believed, moreover, that in the United States the spirit
of the jurist is enclosed only within the courtrooms; it extends well beyond.
Jurists, forming the only enlightened class that the people do not dis-
trust, are naturally called to occupy most of the public offices. They fill the
legislatures and are at the head of administrations, so they exercise a great
influence on the formation of the law and on its execution. Jurists are
obliged, however, to yield to the current of political opinion that carries
them along; but it is easy to find indications of what they would do if they
were free. The Americans, who have innovated so much in their political
laws, have introduced only slight changes, and with great difficulty, into
their civil laws, although several of these laws are strongly repugnant to
their social state.u That is because in matters of civil law the majority is
1. See in the first volume what I say about the judicial power.s
s. The first part of the book, as the reader remembers, was published in two volumes.
t. A lawyer from Montgomery, in Alabama, had, on 6 January 1832, drawn the at-
tention of the author to this fact (nonalphabetic notebooks 1 and 2, YTC, BIIa, and
Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 140–41).
u. Tocqueville considers this question in the last pages of chapter II of the first part
of the first volume.
always obliged to rely on jurists; and the American jurists, left to their own
choice, do not innovate.
It is a very strange thing for a Frenchman to hear the complaints that
arise in the United States against the jurists’ stationary spirit and their prej-
udices in favor of what is established.
The influence of the spirit of the jurist extends still farther than the
precise limits that I have just traced.v
There is hardly any political question in the United States that sooner
or later does not turn into a judicial question. From that, the obligation
that the parties find in their daily polemics to borrow ideas and language
from the judicial system. Since most public men are or have formerly been
jurists, they make the habits and the turn of ideas that belong to jurists pass
into the handling of public affairs. The jury ends up by familiarizing all
classes with them. Thus, judicial language becomes, in a way, the common
language; so the spirit of the jurist, born inside the schools and courtrooms,
spreads little by little beyond their confines; it infiltrates all of society, so
to speak; it descends to the lowest ranks, and the entire people finishes by
acquiring a part of the habits and tastes of the magistrate.
In the United States, the jurists form a power that is little feared, that is
scarcely noticed, that has no banner of its own, that yields with flexibility
to the exigencies of time and gives way without resistance to all the move-
ments of the social body. But this power envelops the entire society, pen-
v. It is easy to notice, if you look closely, that in all the states of the Union, the judicial
power exercises a great influence over political affairs. But this influence is visible,
above all, in the action of the federal courts. You know that the Constitution of the
United States predominates over the particular constitutions just as the latter in turn
predominate over simple laws. Now, I said elsewhere that the Constitution of the
United States forbids the provincial legislatures to introduce retroactive provisions
into their penal laws and to damage certain vested rights. To take these two courses
of action away from the particular states was to wrest from them the very weapons
of tyranny. So every time that legislators pass laws of this type, they are attacked as
unconstitutional before the federal courts. The federal judicial system then comes to
put itself as a disinterested arbiter between the majority that wants to oppress and
the individual that it oppresses.1 It interposes itself among the local passions whose
ardor can be compared only to those fraternal hatreds about which Tacitus speaks.
1. I do not know if that is true in as absolute a way as I indicate. To research. See
notably Story, p. 498 (YTC, CVh, 5, pp. 22–23).
etrates into each of the classes that compose society, works on society in
secret, acts constantly on society without society’s knowledge and ends by
shaping society according to its desires.
Of the Jury in the United States

Considered as a Political Institution w
The jury, which is one of the modes of sovereignty of the people,
must be put in harmony with the other laws that establish this
sovereignty.—Composition of the jury in the United States.—
Effects produced by the jury on the national character.—
Education that it gives to the people.—How it tends to establish
the influence of magistrates and to spread the spirit of the jurist.
Since my subject has led me naturally to talk about the judicial system in the
United States, I will not abandon this matter without dealing with the jury.
w. Jury./
The jury is at the very same time an energetic means to make the people rule and
the most effective means to teach them to rule./
Since I am on the judicial system, I want to talk about the jury./
Democratic or aristocratic, but never monarchical, always republican./
[In the margin: As for me, I find that when you deal with the jury the political
point of view absorbs all others so to speak; the jury is above all a political institution;
it is from this point of view that you must always judge it.] There would be a book
to do on the ways in which the Americans make the responsibility of the jury apply
in criminal and civil matters, but here I only want to consider it from the political
point of view (YTC, CVh, 5, p. 31).
These and other ideas had been sketched by Tocqueville in two notes dated respectively
11 October 1831 and 12 January 1832 (pocket notebooks 3, 4 and 5, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage,
OC, V, 1, pp. 181–82, 201–2). The travel notebooks contain numerous references to the
jury, especially notebook F, which is dedicated exclusively to civil and criminal law in
America. On the role of the jury in civil matters, see the conversation of 21 September
1831 with Senator Francis Gray and the conversation with a lawyer from Montgomery
(nonalphabetic notebooks 2 and 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 91 and 142).
During his journey, Tocqueville attended a hearing in a circuit court (George W. Pierson,
Tocqueville and Beaumont in America, chapter XXVIII).
Tocqueville considers that mores and circumstances act as well against tyranny of the
majority. These two other obstacles to the power of the majority are set forth in chapter
IX, which initially concluded the work. See note a on p. 277 and note e on p. 452.
Two things must be distinguished: the jury as a judicial institution and

as a political institution.
If it was a matter of knowing to what extent the jury, and above all the
jury in civil matters, serves the good administration of justice, I would ad-
mit that its usefulness could be contested.
The institution of the jury was born in a society that was little advanced,
where hardly anything was submitted to the courts except simple questions
of fact; and it is not a simple task to adapt the jury to the needs of a very
civilized people, when the relationships among men are singularly multi-
plied and have taken on a complicated and intellectual character.2
My principal goal, at this moment, is to envisage the political side of
the jury; another path would take me away from my subject. As for the jury
considered as a judicial means, I will say only two words. When the English
adopted the institution of the jury, they were a half-barbaric people; they
have since become one of the most enlightened nations of the globe, and
their attachment to the jury has seemed to increase with their enlighten-
ment. They emerged from their territory, and we have seen them spread
across the universe. Some formed colonies; others, independent States. The
body of the nation kept the king; several of the emigrants founded powerful
republics. But everywhere the English equally advocated the institution of
2. It would be something quite useful and curious to consider the jury as a judicial insti-
tution, to appreciate the effects that it produces in the United States and to try to find out in
what way the Americans have made use of it. You could find in the examination of this
question alone the subject of an entire book and a book interesting for France. You would try
to find out there, for example, what portion of American institutions relative to the jury could
be introduced among us and with the help of what gradual process. The American state that
would provide the most light on this subject would be the state of Louisiana. Louisiana con-
tains a mixed population of French and English. The two sets of law are found there face to
face like the two peoples and combine little by little with each other. The most useful books to
consult would be the collection of the laws of Louisiana in two volumes, entitled Digeste des
lois de la Louisiane; and perhaps even more a course-book on civil procedure written in the
two languages and entitled: Traité sur les règles des actions civiles, printed in 1830 in New
Orleans, published by Buisson. This work presents a special advantage; it provides to the
French an accurate and authentic explanation of English legal terms. The language of the
law forms something like a separate language among all peoples, and among the English more
than among any other.
the jury.3 They established it everywhere or hastened to reestablish it. A

judicial institution that thus obtains the votes of a great people over a long
succession of centuries, that is zealously reproduced at all periods of civi-
lization, in all climates and under all forms of government cannot be con-
trary to the spirit of justice.4
[<Justice is one of the first needs of men, and there is no prejudice that
can stifle it for long.>]
But let us leave this subject. It would singularly narrow your thought to
limit yourself to envisioning the jury as a judicial institution; for, if it ex-
ercises a great influence on the outcome of trials, it exercises a very much
greater one on the very destinies of society. So the jury is before all else a
political institution. You must always judge it from this point of view.
I understand by jury a certain number of citizens taken at random and
vested temporarily with the right to judge.
3. All the English and American jurists are unanimous on this point. Mr. Story, Justice
of the Supreme Court of the United States, in his [very fine] treatise on the federalConstitution
returns again to the excellence of the institution of the jury in civil matters: “The inestimable
privilege of a trial by Jury in civil cases [is (ed.)],” he says, “a privilege scarcely inferior to
that in criminal cases, which is conceded by all persons to be essential to political and
civil liberty” (Story, book III, ch. XXXVIII [p. 654 (ed.)]).
4. If you wanted to establish the utility of the jury as judicial institution, you would have
many other arguments to offer, and among others the following:
As you introduce jurors into affairs, you can without inconvenience diminish the number
of judges; this is a great advantage. When judges are very numerous, each day death creates
a gap in the judicial hierarchy and opens new places for those who survive. So the ambition
of the magistrates is continually in suspense and makes them naturally depend on the majority
or on the man who appoints to empty posts: then you advance in the courts like you gain rank
in the army. It is a state of things entirely contrary to the good administration of justice and
to the intentions of the legislator. You want the judges to be irremovable so that they remain
free; but what good is it that no one can take their independence away from them if they
willingly sacrifice it themselves?
When judges are very numerous, it is impossible not to find many incompetent men among
them: for a great magistrate is not an ordinary man. Now, I do not know if a half-enlightened
court is not the worst of all combinations in order to attain the ends that are set when estab-
lishing the courts of justice.
As for me, I would prefer to abandon the decision in a trial to ignorant jurors led by a
skillful magistrate, than to leave it to judges, the majority of whom would have only an in-
complete knowledge of jurisprudence and of the laws.
To apply the jury to the suppression of crime appears to me to introduce

into the government an eminently republican institution. Let me explain.
The institution of the jury can be aristocratic or democratic, depending
on the class from which you take the jurors; but it always retains a [an
eminently] republican character, in that it places the real direction of society
in the hands of the governed or of a portion of them, and not in the hands
of those governing.
Force is never more than a fleeting element of success; soon after force
comes the idea of right. A government reduced to being able to reach its
enemies only on the field of battle would soon be destroyed. The true sanc-
tion of political laws is therefore found in the penal laws and if the sanction
is lacking, the law sooner or later loses its force. So the man who judges in
a criminal court is really the master of society. Now, the institution of the
jury puts the people themselves, or at least a class of citizens, on the judge’s
bench. So the institution of the jury really puts the leadership of society
into the hands of the people or of this class.5
In England, the jury is recruited from among the aristocratic portion of
the nation. The aristocracy makes the laws, applies the laws and judges the
infractions of the laws.B Everything is in accord: consequently England
truly speaking forms an aristocratic republic. In the United States, the same
system is applied to the whole people. Each American citizen is a voter and
eligible for office and jury.C The system of the jury, such as it is understood
in America, seems to me as direct and as extreme a consequence of the
dogma of sovereignty of the people as universal suffrage. These are two
equally powerful means to make the majority rule.
All the sovereigns who have wanted to draw the sources of their power
from within themselves and lead society instead of letting themselves be
led by society have destroyed the institution of the jury or have enervated
5. An important remark must be made however:

The institution of the jury, it is true, gives to the people a general right of control over the
actions of the citizens, but it does not provide them with the means to exercise this control in
all cases or in an always tyrannical manner.
When an absolute prince has the right to have crimes judged by his appointees, the fate of
the accused is so to speak fixed in advance. But were the people resolved to condemn, the
composition of the jury and its lack of accountability would still offer some favorable chances
to the innocent.
it. The Tudors imprisoned jurors who would not condemn, and Napoleon
had jurors chosen by his agents.
[It was the Bourbons who, in the year 1828, really reestablished among
us the institution of the jury by making chance the principal arbiter of the
choice of jurors. I cannot in this matter prevent myself from admiring the
singular connection of events in this world. Bonaparte, who pretended to
hold his right from the national will, made a law directly contrary to the
sovereignty of the people, and the Bourbons, who said they held their right
from themselves, returned the sanction to the hands of the people.x
The law of 1828 was, without the knowledge of those who passed it, an
immense advancey made toward republican institutions in France. You
would have noticed it clearly if the Restoration had not rushed headlong
into an abyss. The jury thus emancipated would have been sufficient to
bind the government little by little to the desires of the middle classes with-
out having had the need to resort to force, because the majority of jurors
was always found among the middle classes.]
However evident most of the preceding truths may be, they do not strike
all minds, and often, among us, there still seems to be only a confused idea
of the institution of the jury. If someone wants to know what elements
should make up the list of jurors, the discussion is limited to considering
the enlightenment and capacity of those called to be a part of the list, as
if it was only a matter of a judicial institution. In truth, that seems to me
to be preoccupied with the least portion of the subject. The jury is before
all else a political institution; it should be considered as a mode of sover-
eignty of the people; it must be entirely rejected when you rule out the
x. To the side: “<In note if included.

“⫽The cause for it is that the first attached more value to absolute power than to the
right to exercise it [v: the appearance] while the second still preferred the aspect of the
thing to the thing itself⫽ {have the right to do everything rather than to use it.}>”
y. Édouard de Tocqueville:
“I would like an immense step instead of an immense advance, because a step may not
be an advance and it is still very doubtful that it is one in this case. In any case I do not
think that you wish to express yourself in this regard or that you should.
“This expression of advance, moreover, implies blame for the Bourbons who granted
it without knowing, that is to say against their will. While the word step cannot include
this sense” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 66).
sovereignty of the people, or must be put in harmony with the other laws
that establish this sovereignty. The jury forms the part of the nation charged
with ensuring the execution of the laws, as the legislative houses are the
part of the nation charged with making the laws; and for society to be
governed in a fixed and uniform manner, it is necessary that the list of jurors
be expanded or restricted with the list of voters. This is the point of view
that, in my opinion, must always attract the principal attention of the leg-
islator. The rest is so to speak secondary.
I am so persuaded that the jury is before all else a political institu-
tion that I still consider it in this way when it is applied to civil matters.
[This can seem extraordinary at first glance. Here are my reasons for
doing so.]
Laws are always shaky as long as they do not rely on mores; mores form
the only resistant and enduring power among a people.
When the jury is reserved for criminal affairs, the people see it act only
from time to time and in particular cases; they get used to doing without
the jury in the ordinary course of life, and they consider it as a means and
not as the only means for obtaining justice.6
When, on the contrary, the jury is extended to civil affairs, its application
comes into view at every moment; then it touches all interests; each person
comes to contribute to its action; in this way it enters into the customs of
life; it bends the human spirit to its forms and merges so to speak with the
very idea of justice.
So the institution of the jury, limited to criminal affairs, is always at risk;
once introduced into civil matters, it stands up against time and the efforts
of men. If you had been able to remove the jury from the mores of the
English as easily as from their laws, the jury would have completely suc-
cumbed under the Tudors. So it is the civil jury that really saved the liberties
of England.
In whatever manner you apply the jury, it cannot fail to exercise a great
6. This is true for all the more reason when the jury is applied only to certain criminal
affairs.
influence on the national character, but this influence increases infinitely

the more you introduce it into civil matters.
The jury, and above all the civil jury, serves to give the mind of all citizens
a part of the habits of mind of the judge; and these habits are precisely
those that best prepare the people to be free.
It spreads in all classes respect for the thing judged and for the idea of
right. Remove these two things, and the love of independence will be noth-
ing but a destructive passion.
It teaches men the practice of equity. Each person, by judging his neigh-
bor, thinks that he can be judged in his turn. That is above all true of the
jury in civil matters: there is hardly anyone who fears one day being the
object of a criminal proceeding; but everyone can have a civil trial.
The jury teaches each man not to retreat from responsibility for his own
actions; a manly disposition, without which there is no political virtue.
It vests each citizen with a sort of magistracy; it makes all feel that they
have duties to fulfill toward society and that they enter into its government.
By forcing men to get involved in something other than their own affairs,
it combats individual egoism, which is like the rust of societies [{that ruins
nations more than armies do}].
The jury serves unbelievably to form the judgment and to augment the
natural enlightenment of the people. That, in my opinion, is its greatest
advantage. You must consider it as a free school, always open, where each
juror comes to be instructed about his rights, where he enters into daily
communication with the most learned and most enlightened members of
the upper classes, where the laws are taught to him in a practical way, and
are put within the reach of his intelligence by the efforts of the lawyers, the
advice of the judge and the very passions of the parties. I think that the
practical intelligence and good political sense of the Americans must be
attributed principally to the long use that they have made of the jury in
civil matters.
I do not know if the jury is useful to those who have legal proceedings,
but I am sure that it is very useful to those who judge them. I regard it as
one of the most effective means that a society can use for the education of
the people.
What precedes applies to all nations; but here is what is special to the
Americans, and in general to democratic peoples.
I said above that in democracies the jurists, and among them the mag-
istrates, form the only aristocratic body that can moderate the movements
of the people. This aristocracy is vested with no physical power; it exercises
its conservative influence only over minds. Now, it is in the institution of
the civil jury that it finds the principal sources of its power.
In criminal trials, where society struggles against a man, the jury is led
to see in the judge the passive instrument of the social power, and it dis-
trusts his advice. Moreover, criminal trials rest entirely on simple facts that
good sense easily comes to appreciate. On this ground, judge and juror
are equal.
It is not the same in civil trials; then the judge appears as a disinterested
arbiter between the passions of the parties. The jurors view him with con-
fidence, and they listen to him with respect; for here his intelligence entirely
dominates theirs. He is the one who lays out before them the diverse ar-
guments that have fatigued their memory and who takes them by the hand
to lead them through the twists and turns of procedure; he is the one who
confines them to the point of fact and teaches them the answer that they
must give to the question of law. His influence over them is almost without
limits.
Is it necessary to say finally why I am so little moved by arguments drawn
from the incapacity of jurors in civil matters?
In civil trials, at least whenever it is not a matter of questions of fact,
the jury has only the appearance of a judicial body.
The jurors deliver the decision that the judge has rendered. They lend
to this decision the authority of the society that they represent and he, the
authority of reason and the law.D
In England and in America, judges exercise an influence over the fate of
criminal trials that the French judge has never known. It is easy to under-
stand the reason for this difference: the English or American magistrate has
established his power in civil matters; afterward he is only exercising it in
another theater; he is not gaining it there.
There are cases, and they are often the most important ones, where the
American judge has the right to deliver a verdict alone.7 He then finds him-
self, by happenstance, in the position where the French judge usually finds
himself; but his moral power is very much greater: the memories of the
jury still follow him, and his voice has almost as much power as that of the
society of which the jurors were the organ.
His influence extends even well beyond the courtroom: in the diversions
of private life as in the labors of political life, in the public square as within
the legislatures, the American judge constantly finds around him men who
are used to seeing in his intelligence something superior to their own; and,
after being exercised in trials, his power makes itself felt in all the habits of
mind and even on the very souls of those who have participated with him
in judging.
So the jury, which seems to diminish the rights of the magistracy, really
establishes its dominion, and there is no country where judges are as pow-
erful as those where the people share their privileges.
With the aid of the jury in civil matters, above all, the American mag-
istracy makes what I have called the spirit of the jurist enter into the lowest
ranks of society.
Thus the jury, which is the most energetic means to make the people
rule, is also the most effective means to teach them to rule.z
7. Federal judges almost always decide alone questions that touch most closely on the gov-
ernment of the country.
z. Among Beaumont’s documents relative to the discussion of the constitutional
committee of 1848, the following note is found, which gives an account of an interven-
tion by Tocqueville concerning the jury: “Tocqueville sees a disadvantage in an imme-
diate, absolute and general application of the jury in civil matters. Singular mixture
sometimes of fact and law. Necessity of very enlightened public mores. Greater necessity
of a more capable jury because of the difficulty of functions. Who says jury says sup-
pression in nearly all cases of the double degree of jurisdiction. Great difficulty in leading
the jury” (YTC, Beaumont, DIVk).
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 9
Of the Principal Causes That Tend
to Maintain the Democratic Republic
in the United States a
The democratic republicb survives in the United States. The principal goal
of this book has been to make the causes of this phenomenon understood.
The flow of my subject carried me, despite myself, close to several of
these causes that I pointed out only from afar in passing. I could not deal
with others. And those that I was allowed to expand upon have been left
behind as if buried under details.
So I thought that before going further and speaking about the future, I
had to gather together in a narrow scope all the reasons that explain the
present.
In this type of summary I will be brief, for I will take care to recall only
very summarily to the reader what he already knows, and among the facts
that I have not yet had the occasion to put forth, I will choose only the
principal ones.
I thought that all the causes that tend to maintain the democratic re-
public c in the United States could be reduced to three:d
a. At first this chapter was the last in the book; the tenth was added later.
Melvin Richter (“The Uses of Theory: Tocqueville’s Adaptation of Montesquieu,”
in Essays in Theory and History, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970, pp. 74–102)
compares the method of Tocqueville in this chapter with that followed by Montesquieu
in Esprit des lois.
b. In the manuscript: “A large democratic republic . . .”
c. The manuscript says: “. . . the large democratic republic . . .”
d. ⫽Of the three causes the least influential is that of laws and it is, so to speak, the
only one that depends on man. Peoples cannot change their position and the first
451
452 of the principal causes
The particular and accidental situation in which Providence placed the

Americans forms the first;
The second results from laws;
The third follows from habits and mores.
Of the Accidental or Providential Causes

That Contribute to Maintaining the
Democratic Republic in the United States e
The Union does not have neighbors.—No large capital.—The
Americans have had the good fortune of birth in their favor.—
America is an empty country.—How this circumstance serves
powerfully to maintain the democratic republic.—Manner in
which the wilderness of America is populated.—Eagerness of the
Anglo-Americans to take possession of the empty wilderness areas
of the New World.—Influence of material well-being on the
political opinions of the Americans.
conditions of their existence. A nation can in the long run modify its habits and its
mores, but a generation cannot succeed in doing so. It can only change the laws. [In
the margin: But what can the best laws do without circumstances and mores?] Now,
of the three causes that we are speaking about, the least influential is precisely that
which results from laws. So not only does man not exercise power around himself,
but he possesses so to speak none over himself and remains almost completely a stran-
ger to his own fate⫽ (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 19).
e. At first this part was entitled: What Tends {to Moderate the Omnipotence of the
Majority in America} to Make the Democratic Republic Practicable in America. The first
sentences of the initial draft show that this part was a continuation of that on the tyranny
of the majority: “⫽The causes that tend to moderate the omnipotence of the majority
in the United States and to make the democratic republic practicable arise from the
particular circumstances in which the country is or was, from laws and from mores.⫽”
A note in the margin specifies: “⫽To put immediately after the omnipotence of the
majority what serves more particularly as a counterweight to it and then what in general
favors the republic, for the omnipotence of the majority, which is the greatest obstacle
to maintaining republics, is not the only one.⫽”
of the principal causes 453
There are a thousand circumstancesf independent of the will of men that

make it easy to have the democratic republic in the United States. Some
are known, others are easy to make known: I will limit myself to explaining
the principal ones.
The Americans do not have neighbors,g consequently no great wars, fi-
nancial crisis, ravages, nor conquest to fear; they need neither heavy taxes
nor a numerous army, nor great generals; they have almost nothing to fear
from a plague more terrible for republics than all the others put together,
military glory.
How to deny the incredible influence that military glory exercises on the
spirit of the people? General Jackson, whom the Americans have twice cho-
sen to put at their head, is a man of violent character and middling capacity;
nothing in all the course of his career had ever proved that he had the qual-
ities necessary to govern a free people; consequently, the majority of the
enlightened classes of the Union have always been opposed to him. So who
put him in the President’s seat and still keeps him there? The memory of
a victory won by him, twenty years ago, under the walls of New Orleans;
now, this victory of New Orleans is a very ordinary feat of arms which
cannot be of much interest for long except in a country where no battles
are fought; and the people who allow themselves to be thus carried away
f. James T. Schleifer (The Making of Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America,” p. 61)

noted that the meaning of the word “circumstances” appreciably narrows from the drafts
to the final version and ends by designating only physical circumstances. It can be added,
in the same way, that the importance of the influence of climate, as has been seen else-
where, is manifestly greater in the drafts and manuscript than in the final version.
During his journey, as the correspondence attests, Tocqueville accorded a great im-
portance to climatic conditions: “When you see men who tell you that climate does
nothing to the constitution of peoples, assure them that they are mistaken. We saw the
French of Canada: they are a tranquil, moral, religious people; in Louisiana we left other
French who were restless, dissolute, lax in everything. Between them was 15 degrees of
latitude; that is in truth the best reason that I can give for the difference” (Letter to Ernest
de Chabrol of 16 January 1832, YTC, BIa2). Also see Correspondance avec Kergorlay, OC,
XIII, 1, pp. 225–36 and a letter of 1829, before the American journey, in Correspondance
avec Beaumont, OC, VIII, 1, pp. 93–94.
g. For Rousseau, the absence of conflicts with neighbors constitutes one of the con-
ditions for the existence of a good body of laws (Du contrat social, book II, chapter X,
in Oeuvres complètes, Paris: Pléiade, 1964, III, p. 389). Jefferson often repeated the same
idea.
by the prestige of glory is, certainly, the coldest, most calculating, least mili-
tary and, if I can put it this way, the most prosaic of all the peoples of the
world.[*] h
America has no large capital1 whose direct or indirect influence is felt
over the whole extent of the territory; I consider this one of the first causes
for maintaining republican institutions in the United States.j In cities, you
can hardly prevent men from consulting each other, from getting worked
[*]. {which has not prevented one of our compatriots who became American forty
years ago} ⫽During our visit to America a medal was struck in honor of G[ener (ed.)]al.
J[ackson (ed.)] having as an inscription: “quod Caesar fecit Jackson superavit,” which
could have seemed a pleasant jest, but the author did not intend it as a joke. It is true
that this unfortunate flatterer was a former French republican, a very ardent enemy of
kings and the vices of the royal court [Edmond-Charles Genêt (ed.)].⫽
h. This paragraph appears almost literally in a note of 1 November 1831 (pocket note-
book 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 186). Tocqueville and Beaumont met An-
drew Jackson on 19 January 1832. The evening spent at the White House seems hardly
to have impressed the two Frenchmen favorably. Nor did it modify their opinion about
the American President. Beaumont gave an account of this visit in a letter to his mother
(Lettres d’Amérique, pp. 210–11). Also see George W. Pierson, Tocqueville and Beaumont
in America, pp. 663–66.
1. America does not yet have a large capital, but it already has three large cities. In 1830,
Philadelphia numbered 161,000 inhabitants, and New York 202,000. The lower classes who
inhabit these vast cities form a populace more dangerous than even that of Europe. It is made
up first of all of emancipated Negroes, who are condemned by law and opinion to a state of
hereditary degradation and misery. Also in its midst is found a multitude of Europeans pushed
daily by misfortune and loose behavior to the shores of the New World; these men bring to
the United States our worst vices, and they have none of the interests that could combat the
influence of those vices. Inhabiting the country without being citizens, they are ready to take
advantage of all the passions that agitate the country; consequently we have for some time seen
serious riots break out in Philadelphia and New York. Such disorders are unknown in the
rest of the country, which is not worried about them, because until now the city population
has not exercised any power or any influence on the rural population.
I regard the large size of certain American cities and above all the nature of their inhab-
itants, however, as a genuine danger that threatens the future of the democratic republics of
the New World, and I am not afraid to predict that it is there that they will perish, unless
their government succeeds in creating an armed force that, while remaining subject to the will
of the national majority, is nevertheless independent of the people of the cities and can repress
their excesses.
j. Compare chapter VIII of book II of Ancien Régime et la Révolution (OC, II, 1,
pp. 139–40), where Tocqueville cites the Marquis de Mirabeau and Montesquieu on the
same theme. Later, the great anti-metropolitan will be Rousseau (Du contrat social, book
III, chapter XIII, Oeuvres complètes, Paris: Pléiade, 1964, III, p. 427).
up together, from making sudden and impassioned resolutions. Cities form

like great assemblies of which all the inhabitants are members. The people
exercise a prodigious influence over their magistrates there, and often the
people execute their will there without intermediary.
So to subject the provinces to the capital is to put the destiny of the whole
empire, not only in the hands of a portion of the people, which is unjust,
but also to put it in the hands of the people acting by themselves, which is
very dangerous. So the preponderance of capitals strikes a grave blow at the
representative system. It makes modern republics succumb to the fault of
the ancient republics which all perished from not knowing this system.
It would be easy for me to enumerate here a great number of other sec-
ondary causes that have favored the establishment and assure the mainte-
nance of the democratic republics in the United States. But in the middle
of this host of fortunate circumstances, I see two principal ones, and I
hasten to point them out.
I have already said previously that I saw in the origin of the Americans,
in what I called their point of departure, the first and most effective of all
the causes to which the present prosperity of the United States could be
attributed. The Americans have had the good fortune of birth in their favor:
long ago their fathers imported to the land that they inhabit equality of
conditions and intellectual equality, from which the democratic republic
was bound to emerge one day as if from its natural source. This is still not
all; with a republican social state, they passed on to their descendants the
habits, ideas and mores most appropriate to make the republic flourish.
When I think about what this original fact produced, I seem to see the
whole destiny of America contained in the first Puritan who reached its
shores, like the whole human race in the first man.
Among the fortunate circumstances that also have favored the establish-
ment and assure the maintenance of the democratic republic in the United
States, the first in importance is the choice of the country itself that the
Americans inhabit. Their fathers gave them the love of equality and liberty,
but it is God who, by giving them an unlimited continent, granted them
the means to remain equal and free for a long time.k
k. To the side: “⫽When a king finds himself troubled by his neighbors, he goes to
war; when the people are discontent with their position, they make a revolution.⫽”
General well-being favors the stability of all governments, but particu-

larly of democratic government, which rests upon the dispositions of the
greatest number, and principally on the dispositions of those who are the
most exposed to needs. When the people govern, they must be happy so
that they do not overturn the State. Misery produces among them what
ambition does among kings. Now, causes that are material and independent
of the laws and that can lead to well-being are more numerous in America
than they have been in any country in the world, in any period of history.
[In Europe the culmination of good laws is to produce well-being; in Amer-
ica all the work of bad laws would scarcely succeed in preventing well-being
from being produced.]
In the United States, it is not only legislation that is democratic; nature
itself works for the people.
Where to find, in the memory of man, anything resembling what is
happening before our eyes in North America?
The famous societies of antiquity were all founded in the midst of en-
emy peoples who had to be conquered for those societies to be established
in their place. Modern peoples have found in several parts of South America
vast countries inhabited by peoples who were less enlightened than they,
but who had already appropriated the soil by cultivating it. To establish
their new States, they had to destroy or subjugate large populations, and
they made civilization ashamed of their triumphs.
But North America was inhabited only by wandering tribes who did not
think of using the natural riches of the soil. North America was still, prop-
erly speaking, a vacant continent, a deserted land, that awaited inhabitants.
Everything is extraordinary among the Americans, their social state as
well as their laws; but what is still more extraordinary is the land that holds
them.
When the earth was given to men by the Creator, it was young and in-
exhaustible,m but they were weak and ignorant; and when they had learned
to take advantage of the treasures that it held in its bosom, they already
m. In the manuscript: “When God created the globe He at once gave part of it over
to the efforts of its inhabitants. Providence held the rest in reserve, destined for happier
generations.
“The land that thus became the first inheritance of man was young . . .”
covered the face of the land, and soon they had to fight to gain the right
to have a refuge and to dwell in liberty.
That is when North America comes into sight, as if God had held it in
reserve and it had only just emerged from the waters of the flood.
It presents, as at the first days of creation, rivers whose sources do not
run dry, green and moist wildernesses, limitless fields not yet broken by the
farmer’s plow. In this state, it is no longer offered to the isolated, ignorant
and barbaric man of the earliest ages, but to the man already master of the
most important secrets of nature, united with his fellows, and educated by
an experience of fifty centuries.
At the moment I speak, thirteen million civilized Europeans are spread-
ing tranquilly across fertile wilderness areas whose resources or extent they
do not yet exactly know. Three or four thousand soldiers push before them
the wandering race of natives; behind the armed men, woodsmen advance
who pierce the forests, drive away the wild game, explore the course of rivers
and prepare the triumphant march of civilization across the wilderness.
Often, in the course of this work, I have alluded to the material well-
being that the Americans enjoy; I have pointed it out as one of the great
causes for the success of their laws. This reason had already been given by
a thousand others before me: it is the only one that, falling in a way within
the awareness of the Europeans, has become popular among us. So I will
not expand upon a subject so often treated and so well understood; I will
only add several new facts.n
It is generally imagined that the wilderness of America is populated with
the help of European emigrants who arrive each year on the shores of the
New World, while the American population increases and multiplies on
the soil that their fathers occupied: that is a great error. The European who
reaches the United States arrives there without friends and often without
resources; to live, he is forced to hire out his services, and it is rare to see
him go beyond the large industrial zone that extends along the ocean. You
n. In the margin: “⫽The Americans are so fortunate that everything, even including
their vices, is useful to them.”
cannot clear the wilderness without capital or credit;[*] before risking your-
self in the middle of the forest, the body must become accustomed to the
rigors of a new climate. So it is the Americans who, daily abandoning the
place of their birth, go to create for themselves vast domains far away. Thus
the European leaves his cottage to go to inhabit the transatlantic shores,
and the American, who is born on these very shores, disappears in turn into
the emptiness of the central part of America. This double movement of
emigration never stops: it begins in the heart of Europe, it continues across
the great ocean, it keeps on across the solitude of the New World. Millions
of men march at the same time toward the same point of the horizon: their
language, their religion, their mores differ, their goal is shared. They have
been told that fortune is found somewhere toward the West, and they go
in haste to find it.o [What are they going to do, in what precise place must
they stop? They themselves do not know, but they march forward guided
by the hand of God.]
Nothing can be compared with this continual displacement of the hu-
man species, except perhaps what happened at the fall of the Roman Em-
pire. Then, as today, you saw men rush all in a throng toward the same
point and meet turbulently in the same places; but the designs of Provi-
dence were different. [Then God wanted to destroy; today He wants to
create.] Each new arrival brought in his train destruction and death; today
each of them carries with him a seed of prosperity and life.
The distant consequences of this migration of the Americans toward
the West is still hidden from us by the future, but the immediate results are
easy to recognize: because one part of the former inhabitants moves each
year away from the states where they were born, these states, as they grow
older, are becoming populated only very slowly; thus in Connecticut,which
still numbers only fifty-nine inhabitants per square mile, the population
has only grown by a quarter during the past forty years, while in England
it has increased by a third during the same period. So the emigrant from
Europe always arrives in a country half-full where industry needs hands; he
[*]. A note of explanation and details.

o. Cf. note h for p. 1313 of volume II.
becomes a worker who is well-off; his son goes to find his fortune in an
empty country and becomes a wealthy landowner. The first amasses the
capital that the second turns to good account, and there is no poverty either
among the foreigners or among the natives.
Legislation, in the United States, favors as much as possible the division
of property; but a cause more powerful than legislation prevents property
from dividing too much.2 You can see it clearly in the states that are finally
beginning to fill up. Massachusetts is the most populated country in the
Union; the inhabitants number eighty per square mile, which is infinitely
fewer than in France, where there are one hundred sixty-two gathered in
the same space.
In Massachusetts, however, it is quite rare that small estates are divided:
the eldest generally takes the land; the younger go to find their fortune in
the wilderness.
The law abolished the right of primogeniture; but you can say that Prov-
idence reestablished it without anyone having to complain, and this time
at least it does not offend justice.
You will judge by a single fact the prodigious number of individuals who
leave New England in this way to go to move their homes into the wilder-
ness. We are assured that in 1830, among the members of Congress, there
were thirty-six who were born in the small state of Connecticut. So the
population of Connecticut, which forms only one forty-third of that of
the United States, provides one-eighth of the representatives.p
The state of Connecticut itself, however, sends only five representatives
to Congress: the thirty-one others appear there as representatives of the new
states of the West. If these thirty-one individuals had remained in Con-
necticut, it is probable that instead of being rich landowners, they would
have remained small farmers and lived in obscurity without being able to
open a political career, and that, far from becoming useful legislators, they
would have been dangerous citizens
2. In New England, the land is divided into small estates, but it is no longer being divided.
p. Tocqueville got this information from Judge Dens of Hartford (non-alphabetic
notebooks 2 and 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 102).
These considerations do not escape the mind of the Americans any more
than ours.
Chancellor Kent writes in his Commentaries on American Law (vol. IV,
p. 380):
It cannot be doubted that the division of property will produce great evils
when it is carried to the extreme; to the extent that each portion of land
can no longer provide for the support of a family; but these disadvantages
have never been felt in the United States, and many generations will pass
before they are felt. The immense area of our uninhabited territory, the
abundance of adjacent lands and the continual flow of emigration that,
departing from the shores of the Atlantic, goes constantly into the interior
of the country, are sufficient and will be sufficient to prevent the breaking
up of inherited lands for a long time yet to come.
It would be difficult to portray the greediness with which the American

throws himself on this immense prize that fortune offers him. To pursue
it he fearlessly defies the Indian’s arrow and the diseases of the wilderness;
the silence of the woods holds nothing that astonishes him, the approach
of ferocious beasts does not rouse him; a stronger passion than love of life
constantly spurs him on. Before him extends a continent nearly without
limits, and you would say that, already afraid of having no room there, he
hurries for fear of arriving too late. I spoke about the emigration from the
old states, but what will I say about that from the new? Not fifty years ago
Ohio was founded; most of its inhabitants were not born there; its capital
has not existed thirty years, and an immense expanse of uninhabited coun-
try still covers its territory; the population of Ohio, however, has already
started to march again toward the West; most of those who come into the
fertile prairies of Illinois are inhabitants of Ohio. These men have left their
first home to be comfortable; they leave the second to be still better off:
nearly everywhere, they find fortune, but not happiness. Among them, the
desire for well-being has become a restless and ardent passion that grows as
it is being satisfied. Formerly they broke the ties that bound them to their
birthplace; they have formed no other ties since. For them, emigration be-
gan as a need; today, it has become in their eyes a kind of game of chance,
which they love for the emotions as much as for the gain.
Sometimes man moves so quickly that the wilderness reappears behind

him. The forest has only bent under his feet; the moment he passes, it rises
up again. It is not unusual, while traveling through the new states of the
West, to encounter abandoned dwellings in the middle of the woods; often
you find the ruins of a cabin in the deepest solitude, and you are amazed
while crossing rough-hewn clearings that attest simultaneously to human
power and inconstancy. Among these abandoned fields, over these day old
ruins, the ancient forest does not delay growing new shoots; the animals
retake possession of their realm; nature comes happily to cover the vestiges
of man with green branches and flowers and hastens to make the ephemeral
trace of man disappear.
I remember that while crossing q one of the uninhabited districts that
still cover the state of New York, I reached the shores of a lake entirely
surrounded by forests as at the beginning of the world. A small island arose
in the middle of the water. The woods that covered it, spreading their fo-
liage, entirely hid its banks. On the shores of the lake, nothing announced
the presence of man; you noticed only a column of smoke on the horizon
that, going straight up into the clouds above the top of the trees, seemed
to hang from rather than rise into the sky.
An Indian canoe was pulled onto the sand. I took advantage of it to go
to visit the island that had first attracted my attention and soon after I
reached its shore. The entire island formed one of those delightful unin-
habited places of the New World that almost make civilized men feel nos-
talgia for savage life. A vigorous vegetation proclaimed by its wonders the
incomparable fertility of the soil. As in all the wildernesses of North Amer-
ica, a profound silence reigned that was interrupted only by the monoto-
nous cooing of the woodpigeons or by the blows that the woodpecker
struck on the bark of the trees. I was very far from believing that this place
had formerly been inhabited, nature there seemed so left to itself; but upon
reaching the center of the island, I suddenly thought that I had found ves-
tiges of man. Then I carefully examined all the objects in the area, and soon
q. The manuscript adds “by chance.” It is not at all by chance that Tocqueville found
himself in this sparsely inhabited region of the state of New York. He was there expressly
to visit the island that he describes here (see appendix I, Voyage to Lake Oneida ).
I no longer doubted that a European had come to find a refuge in this place.
But how his work had changed appearance! The woods that, long ago, he
had hastily cut down to make himself a shelter had since grown shoots; his
fence had become living hedges, and his cabin had been transformed into
a grove. In the middle of these bushes you still saw a few stones blackened
by fire, scattered around a small pile of ashes; undoubtedly this was the
place of the hearth: the chimney, collapsing, had covered it with debris.
For some time I admired in silence the resources of nature and the weakness
of man; and when finally I had to leave these enchanted places, I again
repeated with sadness: What! Ruins already!r
In Europe we are used to regarding as a great social danger restlessness
of spirit, immoderate desire for wealth, extreme love of independence.
These are precisely all the things that guarantee a long and peaceful fu-
ture to the American republic. Without these restless passions, the popu-
lation would concentrate around certain places and, as among us, would
soon experience needs difficult to satisfy. How fortunate a country is the
New World, where the vices of man are nearly as useful to society as his
virtues!
This exercises a great influence on the way in which human actions are
judged in the two hemispheres. Often the Americans call praiseworthy in-
dustry what we name love of gain, and they see a certain cowardice of heart
in what we consider moderation of desires.
In France, simplicity of tastes, tranquillity of mores, spirit of family and
love of birthplace are regarded as great guarantees of tranquillity and hap-
piness for the State; but in America, nothing seems more prejudicial to
society than such virtues. The French of Canada, who have faithfully pre-
served the traditions of the old mores, already find it difficult to live in their
territory, and this small group of people just born will soon be prey to the
miseries of old nations. In Canada, the men who have the most enlight-
enment, patriotism and humanity, make extraordinary efforts to give the
r. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I believe that in this place Alexis should add a note that
would say a few words about the story of the emigrant” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 57).
people a distaste for the simple happiness that is still enough for them.
These men celebrate the advantages of wealth, just as among us they would
perhaps praise the charms of honest mediocrity, and they take more care
to incite human passions than is taken elsewhere to calm such passions.
Nothing in their eyes merits more praises than to exchange the pure and
tranquil pleasures presented by the native country to the poor man for the
sterile enjoyments provided by well-being under a foreign sky; to flee the
paternal hearth and the fields where his ancestors rest; to abandon the living
and the dead in order to run after fortune.
In our time, America offers men resources always greater than the in-
dustry that develops those resources can be.
So in America, you cannot provide enough enlightenment; for all en-
lightenment, at the same time that it can be useful to whoever possesses it,
still turns to the profit of those who do not. New needs are not to be feared
there, because all needs are satisfied without difficulty. You do not have to
fear giving birth to too many passions, because all passions find an easy and
salutary means of satisfaction. You cannot make men too free, because they
are almost never tempted to make bad use of liberty.
The American republics of today are like companies of merchants
formed to exploit in common the uninhabited lands of the New World
and occupied with a prospering commerce.
The passions that most profoundly agitate the Americans are commer-
cial passions and not political passions, or rather they carry into politics the
habits of business. They love order, without which business cannot prosper,
and they particularly prize regularity of mores, which lays the foundation
of good business establishments; they prefer good sense, which creates great
fortunes, to genius, which often dissipates them; general ideas frighten their
minds, accustomed to positive calculations, and among the Americans,
practice is more honored than theory.
You must go to America to understand what power material well-beings
exercises over political actions and even over opinions themselves, which
should be subject only to reason. It is among foreigners that you principally
s. See chapter X of the second part of the second volume.

discover the truth of this. Most of the emigrants from Europe bring to the
New World the wild love of independence and change that is so often born
out of the midst of our miseries. I sometimes met in the United States
some of those Europeans who formerly had been forced to flee their coun-
try because of their political opinions. All astonished me by their speeches;
but I was struck by one of them more than any other. As I crossed one of
the most distant districts of Pennsylvania, night surprised me, and I went
to ask for shelter at the door of a wealthy planter: he was a Frenchman. He
made me sit down beside his hearth, and we began to talk freely, as happens
to men who find themselves in the depths of the forest two thousand
leagues from the country where they were born. I was not unaware that
forty years ago my host had been a great leveler and an ardent demagogue.
His name was known to history.t
So I was strangely surprised to hear him discuss the right of property as
an economist, I was almost going to say a landholder, would be able to do;
he spoke of the necessary hierarchy that fortune establishes among men,
of obedience to established law, of the influence of good mores in republics,
of the aid that religious ideas lend to order and to liberty: he even cited as
if by accident, in support of one of his political opinions, the authority of
Jesus Christ.
While listening to him, I wondered at the weakness of human reason.
Something is either true or false; how to find out amid the uncertainties of
knowledge and the diverse lessons of experience? A new fact arises that
relieves all my doubts. I was poor, now I am rich; if at least well-being,
while acting upon my conduct, left my judgment free! But no, my opinions
have indeed changed with my fortune, and in the happy outcome from
which I profit, I have really discovered the decisive reason that I had lacked
until then.
Well-being exercises an influence still more freely over the Americans
than over foreigners. The American has always seen before his eyes order
and public prosperity linked together and marching in step, he does not
imagine that they can live separately; so he has nothing to forget, and, unlike
t. This person has not been identified.

so many Europeans, does not need to lose what he retains from his first
education.
[Political society, however, is constantly agitated in the United States.
But the movement is slow and measured. It influences the details and not
the whole of public fortune. It bears more upon men than upon principles.
You want to improve constantly, but are afraid of upsetting things; and
while desiring the best, you are even more afraid of the worst.
What could I add to succeed in making my thought understood? What
occurred to so many of the French republicans under the Empire and to
some of the liberals of today happens to the majority of men in America.
They find in the end that society does well, or nearly so, because they are
doing well.]
Of the Influence of Laws on Maintaining the

Democratic Republic in the United States
Three principal causes for maintaining the democratic
republic.—Federal form.—Town institutions.—
Judicial power.
[⫽The second general cause that I pointed out as serving to maintain the
political institutions of the Americans is found in the very goodness of these
institutions, that is to say in their conformity to the social state and physical
position.⫽]
The principal goal of this book was to make the laws of the United States
known; if this goal has been reached, the reader has already been able to
judge for himself which ones, among these laws, tend really to maintain
the democratic republic and which ones put it in danger. If I have not
succeeded in the whole course of this book, I will succeed even less in this
chapter.
So I do not want to pursue the course that I have already covered, and
a few lines must suffice for me to summarize.
Three causes seem to contribute more than all the others to maintaining
the democratic republic in the New World:
The first is the federal form that the Americans adopted, and that allows
the Union to enjoy the power of a large republic and the security of a small
one.
I find the second in the town institutions that, by moderatingu the des-
potism of the majority, give the people at the same time the taste for liberty
and the art of being free.
The third is found in the constitution of the judicial power. I have shown
how much the courts serve to correct the errors of democracy and how,
without ever being able to stop the movements of the majority, they succeed
in slowing and directing them.
Of the Influence of Mores on Maintaining the

Democratic Republic in the United States
I said above that I considered the mores as one of the great general causes
to which maintaining the democratic republic in the United States can be
attributed.
I understand the expression mores here in the sense that the ancients
attached to the word mores; I apply it not only to mores strictly speaking,
which could be called habits of the heart, but to the different notions that
men possess, to the diverse opinions that are current among them, and to
the ensemble of ideas from which the habits of the mind are formed.v
So by this word I understand the whole moral and intellectual state of
u. The manuscript says “by preventing.”

v. “I understand by mores the whole of the dispositions that man brings to the gov-
ernment of society. Mores strictly speaking, enlightenment, habits, knowledge . . .”
(YTC, CVh, 3, p. 58).
Melvin Richter (“The Uses of Theory: Tocqueville’s Adaptation of Montesquieu,”
in Essays in Theory and History, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970, pp. 90–91)
remarks that Tocqueville, by the term mores, designates all that Montesquieu understood
by general spirit: precedents, mores, habits, economy, style of thought, etc.—with the
exception of laws, which he considers apart. But the explanation, which ascribes such a
meaning to Tocqueville’s bad memory and imprecision of method, is difficult to accept.
The distinction between laws and mores seems more understandable if you refer to Rous-
seau, who defines and understands mores in a fashion quite similar to that of Tocqueville.
On this point as on others, Tocqueville read Montesquieu through Rousseau. See Du
contrat social, book II, chapter XII, Œuvres complètes, Paris: Pléiade, 1964, III, pp. 393–
94.
a people. My goal is not to draw a picture of American mores; I limit myself

at this moment to trying to find out what among them is favorable for
maintaining the political institutions.
Of Religion Considered as a Political Institution,

How It Serves Powerfully to Maintain the
Democratic Republic among the Americans[*]
North America populated by men who professed a democratic
and republican Christianity.—Arrival of Catholics.—Why
today Catholics form the most democratic and the most
republican class.
Alongside each religion is found a political opinion that is joined to it by

affinity.w
Allow the human spirit to follow its tendency, and it will regulate in a
uniform way political society and the holy city; it will seek, if I dare say so,
to harmonize earth with heaven.x
Most of English America was populated by men who, after escaping
from the authority of the Pope, submitted to no religious supremacy; so
they brought to the New World a Christianity that I cannot portray better
than by calling it democratic and republican: this will singularly favor the
establishment of the republic and of democracy in public affairs. From the
onset, politics and religion found themselves in accord, and they have not
ceased to be so since.
[*]. ⫽I will examine in the second volume the state of religion in the United States,
the sects, the religious mores. Here I am considering it only from the political point of
view.⫽
w. “Who could deny the fortunate influence of religion on mores and the influence
of mores on the government of society?/
“The people see in religion the safeguard and the divine origin of liberty; the rich,
the guarantee of their fortune and their life; the statesmen, the safeguard of society; the
pioneer, something like his companion in the wilderness” (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 57).
x. In the margin in the first version: “⫽Despotism can do without religion, but not
liberty.
“Unanimity of statesmen on the utility of religion.⫽”
About fifty years ago Ireland began to pour a Catholic population into
the United States. For its part, American Catholicism made converts.y To-
day in the Union you find more than a million Christians who profess the
truths of the Roman Church.
These Catholics show a great fidelity to the observances of their religion,
and are full of ardor and zeal for their beliefs; however, they form the most
republican and most democratic class that exists in the United States. This
fact is a surprise at first glance, but reflection easily discloses the hidden
causes.
[Christianity, even when it demands passive obedience in matters of
dogma, is still of all religious doctrines the one most favorable to liberty,
because it appeals only to the mind and heart of those whom it wants to
bring into subjection.z No religion has so disdained the use of physical force
as the religion of J[esus (ed.)]. C[hrist (ed.)]. Now, wherever physical force
is not honored, tyranny cannot endure. Therefore you see that despotism
has never been able to be established among Christians.a It has always lived
there from day to day and in a state of alarm. When we say that a Christian
nation is enslaved, it is in comparison to a Christian people that we judge.
If we compare it to an infidel people, the Christian nation would seem free
to us.
y. In the manuscript: “American Catholicism spread for its part by numerous

conversions.”
z. In a first version of the drafts, this sentence is also found: “. . . wants to bring into
subjection. If it loves to rule despotically over the will of man, it is after the will has by
itself bent to its yoke. No religion . . .” (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 49).
a. Hervé de Tocqueville:
Édouard’s advice is to delete this piece up to the words among the different Christian
doctrines.
I share his opinion concerning only the first paragraph. It is not useful and besides
many claims can be challenged. The author says: no religion has so disdained the use
of physical force as much as the religion of Jesus Christ. Someone will put forward the
Albigensians, the Inquisition, the massacre of the Cévennes, etc. Later despotism has
never been able to be established among Christians is found. Someone will reply by citing
Spain since Philip II.
The paragraph on equality, which goes straight to the point and serves as a tran-
sition, must be kept here (YTC, CIIIb, 1, pp. 50–51).
I will say something analogous concerning equality.

Of all religious doctrines, Christianity, whatever interpretation you give
it, is also the one most favorable to equality. Only the religion of J[esus
(ed.)]. C[hrist (ed.)]. has placed the sole grandeur of man in the accom-
plishment of duties, where each person can attain it; and has been pleased
to consecrate poverty and hardship, as something nearly divine.
I will add that among the different Christian doctrines, Catholicism
seems to me one of the least contrary to the leveling of conditions.]
I think that it is wrong to regard the Catholic religion as a natural enemy
of democracy. Among the different Christian doctrines, Catholicism seems
to me on the contrary one of the most favorable to equality of conditions.
Among Catholics, religious society is composed of only two elements:
priest and people. The priest alone rises above the faithful; everything is
equal below him.b
In matters of dogma, Catholicism places all minds on the same level; it
subjects to the details of the same beliefs the learned as well as the ignorant,
the man of genius as well as the common man; it imposes the same obser-
vances on the rich as on the poor, inflicts the same austerities on the pow-
erful as on the weak; it compromises with no mortal, and by applying the
same measure to each human being, it loves to mix all classes of society
together at the foot of the same altar, as they are mixed together in the eyes
of God.
So, if Catholicism disposes the faithful to obedience, it does not prepare
them for inequality. I will say the opposite about Protestantism,c which, in
general, carries men much less toward equality than toward independence.d
b. In the margin: “⫽Catholicism favors the spirit of equality in the manner of ab-
solute power. It places one man beyond all rank and leaves all the others mingled together
in the crowd.⫽”
c. “Protestantism is the government of the middle classes applied to the religious
world” (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 85).
d. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I would delete this sentence for three reasons: 1. It implies
a sort of contradiction with the beginning of the chapter where the author attributes to
Protestantism the calm and regular establishment of democracy. 2. The thought is little
developed. 3. The sentence is not useful here” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, pp. 51–52).
Catholicism is like an absolute monarchy. Remove the prince, and con-

ditions there are more equal than in republics.e
The Catholic priest has often come out of the sanctuary to enter into
society as a power, and he has come to take a seat amid the social hierarchy;
sometimes he then used his religious influence to assure the lasting existence
of a political order of which he is part. Then you could see Catholics as
partisans of aristocracy by spirit of religion.
But once priests are excluded or withdraw from government, as they are
in the United States, there are no men who, by their beliefs, are more dis-
posed than Catholics to carry the idea of equality of conditions into the
political world.
So if Catholics in the United States are not strongly led by the nature
of their beliefs toward democratic and republican opinions, at least they
are not naturally against them, and their social position, as well as their
small number, makes it a rule for them to embrace those opinions.f
Most Catholics are poor, and they need all citizens to govern in order to
reach the government themselves. Catholics are in the minority, and they
need all rights to be respected in order to be assured of the free exercise of
theirs. These two causes push them, even without their knowledge, toward
e. ⫽I do not doubt that Protestantism, which places all religious authority in the
universality of the faithful acting by themselves, is very favorable to the establishment
of [v: indirectly supports the political dogma of the sovereignty of the people and
thus serves] republican government. And Catholicism, subject to the intellectual au-
thority of the Pope and Councils, seems to me to have more natural affinity with
limited monarchy than with any other government⫽ (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 71).
This paragraph is badly written. I would put it this way: If, moreover, Catholics in the
United States were not led by the nature of their belief toward democratic and republican
opinions, their social position as well as their small number would make it a rule for them
to embrace those opinions. Delete all the rest. This turn of phrase seems to me to present
ideas in a more logical way and to serve as a natural transition to the true reason why
Catholics in the United States love the republic. For at bottom you cannot close your
eyes to the fact that the ecclesiastical hierarchy of Catholics is much more an image
of monarchical government than of republican institutions. Not a word of the prayer
must be omitted (YTC, CIIIb, 1, pp. 52–53).
political doctrines that they would perhaps adopt with less ardor if they
were rich and predominant.
The Catholic clergy in the United States have not tried to struggle against
this political tendency; they seek instead to justify it. Catholic priests in
America have divided the intellectual world into two parts: in one, they left
revealed dogmas, and there they submit without discussion; in the other,
they put political truth, and there they think that God abandoned political
truth to the free search of men. Thus, Catholics in the United States are
simultaneously the most submissive faithful and the most independent cit-
izens [that there are in the world].
So you can say that in the United States not a single religious doctrine
shows itself hostile to democratic and republican institutions. All the clergy
there use the same language; [⫽and while American publicists make all the
miseries of society flow from despotism and inequality of conditions,
priests represent despotism and inequality of conditions as the most fertile
sources of moral evil⫽] opinions there are in agreement with laws, and only
one current so to speak rules the human mind.
I was living for a short while in one of the largest cities of the Union
when I was invited to attend a political meeting the goal of which was to
come to the aid of the Poles, and to send them arms and money.
I found two or three thousand persons gathered in a vast room that had
been prepared to receive them. Soon after, a priest, dressed in his ecclesi-
astical robes, came forward to the edge of the platform intended for the
speakers. Those attending, after removing their hats, stood in silence, and
he spoke in these terms:
God all-powerful! God of armies! Thou who sustained the hearts and
guided the arms of our fathers when they upheld the sacred rights of their
national independence; Thou who made them triumph over an odious
oppression, and who granted to our people the benefits of peace and lib-
erty; oh Lord! turn a favorable eye toward the other hemisphere; look with
pity upon a heroic people who today struggle as we once did and for the
defense of the same rights! Lord, who created all men on the same model,
do not allow despotism to come to distort Thy work and to maintain
inequality on earth. God all-powerful! watch over the destiny of the Poles,
make them worthy to be free; may Thy wisdom rule in their councils, may
Thy strength be in their arms; spread terror among their enemies, divide
the powers that plot their ruin, and do not allow the injustice that the
world witnessed fifty years ago to be consummated today. Lord, who holds
in Thy powerful hand the hearts of peoples as well as those of men, raise
up allies for the sacred cause of right; make the French nation arise finally
and, emerging from the sleep in which its leaders hold it, come to fight
once again for the liberty of the world.
O Lord! never turn Thy face from us; allow us always to be the most
religious people, as well as the most free.
God all-powerful, grant our prayer today; save the Poles. We ask Thee
in the name of Thy beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who died on the
cross for the salvation of all men. Amen.
The entire assembly repeated Amen with reverence.
Indirect Influence Exercised by Religious Beliefs

on Political Society in the United States
Morality of Christianity which is found in all sects.—
Influence of religion on the mores of Americans.—Respect
for the marriage bond.—How religion encloses the
imagination of the Americans within certain limits and
moderates among them the passion to innovate.—
Opinion of Americans on the political utility of religion.—
Their efforts to extend and assure its dominion.
I have just shown what the direct action of religion on politics was in the
United States. Its indirect action seems even more powerful to me, and it
is when religion is not speaking about liberty that it best teaches the Amer-
icans the art of being free.g
There is an innumerable multitude of sects in the United States. All
differ in the worship that must be given to the Creator, but all agree on the
g. To the side: “⫽Patriotic affection of the Americans for religion.

“I am not sure that the Americans are convinced of the truth of religion, but I am
sure that they are convinced of its utility.⫽”
duties of men toward one another. So each sect worships God in its way,
but all sects preach the same morality in the name of God. If it is very
useful to a man as an individual that his religion be true, it is not the same
for society. Society has nothing either to fear or to hope concerning the
other life; and what is most important for society is not so much that all
citizens profess the true religion but that they profess a religion. All the
sects in the United States are, moreover, within the great Christian unity,
and the morality of Christianity is the same everywhere. [{In America
there are Catholics and Protestants, but Americans profess the Christian
religion.}]
You are free to think that a certain number of Americans, in the worship
they give to God, follow their habits more than their convictions. In the
United States, moreover, the sovereign is religious, and consequently hy-
pocrisy must be common; but America is still the place in the world where
the Christian religion has most retained true power over souls; and nothing
shows better how useful and natural religion is to man, since the country
where today it exercises the most dominion is at the same time the most
enlightened and most free.
I said that American priests come down in a general way in favor of civil
liberty, without excepting even those who do not allow religious liberty;
you do not see them lend their support, however, to any political system
in particular. They take care to keep out of public affairs and do not get
mixed up in the schemes of the parties. So you cannot say that in the United
States religion exercises an influence on laws or on the detail of political
opinions, but it directs mores, and it is by regulating the family that it works
to regulate the State.
I do not doubt for an instant that the great severity of mores that is
noticed in the United States has its primary source in beliefs. Religion there
is often powerless to restrain the man amid the innumerable temptations
presented by fortune. It cannot moderate in him the ardor to grow rich that
comes to goad everyone, but it rules with sovereign power over the soul of
the woman, and it is the woman who shapes the mores.h America is assur-
edly the country in the world in which the marriage bond is most respected,
h. See chapter IX of the third part of the second volume.

and in which the highest and most sound idea of conjugal happiness has
been conceived.
In Europe, nearly all of the disorders of society are born around the
domestic hearth and not far from the marital bed. That is where men con-
ceive scorn for natural bonds and permitted pleasures, taste for disorder,
restlessness of heart, instability of desires. Agitated by the tumultuous pas-
sions that have often troubled his own dwelling, the European submits only
with difficulty to the legislative powers of the State. When, coming from
the agitation of the political world, the American returns to the bosom of
his family, he immediately encounters the image of order and peace. There,
all his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys innocent and tranquil; and
as he achieves happiness by the regularity of life, he easily gets used to reg-
ulating his opinions as well as his tastes.j
While the European seeks to escape his domestic sorrows by troubling
society, the American draws from his home the love of order that he then
carries into the affairs of the State.
In the United States, religion regulates not only mores; it extends its
dominion even to the mind.
Among the Anglo-Americans, some profess Christian dogmas because
they believe them; others, because they fear not appearing to believe them.
So Christianity rules without obstacles, with the consent of all; as a result,
as I have already said elsewhere, everything is certain and fixed in the moral
world, while the political world seems abandoned to discussion and to the
experiments of men. Thus the human mind never sees a limitless field be-
fore it; whatever its audacity, it feels from time to time that it must stop
before insurmountable barriers. Before innovating, it is forced to accept
certain primary givens, and to subject its boldest conceptions to certain
forms that retard and stop it.
So the imagination of the Americans, in its greatest departures, has only
a circumspect and uncertain movement; its ways are hampered and its
j. Basil Hall finds that Tocqueville exaggerated the domestic happiness of Americans
(cf. the letter of Tocqueville to Basil Hall reproduced in note d for pp. 819–21 of the
second volume).
works incomplete. These habits of restraint are found in political society

and singularly favor the tranquillity of the people, as well as the continued
existence of the institutions that the people have given themselves. Nature
and circumstances had made out of the inhabitant of the United States an
audacious man; it is easy to judge so when you see how he pursues fortune.
If the mind of the Americans were free of all hindrances, you would soon
find among them the boldest innovators and the most implacable logicians
in the world. But the revolutionaries of America are obliged to profess pub-
licly a certain respect for Christian morality and equity that does not allow
them to violate laws easily when the laws are opposed to the execution of
their designs; and if they could rise above their scruples, they would still
feel checked by the scruples of their partisans. Until now no one has been
found in the United States who has dared to advance this maxim: that ev-
erything is allowed in the interest of society. Impious maxim, that seems
to have been invented in a century of liberty in order to legitimate all the
tyrants to come. [<In France a [illegible word] {man} seeks to justify this
enormity by principles and facts, and he goes to take a seat in the councils
of the prince.>]
Therefore, at the same time that the law allows the American people to
do everything, religion prevents them from conceiving of everything and
forbids them to dare everything.k
So religion, which among the Americans never directly takes part in the
government of society, must be considered as the first of their political
institutions; for if it does not give them the taste for liberty, it singularly
facilitates their use of it.
It is also from this point of view that the inhabitants of the United States
themselves consider religious beliefs. I do not know if all Americans have
faith in their religion, for who can read the recesses of the heart? But I am
sure that they believe it necessary for maintaining republican institutions.
This opinion does not belong to one class of citizens or to one party, but
to the whole nation; you find it among all ranks.
In the United States, when a politician attacks a sect, it is not a reason
k. In the margin: “⫽American liberty was born in the bosom of religion and is still
sustained in its arms.⫽”
for even the partisans of that sect not to support him; but if he attacks all
sects together, each one flees from him, and he remains alone.
While I was in America, a witness appeared before the assizes of the
county of Chester (State of New York) and declared that he did not believe
in the existence of God and in the immortality of the soul. The presiding
judge refused to admit his oath, given, he said, that the witness had de-
stroyed in advance any faith that could be given to his words.3 The news-
papers reported the fact without comment.
Americans mix Christianity and liberty so completely in their mind that
it is nearly impossible to make them conceive one without the other; and,
among them, this is not one of those sterile beliefs that the past bequeaths
to the present and that seem more to vegetate deep in the soul than to live.
I have seen Americans join together to send priests into the new states
of the West and to found schools and churches there; they are afraid that
religion may come to be lost in the middle of the woods, and that the people
who are arising there may not be as free as those from whom they came. I
met rich inhabitants of New England who abandoned the country of their
birth with the goal of going to lay the foundations of Christianity and
liberty on the banks of the Missouri or on the prairies of Illinois. This is
how religious zeal in the United States constantly warms up at the hearth
of patriotism. You think that these men act uniquely in consideration of
the other life, but you are mistaken: eternity is only one of their concerns.
If you question these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be very
surprised to hear them speak so often about the good things of this world
and to find politicians where you thought to see only men of religion. “All
the American republics stand together one with the others, they will say to
you; if the republics of the West fell into anarchy or submitted to the yoke
3. Here are the words in which the New York Spectator of 23 August 1831 reports the
fact:
The court of common pleas of Chester county (New York) a few days since rejected a witness
who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked that he
had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence
of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice and
that he knew of no cause in a Christian country where a witness had been permitted to
testify without such a belief.
of despotism, the republican institutions that flourish on the shores of the

Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril; so we have an interest that these
new states are religious, in order that they allow us to remain free.”m
Such are the opinions of the Americans; but their error is clear. For each
day someone proves to me very learnedly that everything is good in Amer-
ica, except precisely this religious spirit that I admire; and I learn that the
only thing missing from the liberty and happiness of the human species,
on the other side of the Ocean, is to believe with Spinozan in the eternity
of the world, and to uphold with Cabanis that the brain secretes thought.
To that I have nothing to reply, in truth, if not that those who use this
language have not been to America, and have not seen religious peoples any
more than free peoples. So I will await their return.
[⫽For me, if something could make me despair of the destiny of Eu-
rope, it is to see the strange confusion that reigns there in minds. I see pious
men who would like to suffocate liberty, as if liberty, this great privilege of
man, was not a nearly holy thing. Further along, I see others who think to
arrive at being free by attacking all beliefs, but I do not see any who seem
to notice the tight and necessary knot that ties [v: the republic] religion to
liberty.⫽]
There are men in France who consider republican institutions as the
temporary instrument of their grandeur. They measure with their eyes the
immense gap that separates their vices and their miseries from power and
riches, and they would like to pile up ruinso in this abyss in order to try to
fill it. These men are to liberty what the free companies of the Middle Ages
were to kings; they make war on their own behalf even when they wear his
colors; the republic will always live long enough to pull them out of their
present low position. I am not speaking to them. But there are others who
m. In the margin: “⫽We would not give ourselves all these difficulties if a regulating
force existed outside of society. But how to govern yourself [v: an entire people] without
the existence [v: support] of beliefs and mores?⫽”
n. In place of Spinoza, the manuscript cites Voltaire.
o. In the manuscript: “. . . ruins and riches and they would like to throw the republic
down like a narrow passageway and flying bridge over the abyss.”
see in the republic a permanent and tranquil state, a necessary end toward
which ideas and mores lead modern societies each day, and who would
sincerely like to prepare men to be free. When these men attack religious
beliefs, they follow their passions and not their interests. Despotism can do
without faith, but not liberty. Religion is much more necessary in the re-
public that they advocate than in the monarchy that they attack, and in
democratic republics more than in all others. How could society fail to
perish if, while the political bond grows loose, the moral bond does not
become tighter? And what to do with a people master of itself, if it is not
subject to God?
Of the Principal Causes That Make Religion

Powerful in America p
Care that the Americans have taken to separate Church and
State.—Laws, public opinion, the efforts of priests themselves,
work toward this result.—To this cause must be attributed the
power that religion exercises on souls in the United States.—
Why.—What is today the natural state of man in
p. In an initial plan of the work:

Religious society./
Nomenclature of the various sects.—From Catholicism to the sect that is furthest
from it.
Quakers, Methodists.—Point out what is antisocial in the doctrine of Quakers,
Unitarians.
Relations among the sects.
Freedom of worship.—Toleration: in the legal respect; with respect to mores.
Catholicism.
Place of religion in the political order and its degree of influence on American
society (YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 26–27).
Several ideas of this part are roughed out in a letter from Tocqueville to Chabrol dated
26 October 1831. Tocqueville answers certain questions that Louis Bouchitté had asked
him concerning religion in the United States (YTC, BIa2).
This passage is not without many similarities to “Note on the religious movement in
the United States” by Gustave de Beaumont, very particularly to part III, “Relations of
religions with the State” (Marie, II, pp. 213–25).
the matter of religion.—What particular and accidental

cause, in certain countries, works against men
conforming to this state.
The philosophers of the XVIIIth century explained the gradual weakening

of beliefs in a very simple way. Religious zeal, they said, must fade as liberty
and enlightenment increase. It is unfortunate that facts do not agree with
this theory.q
There is such a European population whose disbelief is equaled only by
its brutishness and ignorance, while in America you see one of the most
free and most enlightenedr peoples in the world fulfill with ardor all the
external duties of religion.
When I arrived in the United States, it was the religious aspect of the
country that first struck my eyes.s As I prolonged my journey, I noticed the
great political consequences that flowed from these new facts.
I had seen among us the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty march
almost always in opposite directions. Here, I found them intimately joined
the one to the other: they reigned together over the same soil.
Each day I felt my desire to know the cause of this phenomenon increase.
To find it out, I asked the faithful of all communions; I sought, above
all, the company of priests who are the keepers of the different faiths and
who have a personal interest in their continued existence. The religion I
q. I have heard it said in Europe that it was very unfortunate that these poor Amer-
icans had religion. When you have been in the United States, conviction that religion
is more useful in republics than in monarchies, and in democratic republics more
than anywhere else. Disastrous misunderstanding in France. Despotic powers of Eu-
rope favor religion./
As for these cut-throats, liberty is the greatest gift of God, it is the republicans, I
have nothing to say to them . . . but the others . . . may they know that liberty is an
almost holy thing [v: what distinguishes us from beasts] (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 57).
r. The manuscript says: “. . . you see the most free and most enlightened . . .”
Hervé de Tocqueville: “Isn’t the expression a bit exaggerated?” (YTC, CIIIb, 1 p. 44).
s. Several times Tocqueville uses the same expression in the book while referring to
other aspects that attracted his attention, for example, the activity that reigns in the
United States.
profess brought me particularly close to the Catholic clergy, and I did not
delay in striking up a sort of intimacy with several of its members.t To each
of them I expressed my astonishment and revealed my doubts. I found that
all of these men differed among themselves only on the details; but all at-
tributed the peaceful dominion that religion exercises in their country prin-
cipally to the complete separation of Church and State. I am not afraid to
assert that, during my visit in America, I did not meet a single man, priest
or laymen, who did not agree on this point.
This led me to examine more attentively than I had done until then the
position that American priests occupy in political society. I realized with
t. Few questions have provoked more commentary than the religious beliefs of
Tocqueville. All commentators nonetheless take as true the confession of faith made to
Madame Swetchine in the famous letter of 26 February 1857 (Correspondance avec Ma-
dame Swetchine,OC, XV, 2, p. 315). There Tocqueville says that he lost his faith when
he was sixteen years old, after reading several passages chosen haphazardly from his fa-
ther’s library. His works and his correspondence allow us, however, to guess his assent
to several great dogmas of Catholicism. As Luis Dı́ez de Corral (La mentalidad polı́tica
de Tocqueville con especial referencia a Pascal, Madrid: Real Academia de Ciencias Morales
y Polı́ticas, 1965, p. 118) notes, Tocqueville is closer to those who, in the words of Pascal,
“seek while groaning,” eternally plagued by doubt and uncertainty, captives to the
“wager.” In this regard, the author writes to Francisque de Corcelle:
If you know a recipe for belief, for God ! give it to me. But what power does the will
have over the free processes of the mind? If will alone were sufficient for belief, I
would have been devout a long time ago; or rather I would always have been devout,
for doubt has always seemed to me the most unbearable of the ills of the world; I
have constantly judged it to be worse than death and inferior only to illnesses (Cor-
respondance avec Corcelle, OC, XV, 2, p. 29).
A little further in this chapter, Tocqueville explains what perhaps best corresponds to
his own sentiment in the matter of religious beliefs. The latter, he says, are abandoned
by coldness rather than by hatred; you do not reject them, they leave you. While
ceasing to believe religion true, the unbeliever continues to judge it useful. Consid-
ering religious beliefs from a human aspect, he recognizes their dominion over mores,
their influence over laws. He understands how they can make men live in peace and
gently prepare men for death. So he regrets faith after losing it, and deprived of a
good of which he knows the whole value, he is afraid to take it away from those who
still possess it (p. 486).
Also see Luis Dı́ez del Corral, El pensamiento polı́tico de Tocqueville, Madrid: Alianza
Universidad, 1989, pp. 227–71.
surprise that they fill no public position.4 I did not see a single one of them
in the administration, and I discovered that they were not even represented
within the assemblies.
The law, in several states, had closed a political career to them;5 opinion,
in all the others.
When finally I found out what the mind of the clergy itself was, I noticed
that most of its members seemed to remove themselves voluntarily from
power, and to take a kind of professional pride in remaining apart from it.
I heard them anathematize ambition and bad faith, whatever the po-
litical opinions that ambition and bad faith carefully used to cover them-
selves. But I learned, by listening to them, that men cannot be blameworthy
in the eyes of God because of these very opinions, when the opinions are
sincere, and that there is no more sin in being wrong in matters of govern-
ment than in being mistaken about the way in which your dwelling must
be built or your furrow must be plowed.
I saw them separate themselves with care from all parties, and flee contact
with all the ardor of personal interest.
These facts succeeded in proving to me that I had been told the truth.
Then I wanted to go back from facts to causes. I asked myself how it
could happen that by diminishing the apparent strength of a religion, you
4. Unless you give this name to the functions that many among them occupy in schools.
Most education is confided to the clergy.
5. See the Constitution of New York, art. 7, #4.
Id. of North Carolina, art. 31.
Id. of Virginia.
Id. of South Carolina, art. 1, #23.
Id. of Kentucky, art. 2, #26.
Id. of Tennessee, art. 8, #1.
Id. of Louisiana, art. 2, #22.
The article of the Constitution of New York is formulated as follows:
And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the
service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great
duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any de-
nomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any presence or descrip-
tion whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place
within this State.
came to increase its true power, and I believed that it was not impossible
to find out.
Never will the short space of sixty years enclose all of the imagination
of man; the incomplete joys of this world will never be enough for his heart.
Among all beings, man alone shows a natural distaste for existence and an
immense desire to exist: he scorns life and fears nothingness. These different
instincts constantly push his soul toward the contemplation of another
world, and it is religion that leads him there. So religion is only a particular
form of hope, and it is as natural to the human heart as hope itself.u It is
by a type of mental aberration and with the help of a kind of moral violence
exercised over their own nature, that men remove themselves from religious
beliefs; an irresistible inclination brings them back to beliefs. Unbelief is
an accident; faith alone is the permanent state of humanity.
So by considering religion only from a human viewpoint, you can say
that all religions draw from man himself an element of strength that they
can never lack, because it is due to one of the constituent principles of
human nature.
I know that there are times when religion can add to this influence,
which is its own, the artificial power of laws and the support of the physi-
cal powers that lead society. We have seen religions, intimately united with
u. What touches me more than the miracles and the prophecies is the very character
of Christianity. There is the greatest sign of its divine origin. Give honor to all the
religious codes of the world, you will see that they necessarily apply to a certain coun-
try, to certain mores, to a particular social state or people. I do not examine the proofs
of these religions, and I say that they are false, because they are not made for all times
and for all men. But Christianity seems universal and immortal like the human spe-
cies./
The influence that religion exercises over mores in the United States must not be
exaggerated; it is not sufficient to make a virtuous people, but an orderly one./
Its action on the women. It is the women who make mores.
I said that democracy was the form of government in which it was most desirable
that the people be happy; it is also the one in which it is most desirable that the people
be moral and for the same reason.
I would not hesitate to say, because I write in an irreligious century, that in the
United States religion is the first of political institutions. And I even add that I am
that much less afraid to say so because of this reason (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 58).
the governments of the earth, dominate souls by terror and by faith at the
same time; but when a religion contracts such an alliance, I am not afraid
to say, it acts as a man could: it sacrifices the future with the present in
mind, and by obtaining a power that is not its due, it puts its legitimate
power at risk.
When a religion seeks to found its dominion only on the desire for im-
mortality that equally torments the hearts of all men, it can aim for uni-
versality; but when it comes to unite with a government, it must adopt
maxims that are applicable only to certain peoples. Therefore, by allying
itself to a political power, religion increases its power over some and loses
the hope of reigning over all.
As long as a religion relies only on the sentiments that console all mis-
eries, it can attract the heart of the human species. Mingled with the bitter
passions of this world, religion is sometimes constrained to defend allies
that have offered interest rather than love; and it must reject as adversaries
men who often still love it, even as they fight those men with whom religion
is united. So religion cannot share the material strength of those who gov-
ern without burdening itself with a portion of the hatreds caused by those
who govern.
The political powers that appear most established have as a guarantee
of their continued existence only the opinions of a generation, the in-
terests of a century, often the life of a man. A law can modify the social
state that seems most definitive and most firm, and with it everything
changes.
The powers of society are all more or less fleeting, just as our years upon
the earth; they rapidly follow one another, like the various cares of life;
and you have never seen a government that relied on an invariable dis-
position of the human heart and that was able to base itself on an im-
mortal interest.
As long as a religion finds its strength in the sentiments, the instincts,
the passions that are reproduced in the same way in all periods of history,
it defies the effort of time, or at least it can be destroyed only by another
religion. [Political powers can do nothing against it.] But when religion
wants to rely on the interests of this world, it becomes almost as fragile as
all the powers of the earth. Alone, religion can hope for immortality; tied
to ephemeral powers, it follows their fortune, and often falls with the pas-
sions of the day that sustain those powers.
So by uniting with different political powers, religion can only contract
an onerous alliance. It does not need their help to live, and by serving them
it can die.
The danger that I have just pointed out exists at all times, but it is not
always as visible.
There are centuries when governments appear immortal, and others
when you would say that the existence of society is more fragile than that
of a man.
Certain constitutions keep citizens in a sort of lethargic sleep, and others
deliver them to a feverish agitation.
When governments seem so strong and laws so stable, men do not notice
the danger that religion can run by uniting with power.
When governments prove to be so weak and laws so changeable, the peril
strikes all eyes, but then there is often no more time to escape. So you must
learn to see it from afar.
To the extent that a nation assumes a democratic social state and you see
societies lean toward the republic,v it becomes more and more dangerous
to unite religion with authority; for the time is coming when power will
pass from hand to hand, when political theories will succeed one another,
when men, laws, constitutions themselves will disappear or change each
day, and not for a time, but constantly. Agitation and instability stem from
the nature of democratic republics, as immobility and sleep form the law
of absolute monarchies.
If the Americans, who change the head of State every four years, who
every two years choose new legislators, and replace provincial administra-
tors every year; if the Americans, who have delivered the political world to
the experiments of innovators, had not placed their religion somewhere
outside of the political world, to what could they cling in the ebb and flow
v. In the manuscript: “. . . you see governments lean and rush toward the republic.”
Hervé de Tocqueville: “The words and rush, which are meaningless, must be struck
out; you could put and are carried toward” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 46).
of human opinions? Amid the struggle of parties, where would the respect
be that religion is due? What would become of its immortality when ev-
erything perishes around it?
American priests have seen this truth before anyone else, and they model
their conduct on it. They have seen that religious influence had to be re-
nounced, if they wanted to acquire a political power, and they preferred to
lose the support of power than to share its vicissitudes.
In America, religion is perhaps less powerful than it has been in certain
times and among certain peoples, but its influence is more durable. It has
reduced itself to its own forces that no one can take away from it; it acts
only within a single circle, but it covers it entirely and predominates within
it without effort.
In Europe I hear voices that are raised on all sides; people deplore the
absence of beliefs and ask how to give religion something of its former
power.
It seems to me that we must first try attentively to find out what should
be, today, the natural state of men in matters of religion. Then, knowing
what we are able to hope and what we have to fear, we will see clearly the
goal toward which our efforts must tend.
Two great dangers menace the existence of religions: schisms and
indifference.
During centuries of fervor, men sometimes happen to abandon their
religion, but they escape its yoke only to submit to the yoke of another
religion. Faith changes objects; it does not die. The old religion then
excites fervent love or implacable hatred in all hearts; some leave it
with anger, others follow it with a new ardor: beliefs differ, irreligion is
unknown.
But it is not the same when a religious belief is silently undermined by
doctrines that I will call negative, because while asserting the falsity of one
religion they establish the truth of no other.
Then prodigious revolutions take place in the human spirit, without
man seeming to aid the revolutions with his passions and without sus-
pecting them, so to speak. You see men who allow, as if by forgetfulness,
the object of their most cherished hopes to escape. Carried along by an
imperceptible current against which they do not have the courage to strug-
gle, but to which they yield with regret, they abandon the faith that they
love to follow the doubt that leads them to despair.
During the centuries that we have just described, you abandon your beliefs
by coldness rather than by hatred; you do not reject them, they leave you.
While ceasing to believe religion true, the unbeliever continues to judge it
useful. Considering religious beliefs from a human aspect, he recognizes
their dominion over mores, their influence over laws. He understands how
they can make men live in peace and gently prepare men for death. So he
regrets faith after losing it, and deprived of a good of which he knows the
whole value, he is afraid to take it away from those who still possess it.
From his side, the one who continues to believe is not afraid to reveal
his faith to all eyes. In those who do not share his hopes, he sees unfortunate
men rather than adversaries; he knows that he can gain their esteem without
following their example; so he is at war with no one; and not considering
the society in which he lives as an arena in which religion must struggle
constantly against a thousand fierce enemies, he loves his contemporaries
at the same time that he condemns their weaknesses and is distressed by
their errors.
Those who do not believe, hiding their unbelief, and those who do be-
lieve, showing their faith, create a public opinion in favor of religion; it is
loved, it is upheld, it is honored, and you must penetrate to the recesses of
souls to discover the wounds that it has received.
The mass of men, whom religious sentiment never abandons, then see
nothing that separates them from established beliefs. The instinct of an-
other life leads them without difficulty to the foot of altars and delivers
their hearts to the precepts and consolations of faith.
Why does this picture not apply to us?
I notice among us men who have ceased to believe in Christianity with-
out adhering to any religion.
I see others who have halted at doubt, and already pretend to believe no
more.
Further along, I meet Christians who still believe and dare not say so.
Amid these lukewarm friends and fiery adversaries, I finally discover a
small number of the faithful ready to defy all obstacles and to scorn all
dangers for their beliefs. The latter have acted contrary to human weakness
in order to rise above common opinion. Carried away by this very effort,
they no longer know precisely where they should stop. Since they have
seen that, in their country, the first use that man made of independence
has been to attack religion, they fear their contemporaries and withdraw
with terror from the liberty that the former pursue. Since unbelief appears
to them as something new, they include in the same hatred everything
that is new.w So they are at war with their century and their country, and
in each of the opinions that are professed there they see a necessary enemy
of faith.
Such should not be today the natural state of man in matters of
religion.
An accidental and particular cause is found among us that prevents the
human spirit from following its inclination and pushes it beyond the limits
at which it should naturally stop.
I am profoundly persuaded that this particular and accidental cause is
the intimate union of politics and religion.x
w. Hervé de Tocqueville:
Here are two thoughts that do not seem correct to me. Why would people be carried
beyond truth because, to do good, they had the courage to defy prejudice? Then, you
will never find faithful people foolish enough to believe that unbelief is something
new. This paragraph is to review. The author has not arrived at the true cause of the
estrangement of the clergy and of pious persons from free institutions. You must
seek it in the memory of the persecutions that religion suffered as soon as the word
liberty resounded in France, and in the fear that the persecutions are repeating. The
impression was so strong that it is not erased and that pious persons believe that the
aegis of an absolute power is necessary in order for priests to be out of danger and
for religion to be able to resist philosophical intolerance. The author can link this
thought well to earlier ones, for he speaks on page 15 of men without religion who
persecute those who believe with all the fervor of proselytism.
Édouard de Tocqueville: “I agree with father. You must absolutely mention the mem-
ories of ’93 as a powerful cause of the antipathy of the French clergy for liberal ideas”
(YTC, CIIIb, 1, pp. 46–48). The sentence “Since they have seen . . . pursue” was added
following the comments of the family.
x. As for me, I cannot believe that the evil is as great or as profound as is supposed.
Never will the religious instinct perish in man, and what can better satisfy it than the
religion of J[esus (ed.)]. C[hrist (ed.)].? Christianity is not defeated, it is only bowed
down. Formerly religion [v: Christianity] allowed itself to be mingled with the powers
of the earth, and today I see it as though buried very much alive under their debris.
Unbelievers in Europe pursue Christians as political enemies, rather than

as religious adversaries; they hate faith as the opinion of a party much more
than as a mistaken belief; and in the priest they reject the representative of
God less than the friend of power.
In Europe, Christianity allowed itself to be intimately united with the
powers of the earth. Today these powers are falling and Christianity is as
though buried beneath their debris. It is a living thing that someone wanted
to bind to the dead: cut the ties that hold it and it will rise again.
I do not know what must be done to give Christianity in Europe
the energy of youth. God alone would be able to do so; but at least it
depends on men to leave to faith the use of all of the forces that it still
retains.
How the Enlightenment, Habits, and Practical

Experience of the Americans Contribute to the
Success of Democratic Institutions
What must be understood by the enlightenment of the American
people.—The human mind has received a less profound
cultivation in the United States than in Europe.—But no one
has remained in ignorance.—Why.—Rapidity with which
thought circulates in the half-empty states of the West.—
How practical experience serves Americans even more
than literary knowledge.
In a thousand places in this work I have pointed out to readers what influ-
ence the enlightenment and habits of the Americans exercised on main-
So let us try to extricate it; it still has enough strength to rise again, but not to lift the
weight that overwhelms it. The Christian religion in Europe resembles an old man
whose shoulders are loaded down with a heavy burden; he walks painfully across the
obstacles in the road. He bends under the weight; his limbs are heavy, his breathing
is labored. He walks only with difficulty and at each step you would say he was about
to die (YTC, CVh, 4. p. 67; a nearly identical fragment is found in YTC, CVh, 4,
pp. 31–32).
taining their political institutions. So now, few new things remain for me
to say.
Until now America has had only a very small number of notable writers;
it does not have any great historians and does not have one poet. Its in-
habitants see literature strictly understood with a kind of disfavor; and a
third-rank city in Europe publishes more literary works each year than the
twenty-four states of the Union taken together.y
The American mind withdraws from general ideas; it does not turn to-
ward theoretical discoveries. Politics itself and industry cannot lead it there.
In the United States, new laws are made constantly; but great writers are
still not found to seek out the general principles of laws.
The Americans have experts on the law and legal commentators; they
lack writers on public affairs; and in politics, they give the world examples
rather than lessons.[*]
It is the same for the mechanical arts.
In America, the inventions of Europe are applied with sagacity, and
after perfecting them, they are marvelously adapted to the needs of the
country. Men there are industrious, but they do not cultivate the science
of industry. You find good workers and few inventors there. Fulton[†] ped-
dled his genius for a long time among foreign peoples before being able
to devote it to his country. [So in America you find none of those great
intellectual centers from which fire and light burst forth at the same time
{as in Europe}. I do not know if perhaps we should thank heaven. America
already carries an immense weight in the destinies of the world; and per-
y. See chapters XIII and XIV of the first part of the second volume.
[*]. ⫽Say a word about Livingston. He is more of a moralist.⫽
[†]. ⫽He is the one who applied steam to navigation. He offered his secret to Bon-
aparte who, after an examination, declared the thing absurd and impractical. As we know,
one of the weaknesses of Bonaparte {this extraordinary man} was to want to pass judg-
ment at first sight on matters that were foreign to him. Despite his prodigious perspi-
cacity, too frequently he happened to be mistaken.⫽
haps it only lacks great writers to overturn violently in a moment all the
old societies of Europe.]z
So whoever wants to judge the state of enlightenment among the Anglo-
Americans opens himself to seeing the same subject from two different
views. If he pays attention only to the learned, he will be astonished by
their small number; and if he counts the ignorant, the American people
will seem to him the most enlightened on earth.
The entire population is placed between these two extremes; I have al-
ready said it elsewhere.
[In the United States, you find fewer great landowners and infinitely
more landowners than anywhere else; less wealth and more comfort. Minds
have been subjected to the same law. There scientific and literary genius is
as rare as ability is common, and if you do not find great writers, everyone
knows how to write. What could be the state of a few minds seems to have
been divided equally among all.]
In New England, each citizen receives the elementary notions of human
knowledge; furthermore, he learns the doctrines and the proofs of his re-
ligion; he is taught the history of his country and the principal features of
the Constitution that governs it. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, it is
very rare to find a man who only imperfectly knows all these things, and
one who is absolutely ignorant of them is in a way a phenomenon.a
When I compare the Greek and Roman republics to these republics of
America, the manuscript libraries of the first and their coarse populace, to
the thousand newspapers that crisscross the second and to the enlightened
people that inhabit the republics of America; when I then think of all the
efforts that are still made to judge the one with the aid of the others and
z. In the margin:
⫽Knowledge of reading and writing (but less useful than you think).
Knowledge of laws.
Experience.
Practical habit of affairs.
Extensive and homogeneous civilization. Pioneer, an ax and newspapers.
a. To the side: “⫽Instruction of the Americans of New England is less advanced than
in our colleges but more complete than in our schools.⫽”
to foresee what will happen today by what happened two thousand years
ago, I am tempted to burn my books,b in order to apply only new ideas to
a social state so new.
You must not indiscriminately extend to the whole Union, moreover,
what I say about New England. The more you advance toward the West
or toward the South, the more the instruction of the people diminishes. In
the states neighboring the Gulf of Mexico, a certain number of individuals
are found, as among us, to whom the elements of human knowledge are
foreign; but in the United States you would seek in vain for a single district
that was plunged into ignorance. The reason for it is simple: the peoples
of Europe left the shadows and barbarism in order to advance toward civ-
ilization and enlightenment. Their progress was unequal; some ran along
the course, others in a way only walked; still others stopped and they are
still asleep along the road.
It was not the same in the United States.
The Anglo-Americans arrived fully civilized on the soil that their pos-
terity occupies; they did not have to learn, it was enough for them not to
forget. Now, it is the sons of these very Americans who, each year, carry
into the wilderness, with their dwelling-place, knowledge already acquired
and respect for learning. Education made them feel the usefulness of en-
lightenment and made them capable of transmitting this very enlighten-
ment to their descendents. So in the United States, society has no child-
hood; it is born in manhood.
The Americans make no use of the word peasant; they do not employ
the word, because they do not have the idea; the ignorance of the first ages,
the simplicity of the fields, the rusticity of the village, have not been pre-
served among them, and they imagine neither the virtues, nor the vices,
nor the coarse habits, nor the innocent graces of a civilization being born.
At the extreme limits of the confederated states, at the confines of society
and wilderness, is a population of hardy adventurers who, in order to flee
the poverty ready to strike them under the paternal roof, have not been
b. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I do not like this idea. Why would you burn your books
because a thousand newspapers crisscross the territory of the Union?” (YTC, CIIIb, 1,
p. 42).
afraid to plunge into the empty areas of America and seek a new country
there. Having barely arrived at the place that must serve him as a refuge,
the pioneer hastily cuts down a few trees and raises a cabin under the leafy
branches. Nothing offers a more miserable sight than these isolated dwell-
ings. The traveler who approaches them toward the evening notices from
afar the flame of the hearth shining through the walls; and at night, if the
wind comes up, he hears the roof of foliage move noisily amid the trees of
the forest. Who would not believe that this poor cottage serves as a refuge
for coarseness and ignorance? You must not, however, establish any cor-
relation between the pioneer and the place that serves him as a refuge. Ev-
erything is primitive and savage around him, but he is so to speak the result
of eighteen centuries of efforts and experience. He wears city clothing,
speaks the language of the city, knows the past, is curious about the future,
argues about the present; he is a very civilized man who, for a time, submits
to living in the woods and who plunges into the wilderness of the New
World with the Bible, an ax and some newspapers.c
It is difficult to imagine with what incredible rapidity thought circulates
in the heart of these wilderness areas.6
I do not believe that there is as great an intellectual movement in the
most enlightened and most populated districts of France.7
c. Hervé de Tocqueville: “Could you not put: an ax, tea and newspapers? Tea, being
something of a luxury, gives the idea of civilization” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 43). See, in
appendix II, volume II, pp. 1315–16, the description of the dwelling of the pioneer.
6. I traveled over a part of the frontiers of the United States in a type of open carriage
that was called a coach. We moved along briskly day and night over roads scarcely cleared
amid immense forests of green trees; when the darkness became impenetrable, my driverlighted
branches of larch and we continued our route by their light. Here and there we encountered
a cabin amid the woods: it was the post office. At the door of this isolated dwelling, the mail-
man threw an enormous packet of letters, and we resumed our course at a gallop, leaving to
each inhabitant in the neighborhood the care of coming to find his part of the treasure.
7. In 1832, each inhabitant of Michigan provided 1.22 fr. to the postal tax, and each
inhabitant of Florida 1.5 fr. (see National Calendar, 1833, p. 244 [249 (ed.)]). In the same
year, each inhabitant of the département du Nord paid the State, for the same purpose, 1.4
fr. (see Compte général de l’administration des finances, 1833, p. 623). Now, at this time
Michigan still had only seven inhabitants per square league, and Florida, five; instruction
was less widespread and activity not as great in these two districts as in most of the states of
You cannot doubt that in the United States the instruction of the people
serves powerfully to maintain the democratic republic. It will be so, I think,
everywhere that the instruction that enlightens the mind is not separated
from the education that regulates mores.
Nonetheless, I do not exaggerate this advantage, and I am still far from
believing, as a great number of people in Europe do, that it is sufficient to
teach men to read and write to make them citizens immediately. [<⫽I do
not consider elementary knowledge as the most potent means to educate
the people; it facilitates the study of liberty for them, but it does not give
them the art of being free.⫽>]
True enlightenment arises principally from experience, and if the Amer-
icans had not been accustomed little by little to governing themselves, the
book learning that they possess would not be a great help today in suc-
ceeding to do so.
I have lived a great deal with the people of the United States, and I
cannot say how much I have admired their experience and their good sense.e
Do not lead the American to speak about Europe; he will ordinarily show
a great presumption and a quite foolish pride. He will be content with those
general and indefinite ideas that, in all countries, are such a great help to
the ignorant. But interrogate him about his country, and you will see the
cloud that enveloped his mind suddenly dissipate; his language will become
clear, plain and precise, like his thought. He will teach you what his rights
are and what means he must use to exercise them; he will know by what
practices the political world operates. You will notice that the rules of ad-
ministration are known to him and that he has made himself familiar with
the mechanism of the laws. The inhabitant of the United States has not
the Union, while the département du Nord, which includes 3,400 inhabitants per square
league, is one of the most enlightened and most industrial portions of France.d
d. “It is now a matter of comparing this to France, but for that it would be necessary
to have the budget and even statistical details that probably are not to be found [in the
National Calendar (ed.)]. Ask D’Aunay and N. [sic ] Roger of the French Academy”
(YTC, CVh, 1, p. 16). It undoubtedly concerns Félix Le Peletier d’Aunay and Jean-
François Roger.
e. To the side: “It is truly from this side that the Americans are [v: the United States
prove to be] superior to all the peoples of the world.”
drawn this practical knowledge and these positive notions from books; his
formal education may have prepared him to receive them, but has not pro-
vided him with them.
It is by participating in legislation that the American learns to know the
laws; it is by governing that he finds out about the forms of government.
The great work of society is carried out each day before his eyes and, so to
speak, by his hands.
In the United States, the whole of the education of men is directed
toward politics; in Europe, its principal goal is to prepare for private life.
The activity of citizens in public affairs is too rare a fact to be anticipated
in advance.
As soon as you cast your eyes on the two societies, these differences are
revealed even in their external appearance.
In Europe, we often bring the ideas and habits of private existence into
public life, and as we happen to pass suddenly from the interior of the
family to the government of the State, you often see us discuss the great
interests of society in the same way we converse with our friends.
In contrast, the Americans almost always carry the habits of public life
into private life. Among them, the idea of the jury is found in school games,
and you find parliamentary forms even in the order of a banquet.
That Laws Serve More to Maintain the Democratic

Republic in the United States than Physical Causes,
and Mores More than Laws
All the peoples of America have a democratic social state.—
Democratic institutions only continue to exist however among the
Anglo-Americans.—The Spanish of South America, as favored
by physical nature as the Anglo-Americans, are not able to
support the democratic republic.—Mexico, which has adopted
the Constitution of the United States, is not able to do it.—The
Anglo-Americans of the West support it with more difficulty than
those of the East.—Reasons for these differences.
I said that maintaining democratic institutions in the United States had to

be attributed to circumstances, laws and mores.8
Most Europeans know only the first of these three causes, and they give
it a preponderant importance that it does not have.
It is true that the Anglo-Americans brought equality of conditions to
the New World. Never were either commoners or nobles found among
them; prejudices of birth there have always been as unknown as prejudices
of profession. Since the social state is therefore democratic, democracy had
no difficulty establishing its dominion.
But this fact is not particular to the United States; nearly all the colonies
of America were founded by men equal among themselves or who became
equal by inhabiting the colonies. There is not a single part of the New
World where Europeans were able to create an aristocracy.
Democratic institutions prosper only in the United States, however.
The American Union has no enemies to fight. It is alone in the middle
of the wilderness like an island in the heart of the Ocean.
But nature had isolated in the same way the Spanish of [{Mexico, those
of Peru}] South America [{the Portuguese of Brazil, the French of the An-
tilles, the Dutch of Guyana}], and this isolation did not prevent them from
maintaining armies. They made war on each other when foreigners were
lacking. Only the Anglo-American democracy, until now, has been able to
remain at peace.
The territory of the Union presents a limitless field to human activity;
it offers an inexhaustible sustenance to industry and to work. So love of
wealth takes the place of ambition there, and well-being quells the fervor
of parties.
But in what portion of the world do you meet more fertile wildernesses,
larger rivers, more untouched and more inexhaustible riches than in South
America? Yet South America cannot support democracy. If, for peoples to
be happy, it was sufficient to have been placed in a corner of the universe
8. Here I recall to the reader the general sense in which I take the word mores; I understand
by this word the whole of the intellectual and moral dispositions that man brings to the state
of society.
and to be able to spread at will over uninhabited lands, the Spanish of South
America would not have to complain about their lot. And when they would
not enjoy the same happiness as the inhabitants of the United States, they
would at least make the peoples of Europe envious. There are, however, no
nations on the earth more miserable than those of South America.
Therefore, not only can physical causes not lead to analogous results
among the Americans of the South and those of the North, but they cannot
even produce among the first something that is not inferior to what is seen
in Europe, where physical causes act in an opposite direction.
So physical causes do not influence the destiny of nations as much as is
supposed.f
I met men of New England ready to abandon a country where they
would have been able to find ease and comfort, in order to go to seek their
fortune in the wilderness. Nearby, I saw the French population of Canada
squeeze itself into a space too small for it, when the same wilderness was
near; and while the emigrant of the United States acquired a great estate
at the cost of a few days of work, the Canadian paid as much for land as
if he still lived in France.
Thus nature, while delivering the uninhabited areas of the New World
to Europeans, offers them assets that they do not always know how to use.
I notice among other peoples of America the same conditions of pros-
perity as among the Anglo-Americans, without their laws and their mores;
and these peoples are miserable. So the laws and mores of the Anglo-
Americans form the special reason for their grandeur and the predominant
cause that I am seeking.
I am far from pretending that there is an absolute good in American laws;
I do not believe that they are applicable to all democratic peoples; and,
among those laws, there are several that, even in the United States, seem
dangerous to me.
You cannot deny, however, that the legislation of the Americans, taken
f. In the margin: “⫽So the original equality of conditions and the nature of the coun-
try do not explain in a sufficient way what is happening in the United States. Because
elsewhere these same causes do not produce the same effects.⫽”
as a whole, is well adapted to the genius of the people that it must govern
and to the nature of the country.g
So American laws are good, and a great part of the success that the gov-
ernment of democracy achieves in America must be attributed to them;
but I do not think that they are the principal cause. And if the laws appear
to me to have more influence on the social happiness of the Americans than
the very nature of the country, from another perspective I see reasons to
believe that they exercise less influence than mores.
The federal laws surely form the most important portion of the legis-
lation of the United States.
Mexico, which is as happily situated as the Anglo-American Union, ap-
propriated these same laws, and it is not able to get accustomed to the gov-
ernment of democracy.
So there is a reason independent of physical causes and laws that makes
democracy able to govern the United States.h
But here is what proves it even more. Nearly all the men who inhabit
the territory of the Union are born of the same blood. They speak the same
language, pray to God in the same way, are subject to the same physical
causes, obey the same laws.
So what produces the differences that must be observed among them?
Why, in the [{North}] East of the Union, does republican government
appear strong and well-ordered, why does it proceed with maturity and
deliberation? What cause marks all its acts with a character of wisdom and
lasting existence?
Why, in contrast, do the powers of society in the West [{and in the
South}] seem to move haphazardly?
g. To the side: “And in certain cases, it would be more correct to say that the Amer-
icans prosper despite their laws rather than thanks to them.”
h. “Mexico is not able to support the republic, however. The republic prospers only
within the Anglo-American Union. From so many similar causes, the Union a different
one. And this cause of prosperity which is special prevails over all the others together.
The people of the Union are not only the most religious and most enlightened in the
world, they are also the ones whose political education is the most advanced” (YTC,
CVh, 4, p. 45).
Why, in the movement of affairs, does something disorderly, passionate,

you could almost say feverish, reign that does not herald a long future?
I am no longer comparing the Anglo-Americans to foreign peoples; now
I am contrasting the Anglo-Americans to each other, and I am seeking why
they do not resemble each other. Here all arguments drawn from the nature
of the country and from the difference of laws are missing at the same time.
I must resort to some other cause; and where will I find this cause, if not
in mores?
It is in the East [{North}] that the Anglo-Americans have contracted the
longest use of the government of democracy, and that they have formed
habits and conceived ideas most favorable to maintaining it. [In the North]
Democracy there has little by little penetrated customs, opinions, forms;
you find it in all the details of social life as in the laws. It is in the East
[{North}] that the book learning and the practical education of the people
have been most perfected and that religion has best intermingled with lib-
erty. What are all these habits, these opinions, these customs, these beliefs,
if not what I called mores?
In the West, in contrast, a part of these same advantages is still lacking.
Many Americans of the states of the West are born in the woods, and they
mix with the civilization of their fathers the ideas and customs of savage
life. Among them, passions are more violent, religious morality less pow-
erful, ideas less settled. Men there exercise no control over each other, for
they scarcely know each other.j So the nations of the West show, to a
certain extent, the inexperience and the unruly habits of emerging peo-
ples. Societies in the West are formed from old elements; but the assembly
is new.k
j. In a slip of paper inserted in the manuscript:

Three centuries ago the English colonies were founded, but only sixty years ago na-
tional and centralized governments were established among them. Before this time
citizens [v: subjects], dispersed in a vast wilderness two thousand leagues from the
sovereign, lived in an almost complete independence. Which really explains why,
among the Americans, individuals always appear experienced and [often] the State,
inexperienced.
k. In the North the republic is a strong and well-ordered government, which proceeds
So mores, particularly, make the Americans of the United States, alone

among all Americans, capable of supporting the dominion of democracy;
and mores also make the various Anglo-American democracies more or less
well-regulated and prosperous.
Therefore, in Europe, the influence that the geographic position of the
country exercises on the continued existence of democratic institutions is
exaggerated. Too much importance is attributed to laws, too little to mores.
These three great causes undoubtedly serve to regulate and to direct Amer-
ican democracy; but if they had to be classified, I would say that physical
causes contribute less than laws, and laws infinitely less than mores.
I am persuaded that the most fortunate situation and the best laws can-
not maintain a constitution in spite of mores, while the latter still turn to
good account the most unfavorable positions and the worst laws. The im-
portance of mores is a common truth to which study and experience con-
stantly lead. It seems to me that I find it placed in my mind like a central
point; I see it at the end of all my ideas.m
I have only one more word to say on this subject.
If, in the course of this work, I have not succeeded in making the reader
with maturity and deliberation, and which marks all its acts with a character of wis-
dom and lasting existence. In the West and in the South, the powers of society seem
in contrast to move haphazardly, and there you observe, in the movement of affairs,
something disorderly, passionate and you could almost say feverish that heralds nei-
ther strength nor continued existence [nor (ed.)] a long future (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 47).
m. Of the superiority of mores over laws./
After I have reflected carefully about the principles that make governments act,
about those that sustain them or ruin them; when I have spent a good deal of time
carefully calculating what the influence of laws is, their relative goodness and their
tendency, I always arrive at this point that, above and beyond all these considerations,
beyond all these laws, I find a power superior to them. It is the spirit and the mores
of the people, their character. The best laws are not able to make a constitution work
in spite of the mores; mores turn to good account the worst laws. That is a common
truth, but one to which my studies bring me back constantly. It is placed in my mind
like a central point; I see it at the end of all my ideas.
Laws, however, work toward producing the spirit, the mores and the character of
the people. But in what proportion? There is the great problem that we cannot think
about too much (YTC, CVe, p. 52; you can find the same fragment with a few dif-
ferences, in YTC, CVh, 4, pp. 46–47).
feel the importance that I attributed to the practical experience of the

Americans, to their habits, to their opinions, in a word, to their mores, in
maintaining their laws, I have missed the principal goal that I set for myself
by writing it.
Would Laws and Mores Be Sufficient to

Maintain Democratic Institutions
Elsewhere than in America?
The Anglo-Americans, transported to Europe, would be obliged
to modify their laws.—Democratic institutions must be
distinguished from American institutions.—You can imagine
democratic laws better than or at least different from those that
American democracy has given itself.—The example of America
proves only that we must not despair of regulating democracy
with the aid of laws and mores.
I saidn that the success of democratic institutions in the United States was
due to the laws themselves and to mores more than to the nature of the
country.
But does it follow that these same causes alone transported elsewhere
have the same power, and if the country cannot take the place of laws and
mores, can laws and mores in turn take the place of the country?
Here you will understand without difficulty that the elements of proof
are lacking. In the New World you meet peoples other than the Anglo-
Americans, and since these peoples are subject to the same physical causes
as the latter, I have been able to compare them to each other.
But outside of America there are no nations that, deprived of the same
physical advantages as the Anglo-Americans, have still adopted their laws
and their mores.
n. In the manuscript: “I proved . . .”

Édouard de Tocqueville (or Louis de Kergorlay?): “I propose to put: I believe that I
proved. The peremptory tone must be avoided” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 27).
Therefore we do not have a point of comparison in this matter; we can

only hazard opinions.
It seems to me first that the institutions of the United States must be
carefully distinguished from democratic institutions in general.
When I think of the state of Europe, its great peoples, its populous cities,
its formidable armies, the complexities of its politics, I cannot believe that
the Anglo-Americans themselves, transported with their ideas, their reli-
gion, their mores to our soil, could live there without considerably modi-
fying their laws.
But you can imagine a democratic people organized in a different man-
ner from the American people.
Is it impossible to conceive of a government based on the real will of
the majority, but in which the majority, doing violence to its natural in-
stincts of equality, in favor of order and the stability of the State, would
consent to vest a family or a man with all the attributions of the executive
power? Can you not imagine a democratic society in which national forces
would be more centralized than in the United States, in which the people
would exercise a less direct and less irresistible dominion over general affairs,
and in which, nonetheless, each citizen, vested with certain rights, would,
within his sphere, take part in the working of the government?o
What I saw among the Anglo-Americans leads me to believe that
democratic institutions of this nature, introduced prudently into so-
Here royalty or the monarchy, and if possible the hereditary monarchy, must find a
place. It is indispensable that the author establish that the monarchical State is not
incompatible with democratic institutions.
Alexis must pay the greatest attention to avoid a pitfall in which he would be de-
stroyed, that of allowing the belief that he has written a book in favor of the republic.
Beyond the fact that reason, enlightened by experience, rejects the possibility of es-
tablishing republics strictly speaking among the great European nations, the idea and
even the word republic are antipathetic to the very great majority of the French. So
if Alexis left the slightest doubt about his dispositions on this subject, he would be
blamed by the very greatest number and applauded only by a few scatterbrains and
a few muddleheads (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 15).
ciety,p which would mix little by little with the habits and would gradually
merge with the very opinions of the people, would be able to subsist else-
where than in America.q
If the laws of the United States were the only democratic laws that could
be imagined or the most perfect that it is possible to find, I understand that
you could conclude that the success of the laws of the United States proves
nothing for the success of democratic laws in general, in a country less
favored by nature.
But if the laws of the Americans seem to me defective in many points,
and it is easy for me to imagine others, the special nature of the country
does not prove to me that democratic institutions cannot succeed among
a people where, physical circumstances being less favorable, the laws would
be better.
If men showed themselves to be different in America from what they
are elsewhere; if their social state gave birth among them to habits and
opinions contrary to those that are born in Europe from this same social
state, what happens in the American democracies would teach nothing
about what should happen in other democracies.
If the Americans showed the same tendencies as all the other democratic
peoples, and their legislators resorted to the nature of the country and to
the favor of circumstances in order to keep these tendencies within just
p. In the margin: “I can imagine a democratic nation in which, because political life
was more active and more threatened, the executive power was stronger and more active
than it has been until now in the New World.”
q. Édouard de Tocqueville or Louis de Kergorlay:
Here you seem to formulate a desire, and that seems to me to move away from the
goal of your work, beyond other disadvantages that it can have in my view.
Your book can only aspire to a great and general influence if you are very careful
not to make yourself into a party man. Now, if you show yourself or if some see you
as a republican, you will be considered as a party man.
Take care that this ending does not appear as a plea on behalf of the republic. I
tell you this from my soul and conscience, that ending has the appearance of being
so and will be regarded as such; now this is what you have always told me you wanted
to avoid.
To show, to demonstrate that free institutions can be established in a lasting way
only sheltered by morality and religious spirit is a superb thought. It is your whole
book. Try not to compromise it (YTC, CIIIb, 1, pp. 27–28).
limits, the prosperity of the United States, having to be attributed to purely

physical causes, would prove nothing in favor of peoples who would like
to follow their example without having their natural advantages.r
But neither the one nor the other of these suppositions is justified by
the facts.
I encountered in America passions analogous to those we see in Europe.
Some were due to the very nature of the human heart; others, to the dem-
ocratic state of society.
Thus I found in the United States the restlessness of heart that is natural
to man when, all conditions being more or less equal, each one sees the
same chances to rise. There I encountered the democratic sentiment of envy
expressed in a thousand different ways. I observed that the people often
showed, in the conduct of affairs, a great blend of presumption and ig-
norance, and I concluded that in America, as among us, men were subject
to the same imperfections and exposed to the same miseries.
But when I came to examine attentively the state of society, I discovered
without difficulty that the Americans had made great and happy efforts to
combat these weaknesses of the human heart and to correct these natural
defects of democracy.
Their various municipal laws appeared to me as so many barriers that
held within a narrow sphere the restless ambition of citizens, and turned
to the profit of the town the same democratic passions that could overturn
the State. It seemed to me that American legislators had managed to oppose,
not without success, the idea of rights to the sentiments of envy; the im-
mobility of religious morality, to the continual movements of the political
world; the experience of the people, to their theoretical ignorance; and their
habit of affairs, to the hotheadedness of their desires.
So the Americans did not resort to the nature of the country to combat
the dangers that arise from their constitution [v: social state] and from their
r. Édouard de Tocqueville or Louis de Kergorlay: “You give, it seems to me, in this

paragraph and in a few others of the preceding chapter much too great an influence to
the physical nature of a country on the mores and the tendencies of the inhabitants of
this country. This influence is not non-existent, but it is far, I believe, from being what
you suppose” (YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 28).
political laws. To the evils that they share with all democratic peoples, they
applied remedies that until now only they were aware of; and although they
were the first to try them out, they succeeded.
The mores and laws of the Americans are not the only ones that can be
suitable for democratic peoples; but the Americans have shown that we
must not despair of regulating democracy with the help of laws and mores.
If other peoples, borrowing from America this general and fruitful idea,
and without wishing to imitate the inhabitants of America in the particular
application that they have made of this idea, attempted to adapt themselves
to the social state that Providence imposes on men today, and thus sought
to escape the despotism or the anarchy that threatens them, what reasons
do we have to believe that they must fail in their efforts?s
The organization and the establishment of democracy among Christians
is the great political problem of our time. The Americans undoubtedly do
not solve this problem, but they provide useful lessons to those who want
to solve it.
s. In the manuscript:
If other democratic nations less fortunately situated than the American people, but
instructed by experience, succeeded in making use of its discoveries while rejecting
its errors, what reason do we have to believe that they must fail in their efforts? So if
the example of the United States does not prove in a sufficient way that all countries
can adapt themselves to democratic institutions, you can infer even less from it that
democratic institutions suit only the United States.
Importance of What Precedes

in Relation to Europe t
You easily discover why I have engaged in the research that precedes.u The
question that I have raised interests not only the United States, but the
entire world; not one nation, but all men.
If peoples whose social state is democratic could remain free only when
they lived in the wilderness, we would have to despair of the future fate of
the human species; for men are marching rapidly toward democracy, and
wildernesses are filling.
If it were true that laws and mores were insufficient for maintaining
democratic institutions, what other refuge would remain for nations, if not
the despotism of one man?v
I know that today there are many honest men hardly frightened by this
future, who, fatigued by liberty, would love finally to rest far from its
storms.w
t. Hervé de Tocqueville:
I begin my remarks with a general observation which is suggested to me by the very
title of this chapter. The author speaks about all of Europe; but he draws his argu-
ments only from the current social state of France, a social state which that of several
other great nations of Europe will not resemble for many years to come. All his de-
scriptions portray what is happening in France and not elsewhere. All his predictions
relate to France; but he is addressing himself to the whole of Europe. Isn’t it to be
feared that a strict and exact reader might make this remark with a sort of blame?”
(YTC, CIIIb, 1, p. 36).
u. “When I searched for the causes that serve most powerfully to maintain democratic
institutions, I did not abandon myself to a vain curiosity. While looking at America, I
still saw Europe; and while thinking about American liberty, I thought of that of all
men” (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 68).
v. In the manuscript: “if not {monarchy} {absolute power} slavery?”
Édouard de Tocqueville (?): “You must be careful not to use these expressions un-
stintingly: slavery, servitude, which perhaps smack a bit of the orator, as if there were not
a thousand degrees between absolute liberty and complete enslavement!” (YTC, CIIIb,
1, pp. 29–30).
w. In the margin:
⫽Today.
Liberty with its storms.
But the latter know very badly the port toward which they are heading.
Preoccupied by their memories, they judge absolute power by what it was
formerly, and not by what it could be today. [There are differences even in
despotism, as in liberty.]
If absolute power came to be established once again among the demo-
cratic peoples of Europe, I do not doubt that it would take a new form and
would show itself with features unknown to our fathers.
There was a time in Europe when the law, as well as the consent of the
people, had vested kings with a power almost without limits. But they
hardly ever happened to use it.
[They had the right rather than the practice of omnipotence.]
I will not talk about the prerogatives of the nobility, about the authority
of the sovereign courts, about the right of corporations, about provincial
privileges, which, while softening the blows of authority, maintained a
spirit of resistance in the nation.
These political institutions, though often contrary to the liberty of in-
dividuals, nonetheless served to foster the love of liberty in souls, and in
this respect their utility is easily conceived. Apart from these institutions,
opinions and mores raised less known, but no less powerful barriers around
royal power.
Religion, love of subjects, the goodness of the prince, honor, family
spirit, provincial prejudices, custom and public opinion limited the power
of kings and enclosed their authority within an invisible circle.
Despotism with its rigors.

Nothing intermediate between.
Something like the Roman empire.
So there is only one path to salvation, which is to seek to regulate liberty. To mor-
alize democracy.
As for me, I believe that the enterprise is possible.
I am not saying that we must do as America; I am not saying that the Americans
have done the best.
(Is there only one type of republic, only one type of royalty?) in the same way
there is more than one way to make democracy rule.⫽
Then the constitution of peoples was despotic and their mores, free.
Princes had the right, but neither the faculty nor the desire to do everything.
Of the barriers that formerly stopped tyranny, what remains to us today?
Since religion has lost its dominion over souls, the most visible limit that
divided good and bad is overturned; all seems doubtful and uncertain in
the moral realm; kings and people move there haphazardly, and no one can
say where the natural limits of despotism and the bounds of license are.
Long revolutions have forever destroyed the respect that surrounded
heads of State. Released from the weight of public esteem, princes can
henceforth abandon themselves without fear to being drunk with power.x
When kings see, coming before them, the heart of peoples, they are le-
nient because they feel strong; and they treat the love of their subjects care-
fully, because the love of subjects is the support of the throne. Then, be-
tween the prince and the people, an exchange of sentiments is established
whose gentleness recalls within society the interior of the family. Subjects,
while murmuring against the sovereign, are still distressed to displease him,
and the sovereign strikes his subjects with a light hand, as a father chastises
his children.
But once the prestige of royalty has vanished amid the tumult of rev-
olutions; when kings, following each other upon the throne, have one by
one exposed to the view of the people the weakness of right and the harsh-
x. Hervé de Tocqueville:
Released from the weight of public esteem, etc. First, I observe that this paragraph and
the two following are badly placed; they are inserted in a series of ideas that they
interrupt. As for the sentence of which I have quoted the first words, it is turned in
a picturesque and energetic way, but it lacks clarity; the author wants to say that kings
will more easily do ill because they will no longer have to fear the loss of public esteem.
There is the sense; but one searches for it. Is the idea, moreover, very correct? Al-
though the prestige of royalty is partially destroyed, a good king who is an honest
man will always garner public esteem and this esteem will be a barrier to his passions
(YTC, CIIIb, 1, pp. 37–38).
ness of fact,y no one any longer sees in the sovereign the father of the State,
and each one sees a master there. If he is weak, he is scorned; he is hated
if he is strong. He is himself full of rage and fear; he sees himself as a
stranger in his country and treats his subjects as the vanquished.
When provinces and cities were so many different nations in the middle
of the common native land, each one of them had a particular spirit that
opposed the general spirit of servitude; but today when, after losing their
franchises, their customs, their prejudices and even their memories and
their names, all parts of the same empire have become accustomed to obey-
ing the same laws, it is no more difficult to oppress all of them together
than to oppress one separately from the rest.
While the nobility enjoyed its power, and still long after it had lost it,
aristocratic honor gave an extraordinary strength to individual resistance.
Then you saw men who, despite their impotence, still maintained a high
idea of their individual value, and dared to resist in isolation the exertion
of public power. [<For honor is a religion; it cannot be conquered by
force.>]z
But today, when all classes are merging together, when the individual
disappears more and more in the crowd and is easily lost amid the common
obscurity; today, when nothing any longer sustains man above himself, be-
y. Hervé de Tocqueville:
You must put the weakness of right and the harshness of fact. It is essential that Alexis
be very careful not to strike the fallen Restoration and the deposed and unhappy
sovereigns. It would perhaps even be appropriate enough that he not strike Louis-
Philippe too hard. Alexis is beginning his career; it would be disagreeable for him to
have all the government newspapers against him. This is undoubtedly a very secon-
dary consideration, but it will be good to consider it (YTC, CIIIb, 1, pp. 38–39).
z. Édouard de Tocqueville (?):
All that is good in thought and style. Nothing easier than to keep it while indicating
precisely how far we are by our mores from the mores of the Americans. A truth that
is good to put in relief, because if we succeed in changing our mores, we will perhaps
be worthy of the pure democratic state that is perhaps in fact the best. But how far
we are from that! And for how long a time still would a similar attempt be fatal! (YTC,
CIIIb, 1, p. 30).
cause monarchical honor has nearly lost its dominion without being re-
placed by virtue,a who can say where the exigencies of [absolute] power and
the indulgences of weakness would stop?
As long as family spirit lasted, the man who struggled against tyranny
was never alone; he found around him clients, hereditary friends, close rela-
tives. And if this support were missing, he still felt sustained by his ancestors
and roused by his descendants. But when patrimonies are dividing, and
when in so few years races are merging, where to locate family spirit?
[⫽Within a restless crowd a man surrounded by soldiers will come to
take a place. No one will see in him the father of the State. Each one will
a. Of virtue in republics./
The Americans are not a virtuous people and yet they are free. This does not ab-
solutely prove that virtue, as Montesquieu thought, is not essential to the existence
of republics. The idea of Montesquieu must not be taken in a narrow sense. What
this g[reat (ed.)]. m[an (ed.)]. meant is that republics could subsist only by the action
of society over itself. What he means by virtue is the moral power that each individual
exercises over himself and that prevents him from violating the right of others.
When this triumph of man over temptation is the result of the weakness of the
temptation or of a calculation of personal interest, it does not constitute virtue in
the eyes of the moralist; but it is included in the idea of Montesquieu who spoke of
the effect much more than of the cause. In America it is not virtue that is great, it is
temptation that is small, which comes to the same thing. It is not disinterestedness
that is great, it is interest that is well understood, which again comes back to almost
the same thing. So Montesquieu was right although he spoke about ancient virtue,
and what he says of the Greeks and Romans is still applicable to the Americans (YTC,
CVe, pp. 66–67).
During his journey, however, Tocqueville had noted:
The principle of the ancient republics was the sacrifice of particular interest to the
general good. In this sense, you can say that they were virtuous. The principle of this
one appears to me to be to make particular interest part of the general interest. A
kind of refined and intelligent egoism seems the pivot on which the whole machine
turns. These people do not trouble themselves to find out if public virtue is good,
but they claim to prove that it is useful. If this last point is true, as I think it is in
part, this society can pass for enlightened, but not virtuous. But to what degree can
the two principles of individual good and general good in fact be merged? To what
point will a conscience that you could call a conscience of reflection and calculation
be able to control the political passions that have not yet arisen, but which will not
fail to arise? That is what the future alone will show us. Sing-Sing, 29 May, 1831 (al-
phabetic notebook A, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 234–35).
see a master. He will no longer be respected; he will be feared; and love will
be replaced by fear.
He himself will be agitated and restless. He will feel that he rules only
by force and not by right, by fear and not by love. His subjects will be
strangers in his eyes; he himself will be a stranger in theirs.⫽]
What strength remains to customs among a people who have changed
entirely and who change constantly, where all the acts of tyranny already
have a precedent, where all crimes can rest on an example, where you can
find nothing so old that you are afraid to destroy it, nor anything so new
that you cannot dare to do it?
What resistance is offered by mores that have already given way so many
times?
What can public opinion itself do, when not twenty b persons are gath-
ered together by a common bond; when there is neither a man, nor a family,
nor a body, nor a class, nor a free association that can represent and get this
opinion to act?
When each citizen equally impotent, equally poor, equally isolated can
oppose only his individual weakness to the organized strength of the
government?
In order to imagine something analogous to what would then happen
among us,c you must resort not to our historical annals. You must perhaps
search the memorials of antiquityd and refer to those horrible centuries of
Roman tyranny, when mores were corrupt, memories obliterated, habits
destroyed, [religions shaken], opinions wavering; liberty, chased from the
laws, no longer knew where to take refuge in order to find a shelter. Then
nothing protected citizens any longer, and citizens no longer protected
b. Allusion to the French law of association that demanded prior permission for all
meetings of more than twenty persons.
c. In the manuscript: “. . . among the nations of Europe.”
d. Édouard de Tocqueville (?): “I contest this idea. Antiquity is so far away, so dif-
ferent from our current social state, that you cannot, I believe, draw from it any point
of comparison to what exists today. And I think that amid the general divergence of
opinions, the only incontestable point is that what is happening in our time is without
precedents” (YTC, CIIIb, pp. 30–31).
themselves; you saw men mock human nature and princes exhaust the
mercy of heaven rather than the patience of their subjects.e
Those who think to rediscover the monarchy of Henry IV or Louis XIV
seem very blind to me. As for me, when I consider the state which several
European nations have already reached and toward which all the others are
tending, I feel myself led to believe that among them there will soon no
longer be a place except for democratic libertyf or for the tyranny of the
Caesars.g
Doesn’t this merit reflection? If men must in fact reach the point where
they must all be made free or all slaves, all equal in rights or all deprived of
rights; if those who govern societies were reduced to the alternative of grad-
ually raising the crowd up to their level or allowing all citizens to fall below
e. “Characteristics of Roman society./

No more {love of country} patriotism.
No more fear of God.
Individual egoism” (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 57). See note a for p. 18.
f. “If peoples saw a stopping point between absolute power and democratic govern-
ment, they would do well to settle there. But this point does not exist, and they must
keep moving” (YTC, CVh, 4, pp. 53–54).
The two paragraphs of these two pages are very beautiful in style, written with great
force, but the colors are too dark. The horrible state of Rome under the Caesars is
not to be feared for many years, neither for France nor for Europe. For that to happen
civilization would have to regress and the Christian religion would have to be
destroyed.
Alexis must be careful that he is not accused of having presented a dismal phantasm
in order to win acceptance for his democratic ideas. The expression of an orator who
wants to move his listeners powerfully can be energetic beyond bounds. That of a
writer must always be wise and measured. In all, I would like Alexis to launch out
more into the future and apply these last portraits less to the present state.
What Alexis says is true in this sense, that the sovereign of France, like that of
Rome, combined in his person a plenitude of powers and authority. He abused them
undoubtedly, but not in the same way as the Caesars, nor with the same bloody and
ignoble violence. The author could perhaps revise in this sense (YTC, CIIIb, 1,
pp. 39–40).
Cf. note e for p. 1249 of the second volume.
the level of humanity, wouldn’t this be enough to overcome many doubts,

reassure many consciences, and prepare each person to make great sacrifices
easily?
Shouldn’t the gradual development of democratic institutions and
mores then be considered, not as the best, but as the sole means that remains
for us to be free; and without loving the government of democracy,
wouldn’t we be disposed to adopt it as the most applicable and most decent
remedy that may be opposed to the present ills of society?h
It is difficult to make the people participate in government; it is still more
difficult to provide them with the experience and give them the sentiments
that they lack to govern well.j
The will of democracy is changeable; its agents, crude; its laws, imper-
fect; I grant it. But if it were true that soon no intermediary must exist
between the dominion of democracy and the yoke of one man, shouldn’t
we tend toward the one rather than subject ourselves voluntarily to the
other? And if it were necessary finally to arrive at a complete equality,
wouldn’t it be better to allow ourselves to be leveled by liberty than by a
despot?
Those who, after reading this book, would judge that by writing it I
wanted to propose the Anglo-American laws and mores for the imitation
of all peoples who have a democratic social state would have made a great
error; they would be attached to the form, abandoning the very substance
of my thought.k My goal has been to show, by the example of America,
h. “If the establishment of liberty [v: democracy] was the sole means available to
preserve human independence, shouldn’t it be followed with order even by those who
do not judge it the most desirable?” (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 9).
j. “I would like the upper classes and the middle classes of all of Europe to be as
persuaded as I am myself that henceforth it is no longer a matter of knowing if the
people will come to share power, but in what way they will use their power. That alone
is where the great problem of the future is located” (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 32).
k. Importance of this fact for Europe.
Irresistible march of democracy.
To regulate it, to instruct it, great problem of the present.
Misfortunes that would result for the human species from not doing so, intolerable
despotism, without safeguard. . . . What is happening in America does not show that
it can be done, although it does not prove that it must be done in the same way.
that laws and above all mores could allow a democratic people to remain
free. I am, moreover, very far from believing that we must follow the ex-
ample that American democracy has given and imitate the means that it
used to attain the goal of its efforts;m for I am not unaware of the influence
exercised by the nature of the country and antecedent facts on political
constitutions, and I would regard it as a great misfortune for humankind
if liberty, in all places, had to occur with the same features.n
But I think that if we do not manage little by little to introduce and
finally to establish democratic institutions among us, and if we abandon
giving all citizens the ideas and sentiments that first prepare them for liberty
and then allow them the practice of those ideas and sentiments, there will
be independence for no one, neither for the bourgeois, nor for the noble,
It is the thought, always present, of this future, irresistible that (illegible word) was
always present to the author of this book.
I proved well that the physical situation of the Americans without their laws and
their mores would not suffice, but I did not prove that their laws and their mores are
sufficient without their physical situation (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 110).
m. “What I wanted to say . . . that mores and laws had more power than the country.
If that is true, why would we not hope to succeed? Why would we despair of making
something stable and lasting?
“I am not saying that we must do as the Americans, but we can arrive at the same
result by another path, and their example can provide useful light” (YTC, CVh, 4, p. 11).
n. The paragraph is written this way in the manuscript:
The institutions of the United States are not the only ones that must assure the liberty
of men. I am certainly far from believing so. I will admit without difficulty that a
nation can remain free without having precisely the same habits and the same ideas
as the American people. While retracing the laws and portraying the mores of the
American democracy, I have not claimed that all democratic peoples can imitate
the first and adopt the second, for I am not unaware of the influence exercised by
the nature of the country on its political constitution and I would regard it as a great
misfortune for humankind if liberty could only occur under a single form. So I am
far from believing that in everything we must imitate the government that American
democracy has given itself.
nor for the poor, nor for the rich, but an equal tyranny for all; and I foresee
that if we do not succeed over time in establishing among us the peaceful
dominion of the greatest number, we will arrive sooner or later at the un-
limited power of one man.o
o. The question of knowing the name of the one who reigns, even the questions of
royalty or republic, capital questions in ordinary times, have only a secondary interest,
however, in the extraordinary century in which we live, unless they are attached to
another still more vast. The great, the capital interest of the century is the organization
and education of democracy.
[In the margin: We must not forget, today it is very much more a matter of the
very existence of society than of one form of government rather than another, but
it is of civilization as much as of laws [v: to know if we will be free or slave], of human
dignity as much as of the prosperity of some, of the fate of three or four hundred
million men and not of the destiny of a nation. It is much more about the very history
of society . . . ]
But that is what we scarcely consider. Placed in the middle of a rapid river, we
obstinately fix our eyes on some debris that we still see on the bank, while the torrent
carries us away and pushes us backward toward the abyss.
I spoke above about men who were present at the ruin of the Roman empire. Let
us fear that the same fate (illegible word) us. This time the barbarians will come not
out of the frozen North; they are rising from the heart of our fields and from the
very midst of our cities (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 31).
s4s4s4s4s4
chapter 10
Some Considerations on the Present State and
Probable Future of the Three Races That
Inhabit the Territory of the United States a
The principal task that I had set for myself has now been fulfilled; I have
succeeded, at least as much as I could, in showing what the laws of the
American democracy were; I have made its mores known. I could stop here,
but the reader would perhaps find that I have not satisfied his expectation.
You encounter in America something more than an immense and com-
plete democracy; the peoples who inhabit the New World can be seen from
more than one point of view.
In the course of this work, my subject often led me to speak about In-
a. Added at the last moment, this chapter could not be the object of the critical read-
ings by the family, Kergorlay, or Beaumont. It is not easy to date its composition in a
precise way, but many indications lead to the idea that it was written during the spring
or summer of 1834. On the 15th of August of that year, his manuscript under his arm,
Tocqueville arrived at the chateau de Gallarande, in the Sarthe, invited by Madame Eu-
génie de Sarce, sister of Gustave de Beaumont. He remained with the Beaumonts until
the middle of September. In July, Tocqueville had written to Beaumont to confide in
him that he did not believe that Gosselin had read the manuscript and to ask his help
on the titles of chapters, which indicates that the manuscript sent to Gosselin did not
then constitute the definitive text.
In this chapter, the similarity to the ideas of Beaumont on the Indians and Blacks is
clear. It consists not only of the consideration of identical questions; it even touches on
sources and citations. Did Beaumont persuade Tocqueville to treat a question that, in
the beginning, belonged to Marie? Does Tocqueville’s decision have something to do
with the racial problems that broke out on the East coast of the United States during
the summer of 1834? Did Tocqueville review and correct this chapter while with the
Beaumont family at the end of the summer? The manuscript of the chapter does not
present great differences from the published version and the number of drafts, appre-
ciably less than that for other chapters, attests to a rapid composition.
515
516 the three races of the united states
dians and Negroes, but I never had the time to stop to show what position
these two races occupy in the midst of the democratic people that I was
busy portraying; I said according to what spirit, with the aid of what laws,
the Anglo-American confederation had been formed; I could only indicate
in passing, and in a very incomplete way, the dangers that menace this con-
federation, and it was impossible for me to explain in detail what its chances
of enduring were, apart from laws and mores. While speaking about the
united republics, I hazarded no conjecture about the permanence of re-
publican forms in the New World, and although alluding frequently to the
commercial activity that reigns in the Union, I was not able to deal with
the future of the Americans as a commercial people.
These topics touch on my subject, but do not enter into it; they are
American without being democratic, and above all I wanted to portray de-
mocracy. So I had to put them aside at first; but I must return to them as
I finish.b
The territory occupied today, or claimed by the American Union, ex-
tends from the Atlantic Ocean to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. So in the
east or in the west, its limits are those of the continent itself; the territory
advances in the south to the edge of the Tropics and then goes back up to
the middle of the frozen areas of the North.
The men spread throughout this space do not form, as in Europe, so
many offshoots of the same family. You discover among them, from the
outset, three naturally distinct and, I could almost say, enemy races. Edu-
cation, laws, origins and even the external form of their features, have raised
an almost insurmountable barrier between them; fortune gathered them
together on the same soil, but it mixed them together without being able
to blend them, and each one pursues its destiny apart.
Among such diverse men, the first who attracts attention, the first in
enlightenment, in power, in happiness, is the white man, the European,
man par excellence; c below him appear the Negro and the Indian.
b. In a draft the paragraph continues in this way: “I am still going to talk about Amer-
ica, but no more about democracy” (YTC, CVh, 3, p. 33).
c. In another version: “{To him belongs the most beautiful portion of the future.
Why this unequal sharing of the good things of this world? Who can say?}”
the three races of the united states 517
These two unfortunate races have neither birth, nor facial features, nor
language, nor mores in common; their misfortunes alone are similar. Both
occupy an equally inferior position in the country that they inhabit; both
suffer the effects of tyranny; and if their miseries are different, they can
blame the same authors for them.
Wouldn’t you say, seeing what is happening in the world, that the Eu-
ropean is to the men of other races what man himself is to the animals?
He makes them serve his purposes, and when he cannot make them bend,
he destroys them.d
Oppression deprived the descendants of the Africans at a stroke of nearly
all the privileges of humanity. The Negro of the United States has lost even
the memory of his country; he no longer hears the language spoken by his
fathers; he has renounced their religion and forgotten their mores. While
thus ceasing to belong to Africa, however, he has acquired no right to the
good things of Europe; but he has stopped between the two societies; he
has remained isolated between the two peoples; sold by the one and re-
pudiated by the other; finding in the whole world only the home of his
master to offer him the incomplete picture of a native land.
The Negro has no family; he cannot see in a woman anything other than
the temporary companion of his pleasures and, at birth, his sons are his
equals.
Shall I call it a benefit of God or a final curse of His anger, this dispo-
sition of the soul that makes man insensible to extreme miseries and often
even gives him a kind of depraved taste for the cause of his misfortunes?
Plunged into this abyss of evils, the Negro scarcely feels his misfortune;
violence had placed him in slavery; the practice of servitude has given him
the thoughts and ambition of a slave; he admires his tyrants even more than
he hates them, and finds his joy and his pride in servile imitation of those
who oppress him.
His intelligence has fallen to the level of his soul.
The Negro enters into servitude and into life at the same time. What
d. To the side of a first version: “⫽Why of these three races, is one born to perish,
the other to rule and the last to serve?⫽”
am I saying? Often he is purchased right from the womb of his mother,

and so to speak he starts to be a slave before being born.
Without need as without pleasure, useless to himself, he understands,
by the first notions that he receives of existence, that he is the property of
another, whose interest is to watch over his days; he sees that the care for
his own fate has not devolved upon him. The very use of thought seems
to him a useless gift from Providence, and he peacefully enjoys all the privi-
leges of his servility.
If he becomes free, independence often then seems to him to be a heavier
chain than slavery itself; for in the course of his existence, he has learned
to submit to everything, except to reason; and when reason becomes his
sole guide, he cannot recognize its voice. A thousand new needs besiege
him, and he lacks the knowledge and the energy necessary to resist them.
Needs are masters that must be fought, and he has only learned to submit
and to obey. So he has reached this depth of misery in which servitude
brutalizes him and liberty destroys him.
Oppression has exercised no less influence over the Indian races, but its
effects are different.
[⫽Europeans have introduced some new needs and some unknown vices
among the savages of North America; but they have not been able entirely
to modify the character of these savage bands. Europeans have been able
to make their tribes disappear, to invade [v: to take the land away from
them] their native land, but they have never submitted to the Europeans.
Some have evaded servitude by flight, others by death.⫽]
Before the arrival of whites in the New World, the men who inhabited
North America lived tranquilly in the woods. Given over to the ordinary
vicissitudes of savage life, they exhibited the vices and virtues of uncivilized
peoples.[*] Europeans, after scattering the Indian tribes far into the wilder-
ness, condemned them to a wandering and restless life, full of inexpressible
miseries.
[*]. See on the history, the mores of the natives of America before the arrival of the
Europeans and on the philosophy of their languages the very curious research of R.
Heckewelder, Duponceau . . . , contained in the first volume of the transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 1819. Say what [two illegible words] Coo-
per drew from him.
Savage nations are governed only by opinions and mores.

By weakening the sentiment of native land among the Indians of North
America, by scattering their families, by obscuring their traditions, by in-
terrupting the chain of memory, by changing all their habits, and by in-
creasing their needs inordinately, European tyranny has made them more
disorderly and less civilized than they already were. The moral condition
and physical state of these peoples did not cease to deteriorate at the same
time, and they became more barbaric as they became more unhappy. None-
theless, Europeans have not been able entirely to modify the character of
the Indians, and with the power to destroy them, they have never had that
of civilizing and subjugating them.
The Negro is placed at the furthest limits of servitude; the Indian, at the
extreme limits of liberty. The effects of slavery on the first are scarcely more
harmful than the effects of independence on the second.
The Negro has lost even ownership of his person, and he cannot dispose
of his own existence without committing a kind of larceny.
The savage is left to himself as soon as he can act. He has hardly known
the authority of family; he has never bent his will to that of his fellows; no
one has taught him to distinguish a voluntary obedience from a shameful
subjection, and he is unaware of even the name of law. For him, to be free
is to escape nearly all the bonds of society. He delights in this barbarous
independence, and he would prefer to perish rather than to sacrifice the
smallest part of it. Civilization has little hold over such a man.
The Negro makes a thousand hapless efforts in order to enter into a
society that pushes him away; he bows to the tastes of his oppressors, adopts
their opinions, and aspires, by imitating them, to be mingled with them.
He has been told since birth that his race is naturally inferior to that of the
whites and he is not far from believing it; so he is ashamed of himself. In
each one of his features he finds a mark of slavery and, if he could, he
would joyfully consent to repudiate himself completely.
The Indian, in contrast, has an imagination entirely filled with the alleged
nobility of his origin. He lives and dies amid these dreams of his pride.e Far
e. In the margin: “⫽He perishes by the exaggeration of the sentiments that the first
one lacks.⫽”
from wanting to bend his mores to ours, he is attached to barbarism as a

distinctive sign of his race, and he rejects civilization perhaps still less out
of hatred for it than out of fear of resembling the Europeans.1
To the perfection of our arts, he wants to oppose only the resources of
the wilderness; to our tactics, only his undisciplined courage; to the depth
of our plans, only the spontaneous instincts of his savage nature. He suc-
cumbs in this unequal struggle.g
The Negro would like to mingle with the European, and he cannot do
so. The Indian could, to a certain point, succeed in doing so, but he disdains
to try. The servility of the one delivers him to slavery, and the pride of the
other, to death.
I remember that traveling through the forests that still cover the state of
1. The native of North America keeps his opinions and even the smallest detail of his habits
with an inflexibility that is without example in history. During the more than two hundred
years that the wandering tribes of North America have had daily connections with the white
race, they have borrowed so to speak neither an idea nor a custom. The men of Europe have,
however, exercised a very great influence over the savages. They have made the Indian char-
acter more disordered, but they have not made it more European. Finding myself in the
summer of 1831 beyond Lake Michigan, in the place named Green-Bay, which serves as the
extreme frontier of the United States with the Indians of the Northwest, I met an American
officer, Major H., who, one day, after talking to me a great deal about the inflexibility of the
Indian character, told me about the following event:
“I once knew,” he says to me, “a young Indian who had been raised in a college in New
England. He had been very successful there, and had taken the full external appearance
of a civilized man. When war broke out between us and the English in 1810,f I saw this
young man again; he was then serving in our army, at the head of some warriors of his
tribe. The Americans had allowed Indians in their ranks only on the condition that they
abstained from the horrible custom of scalping the defeated. The evening of the battle of
***, C . . . came to sit down close to the fire of our bivouac; I asked him what had happened
to him during the day; he told me, and gradually growing excited with the memory of his
exploits, he ended by half-opening his jacket while saying:—‘Don’t betray me, but see!’ In
fact I saw,” added Major H., “between his body and his shirt, the scalp of an Englishman
still dripping with blood.”
f. It certainly concerns the War of 1812. The person Tocqueville was speaking to was
Major Lamard (non-alphabetic notebook 1, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 75–
78).
g. To the side: “⫽The Negro by being a slave loses the taste for and the possibility of
being free; the Indian by being free becomes incapable of becoming civilized. The one
cannot learn to be free; the other, to put limits on his liberty.⫽”
Alabama, I arrived one day next to the cabin of a pioneer. I did not want
to enter the dwelling of the American, but I went to rest for a few mo-
ments at the edge of a spring not far from there in the woods. While I
was in this place, an Indian woman came (we then were near the territory
occupied by the Creek nation); she held the hand of a small girl five or
six years old, belonging to the white race, whom I supposed to be the
daughter of the pioneer. A Negro woman followed them. A kind of bar-
baric luxury distinguished the costume of the Indian woman: metal rings
were suspended from her nostrils and ears; her hair, mixed with glass
beads, fell freely over her shoulders, and I saw that she wasn’t married, for
she still wore the shell necklace that virgins customarily put down on the
nuptial bed. The Negro woman was dressed in European clothes almost
in tatters.
All three came to sit down beside the spring, and the young savage, taking
the child in her arms, lavished on her caresses that you could have believed
were dictated by a mother’s heart; on her side, the Negro woman sought
by a thousand innocent tricks to attract the attention of the small Creole.
The latter showed in her slightest movements a sentiment of superiority
that contrasted strangely with her weakness and her age; you would have
said that she received the attentions of her companions with a kind of
condescension.
Squatting in front of her mistress, watching closely for each of her de-
sires, the Negro woman seemed equally divided between an almost mater-
nal attachment and a servile fear; while a free, proud, and almost fierce air
distinguished even the savage woman’s effusion of tenderness.
I approached and contemplated this spectacle in silence; my curiosity
undoubtedly displeased the Indian woman, for she suddenly arose, pushed
the child far away from her with a kind of roughness, and, after giving me
an irritated look, plunged into the woods.
I had often happened to see gathered in the same places individuals be-
longing to the three human races that people North America. I had already
recognized by a thousand various effects the preponderance exercised by
the whites. But, in the scene that I have just described, there was something
particularly touching: a bond of affection united the oppressed to the op-
pressors here, and nature, by trying hard to bring them together, made still
more striking the immense space put between them by prejudice and laws.
Present State and Probable Future of

the Indian Tribes That Inhabit the
Territory Possessed by the Union h
Gradual disappearance of the native races.—How it is taking
place.—Miseries that accompany the forced migrations of the
Indians.—The savages of North America had only two means to
escape destruction: war or civilization.—They can no longer
wage war.—Why they do not want to become civilized when
they could do so, and, when they reach the point of wanting to
do so, they no longer can.—Example of the Creeks and the
Cherokees.—Policy of the particular states toward these
Indians.—Policy of the federal government.
All the Indian tribes that formerly inhabited the territory of New England,
the Narragansetts, the Mohicans, the Pequots no longer live except in the
h. Detached note in the manuscript:

Plan of the chapter.
1. Destruction of the Indians, a fact.
2. How it is taking place.
You make the wild game flee. You buy the land. (Here introduce commercial mores.)
3. Inevitable destruction.
1. War or civilization.
War, they can no longer wage it.
2. Civilization remains.
Difficulty that hunting peoples have in becoming civilized. It would be necessary to
have [in advance (?) (ed.)] to become a farmer.
Idleness and pride that prevent them from wanting to do so.
When they want to do so, they are not longer able (here I placed the half-breeds,
perhaps elsewhere). Effects of an incomplete civilization in contact with a complete
one.
What precedes is an imperceptible and so to speak involuntary action of one race
on another, but often the positive and voluntary action of governments is joined with
it. Cherokees, Creeks, way of acting toward them of the state and federal governments.
The appendix devoted to the Indians in the second volume of Marie (“Note on the
past state and the present condition of the Indian tribes of North America”) gives inter-
esting details on their way of life and their habits that do not appear in Tocqueville’s work.
See Harry Liebersohn, Aristocratic Encounters (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,
1998), pp. 92–112.
memory of men; the Lenapes [Delawares] who received Penn, one hundred
and fifty years ago, on the banks of the Delaware, have disappeared today.j
I met the last of the Iroquois; they were begging. All the nations that I have
just named formerly extended as far as the shores of the sea; now you must
go more than one hundred leagues into the interior of the continent to
meet an Indian. These savages have not only withdrawn, they are de-
stroyed.2 As the natives move away and die, an immense people comes and
increases continuously in their place. Neither a development so prodigious
nor a destruction so rapid has ever been seen among nations.
It is easy to indicate the manner in which this destruction is taking
place.
When the Indians lived alone in the wilderness from which they are
exiled today, their needs were few [and the means to provide for them very
numerous]; they made their own arms; river water was their only drink;
and they had as clothing the hide of the animals whose flesh served to nour-
ish them.
Europeans introduced to the natives of North America firearms, iron
and brandy; they taught them to replace with our fabrics the barbarian
clothing that contented Indian simplicity until then. While contracting
new tastes, the Indians have not learned the art of satisfying them, and they
have had to resort to the industry of whites. In return for these goods, which
he himself did not know how to create, the savage could offer nothing,
other than the rich furs that his woods still contained. From this moment,
the hunt had to provide not only for his needs, but also for the frivolous
passions of Europe. He no longer pursued the beasts of the forest only to
j. On a loose slip of paper in the manuscript: “Present state of the relations of the
United States with all the Indians who surround their territory. See report of the Sec-
retary of War, L. Cass, 29 November 1833. National Intelligencer of 10 December 1833.”
Beaumont had subscribed to the National Intelligencer in 1833. Tocqueville drew from
this newspaper many details for writing this chapter.
2. In the thirteen original states, only 6,273 Indians remain. (See Legislative Documents,
20th Congress, n. 117, p. 90).
nourish himself, but to obtain the only objects of exchange that he could
give us.3
While the needs of the natives grew in this way, their resources did not
cease to diminish.
From the day when a European settlement forms in the neighborhood
of the territory occupied by the Indians, the wild game becomes alarmed.4
Thousands of savages, wandering in the forests, without fixed abodes, do
not frighten the game; but the instant the continuous noises of European
industry are heard in some place, the game begins to flee and to withdraw
toward the west, where its instinct teaches it that still limitless wildernesses
will be found. “But the buffalo is constantly receding,” say Messrs. Cass
and Clark in their report to Congress, 4 February 1829. “A few years since,
3. Messrs. Clark and Cass, in their report to Congress, 4 February 1829, p. 23, said:
The time is already long past when the Indians could supply themselves with the things
necessary for their food and clothing without resorting to the industry of civilized men.
Beyond the Mississippi, in a country where immense herds of buffalo are still found, live
Indian tribes that follow the migrations of these wild animals; the Indians that we are
speaking about still find the means to live by following all the customs of their fathers; but
the buffalo are constantly withdrawing. Now you can no longer get, except with rifles or
traps, the smaller type of wild animals, such as bear, deer, beaver, muskrat, that particu-
larly provide the Indians with what is necessary to sustain life.
It is principally in the northwest that the Indians are forced to expend excessive effort
to nourish their families. Often the hunter devotes several days in a row to pursuing game
without success; during this time, his family must eat bark and roots or perish; consequently
many of them die of hunger every winter.k
The Indians do not want to live like the Europeans; they cannot do without the Europeans,
however, nor live entirely as their fathers did. You will judge so by this sole fact, the knowledge
of which I draw as well from an official source. Some men belonging to an Indian tribe on
the shores of Lake Superior had killed a European; the American government forbid trading
with the tribe of which the guilty parties were part, until they had been surrendered: which
took place.
k. This citation is also found in Marie, II, pp. 291–92.
4. “Five years ago,” says Volney in his Tableau des Etats-Unis, p. 370, “while going from
Vincennes to Kaskaskia, territory included today in the state of Illinois, then entirely wild
(1797), you did not cross the prairies without seeing herds of four to five hundred buffaloes;
today none of them remain; they crossed the Mississippi by swimming, bothered by hunters
and above all by the bells of American cows.”
they approached the base of the Alleghany, and a few years hence they may
even be rare upon the immense plains which extend to the base of the
Rocky Mountains.” I was assured that this effect of the approach of whites
[{Europeans}] often makes itself felt two hundred leagues from their fron-
tier. Their influence is exercised therefore on tribes whose name they hardly
know and who suffer the evils of usurpation long before knowing the au-
thors of it.5
Soon hardy adventurers penetrate the Indian countries; they advance
fifteen or twenty leagues beyond the extreme frontier of the whites and go
to build the dwelling of civilized man in the very midst of barbarism. It is
easy for them to do so: the limits of the territory of a hunting people are
poorly fixed. This territory belongs, moreover, to the entire nation and is
not precisely the property of anyone; so individual interest defends no part
of it.m
A few European families, occupying widely separated points, then suc-
ceed in chasing forever the wild animals from all the intermediate space
that stretches between them. The Indians, who had lived until then in a
sort of abundance, find it difficult to survive, still more difficult to obtain
the objects of exchange that they need. By making their game flee, it is as
if you made the fields of our farmers sterile. Soon they almost entirely lack
the means of existence. You then meet these unfortunate people prowling
about like famished wolves amid their deserted woods. Instinctive love of
native land attaches them to the soil where they were born,6 and they no
5. You can be persuaded of the truth of what I am advancing here by consulting the general
portrait of the Indian tribes contained within the limits claimed by the United States ( Leg-
islative Documents, 20th Congress, n. 117, pp. 90–105). You will see that the tribes in the
center of America are rapidly decreasing, although the Europeans are still very far from them.
m. An identical sentence can be found in Marie (II, p. 233).
6. The Indians, say Messrs. Clark and Cass in their report to Congress, p. 15, are attached
to their country by the same sentiment of affection that ties us to ours; and furthermore, to
the idea of alienating the lands that the Great Spirit gave to their ancestors, they attach certain
superstitious ideas that exercise a great power over the tribes that have still not given anything
up or who have given up only a small portion of their territory to Europeans. “We do not sell
the place where the remains of our fathers rest,” such is the first response that they always make
to whoever proposes to buy their lands.
longer find anything there except misery and death. They finally make up
their minds; they leave, and following at a distance the flight of the elk, the
buffalo and the beaver, they leave to these wild animals the care of choosing
a new homeland for them. So it is not, strictly speaking, the Europeansn
who chase the natives of America away, it is famine; happy distinction that
had escaped the old casuists and that modern [{Protestant}] doctors have
discovered.
You cannot imagine the dreadful evils that accompany these forced em-
igrations. At the moment when the Indians left their paternal lands, they
were already exhausted and reduced. The country where they are going to
settle is occupied by wandering tribes who see the new arrivals only with
jealousy. Behind them is hunger, ahead of them is war, everywhere there is
misery. In order to escape so many enemies, they divide up. Each one of
them tries to isolate himself in order to find furtively the means to sustain
his existence, and lives in the immensity of the wilderness like the outlaw
in the bosom of civilized societies. The social bond, long weakened, then
breaks. For them, there already was no longer a native land. Soon there will
no longer be a people; families will scarcely remain; the common name is
being lost, language forgotten, the traces of origin disappear. The nation
has ceased to exist. It scarcely lives in the memory of American antiquarians
and is known only to a few European scholars.
I would not want the reader to be able to believe that I am exaggerating
my descriptions here.o I have seen with my own eyes several of the miseries
that I have just described; I have gazed upon evils that would be impossible
for me to recount.
At the end of the year 1831, I found myself on the left bank of the Mis-
sissippi, at a place named Memphis by the Europeans. While I was in this
place, a numerous troop of Choctaws (the French of Louisiana call them
Chactas ) came; these savages left their country and tried to pass to the right
bank of the Mississippi where they flattered themselves about finding a
refuge that the American government had promised them. It was then the
n. If the word European is kept here, in most cases it has been crossed out and Anglo-
Americans substituted.
o. In the manuscript: “that I am inventing [v: creating] descriptions at will here.”
heart of winter, and the cold gripped that year with unaccustomed inten-
sity; snow had hardened on the ground, and the river swept along enormous
chunks of ice. The Indians led their families with them; they dragged along
behind them the wounded, the sick, the newborn children, the elderly
about to die. They had neither tents nor wagons, but only a few provisions
and weapons. I saw them embark to cross the great river, and this solemn
spectacle will never leave my memory. You heard among this assembled
crowd neither sobs nor complaints; they kept quiet. Their misfortunes were
old and seemed to them without remedy. All the Indians had already en-
tered the vessel that was to carry them; their dogs still remained on the bank;
when these animals saw finally that their masters were going away forever,
they let out dreadful howls, and throwing themselves at the same time into
the icy waters of the Mississippi, they swam after their masters.
The dispossession of the Indians often takes place today in a regular and,
so to speak, entirely legal manner.
When the European population begins to approach the wilderness oc-
cupied by a savage nation, the government of the United States commonly
sends to the latter a solemn embassy. The whites assemble the Indians in a
great field and, after eating and drinking with them, say to them:
What are you doing in the land of your fathers? Soon you will have to dig
up their bones to live there. How is the country where you live better than
another? Are there woods, marshes and prairies only here where you are,
and can you live only under your sun? Beyond these mountains that you
see on the horizon, beyond the lake that borders your territory on the west,
you find vast countries where wild game is still found in abundance; sell
us your lands and go to live happily in those places.
After giving this speech, firearms, woolen clothing, casks of brandy, glass
necklaces, tin bracelets, earrings and mirrors are spread out before the eyes
of the Indians.7 If, at the sight of all these riches, they still hesitate, it is
7. See in the Legislative Documents of Congress, doc. 117, the account of what hap-
pens in these circumstances. This curious piece is found in the report already cited, made
insinuated that they cannot refuse the consent demanded of them, and that
soon the government itself will be unable to guarantee to them the enjoy-
ment of their rights.[*] What to do? Half persuaded, half forced, the In-
dians move away; they go to inhabit new wildernesses where whites will
not leave them in peace for even ten years. In this way the Americans acquire
at a very low price entire provinces that the richest sovereigns of Europe
could not afford.8
by Messrs. Clark and Lewis Cass, to Congress, 4 February 1829. Today Mr. Cass is the
Secretary of War.
The Indians, as has been stated, say Messrs. Clark and Cass, reach the treaty ground
poor, and almost naked. Large quantities of goods are taken there by the traders, and are
seen and examined by the Indians. The women and children become importunate to have
their wants supplied, and their influence is soon exerted to induce a sale. Their improvi-
dence is habitual and unconquerable. The gratification of his immediate wants and desires
is the ruling passion of an Indian. The expectation of future advantages seldom produces
much effect. The experience of the past is lost, and the prospects of the future disregarded.
This is one of the most striking traits in their character, and is well known to all who have
had much intercourse with them. It would be utterly hopeless to demand a cession of land,
unless the means were at hand of gratifying their immediate wants; and when their con-
dition and circumstances are fairly considered, it ought not to surprise us that they are so
anxious to relieve themselves.
[*]. See the treaty with the Osages. Everett, p. 16. Long’s Expedition, vol. II, p. 245.
8. On 19 May 1830, Mr. Ed. Everett asserted before the House of Representatives that the
Americans had already acquired by treaty, east and west of the Mississippi, 230,000,000 acres.
In 1808, the Osages gave up 48,000,000 acres for an income of 1,000 dollars.
In 1818, the Quapaws gave up 29,000,000 acres for 4,000 dollars; they reserved a territory
of 1,000,000 acres for hunting. It had been solemnly sworn that it would be respected; it was
not long before it was invaded like the rest.
In order to appropriate the uninhabited lands to which the Indians claim ownership,
said Mr. Bell, secretary of the Indian affairs committee of Congress, 24 February 1830,
we have adopted the practice of paying the Indian tribes the value of their hunting ground
after the game has fled or has been destroyed. It is more advantageous and certainly more
in conformity with the principles of justice and more humane to act in this way than to
take the territory of the savages by force of arms.
The practice of buying from the Indians their title of ownership is therefore nothing
more than a new mode of acquisition that humanity and expediency have substituted for
violence, and that will equally make us masters of the lands that we claim by virtue of
I have just recounted great evils, I add that they seem irremediable to
me. I believe that the Indian race of North America is condemned to perish,
and I cannot prevent myself from thinking that the day the Europeans settle
on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, that race will have ceased to exist.9
The Indians of North America had only two paths to salvation: war or
civilization; in other words, they had to destroy the Europeans or become
their equal.
At the birth of the colonies, it would have been possible for them, by
uniting their forces, to rid themselves of the small number of foreigners
who had just arrived at the shores of the continent.10 More than once, they
attempted to do it and saw themselves on the verge of success. Today the
disproportion of resources is too great for them to be able to consider such
an undertaking.p But men of genius still arise among the Indian nations,
who foresee the final fate reserved for the savage populations and who seek
to bring together all the tribes in a common hatred of Europeans [{and to
silence individual animosities in order to deal only with this objective [v:
discovery, and that moreover assures us the right of civilized nations to settle the territory
occupied by savage tribes.
Until now, several causes have constantly diminished in the eyes of the Indians the
value of the soil that they occupy, and then the same causes have led them to sell it to us
without difficulty. The practice of buying from the savages their right of occupancy has
therefore never been able, to any perceptible degree, to slow the prosperity of the United
States.
(Legislative Documents, 21st Congress, n. 227, p. 6).
9. This opinion seemed to us, moreover, that of nearly all the American statesmen.
“Judging of the future by the past,” said Mr. Cass to Congress, “we cannot err in antici-
pating a progressive diminution of their numbers, and their eventual extinction, unless our
border should become stationary, and they be removed beyond it, or unless some radical change
should take place in [the principles of (ed.)] our intercourse with them, which it is easier to
hope for than to expect.”
10. See among others the war undertaken by the Wampanoags and the other confederated
tribes, under the leadership of Metacom [King Philip (ed.)], in 1675, against the colonists of
New England, and the war that the English had to withstand in 1622 in Virginia.
p. According to Beaumont, the only possibility rested on an alliance of Indians with
the Black population. Nonetheless, in his novel, this alliance and the revolt that follows
lead to a sharp defeat.
to consider all saving themselves}];[*] but their efforts are ineffectual. The
tribes that are near the whites are already too weak to offer effective resis-
tance; the others, abandoning themselves to this childish lack of concern
about tomorrow that characterizes savage nature, wait for the danger to
appear before giving it their attention. The first cannot act, the others do
not want to act.
[⫽If at the same time that the Indians gave up hope of chasing the Eu-
ropeans away from American soil, they had succeeded in becoming civi-
lized, they would still be able to avoid the destruction that threatens them,
for it is nearly impossible to dispossess a farming people completely.⫽]
It is easy to foresee that the Indians will never want to become civilized,
or that they will try too late, when they reach the point of wanting to do
so.
Civilization is the result of a long work of society that proceeds in the
same place and that the different successive generations bequeath to one
another. It is among hunting peoples that civilization has the greatest dif-
ficulty managing to establish its dominion. Tribes of herders change places,
but they always follow a regular order in their migrations and constantly
retrace their steps; the dwelling-place of hunters varies like that of the very
animals they pursue.
Several times the attempt has been made to bring enlightenment to
the Indians while leaving them with the mores of wandering peoples; the
Jesuits had tried to do it in Canada, the Puritans in New England.11 Both
accomplished nothing lasting. Civilization was born within the hut and
went to die in the woods. The great failing of these legislators of the Indians
was not to understand that, to succeed in civilizing a people, it is necessary
[*]. Red Jacket.q Cite and translate the speech of Oconostata in Everett, p. 44. Insert
afterward the note from the work.
q. John C. Spencer, on the occasion of a long conversation, provided Tocqueville
with information on Red Jacket (alphabetic notebook A, YTC, BIIIa, and Voyage, OC,
V, 1, pp. 221–23). Edward Everett, for his part, had sent Beaumont several documents
on the Indians, including his speech of 1830 to the House of Representatives. Cf. two
letters from Beaumont to Edward Everett dated 18 February and 1 May 1832, YTC, BIc.
11. See the different historians of New England. Also see Histoire de la Nouvelle-France
by Charlevoix and Lettres édifiantes. [See report of the Commission of Indian Affairs, 21st
Congress, n. 217, p. 25.]
above all to get them to settle down, and they can only do so by cultivating
the soil; so it was first a matter of making the Indians farmers.
Not only do the Indians not possess this indispensable preliminary of
civilization, but also it is very difficult for them to acquire.
Men who have once given themselves over to the idle and adventurous
life of hunters feel an almost insurmountable distaste for the constant and
regular work required by farming. You can see it even within our societies;
but it is even much more visible among peoples for whom hunting habits
have become the national customs.
Apart from this general cause, a cause no less powerful is found only
among the Indians. I have already pointed it out; I believe I must return to
it.
The natives of North America consider work not only as an evil, but
also as a dishonor, and their pride struggles against civilization almost as
obstinately as their idleness.12
There is no Indian so miserable who, in his bark hut, does not maintain
a proud idea of his individual value; he considers the cares of industry as
degrading occupations; he compares the farmer to the ox that traces the
furrow, and in each of our arts he sees only the work of slaves. It is not that
he has not conceived a very high idea of the power of whites and of the
grandeur of their intelligence; but, if he admires the result of our efforts,
he scorns the means that we have used to obtain them, and, even while
under our influence, he still believes himself superior to us. Hunting and
war seem to him the only cares worthy of a man.13 So the Indian, deep
12. “In all the tribes,” says Volney in his Tableau des Etats-Unis, p. 423, “there still exists
a generation of old warriors who, seeing the hoe handled, do not cease to shout about the
degradation of ancient mores and who claim that the savages owe their decline only to these
innovations, and that, to recover their glory and their power, it would be sufficient for them
to return to their primitive mores.”
13. In an official document the following portrait is found:
Until a young man has been engaged with an enemy, and can boast of his prowess, he is
held in no estimation, and is considered little better than a woman.
At their great war dances, all the warriors in succession strike the post, as it is called,
and recount the feats they have done. The auditory, upon these occasions, is composed of
the relations, the friends, and the companions of the narrator, and the intensity of their
within the misery of his woods, nurtures the same ideas, the same opinions
as the noble[*] of the Middle Ages in his fortress, and to resemble him fully
he only needs to become a conqueror. How strange! It is in the forests of
the New World, and not among the Europeans who populate its shores,
that the ancient prejudices of Europe are found today.
I have tried more than once, in the course of this work, to make un-
derstood the prodigious influence that the social state seemed to me to ex-
ercise on the laws and mores of men. Allow me to add a single word to the
subject.
When I notice the similarity that exists between the political institutions
of our fathers, the Teutons, and those of the wandering tribes of North
America, between the customs recounted by Tacitus and those that I was
sometimes able to witness, I cannot prevent myself from thinking that the
same cause has produced, in the two hemispheres, the same results, and
that amid the apparent diversity of human affairs, it is not impossible to
find a small number of generative facts from which all the others derive.
So in all that we call Teutonic institutions, I am tempted to see only the
habits of barbarians, and the opinions of savages in what we call feudal
ideas.r
feelings is manifested by the deep silence with which they listen to his tale, and by the loud
shouts with which he is hailed at the termination. Unfortunate is the young man who has
no deeds of valor to recount at these assemblages; and instances are not wanting, where
young warriors, in the excitement of their feelings, have departed alone from these dances,
in search of trophies to exhibit, and of adventures to relate.
[*]. See the piece from Cass and Clark, p. 29, on the need for military glory that makes
itself universally felt among them.
r. In the second lecture of his History of Civilization in Europe, Guizot asserted that
the savage life of the American Indians had some similarity to the mores of the ancient
Teutons. He added that the idea of individual independence, that of modern personal
liberty, had appeared in Europe on the occasion of the great Teutonic invasions. The
same ideas are found, more developed, in the seventh lecture of the course on civilization
in France. Montesquieu, Saint-Simon and Boulainvilliers, before Guizot, had shown a
great admiration for Teutonic institutions.
Whatever the vices and prejudices that prevent the Indians of North
America from becoming farmers and civilized, necessity sometimes forces
them to do so.
Several considerable nations of the South, among others those of the
Cherokees and the Creeks,14 found themselves as though encircled by
Europeans who, landing on the shores of the Ocean, going down the Ohio
and coming back up the Mississippi, surrounded them all at once. They
were not chased from place to place, as the tribes of the North were, but
were squeezed little by little into limits that were too narrow, as hunters
first make an enclosure around a thicket before entering simultaneously
into the interior. The Indians, placed then between civilization and death,
saw themselves reduced to living shamefully by their work like whites; so
they became farmers, and without entirely abandoning either their habits
or their mores, they sacrificed what was absolutely necessary for their
existence.
The Cherokees went further; they created a written language, established
a fairly stable form of government; and, as everything moves with a hurried
step in the New World, they had a newspaper15 before all had clothes.
What singularly favored the rapid development of European habits
among these Indians was the presence of half-breeds.16 Sharing the enlight-
enment of his father without necessarily abandoning the savage customs
14. These nations today are encompassed in the states of Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and
Mississippi.
There were formerly in the south (you see the remnants of them) four great nations: the
Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks and Cherokees.
The remnants of these four nations still had about 75,000 individuals in 1830. There is at
present, in the territory occupied or claimed by the Anglo-American Union, a count of about
300,000 Indians. (See Proceedings of the Indian Board in the City of New York. ) Official
documents provided to Congress bring the number to 313,130. The reader curious to know the
name and strength of all the tribes that inhabit the Anglo-American territory should consult
the documents that I have just indicated. ( Legislative Documents, 20th Congress, n. 117,
pp. 90–105.)
15. I brought back to France one or two copies of this singular publication. [Cite the sta-
tistical details that are found in the speech of Everett, p. 26. See id., p. 29.]
16. See in the report of the committee of Indian affairs, 21st Congress, n. 227, p. 23, what
makes the half-breeds multiply among the Cherokees; the principal cause goes back to the War
of Independence. Many Anglo-Americans from Georgia, having taken England’s side, were
forced to withdraw among the Indians and married there.
of his maternal race, the half-breed forms the natural link between civili-
zation and barbarism. Wherever half-breeds have multiplied, savages are
seen to modify little by little their social state and change their mores.17
So the success of the Cherokees proves that the Indians have the ability
to become civilized, but it in no way proves that they can succeed in
doing so.s
This difficulty that the Indians find in submitting to civilization arises
from a general cause that is nearly impossible for them to elude.
17. Unfortunately half-breeds have been fewer and have exercised a smaller influence in
North America than anywhere else.
Two great nations of Europe peopled this portion of the American continent: the French
and the English.
The first did not take long to enter into unions with the young native women; but mis-
fortune decreed that a secret affinity be found between the Indian character and theirs. Instead
of giving to the barbarians the taste and habits of civilized life, it was they who often became
passionately attached to savage life; they became the most dangerous inhabitants of the wil-
derness, and won the friendship of the Indian by exaggerating his vices and his virtues. M.
de Sénonville [Denonville (ed.)], Governor of Canada, wrote to Louis XIV, in 1685: “For a
long time we believed it necessary to move the savages near us to make them more French; we
all have good grounds to recognize that we were wrong. Those who moved near us did not
become French, and the French who haunted them became savage. They pretend to dress like
them, to live like them” (Histoire de la Nouvelle-France, by Charlevoix, vol. II, p. 345).
The Englishman, in contrast, living stubbornly attached to the opinions, the customs and
to the slightest habits of his fathers, remained in the middle of the American wilderness what
he was within the cities of Europe; so he wanted to establish no contact with the savages that
he despised, and carefully avoided mingling his blood with that of the barbarians.
Thus, while the Frenchman exercised no salutary influence on the Indians, the Englishman
was always a stranger to them.
s. Note on a small sheet of paper separate from the manuscript, but which, according
to Tocqueville’s indications, should have been placed here:
I recall having been very surprised in the middle of the woods by hearing savages
shout to me: bonjour with an air of friendship. This attachment of the Indians to
the [lacking: French (ed.)] is due in part to very honorable causes: “If we pay atten-
tion,” say Messrs. Clark and Cass in their report to Congress, doc. n. 117, p. 11, “to
the influence acquired and exercised by the French on the Indians, influence whose
visible traces you still see today after two generations have passed, you will be led to
conclude that the French used their power with honor and impartiality.”
The attraction of savage life for Europeans and the scorn of savage populations for civ-
ilization appear in the Discours sur l’origine de l’inégalité of Rousseau (Oeuvres complètes,
Paris: Pléiade, 1964, III, note XVI, pp. 220–21).
If you cast an attentive eye on history, you discover that in general bar-
baric peoples have risen little by little by themselves, and by their own ef-
forts, toward civilization.
When it happened that they went to draw enlightenment from a foreign
nation, they did so with the rank of conquerors, and not the position of
the vanquished.
When the conquered people are enlightened and the conquering people
half-savage, as in the invasion of the Roman Empire by the nations of the
North, or in that of China by the Mongols, the power that victory assures
to the barbarian is enough to keep him at the level of the civilized man and
allow him to move as his equal, until he becomes his equal; the one has
strength in his favor, the other, intelligence; the first admires the arts and
sciences of the vanquished, the second envies the power of the conquerors.
The barbarians end by introducing the civilized man into their palaces, and
the civilized man in turn opens his schools to them. But when the one who
possesses physical force enjoys intellectual preponderance at the same time,
it is rare for the vanquished to become civilized; he withdraws or is
destroyed.
Therefore you can say in a general way that savages are going to seek
enlightenment with weapons in hand, but that they do not receive it.t
If the Indian tribes who now inhabit the center of the continent could
find in themselves enough energy to undertake becoming civilized, they
would perhaps succeed. Superior then to the barbarian nations that sur-
round them, they would little by little gain strength and experience, and,
when the Europeans finally appeared on their frontiers, they would be in
a state, if not to maintain their independence, at least to make their rights
to the soil recognized and to become integrated with the conquerors. But
the misfortune of the Indians is to enter into contact with the most civi-
t. In the margin, in a first version:

⫽It is sufficient to see the natives of North America to be persuaded that their race
is in no way inferior to ours. The social state has so to [speak (ed.)] drawn around
the mind of the Indians a narrow circle, but in this circle, they show themselves the
most intelligent of all men. There is without doubt in what the Cherokees have done
more [v: as much] natural genius than in the greatest efforts of civilized peoples.⫽
lized, and I will add the most greedy people of the globe, while they are
themselves still half barbarian; to find in their teachers, masters, and to
receive oppression and enlightenment at the same time.u
Living within the liberty of the woods, the Indian of North America
was miserable, but he felt inferior to no one; from the moment he wants
to enter into the social hierarchy of the whites, he can occupy only the last
rank; for he enters ignorant and poor into a society where knowledge and
wealth reign. After leading an agitated life, full of evils and dangers, but
filled at the same time with emotions and grandeur,18 he must submit to a
u. In his “Report on the proposed law concerning the extraordinary credits asked for
Algeria” (Moniteur universel, 1 June 1847, pp. 1379–84, reproduced in OC, III, 1, pp. 309–
89), Tocqueville suggests taking into account the errors of the conquest of America and
preventing the destruction of the Arabs by Western civilization (pp. 327–30).
18. There is in the adventurous life of hunting peoples some irresistible attraction that
catches hold of the heart of man and carries him away despite his reason and experience. You
can be persuaded of this truth by reading the Mémoires de Tanner.
Tanner is a European who was carried off at the age of six by the Indians and who
remained for thirty years in the woods with them. It is impossible to see anything more dreadful
than the miseries he describes. He shows us tribes without chiefs, families without nations,
isolated men, mutilated remnants of powerful tribes, wandering haphazardly amid the ice
and among the desolate wilderness areas of Canada. Hunger and cold pursue them; each day
life seems ready to escape from them. Among them, mores have lost their sway, traditions are
without power. Men become more and more barbaric. Tanner shares all these evils; he knows
his European origin, he is not forcibly kept far from whites; he goes, on the contrary, each year
to trade with them, to wander through their dwelling-places, to see their comfort; he knows
that the day he wants to reenter civilized life he will easily be able to succeed in doing so, and
he remains thirty years in the wilderness. When he finally returns to civilized society, he con-
fesses that the existence whose miseries he has described has secret charms for him that he cannot
define; he returns there constantly after having left and pulls himself away from so many evils
only with a thousand regrets; and when he has finally settled among the whites, several of his
children refuse to come to share with him his tranquillity and his comfort.
I met Tanner myself at the entry to Lake Superior. He appeared to me still to resemble a
savage much more than a civilized man.
You do not find in the work of Tanner either order or taste; but the author draws, even
unknowingly, a lively picture of the prejudices, passions, vices and above all the miseries of
those among whom he lived.
Viscount Ernest de Blosseville, author of an excellent work on the penal colonies of En-
gland, has translated the Mémoires de Tanner.v The Viscount de Blosseville added to his
translation notes of great interest that will allow the reader to compare the facts recounted by
Tanner with those already related by a great number of ancient and modern observers.
All those who desire to know the present state and to foresee the future destiny of the Indian
races of North America should consult the work of the Viscount de Blosseville.
v. In the first edition: “of Tanner and will publish them in the course of the year
about to begin.”
George W. Pierson (Tocqueville and Beaumont in America, p. 235) indicates that the
travelers met Tanner on the steamboat Ohio, on the way to Detroit, 19 July 1831, and
that the latter offered them his book. Beaumont gives the following account of a con-
versation with Tanner, that he places on the Mississippi:
The Choctaws were being escorted by an agent of the American government charged
with implementing their removal. This man, who did not know the language of the
Indians, had an interpreter close to them, an inhabitant of the United States named
Tanner, who is famous in America for having spent more than thirty years among
the savage tribes of the north. I congratulated myself all the more about meeting him
because I had often desired to do so; this circumstance, joined with the interest that
the misfortune of the Indians inspired in me, suggested to me the thought of crossing
the Mississippi with them and accompanying them to their new territory. ⫽I shared
this idea with my traveling companion who very much approved it.⫽ As soon as I
had resolved to do so, I felt a burst of joy and enthusiasm thinking that I was going
to see the beautiful forests dreamed of in my imagination, the vast prairies described
by Cooper, and the profound solitudes unknown in the Old World.
The signal for the departure was given and Tanner, with whom I soon began to
converse, assured me that in less than a day we would reach the mouth of the Arkansas
and that one day more would be enough for us to move up the river a distance of
more than 150 miles.
While we descended the Mississippi, I did not cease questioning Tanner about the
mores of the Indians and about the causes for their misfortune. He gave me notions
full of interest about them that I would like one day to be able to make known in all
their scope.—“You, who sympathize with their misfortunes,” he says to me, “hurry
to know them!, for soon they will have disappeared from the earth. The forests of
Arkansas are given forever to them! These are, it is true, the terms of the treaty! But
what mockery! The lands that they occupied in Georgia had also been given to them,
thirty years ago, forever! They will be left in this new country that is abandoned to
them as long as their lands are not needed. But as soon as the American population
finds itself too squeezed together on the left bank of the Mississippi, it will sweep
into the fertile countries of the other bank and the Indian will again undergo the fate
that was reserved for him, that of retreating before European civilization. Note,”
Tanner also said to me, “that it is, to a certain point, in the interest of the Indian to
act in this way at the approach of whites; in fact he lives almost exclusively on game,
and the game itself moves away as soon as civilized society approaches it. It is enough
to put a large road through a country to chase away all the wild buffaloes. The Indian
who goes closely along with them is only following his means of existence, but by
monotonous, obscure and degraded existence. To earn by hard work and

amid shame the bread that must nourish him, such in his eyes is the sole
result of this civilization that is praised to him.
And he is not always sure to obtain even this result.
When the Indians undertake to imitate the Europeans their neighbors,
and like them to cultivate the land, they soon find themselves exposed to
the effects of a very destructive competition. The white is master of the
secrets of agriculture. The Indian starts out crudely in an art that he does
not know. The one easily makes great harvests grow, the other extracts the
fruits of the earth only with a thousand efforts.
The European is placed amid a population that he knows and whose
needs he shares.
The savage is isolated in the middle of an enemy people whose mores,
language and laws he knows incompletely, but without whom he cannot
manage. Only by exchanging his products for those of the whites can he
become well-off, for his compatriots are nothing more than a feeble help
to him.
Therefore, when the Indian wants to sell the fruits of his work, he does
not always find the buyer that the European farmer easily finds, and he can
produce only at great cost what the other delivers for a small price.
So the Indian has escaped from the evils to which barbarian nations are
exposed only to subject himself to the greatest miseries of civilized peoples,
and he finds almost as much difficulty living amid our abundance as within
his forests.
constantly advancing toward the west, he will meet the Pacific Ocean.—This will be
the end of his journey and of his life. How many years will pass before his ruin? You
could not say. Each vessel from Europe that brings to America new inhabitants ac-
celerates the destruction of the Indians. After halting in Arkansas, the Choctaws will
be pushed back beyond the Rocky Mountains; this will be their second stage; and
when the wave of the American population arrives, they will not be able either to
remain or to go beyond. Their destiny will be fulfilled.”
While Tanner thus spoke to me, I felt penetrated by a profound sadness.
This conversation belongs to the notes and drafts of Marie (YTC, Beaumont, CIX). The
details that precede and follow this conversation appear in Marie, II, pp. 48–55 and 292–
93.
At home, however, the habits of the wandering life are still not destroyed.
Traditions have not lost their dominion; the taste for hunting has not been
extinguished. The savage joys that he formerly experienced deep within the
woods are then represented by the most vivid colors in his troubled imag-
ination; the privations that he endured there seem to him less dreadful in
contrast, the perils that he encountered less great. The independence that
he enjoyed among his equals contrasts with the servile position that he oc-
cupies in civilized society.
From another perspective, the solitude where, for so long, he lived free
is still near him; a few hours of walking can restore it to him. For the half-
cleared field from which he draws hardly enough to feed himself, the whites,
his neighbors, offer him a price that to him seems high. Perhaps this money
that the Europeans present to him would allow him to live happily and
tranquilly far from them. He leaves his plow, picks up his weapons, and
goes into the wilderness again forever.19
19. This destructive influence that very civilized peoples exercise on those who are less so is
noticeable among the Europeans themselves. [{See what Volney says in his Tableau du climat
et du sol des Etats-Unis, p. 360.}]
Some French had founded, nearly a century ago, in the middle of the wilderness, the city
of Vincennes on the Wabash. They lived there in great abundance until the arrival of the
American emigrants. The latter soon began to ruin the old inhabitants by competition; then
they bought their lands from them for a small sum. At the moment when Volney, from whom
I borrow this detail, came upon Vincennes, the number of French was reduced to a hundred
individuals, most of whom were prepared to move to Louisiana or Canada. These French
were honest men, but without enlightenment and without industry; they had contracted part
of the savage habits. The Americans, who were perhaps inferior to them from the moral point
of view, had an immense intellectual superiority over them; they were industrious, educated,
rich, and used to governing themselves.
I myself saw in Canada, where the intellectual difference between the two races is much
less pronounced, the Englishman, master of commerce and industry in the country of the
Canadian, stretch out on all sides and squeeze the Frenchman into limits too narrow.
In the same way, in Louisiana, nearly all the commercial and industrial activity is con-
centrated in the hands of the Anglo-Americans.
Something still more striking is happening in the province of Texas; the state of Texas is,
as you know, part of Mexico and serves as the frontier with the United States. For several
years, Anglo-Americans have entered individually into this province still poorly populated,
bought lands, taken hold of industry, and rapidly taken the place of the original population.
You can foresee that if Mexico does not hasten to stop this movement, Texas will not take long
to escape from it.
You can judge the truth of this sad portrait by what is happening among
the Creeks and the Cherokees, whom I cited.
These Indians, in the little that they have done, have surely shown as
much natural genius as the peoples of Europe in their wider undertakings;
but nations, like men, need time to learn, whatever their intelligence and
their efforts.w
While these savages worked to become civilized, the Europeans contin-
ued to envelop them from all sides and to squeeze them in more and more.
Today, the two races have finally met; they touch each other. The Indian
has already become superior to his father, the savage, but he is still very
inferior to the white, his neighbor. With the aid of their resources and their
enlightenment, the Europeans did not take long to appropriate most of the
advantages that possession of the soil could provide to the natives; the
Europeans settled among them, seized the land or bought it at a low price,
and ruined the Indians by a competition that the latter could in no way
sustain. Isolated in their own country, the Indians no longer formed any-
thing except a small colony of inconvenient foreigners in the middle of a
numerous and dominating people.20
If a few differences comparatively not very perceptible in European civilization lead to

such results, it is easy to understand what must happen when the most perfected civilization
of Europe enters into contact with Indian barbarism.
w. On a detached sheet: “Put the piece from Jefferson on Logan to prove capacity of
the Indians. See Notes On Virginia, p. 153.”
20. See, in the Legislative Documents, 21st Congress, n. 89, the excesses of all kinds com-
mitted by the white population on the territory of the Indians. Sometimes the Anglo-
Americans settle on one part of the territory, as if land was lacking elsewhere, and troops from
Congress must come to expel them; sometimes they carry away the livestock, burn the houses,
cut down the fruit of the natives or use violence against their persons.
All these documents provide evidence that each day the natives are victims of abuse by
force. Normally the Union maintains an agent among the Indians charged with representing
it; the report of the agent for the Cherokees is found among the documents that I am citing;
the language of this official is nearly always favorable to the savages. “The intrusion of whites
into the territory of the Cherokees,” he says, p. 12, “will cause the ruin of those who live there
leading a poor and inoffensive existence.” Further along you see that the state of Georgia,
wanting to narrow the limits of the Cherokees, proceeds to a boundary marking; the federal
agent remarks that, having been made only by the whites and without full hearings, the bound-
ary marking has no value.
Washington said, in one of his messages to Congress: “We are more en-
lightened and more powerful than the Indian nations; it is to our honor to
treat them with kindness and even with generosity.”
This noble and virtuous policy has not been followed.
The greediness of the colonists usually joins with the tyranny of the
government. Although the Cherokees and the Creeks were settled on the
soil they inhabited before the arrival of the Europeans, although the Amer-
icans often negotiated with them as with foreign nations, the states within
which they find themselves did not want to recognize them as independent
peoples, and undertook to subject these men, barely out of the forests, to
their magistrates, to their customs and to their laws.21 Misery had pushed
these unfortunate Indians toward civilization, oppression drives them today
back toward barbarism. Many of them, leaving their half-cleared fields,
resume the habit of savage life.
If you pay attention to the tyrannical measures adopted by the legisla-
tures of the states of the South, to the conduct of their governors and the
actions of their courts, you will easily be convinced that the complete ex-
pulsion of the Indians is the final goal toward which all their efforts si-
multaneously tend. The Americans of this part of the Union enviously
regard the lands that the natives possess;22 they feel that the latter have not
yet completely lost the traditions of savage life, and before civilization has
firmly attached them to the soil, they want to reduce them to despair and
force them to move away.
Oppressed by the particular states, the Creeks and Cherokees addressed
21. In 1829, the state of Alabama divides the territory of the Creeks into counties and
submits the Indian population to European magistrates.
In 1830, the state of Mississippi classes the Choctaws and the Chickasaws with the whites
and declares that those among them who take the title of chief will be punished with a fine
of 1,000 dollars and a year in prison.
When the state of Mississippi thus extended its laws over the Choctaw Indians who lived
within its limits, the latter assembled together; their chief showed them what the claim of the
whites was and read to them some of the laws to which the whites wanted to subject them.
The savages declared with one voice that it would be better to plunge again into the wilderness.
( Mississippi Papers.)
22. The Georgians, who find themselves so bothered by the nearby presence of the Indians,
occupy a territory that still does not number more than seven inhabitants per square mile. In
France, there are one hundred sixty-two individuals in the same space.
the central government. The latter is not insensitive to their misfortunes;

that government would sincerely like to save the remnants of the natives
and assure them the free possession of the territory that it guaranteed to
them.23 But when it seeks to execute this plan, the particular states put up
a formidable resistance, and then the central government resolves without
difficulty to let a few savage tribes, already half destroyed, perish in order
not to put the American Union in danger.x
Powerless to protect the Indians, the federal government would at least
like to ease their lot; to this end, it has undertaken to transport them at its
expense to other places.[*]
23. In 1818, Congress ordered that the territory of Arkansas would be visited by American
commissioners, accompanied by a deputation of Creeks, Choctaws and Chickasaws. This
expedition was commanded by Messrs. Kennerly, McCoy, Wash Hood and John Bell. See the
different reports of the commissioners and their journal in the papers of Congress, n. 87, House
of Representatives.
x. Note not included in the chapter, but which appears in the manuscript in this
place:
Extract from a speech given before a town meeting of Philadelphia, 11 January 1830:
Can a government founded on the celebrated statement of the rights of man that
accompanies our Declaration of Independence consent shamelessly to violate among
others those very rights for which it then fought? If dependent nations have been able
to declare themselves independent, how can we refuse to allow nations that are already
independent to remain so? Is the people that abuses its power in order to exercise
tyranny externally a sincere friend of liberty? And would it not be tyrannical to drive
a nation from its partially cultivated lands and from its homes and to send it to create
a new settlement in the wilderness, where greed will not long allow it to remain in
peace, if we are to judge the future by the past? Amid the discouragement that they
must feel, will the Indians even have the energy to undertake what we expect of them?
The expulsion of the Moors from Spain is universally considered an act of tyranny.
The Moors, however, were the sons of the former conquerors and the former enemies
of the religion and mores of Spain. The Cherokees are in no way the enemies of the
people of the United States.
This note is found with others in a copy that is not in Tocqueville’s hand. A note on the
jacket of the section on the Indians explains the origin of the copies: “To dictate or copy
before thinking about correcting.” The copies remaining in this jacket consist of un-
published fragments and notes.
[*]. See the instructions of the Secretary of War to Generals Cannall [Carroll (ed.)]
and Goffre [Coffee (ed.)], dated 30 May 1830.
There are 75,000 Indians to transport.
Between the latitudes of 33rd and 37th degrees north, extends a vast
country that has taken the name Arkansas, from the principal river that
waters it. It borders on one side the frontier of Mexico, on the other, the
banks of the Mississippi. A multitude of small streams and rivers cut across
it from all sides; the climate is mild and the soil fertile. Only a few wandering
hordes of savages are found there.[*] It is to a section of this country, which
is closest to Mexico and at a great distance from American settlements, that
the government of the Union wants to transport the remnants of the native
populations of the South.
At the end of the year 1831, we were assured that 10,000 Indians had
already gone to the banks of the Arkansas; others arrived every day. But
Congress has not been able to create as well a unanimous will among those
whose fate it wanted to determine. Some consent with joy to move away
from the home of tyranny; the most enlightened refuse to abandon their
growing crops and new dwellings; they think that if the work of civilization
is interrupted, it will not be resumed again; they fear that sedentary habits,
barely contracted, will be permanently lost in the middle of still savage
countries where nothing is prepared for the subsistence of a farming people;
they know that in this new wilderness they will find enemy hordes and, to
resist them, they no longer have the energy of barbarism and have not yet
acquired the strength of civilization. The Indians easily discover, moreover,
all that is provisional in the settlement that is proposed to them. Who will
assure them that they will finally be able to rest in peace in their new refuge?
The United States promises to maintain them there; but the territory that
they now occupy had formerly been guaranteed to them by the most solemn
oaths.24 Today the American government does not, it is true, take their
[*]. See Journey of Long, vol. II.

24. You find, in the treaty made with the Creeks in 1790, this clause: “The United States
solemnly guarantee to the Creek Nation, all their lands within the limits of the United States
to the westward and southward of the boundary described in the preceding article.”
The treaty concluded in July 1791 with the Cherokees contains what follows: “The United
States solemnly guarantee to the Cherokee nation, all their lands not hereby ceded. If any
citizen of the United States, or other person not being an Indian, shall settle on any of the
Cherokees’ lands, such person shall forfeit the protection of the United States, and the Cher-
okees may punish him or not, as they please.” Art. [7 and (ed.)] 8.
lands from them, but it allows their lands to be invaded. In a few years,
undoubtedly, the same white population that now presses around them
will again be at their heels in the solitude of Arkansas; they will then find
the same evils again without the same remedies; and sooner or later with-
out land, they will still have to resign themselves to dying.
There is less cupidity and violence in the way the Union acts toward the
Indians than in the policy followed by the states; but the two governments
equally lack good faith.
The states, while extending what they call the benefit of their laws to
the Indians,y count on the fact that the latter will prefer to move away than
to submit; and the central government, while promising these unfortunate
people a permanent refuge in the West, is not unaware that it is not able
to guarantee it to them.25
Therefore, the states, by their tyranny, force the savages to flee; the
Union, by its promises and with the aid of its resources, makes the flight
easy. These are different measures that aim at the same end.26
y. Note of Tocqueville on a small sheet of paper not part of the manuscript: “It is
admitted by all, says Mr. Everett in his speech, that the Indians are not able to live under
the laws of the states. The Indians say it; the government says it. The states do not deny
it. Clearly the laws of whites have not been made for the Indians; we and they are in
agreement on this point.”
25. That does not prevent promising it to them in the most formal manner. See the letter
of the President addressed to the Creeks, 23 March 1829 (Proceedings of the Indian Board
in the City of New York, p. 5): “Beyond the great river Mississippi, [ . . . (ed.) . . . ]—your
father has provided a country large enough for all of you [ . . . (ed.) . . . ]. There your white
brothers will not trouble you; they will have no claim to the land, and you can live upon it,
you and all your children, as long as the grass grows or the water runs, in peace and plenty.
It will be yours for ever.”
In a letter written to the Cherokees by the Secretary of the War Department, 18 April 1829,
this official declares to them that they must not deceive themselves about retaining the enjoy-
ment of the territory that they occupy at the moment, but he gives them this same positive
assurance for the time when they will be on the other side of the Mississippi (same work, p. 6).
As if the power that he now lacked would not be lacking in the same way then!
26. To have an exact idea of the policy followed by the particular states and by the Union
vis-à-vis the Indians, you must consult: 1. the laws of the particular states relating to the
Indians (this collection is found in the legislative documents, 21st Congress, n. 319); 2. the laws
of the Union relating to the same subject, and in particular that of 30 March 1802 (these laws
are found in the work of Mr. Story entitled: Laws of the United States); 3. finally, to know
“By the will of our Father in Heaven, the Governor of the whole world,”
said the Cherokees in their petition to Congress,27 “the red man of America
has become small, and the white man great and renowned.”
When the ancestors of the people of these United States first came to
the shores of America, they found the red man strong—though he was
ignorant and savage, yet he received them kindly, and gave them dry land
to rest their weary feet. They met in peace, and shook hands in token of
friendship.
Whatever the white man wanted and asked of the Indian, the latter
willingly gave. At that time the Indian was the lord, and the white man
the suppliant. But now the scene has changed. The strength of the red
man has become weakness. As his neighbors increased in numbers, his
power became less and less, and now, of the many and powerful tribes
who once covered these United States, only a few are to be seen—a few
whom a sweeping pestilence has left. The Northern tribes, who were once
so numerous and powerful, are now nearly extinct. Thus it has happened
to the red man of America.
Shall we, who are remnants, share the same fate? [ . . . (ed.) . . . ]
The land on which we stand we have received as an inheritance from
our fathers, who possessed it from time immemorial, as a gift from our
common Father in Heaven. [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] They bequeathed it to us as
their children, and we have sacredly kept it, as containing the remains of
our beloved men. This right of inheritance we have never ceded nor ever
forfeited. Permit us to ask what better right can the people have to a coun-
try than the right of inheritance and immemorial peaceable possession?
We know it is said of late by the State of Georgia, and by the Executive
of the United States, that we have forfeited this right—but we think this
is said gratuitously. At what time have we made the forfeit? What great
crime have we committed, whereby we must forever be divested of our
country?z Was it when we were hostile to the United States, and took part
with the King of Great Britain, during the struggle for independence? If
so, why was not this forfeiture declared in the first treaty of peace between
what the current state is of the relations of the Union with all of the Indian tribes, see the
report made by Mr. Cass, Secretary of War, 29 November 1823.
27. 19 November 1829. This piece is translated word for word.
z. In the manuscript: “. . . of our country and rights?”
the United States and our beloved men? Why was not such an article as
the following inserted in the treaty: “The United States give peace to the
Cherokees, but, for the part they took in the late war, declare them to be
but tenants at will, to be removed when the convenience of the States,
within whose chartered limits they live, shall require it”? That was the
proper time to assume such a possession. But it was not thought of, nor
would our forefathers have agreed to any treaty whose tendency was to
deprive them of their rights and their country.
Such is the language of the Indians; what they say is true; what they
foresee seems inevitable to me.
From whatever side you envisage the destiny of the natives of North
America, you see only irremediable evils. If they remain savage, they are
pushed ahead and kept on the move; if they want to become civilized, con-
tact with men more civilized than they delivers them to oppression and
misery. If they continue to wander from wilderness to wilderness, they per-
ish; if they undertake to settle down, they still perish. They can become
enlightened only with the aid of Europeans, and the approach of Euro-
peans depraves them and pushes them back toward barbarism. As long as
you leave them in their empty wilderness, they refuse to change their mores,
and when they are finally forced to want to change them, there is no more
time to do so.
The Spanish unleash their dogs on the Indians as on wild beasts; they
pillage the New World like a city taken by assault, without discrimination
and without pity; but you cannot destroy everything, fury has an end. The
rest of the Indian populations that escaped the massacres ended up min-
gling with their conquerors and adopting their religion and their mores
[{the Indians today share the rights of those who conquered them and one
day perhaps will rule over them}].28
The conduct of the Americans of the United States toward the natives
radiates, in contrast, the purest love of forms and of legality. Provided that
the Indians remain in the savage state, the Americans do not in any way
28. But the Spanish must not be honored for this result. If the Indian tribes had not already
been settled on the soil by agriculture at the moment of the arrival of the Europeans, they
would have undoubtedly been destroyed in South America as in North America.
get involved in their affairs and they treat them as independent peoples;
they do not allow themselves to occupy their lands without having duly
acquired them by means of a contract; and if by chance an Indian nation
is no longer able to live in its territory, the Americans take it fraternally by
the hand and lead it themselves to die outside of the country of its fathers.
The Spanish, with the help of monstrous crimes without precedents,
while covering themselves with an indelible shame [{that will live as long
as their name}], were not able to succeed in exterminating the Indian race,
nor even in preventing it from sharing their rights;a the Americans of the
United States have achieved this double result with a marvelous ease,
calmly, legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, without violat-
ing a single one of the great principles of morality29 in the eyes of the world.
You cannot destroy men while better respecting the laws of humanity.
[{This world is, it must be admitted, a sad and ridiculous theater.}]
a. Several of these ideas already appear in a letter from Tocqueville to his mother,
dated 25 December 1831, from Mississippi (YTC, BIa1, reproduced in OCB, VII, pp. 99–
106). In a travel note after this letter, and dated 3 January 1832, Tocqueville remarks:
Why of all the European races of the New World is the English race the one that
has most preserved the purity of its blood and has least mingled with the native races?
Apart from powerful reasons drawn from national character, from temperament, a
particular cause of difference exists. Spanish America was peopled by adventurers
attracted by thirst for gold, and who, transplanted alone on the other side of the
Atlantic, found themselves forced in a way to contract unions with the women of the
countries they inhabited. The English colonies were peopled by men who fled their
country out of religious passion, or whose goal, by coming to the New World, was
to live there by cultivating the land. They came with women and children and were
able at once to form a complete society (pocket notebook 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage,
OC, V, 1, p. 192).
29. See among others the report made by Mr. Bell in the name of the Committee of Indian
Affairs, 24 February 1830, in which it is established, p. 5, by very logical reasons, and where
it is proved very learnedly that: “The fundamental principle, that the Indians had no right
by virtue of their ancient possession either of soil, or sovereignty, has never been abandoned
expressly or by implication.” That is to say that the Indians, by virtue of their ancient pos-
session, have acquired no right of either property or sovereignty, fundamental principle
that has never been abandoned, either expressly or tacitly.
While reading this report, written moreover by a skillful hand, you are astonished by the
facility and ease with which, from the first words, the author gets rid of arguments founded
on natural right and reason, that he calls abstract and theoretical principles. The more I
Position That the Black Race Occupies in

the United States;30 Dangers to Which
Its Presence Exposes the Whites c
consider it, the more I think that the only difference that exists between the civilized man and
the one who is not, in relation to justice, is this: the one contests in the judicial system the rights
that the other is content to violate.
30. Before treating this matter, I owe the reader a warning. In a book that I spoke about
already at the beginning of this work, and that is now on the verge of appearing, M. Gustave
de Beaumont, my traveling companion, had as his principal object to make the position of
Negroes amid the white population of the United States known in France. M. de Beaumont
has thoroughly treated a question that my subject has only allowed me to touch upon. His
book, whose notes contain a very great number of very precious and entirely unknown leg-
islative and historical documents, also presents scenes whose energy can be equaled only by the
truth. The work of M. de Beaumont should be read by those who want to understand to what
excesses of tyranny men are pushed little by little once they have begun to go beyond nature
and humanity.b
b. This note does not exist in the manuscript.
c. To ask about Blacks.
1. Black population, slave and emancipated in the United States (illegible word).
2. Is it true that the laws of the Carolinas and Georgia forbid teaching slaves to
read and write? Gazette of December.
(1) How do these laws set about to prohibit the (illegible word)?
(2) What does the President want for [the (ed.)] bank, to destroy it or to replace
it?
(3) What did he do against the federal courts. (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 86).
The Quaker Collection of the library of Haverford College in Pennsylvania preserves
three pages of questions in English concerning the “colored population.” A note from
the last page attributes these questions to Tocqueville, but the writing is that of Gustave
de Beaumont. The questions bear upon the separation of Blacks and whites in the
schools, hospitals, churches and other public places, on the intellectual equality of the
two races, on the possibility of a gradual abolition, and on the danger of a race war.
Beaumont is concerned as well about the differences between the law and its execution:
“In a government founded upon the will of the people, the public opinion secures the
impartial execution of the law?—How is it possible that the law is impartially executed
in reference to black people when the public opinion concerning such people is not
impartial itself?” It has not been possible to identify the person to whom this inquiry is
addressed. It probably concerns one of the persons that Tocqueville and Beaumont met
in Pennsylvania (see George W. Pierson, Tocqueville and Beaumont in America, pp. 782–
86). With the kind permission of Haverford College, Pennsylvania (Quaker Collection,
E. W. Smith, no. 95).
Why it is more difficult to abolish slavery and to make its mark

disappear among modern peoples than among ancient peoples.—
In the United States, prejudice of whites against Blacks seems to
become stronger as slavery is destroyed.—Situation of Negroes in
the states of the North and the South.—Why the Americans
abolish slavery.—Servitude, which brutalizes the slave,
impoverishes the master.—Differences that you notice between
the right bank and the left bank of the Ohio.—To what they
must be attributed.—The Black race moves back toward the
South as slavery does.—How this is explained.—Difficulties that
the states of the South have in abolishing slavery.—Dangers for
the future.—Preoccupation of minds.—Founding of a Black
colony in Africa.—Why the Americans of the South increase the
rigors of slavery, at the same time that they are growing
disgusted with it.
The Indians will die in isolation as they lived; but the destiny of the Negroes
is in a way intertwined with that of the Europeans. Although the two races
are bound to each other, they do not blend together. It is as difficult for
them to separate completely as to unite.
The most formidable of all the evils that threaten the future of the
United States arises from the presence of Blacks on their soil. When you
seek the cause of the present troubles and future dangers of the Union, you
almost always end up at this first fact, from no matter where you start.
Men generally need to make great and constant efforts to create lasting
evils; but there is one evil that enters into the world furtively. At first, you
barely notice it amid the usual abuses of power; it begins with an individual
whose name is not preserved by history; it is deposited like an accursed seed
at some point in the soil; it then feeds on itself, spreads effortlessly, and
grows naturally with the society that received it. This evil is slavery.
Christianity had destroyed servitude; the Christians of the sixteenthcen-
tury reestablished it; but they never allowed it in their social system other
than as an exception, and they took care to restrict it to a single one of the
human races. They therefore gave humanity a wound not as extensive, but
infinitely more difficult to heal.d
Two things must be carefully distinguished: slavery in itself and its
consequences.
The immediate evils produced by slavery were nearly the same among
ancient peoples as they are among modern peoples, but the consequences
of these evils were different. Among the ancients the slave belonged to the
same race as his master, and often he was superior to him in education and
in enlightenment.31 Liberty alone separated them; once liberty was granted,
they easily blended.
So the ancients had a very simple means to rid themselves of slavery and
its consequences; this means was emancipation, and as soon as they used it
in a general way, they succeeded.f
d. “Europeans by destroying millions of Indians in the New World inflicted a hor-

rible, but temporary evil on humanity. Slavery [v: the presence of Blacks] is an evil that
feeds on itself [v: perpetuates itself with the generations], that is constantly reborn, and
that can only cease by evils greater than itself ” (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 93).
31. We know that several of the most celebrated authors of antiquity were or had been
slaves: Aesop and Terence are among this number. Slaves were not always taken from among
barbarian nations; war put very civilized men into servitude.e
e. In the work of Thomas Clarkson An Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the
Human Species (London: J. Phillips, 1788, pp. 13–16), you find reflections very similar to
those of Tocqueville on the difference between modern and ancient slavery; the author
likewise cites Aesop and Terence as examples of civilized slaves. Beaumont possessed a
French edition of this book in his library (Cf. Marie, I, pp. 296–301), as well as the
following works on slavery: Brissot de Warville, Examen critique des “Voyages dans
l’Amérique septentrionale” de M. le marquis de Chastellux; Marquis de Condorcet, Réflex-
ions sur l’esclavage des Noirs; Thomas Clarkson, Essai sur les désavantages de la traite; Ben-
jamin S. Frossard, La cause des esclaves nègres et des habitants de la Guinée, portée au tribunal
de la justice, de la religion, de la politique; Daniel Lescallier, Réflexions sur le sort des noirs
dans nos colonies; Théophile Mandar, Discours sur le commerce et l’esclavage des nègres (this
information is contained in the thesis of Alvis Lee Tinnin, Gustave de Beaumont, Prophet
of the American Dilemma, New Haven, Yale University, 1961).
f. When it is said that slavery is disappearing, it has disappeared in effect. Nothing
like that. Prejudices that remain. Law of New England. As slavery withdraws, whites
fear blending more, become scornful. Small number of mulattos. School, church and
industry [separate(?) (ed.)]. The laws less harsh, hatreds more so. Slavery was cruel.
You can make slavery end, but not the prejudices that it gave birth to; you can make
the Negro cease to be a slave, but not make him become the equal of the white (YTC,
CVh, 2, pp. 95–96).
Not that the marks of servitude in antiquity did not still continue to
exist for some time after servitude was destroyed. [{Real inequality was fol-
lowed by social inequality.}]
There is a natural prejudice that leads man to scorn the one who has
been his inferior, long after he has become his equal; real inequality pro-
duced by fortune or law is always followed by an imaginary inequality that
has its roots in mores; but among the ancients this secondary effect of slav-
ery came to an end. The emancipated man so strongly resembled the men
who were born free that it soon became impossible to distinguish him from
them.
What was more difficult among the ancients was to change the law; what
is more difficult among modern peoples is to change mores, and for us the
real difficulty begins where in antiquity it ended.
This happens because among modern peoples the non-material and
transitory fact of slavery is combined in the most fatal way with the material
and permanent fact of the difference of race. The memory of slavery dis-
honors the race, and race perpetuates the memory of slavery.
There is not an African who came freely to the shores of the New World;
from that it follows that all those who are found there today are slaves or
emancipated. Thus the Negro, together with life, transmits to all of his
descendants the external sign of his shame. Law can destroy servitude; but
only God alone can make its mark disappear.g
The modern slave differs from the master not only in liberty, but also in
origin. You can make the Negro free, but he remains in the position of a
stranger vis-à-vis the European.
That is still not all. In this man who is born in lowliness, in this stranger
that slavery introduced among us, we scarcely acknowledge the general fea-
tures of humanity. His face appears hideous to us, his intelligence seems
limited to us, his tastes are base; we very nearly take him for an intermediate
being between brute and man.32
g. “When you see the difficulty of destroying the inequality in the laws, you under-
stand what is impracticable about destroying the one in nature” (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 90).
32. For whites to abandon the opinion that they have conceived of the intellectual and
moral inferiority of their former slaves, it would be necessary for Negroes to change, and they
cannot change as long as this opinion persists.
So after abolishing slavery, modern peoples still have to destroy three

prejudices much more elusive and more tenacious than slavery: the prej-
udice of the master, the prejudice of race, and finally the prejudice of the
white.
It is very difficult for us, who have had the good fortune to be born
among men whom nature made our fellows and the law our equals; it is
very difficult for us, I say, to understand what insurmountable distance
separates the Negro of America from the European. But we can have a
remote idea of it by reasoning by analogy.h
We formerly saw among us great inequalities whose principles were only
in legislation. What more fictitious than a purely legal inequality! What
more contrary to the instinct of man than permanent differences estab-
lished among men clearly similar! These differences have continued to exist
for centuries however; they still continue to exist in a thousand places; ev-
erywhere they have left imaginary marks that time can scarcely erase. If the
inequality created solely by laws is so difficult to uproot, how to destroy
the one that seems to have its immutable foundations in nature itself?m
As for me, when I consider what difficulty aristocratic bodies of whatever
nature have merging with the mass of the people, and the extreme care that
they take to preserve for centuries the imaginary barriers that separate them,
I despair of seeing an aristocracy founded on visible and imperishable signs
disappear.n
h. In the margin: “⫽I regard the mixing of races as the greatest misfortune of
humanity.⫽”
m. “Among the Americans slavery seemed contrary neither to religion nor to the
interest of the State; what was more difficult was to establish it in the laws” (YTC, CVh,
3, pp. 2–3).
n. In the margin:
⫽Thus in America prejudice seems to grow stronger as slavery withdraws. The dif-
ference becomes marked in the mores as it fades away in the laws. In several countries
of Europe different peoples found themselves together. They took centuries to blend;
but they were similar on all points. The Moors who hardly differed from the Spanish
could not manage to mingle with them. If the various offshoots of the same human
family have so much difficulty mingling and blending, how to admit that two radi-
cally different races will ever manage to do so? If a slight difference in the nature of
features was found to be a nearly insurmountable obstacle, what will it be when you
find a difference so great that what appears beautiful to one seems the height of ug-
liness to the other?⫽
So those who hope that one day the Europeans will blend with the Ne-
groes seem to me to entertain a chimera. My reason does not lead me to
believe it, and I see nothing in the facts that indicate it.
Until now, wherever whites have been the most powerful, they have held
Negroes in degradation or in slavery. Wherever Negroes have been the
strongest, they have destroyed whites; it is the only accounting that might
ever be possible between the two races.
If I consider the United States of our day, I see clearly that in a certain
part of the country the legal barrier that separates the two races is tending
to fall, but not that of mores. I see slavery receding; the prejudice to which
it gave birth is immovable.
In the part of the Union where Negroes are no longer slaves, have they
drawn nearer to whites? Every man who has lived in the United States will
have noted that an opposite effect has been produced. [{In no part of the
Union are the two races as separated as in New [England (ed.)] [v: the
North].}]
Racial prejudice seems to me stronger in the states that have abol-
ished slavery than in those where slavery still exists, and nowhere does it
appear as intolerant as in the states where servitude has always been
unknown.[f ] o
o. These alphabetical notes appear in the manuscript, but not the text of the notes,
which is found, however, in one of the drafts:
(a) Among the states where slavery is abolished, Massachusetts is the only one I
know that has prohibited the legitimate union of the two races. See Laws of Massa-
chusetts, vol. I, p. [blank (ed.)].
(b) Among the states that have abolished slavery or did not allow it, the states of
Delaware, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois are the only ones I know that have excluded
Negroes from electoral rights. In the others the law is silent about it and consequently
allows it. In the constitution of the state of New York, amended in 1821, Negroes
can vote, but particular property qualifications are required of them, which makes
the permission of the law illusory.
(c) In most of the states where slavery is abolished, the law does not make any
color distinction while establishing the qualification for the jury. But as it leaves an
arbitrary power to the officials charged with drawing up the list, care is taken never
to put the name of a Black on it.
(d) While I was in New York a French (illegible word) [Creole (?) (ed.)] from the
Antilles, coming to the theater, {was taken for a mulatto and refused} was resisted in
It is true that in the North of the Union the law allows Negroes and
whites to contract legitimate unions;[a] but opinion declares vile the white
who joins in marriage with a Negro woman; and it would be difficult to
cite an example of such a deed.
In nearly all the states where slavery is abolished, the Negro has been
given electoral rights;[b] but if he presents himself to vote, he risks his life.p
Oppressed, he can make a complaint, but he finds only whites among his
judges. The law opens the juror’s seat to him,[c] but prejudice pushes him
away from it. His son is excluded from the school where the descendant of
the European goes to be instructed. In the theaters he cannot, even at the
price of gold, buy the right to sit next to the one who was his master;[d] in
the hospitals he lies apart. The Black is allowed to beseech the same God
as the whites, but not to pray to him at the same altar. He has his priests
his entry to the boxes of the dress circle for which he had purchased the right at the
door. He did not understand English; a violent quarrel ensued that nearly had un-
fortunate consequences; with his swarthy tint it was assumed that he could indeed
be a mulatto.
(e) It is right to note that in general Negroes are mingled with whites in Catholic
churches. Protestantism establishes in the religious order the government of the mid-
dle classes, and the haughtiness of the middle classes toward the people is known.
(f ) Not only does Ohio not allow slavery, but it prohibits the entry into its territory
of free Negroes and forbids them to acquire anything there.
(g) The gradual abolition of slavery was declared in Pennsylvania in 1780. In Mas-
sachusetts this abolition goes back to the very period of the constitution in 1779;
Connecticut began to abolish slavery in 1784. The state of New York in 1799. Kent’s
Commentaries, vol. II, p. 201 (YTC, CVh, 2, pp. 76–77).
Note g belongs to the following paragraph, in the margin in the manuscript: “Slavery
today is abolished in {two-thirds} of the Union (here a note on the precise number of
states where slavery does not exist. I believe that the number does not exceed twelve, but
these are the most important). There are portions of the territory where it has been
destroyed for nearly a half century,g others that never allowed it in their midst.”
Beaumont described the incident of the Creole twice, with many details (Marie, I,
p. v, note and pp. 193–97).
p. Draft, under a paper pasted into place: “. . . life. The law made them the equals
of whites. In public places they can take a place next to whites, but if they try to do so,
people flee their approach. The same hospitals are open to them, but they occupy separate
places. Even in the prisons care is taken not to mingle the two races ⫽and it seems to be
believed that to force a murderer to breathe the same air as a Negro is to degrade him
more. His sons . . .⫽”
and his churches.[e] The gates of heaven are not closed to him: but in-
equality scarcely stops at the edge of the other world. When the Negro is
no more, his bones are thrown aside, and the difference in conditions is
found again even in the equality of death.
Thus the Negro is free, but he is not able to share either the rights or the
pleasures or the labors or the pains or even the tomb of the one whose equal
he has been declared to be; he cannot meet him anywhere, either in life or
in death.
[{What miserable mockery this is.}]
In the South where slavery still exists, Negroes are less carefully kept
aside; they sometimes share the labors of whites and their pleasures; to a
certain point they are permitted to mix with them. Legislation is more harsh
in their regard; habits are more tolerant and milder.
In the South the master is not afraid to raise his slave up to his level,
because he knows that if he wishes he will always be able to throw him back
into the dust. In the North the white no longer distinctly sees the barrier
that should separate him from a degraded race, and he withdraws with all
the more care from the Negro because he fears that someday he will merge
with him.
With the American of the South, nature sometimes reasserts its rights
and for a moment reestablishes equality between Blacks and whites. In the
North pride silences even the most imperious passion of man. The Amer-
ican of the North would perhaps consent to make the Negro woman the
temporary companion of his pleasures if the legislators had declared that
she must not aspire to share his bed; but she is able to become his wife, and
he withdraws from her with a kind of horror.
This is how in the United States the prejudice that pushes Negroes away
seems to increase proportionately as Negroes cease to be slaves, and how
inequality becomes imprinted in the mores as it fades in the laws.
But if the relative position of the two races that inhabit the United States
is as I have just shown, why have the Americans abolished slavery in the
north of the Union, why do they keep it in the south, and what causes
them to aggravate its rigors there?
It is easy to answer. Slavery is being destroyed in the United States not
in the interest of the Negroes, but in that of the whites.
[⫽America has given great truths to the world, but it has as well provided
the world with the demonstration of an admirable truth. Christianity had
condemned slavery as odious, the experience of the United States proves it
deadly.⫽]
The first Negroes were imported into Virginia about the year 1621.33 So
in America, as in all the rest of the world, servitude was born in the South.
From there it gained ground step by step; but as slavery moved up toward
the North the number of slaves kept decreasing;34 there were always very
few slaves in New England.q
The colonies were founded; a century had already passed, and an ex-
traordinary fact began to strike everyone’s attention. The provinces that
possessed no slaves so to speak grew in population, in wealth, and in well-
being more rapidly than those that had them.
In the first, however, the inhabitant was forced to cultivate the soil him-
self or to hire the services of another man; in the second, he found at his
disposal workers whose efforts were not paid. So there was work and ex-
pense on one side, leisure and economy on the other. But the advantage
remained with the first.
This result seemed all the more difficult to explain because the emi-
grants, all belonging to the same European race, had the same habits, the
33. See History of Virginia by Beverley. See also, in the Mémoires de Jefferson, curious
details about the introduction of Negroes into Virginia and about the first act that prohibited
their importation in 1778.
34. The number of slaves was smaller in the North, but the advantages resulting from
slavery were not disputed more there than in the South. In 1740, the legislature of the state
of New York declares that the direct importation of slaves must be encouraged as much as
possible, and that smuggling must be severely punished as tending to discourage the honest
merchant (Kent’s Commentaries, vol. II, p. 206). You find in the historical Collection of
Massachusetts, vol. IV, p. 193, the curious research of Belknap on slavery in New England.
The result is that, as early as 1630, Negroes were introduced, but that from that moment
legislation and mores showed themselves opposed to slavery.
Also see in this place the way in which public opinion, then the law, managed to destroy
servitude.
q. “Slavery which begins in the south and spreads to the north, abolition of slavery
which begins in the north and spreads to the south” (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 51).
same civilization, the same laws, and differed only in slightly perceptible
nuances.
Time continued to march. Leaving the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, the
Anglo-Americans [{Europeans}] plunged every day further into the unin-
habited areas of the West; there they encountered new terrains and climates;
they had to conquer obstacles of different kinds; their races mingled, men
of the South went toward the North, men of the North descended toward
the South. Among all these causes, the same fact was reproduced at each
step; and in general the colony in which there were no slaves became more
populated and more prosperous than the one in which slavery was in force.
So as things advanced you began to see that slavery, so cruel to the slave,
was deadly to the master.
But this truth was conclusively proved on the banks of the Ohio.
The river that the Indians had named the Ohio, or the Beautiful River
par excellence, waters one of the most magnificent valleys that man has
ever made his dwelling-place. Rolling terrain extends on the two banks of
the Ohio where the soil offers inexhaustible treasures to the plowman every
day; on the two banks the air is equally healthy and the climate temperate;
each one of them forms the extreme boundary of a vast state. On the left
the state that follows the thousand curves made by the Ohio in its course
is called Kentucky; the other borrowed the name of the river itself. The
two states differ only on one single point: Kentucky allowed slaves, the state
of Ohio cast all of them out.35
So the traveler who, placed in the middle of the Ohio, allows himself
to be carried along by the current until the river flows into the Mississippi
navigates, so to speak, between liberty and servitude; and he has only to
glance around him to judge in an instant which one is most favorable to
humanity.
On the left bank of the river, the population is scattered; from time to
time you see a gang of slaves with a carefree air crossing fields half de-
serted; the primeval forest constantly reappears; you would say that society
35. Ohio not only does not allow slavery, but it prohibits the entry of free Negroes into its
territory and forbids them to acquire anything there. See the statutes of Ohio.
is asleep; man seems idle; it is nature that offers the image of activity and
life.
From the right bank arises, in contrast, a confused murmur that pro-
claims from afar the presence of industry; rich crops cover the fields; elegant
dwellings announce the taste and the attentions of the plowman; on all
sides comfort is revealed; man seems rich and content: he is working.36
The state of Kentucky was founded in 1775; the state of Ohio was
founded only twelve years later:r twelve years in America is more than a
half-century in Europe. Today the population of Ohio already exceeds that
of Kentucky by 250,000 inhabitants.37
These diverse effects of slavery and of liberty are easily understood; they
are sufficient to explain clearly the differences that are found between an-
cient civilization and that of today.
On the left bank of the Ohio work merges with the idea of slavery; on
the right bank, with that of well-being and progress; there it is debased,
here it is honored. On the left bank of the river you cannot find workers
belonging to the white race; they would be afraid of resembling slaves; you
must rely on the efforts of Negroes. On the right bank you would look in
vain for someone idle; the white extends his activity and his intelligence to
all undertakings.
Thus the men who in Kentucky are charged with exploiting the natural
riches of the soil have neither enthusiasm nor enlightenment; while those
who could have these two things do nothing or go into Ohio in order to
make use of their industry and to be able to exercise it without shame.
It is true that in Kentucky masters make slaves work without being
36. It is not only the individual man who is active in Ohio; the state itself undertakes
immense enterprises; between Lake Erie and the Ohio the state of Ohio has established a canal
by means of which the Mississippi Valley communicates with the River of the North. Thanks
to this canal the merchandise of Europe that arrives in New York can descend by water as
far as New Orleans, across more than five hundred leagues of the continent.
r. In the margin: “Ohio began to be inhabited 1787. Kentucky 1775. Daniel Boone.”
Notebook E contains several notes on Ohio and Kentucky (YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC,
V, 1).
37. Exact figure according to the census of 1830:
Kentucky, 688, 844.
Ohio, 937, 679.
obliged to pay them, but they gain little benefit from their efforts, while
the money that they would have given to free laborers would have been
repaid with great interest by the value of their work.s
The free worker is paid, but he works faster than the slave, and rapidity
of execution is one of the great elements of economy. The white sells his
help, but you buy it only when it is useful; the Black has nothing to claim
as the price for his services, but you are obliged to feed him all the time; he
must be sustained in his old age as in his mature years, in his unproductive
childhood as during the fruitful years of his youth, during illness as in
health. It is therefore only by paying that you obtain the work of these two
men: the free worker receives a salary; the slave, an education, food, care,
clothing. The money that the master spends for the maintenance of the
slave melts away little by little and on small particulars; you hardly notice
it. The salary that you give to the worker is given all at once, and it seems
to enrich only the one who receives it; but in reality the slave has cost more
than the free man, and his efforts have been less productive.38
The influence of slavery extends still further; it penetrates even into the
very soul of the master, and gives his ideas and his tastes a particular
direction.
On the two banks of the Ohio nature has given man an enterprising
and energetic character; but on each side of the river he makes a different
use of this common quality.
s. The paragraph that follows is not in the manuscript.

38. Apart from these causes, which make the labor of free workers, wherever they abound,
more productive and more economical than that of slaves, another one must be pointed out
that is particular to the United States. Over the whole surface of the Union the way to cultivate
sugar cane successfully has not yet been found except on the banks of the Mississippi, near the
mouth of this river, on the Gulf of Mexico. In Louisiana the cultivation of sugar cane is
extremely advantageous; nowhere does the farmer gain such a great value from his efforts; and
since a certain relationship is always established between the costs of production and the prod-
ucts, the price of slaves is very high in Louisiana. Now since Louisiana is one of the confed-
erated states, slaves can be transported there from all parts of the Union; so the price given for
a slave in New Orleans raises the price of slaves in all the other markets. The result of this is
that, in countries where the land returns little, the cost of cultivation by slaves continues to
be very considerable, which gives a great advantage to the competition of free workers.
The white of the right bank, obliged to live by his own efforts, made
material well-being the principal goal of his existence; and since the country
that he inhabits presents inexhaustible resources to his industry, and offers
constantly recurring lures to his activity, his ardor to acquire has surpassed
the ordinary limits of human cupidity. You see him, tormented by the desire
for wealth, go boldly down all the paths that fortune opens to him; he be-
comes indiscriminately seaman, pioneer, manufacturer, farmer, bearing
with an equal constancy the work or the dangers attached to these different
professions. There is something marvelous in the resources of his genius,
and a sort of heroism in his greediness for gain.
The American of the left bank scorns not only work, but all the enter-
prises that work brings to success; living in idle comfort, he has the tastes
of idle men; money has lost a part of its value in his eyes; he pursues fortune
less than excitement and pleasure, and he expends to these ends the energy
that his neighbor deploys elsewhere; he passionately loves the hunt and war;
he takes pleasure in the most violent exercises of the body; the use of arms
is familiar to him, and from his childhood he has learned to risk his life in
single combat. So slavery not only prevents whites from making a fortune,
it turns them away from wanting to do so.
The same causes, operating continuously for two centuries in opposite
directions in the English colonies of North America, have ended by creating
a prodigious difference between the commercial capacity of the Southerner
and that of the Northerner. Today only the North has ships, factories, rail-
roads and canals.
This difference is noticeable not only in comparing the North and the
South, but in comparing the inhabitants of the South among themselves.
Nearly all the men in the southernmost states of the Union who devote
themselves to commercial enterprises and seek to utilize slavery have
come from the North; each day the men of the North spread into this
part of the American territory where there is less competition for them
to fear; there they discover resources that the inhabitants did not notice,
and submitting to a system that they disapprove of, they succeed in turn-
ing it to better account than those who, having established the system,
still uphold it.
If I wanted to push the parallel further, I would easily prove that nearly
all the differences that are noticeable between the character of the Ameri-
cans in the South and the North are born out of slavery; but this would go
beyond my subject. I am trying at this moment to find out not what all the
effects of servitude are, but what effects servitude produces on the material
prosperity of those who have accepted it.
[⫽What I limit myself to saying at this moment is this. The Americans
are, of all modern peoples, those who have pushed equality and inequality
furthest among men. They have combined universal suffrage and servitude.
They seem to have wanted to prove in this way the advantages of equality
by opposite arguments. It is claimed that the Americans, by establishing
universal suffrage and the dogma of sovereignty [of the people], have made
clear to the world the advantages of equality. As for me, I think that they
have above all proved this by establishing servitude, and I find that they
establish the advantages of equality much less by democracy than by
slavery.⫽]
This influence of slavery on the production of wealth could only be very
imperfectly known by antiquity. Servitude existed then in all the civilized
world, and the peoples who did not know it were barbarians.
So Christianity destroyed slavery only by asserting the rights of slaves;
today you can attack it in the name of the master. On this point interest
and morality are in agreement.t
t. Tocqueville bases the greatest part of his argument against slavery on considerations
of an economic type. Beaumont does as much in Marie (I, pp. 133–35, 303–304). Certain
critics have not failed to blame Tocqueville for having nearly abandoned philosophical
and religious arguments. The reason for this omission seems to be a tactical choice rather
than lack of awareness. Not only had Tocqueville heard it asserted right from the mouths
of several Americans that slavery would disappear because it was not profitable, but he
was also aware that the discussion on slavery had henceforth left the religious and moral
realm to take place principally on economic grounds. Even a partisan of slavery like
Achille Murat had not hesitated to write that slavery would disappear “when free labor
is cheaper than the labor of slaves” (Achille Murat, Esquisse morale et politique des États-
Unis, Paris: Crochard Libraire, 1832, p. 110). It is not impossible that Tocqueville had
read this book. Alphabetic notebook A (small notebook A, YTC, BIIa) contains the
following note (omitted in Voyage, OC, V, 1): “Authors who have written on the United
States. Letters on the United States by Achille Murat, son of the ex-king of Naples,
Bossage, 1830.” The partisans of abolition used arguments of an economic type as well.
As these truths manifested themselves in the United States, you saw slav-
ery retreat little by little before the light of experience.
Servitude had begun in the South and afterward spread toward the
North; today it is withdrawing. Liberty, starting in the North, is moving
without stopping toward the South. Among the large states Pennsylvania
today forms the extreme limit of slavery to the North, but even within these
limits it is shaken; Maryland, which is immediately below Pennsylvania, is
preparing daily to do without it, and Virginia, which comes after Maryland,
is already debating its utility and its dangers.39
You can cite in particular, based on Beaumont’s library, one of the first modern anti-
slavery works, the book of Benjamin S. Frossard, La cause des esclaves nègres et des habitants
de la Guinée portée au tribunal de la justice, de la religion, de la politique . . . (Lyon: Aimé
de la Roche, 1789, 2 vol.), and Thomas Hamilton (Men and Manners in America, Phila-
delphia: Carey, Lea and Blanchard, 1833, pp. 317–22), which Beaumont cites in his book,
and who also uses arguments of this type.
The French Society for the Abolition of Slavery, to which Beaumont and Tocqueville
belonged, proclaimed in 1837: “Abolition of slavery can no longer in any civilized country
give rise to a discussion of principles: the only question with which enlightened minds
have to be concerned today is that of the means by which this abolition could be realized
without disruption in the colonies.” Revue des deux mondes, X, 4th series, 1837, p. 418
(see the speech of Tocqueville on the English experience, reproduced on page 422).
See on this subject Sally Gersham, “Alexis de Tocqueville and Slavery,” French His-
torical Studies 9, no. 3 (1976): 467–83; Richard Resh, “Alexis de Tocqueville and the
Negro. Democracy in America Reconsidered,” Journal of Negro History 48, no. 4 (1963):
251–60; Gerald M. Bonetto, “Tocqueville and American Slavery,” Canadian Review of
American Studies 15, no. 2 (1984): 129–39; Harvey Mitchell, America After Tocqueville
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); and August H. Nimitz, Jr., Marx,
Tocqueville and Race in America (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2003), pp. 1–39.
39. There is a particular reason that is finally detaching the two last states that I have just
named from the cause of slavery.
The former wealth of this part of the Union was founded principally on the cultivation
of tobacco. Slaves were particularly appropriate to this cultivation. Now, it happens that for
quite a few years tobacco has been losing its market value; the value of the slaves, however,
remains always the same. Thus the relationship between the costs of production and the prod-
ucts is changed. So the inhabitants of Maryland and of Virginia feel more disposed than they
were thirty years ago either to do without slaves in the cultivation of tobacco, or to abandon
the cultivation of tobacco and slavery at the same time.
No great change in human institutions takes place without discovering,

among the causes of this change, the inheritance law.
When unequal division ruled in the South, each family was represented
by a rich man who did not feel the need any more than he had the taste for
work; the members of his family that the law had excluded from the com-
mon inheritance lived around him in the same manner, as so many parasitic
plants; you then saw in all the families of the South what you still see today
in the noble families of certain countries of Europe, where the younger
sons, without having the same wealth as the eldest son, remain as idle as
he. This similar effect was produced in America and in Europe by entirely
analogous causes. In the South of the United States the entire race of whites
formed an aristocratic body at the head of which stood a certain number
of privileged individuals whose wealth was permanent and whose leisure
was inherited.u These leaders of the American nobility perpetuated the tra-
ditional prejudices of the white race in the body that they represented, and
maintained the honorable character of idleness. Within this aristocracy you
could find poor men, but not workers; poverty there seemed preferable to
industry; so Black workers and slaves encountered no competitors, and
whatever opinion you might have about the utility of their efforts you very
much had to use them, since they were the only ones available.
From the moment when the law of inheritance was abolished all fortunes
began to diminish simultaneously, all families moved in the same way closer
to the state in which work becomes necessary to existence; many among
them entirely disappeared; all foresaw the moment when it would be nec-
essary for each man to provide for his needs by himself. Today you still see
the rich, but they no longer form a compact and hereditary body; they were
u. Many of Tocqueville’s ideas on the South of the United States come from con-
versations that he had during the months of September and October 1831 with Brown,
John Quincy Adams and Latrobe (non-alphabetic notebooks 2 and 3, YTC, BIIa, and
Voyage, OC, V, 1, pp. 87–152). At the beginning of November Tocqueville was so con-
vinced of the existence of an aristocratic spirit in the South that, when he met Charles
Carroll, he immediately saw in his manners and his way of life the proof of the existence
of the southern aristocracy that he had been told had already nearly disappeared.
not able to adopt a spirit, to persevere there, and to make it penetrate into
all ranks. So the prejudice that condemned work began to be abandoned
by common accord; there were more poor, and the poor were able without
being ashamed to concern themselves with the means of gaining their live-
lihood. Thus one of the most immediate effects of equal division was to
create a class of free workers. From the moment when the free worker en-
tered into competition with the slave, the inferiority of the latter made itself
felt, and slavery was attacked in its very essence, which is the interest of the
master.
As slavery retreats, the Black race follows it in its backward march, and
returns with it toward the tropics from where it originally came.
This can seem extraordinary at first glance; we will soon understand it.
By abolishing the principle of servitude, the Americans do not free the
slaves.
Perhaps what is about to follow would be difficult to understand if I did
not cite an example. I will choose that of the state of New York. In 1788,
the state of New York prohibits the sale of slaves within it. This was a
roundabout way of prohibiting importation. From that moment the num-
ber of Negroes no longer grows except by the natural increase of the Black
population. Eight years later a more decisive measure is taken, and it is
declared that from July 4, 1799 onward, all children born of slave parents
will be free. All means of increase are then closed; there are still slaves, but
you can say that servitude no longer exists.
From the period when a state of the North also prohibits the importa-
tion of slaves, Blacks are no longer removed from the South to be trans-
ported to that state.
From the moment when a state of the North forbids the sale of Negroes,
the slave, no longer able to leave the hands of the one who owns him,
becomes a burdensome property, and there is an interest in transporting
him to the South.
The day when a state of the North declares that the son of a slave will
be born free, the slave loses a great part of his market value; for his posterity
can no longer be part of the market, and again there is a great interest in
transporting him to the South.
Thus the same law prevents slaves from the South from coming to the
North and pushes those of the North toward the South.
But here is another cause more powerful than all those that I have just
discussed.
As the number of slaves diminishes in a state, the need for free workers
makes itself felt. As free workers take over industry, since the work of the
slave is less productive, the slave becomes a second-rate or useless property,
and again there is a great interest in exporting him to the South where com-
petition is not to be feared.
So the abolition of slavery does not bring the slave to liberty; it only
makes him change masters. From the north he passes to the south.
As for the emancipated Negroes and those who are born after slavery has
been abolished, they do not leave the North to go to the South, but they
find themselves vis-à-vis the Europeans in a position analogous to that of
the natives; they remain half civilized and deprived of rights amid a popu-
lation that is infinitely superior to them in wealth and enlightenment; they
are exposed to the tyranny of laws40 and to the intolerance of mores.v More
unfortunate from a certain perspective than the Indians, they have against
them the memories of slavery, and they cannot claim possession of a single
piece of land; many succumb to their misery;41 others concentrate in the
cities where, undertaking the roughest work, they lead a precarious and
miserable existence.
Since the number of whites is increasing at twice the rate after the ab-
olition of slavery, Blacks would soon be as if swallowed up amid the waves
of a foreign population, even if the number of Negroes continued to grow
in the same way as in the period when they were not yet free.
40. The states where slavery is abolished ordinarily attempt to make it quite difficult for
free Negroes to stay in their territory; and since a sort of emulation among the different states
is established on this point, the unfortunate Negroes can only choose among evils.
v. Cf. Beaumont, Marie, I, pp. 161–65, 333–38.
41. There is a great difference between the mortality of whites and that of Blacks in the
states where slavery is abolished: from 1820 to 1831, in Philadelphia only one white died out
of forty-two individuals belonging to the white race, while one Negro died there out of twenty-
one individuals belonging to the Black race. Mortality is not so great by far among Negro
slaves. (See Emmerson’s [Emerson’s (ed.)] Medical Statistics, p. 28.)
A land cultivated by slaves is in general less populated than one cultivated

by free men; America is, moreover, a new country; so at the moment when
a state abolishes slavery, it is still only half full. Scarcely is servitude de-
stroyed there and the need for free workers felt, than you see a crowd of
hardy adventurers rushing in from all parts of the country; they come to
profit from the new resources which are going to open to human industry.
The land is divided among them; on each portion a family of whites settles
and takes possession of it. It is also toward the free states that European
emigration heads. What would the poor man of Europe do, coming to find
comfort and happiness in the New World, if he went to inhabit a country
where work was stained with shame?
Thus the white population grows by its natural movement and at the
same time by an immense emigration, while the Black population does not
receive emigrants and becomes weaker. Soon the proportion that existed
between the two races is reversed. The Negroes form nothing more than
unfortunate remnants, a small, poor and wandering tribe lost in the middle
of an immense people, master of the land; and nothing more is noticed of
their presence except the injustices and the rigors to which they are
subjected.
In many of the states of the West the Negro race has never appeared; in
all the states of the North it is disappearing. So the great question of the
future is shrinking within a narrow circle; it thus becomes less formidable,
but no easier to resolve.
The further south you go, the more difficult it is to abolish slavery use-
fully. This results from several material causes that must be developed.
This first is climate: it is certain that as Europeans approach the tropics
work becomes proportionately more difficult for them; many Americans
even claim that below a certain latitude it ends up becoming fatal to them,
while the Negro submits to it without dangers;42 but I do not think that
42. This is true in the places where rice is cultivated. Rice plantations, which are unhealthy
in all countries, are particularly dangerous in those that are struck by the burning sun of the
tropics. Europeans would have a great deal of difficulty cultivating the land in this part of
the New World, if they wanted to insist on making it produce rice. But can’t one do without
rice plantations?
this idea, so favorable to the laziness of the man of the South, is based on
experience. It is not hotter in the South of the Union than in the south of
Spain or of Italy.43 Why would the European not be able to accomplish the
same work there? And if slavery was abolished in Italy and in Spain without
having the masters perish, why wouldn’t the same thing happen in the
Union? So I do not believe that nature has forbidden the European of
Georgia or of Florida, under pain of death, to draw their subsistence from
the land themselves; but this work would assuredly be more painful and
less productive for them than for the inhabitants of New England.44 With
the free worker in the South losing in this way a part of his superiority over
the slave, it is less useful to abolish slavery.
All the plants of Europe grow in the North of the Union; the South has
special products.
It has been noted that slavery is an expensive means to cultivate cereal
crops. Whoever grows wheat in a country where servitude is unknown nor-
mally keeps in his service only a small number of workers; at harvest time
and during planting he brings together many others, it is true; but the latter
live at his place only temporarily.
To fill his warehouses or to sow his fields, the farmer who lives in a
slave state is obliged to maintain throughout the entire year a great num-
ber of servants, whom he needs only during a few days; for, unlike free
workers, slaves cannot, while working for themselves, wait for the mo-
ment when you must come to hire their labor. You must buy them in order
to use them.
So slavery, apart from its general disadvantages, is naturally less appli-
cable to countries where cereal crops are cultivated than to those where
other products are harvested.
The cultivation of tobacco, cotton and, above all, sugar cane requires,
43. These states are closer to the Equator than Italy and Spain, but the continent of Amer-
ica is infinitely colder than that of Europe.
44. Spain formerly had transported a certain number of peasants from the Azores into a
district of Louisiana called Attakapas. Slavery was not introduced among them; it was an
experiment. Today these men still cultivate the land without slaves; but their industry is so
listless that it scarcely provides for their needs.
on the contrary, constant attention. There you can employ women and
children that you could not use in the cultivation of wheat. Thus slavery
is naturally more appropriate to the country where the products that I have
just named are grown.
Tobacco, cotton, sugar cane grow only in the South; there they form the
principal sources of the wealth of the country. By destroying slavery the
men of the South would find themselves with these alternatives: either they
would be forced to change their system of cultivation, and then they would
enter into competition with the men of the North, more active and more
experienced than they; or they would cultivate the same products without
slaves, and then they would have to bear the competition of the other states
of the South that would have retained slaves.
Thus the South has particular reasons for keeping slavery that the North
does not have.w
But here is another motive more powerful than all the others. The South
would indeed be able, if really necessary, to abolish slavery; but how would
the South rid itself of Blacks? In the North slavery and slaves are chased
away at the same time. In the South you cannot hope to attain this double
result at the same time.
While proving that servitude was more natural and more advantageous
in the South than in the North, I showed sufficiently that the number of
slaves must be much greater there. The first Africans were brought into the
South; that is where they have always arrived in greater number. As you go
further south, the prejudice that holds idleness in honor gains power. In
the states that are closest to the tropics there is not one white man who
works. So Negroes are naturally more numerous in the South than in the
North. Each day, as I said above, they become more numerous; for, in pro-
portion as slavery is destroyed at one end of the Union, Negroes accumulate
in the other. Thus the number of Blacks is increasing in the South, not
only by the natural movement of the population, but also by the forced
w. “Cultivation by slaves is infinitely less advantageous to the north than it was for-
merly for two reasons.
“The first that certain very costly products such as tobacco have fallen [in price].
“The second that the price of slaves has always remained very high because of New
Orleans where they are very expensive” (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 86).
emigration of the Negroes of the North. The African race, to grow in this
part of the Union, has reasons analogous to those that make the European
race increase so quickly in the North.
In the state of Maine there is one Negro for every three hundred inhab-
itants; in Massachusetts one for every one hundred; in the state of New
York two for every one hundred; in Pennsylvania three; in Maryland thirty-
four; forty-two in Virginia, and fifty-five finally in South Carolina.45 Such
was the proportion of Blacks in relation to whites in the year 1830. But this
proportion changes constantly: every day it becomes smaller in the North
and greater in the South.
It is clear that in the southernmost states of the Union you cannot abol-
ish slavery as you have in the states of the North without running very great
dangers that the latter did not have to fear.
We have seen how the states of the North carefully handled the tran-
sition between slavery and liberty. They keep the present generation in irons
and free future races; in this way Negroes are introduced into society only
little by little, and while the man who could make bad use of his indepen-
dence is retained in servitude, the one who can still learn the art of being
free, before becoming master of himself, is liberated.
It is difficult to apply this method to the South. When you declare that
beginning at a certain time the son of the Negro will be free, you introduce
the principle and the idea of liberty into the very heart of servitude; the
Blacks who are kept in slavery by the legislator and who see their sons
emerge from it are astonished by this unequal division that destiny makes
between them; they become restless and angry. From that moment slavery
has in their view lost the type of moral power that time and custom gave
45. In the American work entitled Letters on the Colonization Society, by Carey, 1833,
you read the following: “In South Carolina, for forty years, the Black race has been increasing
faster than the white race. By combining the population of the five states of the South that
first had slavery, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, you
discover,” Mr. Carey says again, “that from 1790 to 1830, whites have increased in the pro-
portion of 80 per 100 in these states, and Blacks in the proportion of 112 per 100.”
In the United States, in 1830, the men belonging to the two races were distributed in the
following manner: states where slavery is abolished, 6,565,434 whites, 120,520 Negroes. States
where slavery still exists, 3,960,814 whites, 2,208,102 Negroes.
it; it is reduced to being nothing more than a visible abuse of force. [Thus
the law that sets the son at liberty makes it more difficult to keep the father
a slave.] The North had nothing to fear from this contrast, because in the
North Blacks were small in number and whites very numerous. But if this
first dawn of liberty came to break upon two million men at the same time,
the oppressors would have to tremble.x
After emancipating the sons of their slaves, the Europeans of the South
would soon be compelled to extend the same benefit to the entire Black
race.
In the North, as I said above, from the moment when slavery is abol-
ished, and even from the moment when it becomes probable that the time
of its abolition is approaching, a double movement takes place. Slaves leave
the country to be transported more to the South; whites of the northern
states and the emigrants from Europe rush to take their place.
These two causes cannot work in the same way in the last states of the
South. On the one hand, the mass of slaves is too great there to be able to
x. Tocqueville will study in detail the systems of emancipation in his parliamentary

report on slavery (Rapport fait au nom de la commission chargée d’examiner la proposition
de M. de Tracy relative aux esclaves des colonies, Paris: A. Henry, 1839, reproduced in OC,
III, 1, pp. 41–78). The committee recommends that, after the immediate abolition of
slavery in the French colonies, the State become the tutor of Blacks during a transition
period by educating them and selling their work at a low price. The revenue will serve
to amortize the indemnities to the former owners. Each of the emancipated will receive
a minimal salary and a parcel of land from the State.
Tocqueville will defend the conclusions of the committee in a series of articles on
abolition published in the Siècle, 22 and 28 October, 8 and 21 November, 6 and 14 De-
cember 1843 (reproduced in Écrits et discours politiques, OC, III, 1, pp. 79–111). A few
critics have noted that in his reflections on slavery Tocqueville allowed his nationalist
ideas to prevail over his antislavery principles. See on this subject Seymour Drescher,
Dilemmas of Democracy: Tocqueville and Modernization, Pittsburgh: University of Pitts-
burgh Press, 1968; Melvin Richter, “Tocqueville on Algeria,” Review of Politics 25, no. 3
(1963): 363–98; Irving M. Zeitlin, Liberty, Equality and Revolution in Alexis de Tocqueville,
Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971.
In his novel Beaumont discusses in a little more detail the process of emancipation.
Gradual emancipation seems to him too costly, and he is of the opinion that Jefferson’s
idea of giving a portion of the territory to emancipated Negroes is dangerous. The con-
frontation of the two races seems as inevitable to him as to Tocqueville. (Cf. Marie, I,
pp. 314–38.)
hope to make them leave the country;y on the other hand, the Europeans
and the Anglo-Americans of the North dread coming to live in a country
where work has still not been rehabilitated. Moreover, they rightly regard
the states where the proportion of Negroes surpasses or equals that of
whites as threatened by great misfortunes, and they refrain from bringing
their industry there.
Thus by abolishing slavery, the men of the South would not succeed,
like their brethren of the North, in making Negroes arrive gradually at
liberty; they would not appreciably diminish the number of Blacks, and to
hold them in check they would be alone. So in the course of a few years
you would see a great people of free Negroes placed in the middle of a more
or less equal nation of whites.
The same abusesz of power that maintain slavery today would then be-
come the source of the greatest dangers that whites in the South would
have to fear. Today the descendant of Europeans alone possesses the land;
he is the absolute master of industry; he alone is rich, enlightened, armed.
The Black possesses none of these advantages; but he can do without them,
he is a slave. Once free, charged with watching over his own fate, can he
remain deprived of all these things without dying? So what made the
strength of the white, when slavery existed, exposes him to a thousand perils
after slavery is abolished.
Left in servitude, the Negro can be held in a state near that of the brute;
free, he cannot be prevented from becoming educated enough to appreciate
the extent of his ills and to catch sight of the remedy to them. There is,
moreover, a singular principle of relative justice that is found very deeply
buried in the human heart. Men are struck much more by the inequality
that exists within the interior of the same class than by the inequalities that
are noticed among different classes. Slavery is understood; but how to imag-
y. “In the South the mass of slaves is too considerable for anyone ever to hope of
diminishing the number of them very noticeably by exportation. You must wait until
death, by making them disappear little by little, removes them along with the just terrors
to which they give rise.
Here is one side of the subject, let us envisage another [text interrupted (ed.)]” (YTC,
CVh, 2, p. 102).
z. The manuscript says: “The same causes.”
ine the existence of several million citizens eternally bent down by infamy
and given over to hereditary miseries? In the North a population of eman-
cipated Negroes experiences these evils and feels these injustices; but it is
weak and reduced; in the South it would be numerous and strong.
From the moment that you allow whites and emancipated Negroes to
be placed on the same soil as peoples who are strangers to each other, you
will understand without difficulty that there are only two possibilities in
the future: Negroes and whites must either blend entirely or separate.
I have already expressed my conviction about the first means.46 I do not
think that the white race and the Black race will come to live on an equal
footing anywhere.
But I believe that the difficulty will be even greater in the United States
than anywhere else.a If a man happens to stand outside of the prejudices
of religion, of country, of race, and this man is king, he can work surprising
revolutions in society. An entire people cannot so to speak rise above itself
in this way.
A despot coming to join the Americans and their former slaves under
the same yoke would perhaps succeed in mixing them together; as long as
the American democracy remains at the head of affairs, no one will dare to
attempt such an undertaking, and you can anticipate that, the more the
whites of the United States are free, the more they will seek to separate
themselves.47
I said elsewhere that the true link between the European and the Indian
was the half-breed; in the same way, the true transition between the white
46. This opinion, moreover, is based on authorities much more weighty than I. In the
Mémoires de Jefferson, among others, you read: “Nothing is more clearly written in the book
of destiny than the emancipation of the Blacks, and it is just as certain that the two races
equally free will not be able to live under the same government. Nature, habit and opinion
have established insurmountable barriers between them.” (See Extrait des Mémoires de Jef-
ferson, by M. Conseil.)
a. In the margin: “⫽Of all governments those that have the least power over mores
are free governments.⫽”
47. If the English of the Antilles had governed themselves, you can count on the fact that
they would not have granted the act of emancipation that the mother country has just imposed.
and the Negro is the mulatto. Wherever there is a very great number of
mulattos, the fusion between the two races is not impossible.
There are parts of America where the European and the Negro have so
crossed that it is difficult to meet a man who is completely white or com-
pletely Black. Having reached this point, the two races can really be said to
have mingled; or rather, in their place, a third has appeared that takes after
the two without being precisely either the one or the other.
Of all Europeans the English are the ones who have least mingled their
blood with that of the Negroes. You see more mulattos in the South of the
Union than in the North, but infinitely fewer than in any other European
colony. Mulattos are very few in the United States; they have no strength
by themselves, and in the quarrels between the races they ordinarily make
common cause with the whites. This is how in Europe you often see the
lackeys of great lords put on nobility with the people.
This pride of origin, natural to the English, has been singularly increased
further among the Americans by the individual pride given birth by dem-
ocratic liberty. The white man of the United States is proud of his race and
proud of himself.
Besides, since whites and Negroes do not come to mingle in the North
of the Union, how would they mingle in the South? Can you suppose for
one moment that the American of the South, placed as he will always be
between the white man in all his physical and moral superiority and the
Negro, can ever think of mixing with the latter? The American of the South
has two energetic passions that will always lead him to separate himself: he
will be afraid of resembling the Negro, his former slave, and of descending
below the white, his neighbor.
If it were absolutely necessary to foretell the future, I would say that in
the probable course of things the abolition of slavery in the South will make
the repugnance that the white population feels there for the Blacks grow. I
base this opinion on what I have already noted analogously in the North.
I said that the white men of the North withdraw from Negroes all the more
carefully as the legislator blurs the legal separation that should exist between
them. Why would it not be the same in the South? In the North when
whites are afraid of ending by blending with Blacks, they fear an imaginary
danger. In the South where the danger would be real, I cannot believe that
the fear would be less.b
If, on the one hand, you recognize (and the fact is not doubtful) that in
the extreme South Blacks are constantly accumulating and growing faster
than whites; if, on the other hand, you concede that it is impossible to
foresee the time when Blacks and whites will come to mingle and to draw
the same advantages from the state of society, must you not conclude that
in the states of the South Blacks and whites will sooner or later end by
getting into a struggle?
What will the final result of this struggle be?
You will easily understand that on this point you must confine yourself
to vague conjectures. With difficulty the human mind manages in a way
to draw a great circle around the future; but within this circle chance, which
escapes all efforts, is in constant motion. In the portrait of the future chance
always forms the obscure point where the sight of intelligence cannot pen-
etrate. What you can say is this: in the Antilles it is the white race that seems
destined to succumb; on the continent, the Black race.
In the Antilles whites are isolated in the middle of an immense popu-
lation of Blacks;c on the continent Blacks are placed between the sea and
an innumerable people who already extend above them as a compact mass,
from the frozen areas of Canada to the borders of Virginia, from the banks
b. These notes in the manuscript seem instead to be the plan for the rest of this
section:
⫽If he does not mingle, what? Examine the various possibilities. Here nothing dog-
matic, no fear for the white race of America, on the contrary for the Black race.
Perhaps they will separate? Perhaps they will wage a war of extermination? This is
probable as long as the Union lasts because the South leans on the North.
Finally reason to preserve slavery and all its rigors for the good of the two races.
If the two races cannot blend together in the southernmost states of the Union,
what then will be their fate? You easily understand that on this point you must nec-
essarily confine yourself to vague conjectures. In all human events there is an immense
portion abandoned to chance or to secondary causes that escapes entirely from fore-
casts and calculations.⫽
c. “We have already seen the whites destroyed in the Antilles. Our sons will see the
Blacks destroyed in most of the United States, this at the end of the successive retreat of
Negroes toward the South” (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 95).
of the Mississippi to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. If the whites of

North America remain united, it is difficult to believe that Negroes can
escape the destruction that threatens them; they will succumb by sword or
misery. But the Black populations accumulated along the Gulf of Mexico
have chances for salvation if the struggle between the two races comes
about when the American confederation has dissolved. Once the federal
link is broken, the men of the South would be wrong to count on lasting
support from their brothers of the North. The latter know that the danger
can never reach them; if a positive duty does not compel them to march
to the aid of the South, you can foresee that the sympathies of race will
be powerless.
Whatever the period of the struggle may be, the whites of the South left
to themselves will moreover present themselves in the contest with an im-
mense superiority of enlightenment and means; but the Blacks will have
for them numbers and the energy of despair. Those are great resources when
you have weapons in hand. Perhaps what happened to the Moors of Spain
will then happen to the white race of the South [(something not very prob-
able, it is true)]. After occupying the country for centuries, it will finally
withdraw little by little toward the country from which its ancestors came
in the past, abandoning to the Negroes the possession of a country that
Providence seems to intend for the latter, since they live there without dif-
ficulty and work more easily there than whites.
The danger, more or less remote but inevitable, of a struggle between
the Blacks and whites who populate the South of the Union presents itself
constantly as a painful dream to the imagination of the Americans. The
inhabitants of the North talk daily about these dangers, although they have
nothing directly to fear from them. They seek in vain to find a means to
ward off the misfortunes that they foresee.
In the states of the South the inhabitants are silent. They do not speak
about the future with strangers; they avoid talking about it with friends;
each person hides it so to speak from himself. The silence of the South has
something more frightening about it than the noisy fears of the North.
This general preoccupation of minds has given birth to an almost
unknown enterprise that can change the fate of one part of the human
race.
Fearing the dangers that I have just described, a certain number of Amer-
ican citizens gather as a society with the goal of exporting at their expense
to the coasts of Guinea the free Negroes who would like to escape the tyr-
anny that weighs upon them.48
In 1820, the society that I am speaking about succeeded in founding in
Africa, at 7 degrees of north latitude, a settlement to which it gave the name
Liberia.d The latest news announced that two thousand five hundred
Negroes were already gathered at this place. Transported to their former
country, the Blacks have introduced American institutions there. Liberia
has a representative system, Negro jurors, Negro magistrates, Negro priests;
you see churches and newspapers there, and by a singular turn of the vi-
cissitudes of this world whites are forbidden to settle within its walls.49
There certainly is a strange twist of fortune! Two centuries have passed
since the day when the inhabitant of Europe undertook to carry Negroes
from their family and their country to transport them to the shores of
48. This society took the name Colonization Society of Blacks.

See its annual reports, and notably the fifteenth. Also see the brochure already indicated
entitled: Letters on the Colonization Society and On Its Probable Results, by M. Carey,
Philadelphia, April 1833.
d. “You read in the National Intelligencer of 14 January 1834, a curious article on
Liberia, from which it follows that at this period the colony had a newspaper entitled
Liberia Herald which contained pieces on history and on ethics and a page of
advertisements.
“See the letter addressed by Mr. Voorhead [sic (ed.)] captain of the ship John Adams
to the Secretary of the Navy, published in the National Intelligencer of January 1834”
(YTC, CVh, 2, p. 75).
This is the letter of P. F. Voorhees in which he describes his visit to Monrovia. This
letter was published on 13 February 1834 in the review cited. Tocqueville also seems to
have found in the same newspaper information about the Bank and the division of fed-
eral territories.
A note from his pocket notebook 1 also shows that he thought about visiting the
colony established by Negroes in Wilberforce, Canada: “Colony that the colored men are
establishing at Wilberforce in upper Canada. It can be interesting to visit” (YTC, BIIa,
and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 153). The project was not accomplished.
49. This last regulation has been penned by the founders of the settlement themselves. They
were afraid that something analogous to what is happening on the frontiers of the United
States would happen in Africa, and that the Negroes, like the Indians, entering into contact
with a race more enlightened than theirs, would be destroyed before being able to become
civilized.
North America. Today you meet the European busy again carting the de-
scendants of these very Negroes across the Atlantic Ocean in order to take
them back to the land from which he had once uprooted their fathers. Bar-
barians have drawn the enlightenment of civilization from within servitude
and have learned in slavery the art of being free.e
Until today Africa was closed to the arts and sciences of whites. The
enlightenment of Europe, imported by Africans, will perhaps penetrate
there. So there is a beautiful and great idea in the founding of Liberia; but
the idea, which can become so fruitful for the Old World, is sterile for the
New.
In twelve years the Society for the colonization of Blacks has transported
to Africa two thousand five hundred Negroes. During the same time period,
about seven hundred thousand of them were born in the United States.
If the colony of Liberia were in the position to receive each year thou-
sands of new inhabitants, and the latter in a condition to be brought there
usefully; if the Union took the place of the Society, and if annually it used
its riches50 and its ships to export Negroes to Africa, it still would not be
able to balance just the natural increase of the population among the Blacks;
and by not removing each year as many men as those born, it would not
even manage to suspend the development of the evil that is growing each
day in its bosom.51
The Negro race will no longer leave the shores of the American conti-
nent, where the passions and the vices of Europe made it come; it will
disappear from the New World only by ceasing to exist. The inhabitants
e. Note in the manuscript: “{To civilization by stultification.}”

50. Many other difficulties as well would be met in such an enterprise. If the Union, in
order to transport Negroes from America to Africa, undertook to buy Blacks from those whose
slaves they were, the price of Negroes increasing in proportion to their rarity would soon rise
to enormous amounts, and it is inconceivable that the states of the North would consent to
make such an expenditure, whose benefits they would not receive. If the Union removed the
slaves of the South by force or acquired them at a low price set by the Union, it would create
an insurmountable resistance among the states located in this part of the Union. From the
two sides you end up at the impossible.
51. In 1830, there were in the United States 2,010,527 slaves, and 319,467 emancipated; in
all 2,329,994 Negroes; which formed a little more than one fifth of the total population of the
United States in the same period.
of the United States can postpone the misfortunes that they fear, but they
cannot today destroy the cause of them.
I am obliged to admit that I do not consider the abolition of slavery as
a means to delay in the states of the South the struggle of the two races.f
The Negroes can remain slaves for a long time without complaining; but
once among the number of free men, they will soon become indignant about
being deprived of nearly all the rights of citizens; and not able to become
the equals of whites, they will not take long to prove to be their enemies.
In the North emancipating the slaves was all profit; you rid yourself in
this way of slavery, without having anything to fear from free Negroes. The
latter were too few ever to claim their rights. It is not the same in the South.
The question of slavery was for the masters in the North a commercial
and manufacturing question; in the South it is a question of life or death.
So you must not confuse slavery in the North and in the South.
God keep me from trying, like certain American authors, to justify the
principle of the servitude of Negroes; I am only saying that all those who
have allowed this painful principle in the past are not equally free to aban-
don it today.
I confess that when I consider the state of the South, I discover for the
white race that inhabits these countries only two ways to act: to free the
Negroes and combine with them; to remain separated from them and hold
them in slavery as long as possible.g The middle terms seem to me to lead
shortly to the most horrible of all civil wars, and perhaps to the ruin of one
of the two races.
The Americans of the South envisage the question from this point of
view, and they act accordingly. Not wanting to blend together with the
Negroes, they do not want to set them free.
f. “I admit that if I had the misfortune to live in a country where slavery had been
introduced and I had the liberty of the Negroes in my hand, I would keep myself from
opening it” (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 86).
g. Beaumont reached the same conclusion in Marie, I, pp. 294–301.
It is not that all the inhabitants of the South regard slavery as neces-
sary to the wealth of the master; on this point many among them agree
with the men of the North, and readily admit with the latter that servi-
tude is an evil; but they think that this evil must be maintained in order
to live.
Enlightenment, by increasing in the South, made the inhabitants of this
part of the territory see that slavery is harmful to the master, and this same
enlightenment shows them, more clearly than they had seen until then, the
near impossibility of destroying it. A singular contrast results. Slavery be-
comes established more and more in the laws, as its usefulness is more dis-
puted; and while its principle is gradually abolished in the North, in the
South more and more rigorous consequences are drawn from this very
principle.
Today the legislation of the states of the South relative to slaves presents
a kind of unheard of atrocity, and by itself alone it reveals some profound
disturbance in the laws of humanity. It is enough to read the legislation of
the states of the South to judge the desperate position of the two races that
inhabit them.
It is not that the Americans of this part of the Union have exactly in-
creased the rigors of servitude; they have, on the contrary, made the physical
lot of the slaves milder. The ancients knew only chains and death to main-
tain slavery; the Americans of the South of the Union have found more
intellectual guarantees for the continuance of their power. They have, if I
many express myself in this way, spiritualized despotism and violence. In
antiquity they tried to prevent the slave from breaking his chains; today we
have undertaken to remove his desire to do so.
The ancients chained the body of the slave, but they left his mind free
and allowed him to become enlightened. In that they were consistent with
themselves; then slavery had a natural way out: from one day to another
the slave could become free and equal to his master.
The Americans of the South, who do not think that at any time the
Negroes can blend with them, have forbidden, under severe penalties,
teaching them to read and write.h Not wanting to raise them to their level,
they hold them as close as possible to the brute.j
In all times the hope for liberty had been placed within slavery in order
to soften its rigors.
The Americans of the South have understood that emancipation always
presented dangers when the emancipated person could not one day come
to be assimilated with the master. To give a man liberty and leave him in
misery and disgrace, that is to do what, if not to provide a future leader of
a slave revolt? It had already been noted for a long time, moreover, that the
presence of the free Negro cast a vague restlessness deep within the soul of
those who were not free, and made the idea of their rights penetrate their
soul like an uncertain glimmer. The Americans of the South have in most
cases removed from the masters the ability to emancipate.52
I met in the Southk of the Union an old man who formerly had lived
in an illegitimate union with one of his Negro women. He had had several
children with her, who coming into the world became slaves of their father.
Several times the latter had thought to bequeath them at least liberty, but
years had gone by before he was able to overcome the obstacles raised to
emancipation by the legislator. During this time old age came, and he was
about to die. He then imagined his sons led from market to market and
passing from paternal authority to the rod of a stranger. These horrible
images threw his dying imagination into delirium. I saw him prey to the
agonies of despair, and I then understood how nature knew how to avenge
the wounds done to it by laws.
These evils are awful, without doubt; but are they not the foreseeable
and necessary consequence of the very principle of servitude among mod-
ern peoples?
h. To the side, with a note: “⫽(Verify this). See National Intelligencer, December 1833.
South Carolina.⫽” Possible reference to a speech by O’Connell, delivered on the occa-
sion of an antislavery meeting, and reproduced in the number for 5 December 1833 of
this review. See note c of p. 548.
j. “Blacks are a foreign nation that you have conquered and to whom you give a
nationality and the means of resistance by emancipating them or even by enlightening
them” (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 98).
52. Emancipation is not forbidden, but subjected to formalities that make it difficult.
k. In a variant, he specifies that the story took place in North Carolina.
From the moment when Europeans took their slaves from within a race
of men different from their own, that many among them considered as
inferior to other human races, and with which all envisaged with horror the
idea of ever assimilating, they supposed slavery to be eternal; for, between
the extreme inequality that servitude creates and the complete equality that
independence naturally produces among men, there is no intermediate last-
ing state. The Europeans vaguely sensed this truth, but without admitting
it. Every time it concerned Negroes, you saw the Europeans obey some-
times their interest or their pride, sometimes their pity. Toward the Black
they violated all the rights of humanity, and then they instructed him in
the value and inviolability of these rights. They opened their ranks to their
slaves, and when the latter attempted to enter, they chased them away in
disgrace. Wanting servitude, the Europeans allowed themselves to be led
despite themselves or without their knowing toward liberty, without having
the courage of being either completely iniquitous or entirely just.
If it is impossible to foresee a period when the Americans of the South
will mix their blood with that of the Negroes, can they, without exposing
themselves to perishing, allow the latter to attain liberty? And if, in order
to save their own race, they are obliged to want to keep them in chains,
must you not excuse them for taking the most effective means to succeed
in doing so?
What is happening in the South of the Union seems to me at the very
same time the most horrible and the most natural consequence of slavery.
When I see the order of nature overturned, when I hear humanity cry out
and struggle in vain under the laws, I admit that I do not find the indig-
nation to condemn the men of today, authors of these outrages; but I sum-
mon up all of my hatred against those who after more than a thousand
years of equality introduced servitude again into the world.
Whatever the efforts of the Americans of the South to keep slavery,
moreover, they will not succeed forever. Slavery, squeezed into a single point
of the globe, attacked by Christianity as unjust, by political economy as
fatal; slavery, amid the democratic liberty and the enlightenment of our
age, is not an institution that can endure. It will end by the deed of the
slave or by that of the master. In both cases, great misfortunes must be
expected.
If you refuse liberty to the Negroes of the South, they will end by seizing
it violently themselves; if you grant it to them, they will not take long to
abuse it.
What Are the Chances for the American Union to

Last? What Dangers Threaten It? m
What makes preponderant strength reside in the states rather
than in the Union.—The confederation will last only as long as
all the states that make it up want to be part of it.—Causes that
should lead them to remain united.—Utility of being united in
order to resist foreigners and in order not to have foreigners in
America.—Providence has not raised natural barriers between
the different states.—There are no material interests that divide
them.—Interest that the North has in the prosperity and union
of the South and of the West; the South with those of the North
and of the West; the West with those of the other two.—Non-
material interests that unite the Americans.—Uniformity of
opinions.—Dangers to the confederation arise from the difference
in the characters of the men who compose it and in their
passions.—Characters of the men of the South and of the
North.—Rapid growth is one of the greatest perils of the
Union.—March of the population toward the northwest.—
Gravitation of power in this direction.—Passions to which these
rapid movements of fortune give birth.—The Union subsisting,
does its government tend to gain strength or to become weaker?—
Various signs of weakening.—Internal improvements.—
Uninhabited lands.—Indians.—Affair of the Bank.—
Affair of the tariff.—General Jackson.
The maintenance of what exists in each one of the states that compose the
Union depends in part on the existence of the Union. So it is necessary to
m. Original title: future of the europeans who inhabit the united

states.
examine first what the probable fate of the Union is. But first of all it is
good to settle on one point; if the current confederation came to break up,
it seems to me incontestable that the states that are part of it would not
return to their original individuality. In place of one Union, several of them
would form. I do not intend to try to find out on what bases these new
Unions would come to be established; what I want to show are the causes
that can lead to the dismemberment of the current confederation.
To succeed I am going to be obliged to go over again some of the roads
that I have previously traveled. I will have to review several subjects that are
already known. I know that by acting in this way I am exposing myself to
the reproaches of the reader; but the importance of the matter that remains
for me to treat is my excuse. I prefer to repeat myself sometimes than not
to be understood, and I prefer to harm the author rather than the subject.
The law-makers who drew up the Constitution of 1789 tried hard to give
the federal power a separate existence and a preponderant strength.
But they were limited by the very conditions of the problem that they
had to resolve. They had not been charged with constituting the govern-
ment of a single people, but with regulating the association of several peo-
ples; and whatever their desires, they always had to end up dividing the
exercise of sovereignty.
[⫽In this division the law-makers of the Union found themselves still
enclosed in a circle out of which they were not free to go.
The conditions of the division were fixed in advance and by the very
nature of things. To the Union reverted the direction of all general interests,
to the states the government of all special [v: provincial] interests.
The portion of the Union in this division of sovereignty seems at first
view greater than that of the states; and in actual fact it is the smallest.
The general interests of the country touch its inhabitants only from time
to time. The interests of locality, every day. The government of the Union
has more power than that of the states, but you rarely feel it act. The pro-
vincial government does smaller things, but it never rests. The one assures
the independence and the greatness of the country, something that does
not immediately touch upon individual well-being; the other regulates lib-
erty, fortune, life, the entire future of each citizen.
So true political life is found in the state and not in the Union. Americans
are attached to the Union by principle, to their state by sentiment and by

instinct. They must in a way rise above themselves in order to sustain federal
sovereignty against that of the states.⫽]n
In order to understand well what the consequences of the division
were, it is necessary to make a short distinction between the acts of
sovereignty.
There are matters that are national by their nature, that is to say that are
related only to the nation taken as a body, and can be confided only to the
men or to the assembly that represents most completely the entire nation.
I will put in this number war and diplomacy.
There are others that are provincial by their nature, that is to say that
are related to certain localities and can be appropriately treated only in the
locality itself. Such is the budget of towns.
Finally, matters are found that have a mixed nature: they are national in
that they interest all of the individuals who make up the nation; they are
provincial in that there is no necessity that the nation itself provides for it.
These are, for example, the rights that regulate the civil and political state
of the citizens. There is no social state without civil and political rights. So
these rights interest all citizens equally; but it is not always necessary to the
existence and to the prosperity of the nation that these rights be uniform,
and consequently that they be regulated by the central power.
So among the matters that sovereignty deals with,o there are two nec-
n. In the margin: “⫽The nationality of the Union is an opinion, the nationality of

the states, a sentiment.
“The real strength of society is in the state not in the Union.⫽”
In another place on the same page: “⫽Thus interests, habits, sentiments combine to
concentrate true political life in the states.⫽”
o. What must be understood by the word sovereignty and the words right of sover-
eignty./
The sovereign power, always a single being.
The sovereign power.—The people.
Acts of sovereignty.—All acts whatever of the public authority.
Authors of these acts.—The sovereign power delegates the power to do these acts either
to one single individual or to several. It puts these acts in whatever categories it pleases.
essary categories; you find them again in all well-constituted societies,what-

ever the base, moreover, on which the social pact has been established.
Between these two extreme points are placed, like a floating mass, general
but non-national matters that I have called mixed. Since these matters are
neither exclusively national nor entirely provincial, the care of providing
for them can be attributed to the national government or to the provincial
government, following the conventions of those who are becoming asso-
ciated, without missing the purpose of the association.
Most often simple individuals unite in order to form the sovereign power
and their combination makes up a people. Above the general government
they have given themselves you then find only individual strengths or col-
lective powers, each of which represents a very minimal fraction of the
sovereign power. Then as well it is the general government that is most
naturally called to regulate not only matters national by their essence, but
the greatest portion of the mixed matters that I already mentioned. The
localities are reduced to the portion of sovereignty that is indispensable to
their well-being.
Sometimes, by a fact prior to the association, the sovereign power is com-
posed of already organized political bodies; then it happens that the pro-
vincial government takes charge of providing not only for the matters ex-
clusively provincial by their nature, but also for all or part of the mixed
Theoretical division of acts.—Principal acts, lesser acts depending on whether they

interest directly the whole or the parts of the sovereign power when, by an order of
things prior to the association, the sovereign power is composed of individuals and
is consequently represented by a single people.
Practical consequence.—When the sovereign power delegates the exercise of all
the principal acts to the same person (man or assembly), tendency that this man or
assembly gathers all the others.
When it delegates the exercise of principal acts to several, contrary tendency.
Another consequence. When the sovereign power is composed of individuals, ten-
dency to gather the exercise of all the principal acts into the same hands, into what
others?
When composed of nations, contrary tendency.
Single people goes to despotism, confederation to anarchy.
Fears of the French of dismemberment, absurd.
Id. of the Americans of consolidation.
After the theory, make this perceptible in practice (YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 75–77).
matters of which it was just a question. This is because the confederated

nations, which were themselves sovereign powers before their union, and
which, although they are united, continue to represent a very considerable
fraction of the sovereign power, intended to cede to the general government
only the exercise of the rights indispensable to the union.p
When the national government, apart from the prerogatives inherent in
its nature, finds itself vested with the right to regulate the mixed matters
of sovereignty, it possesses a preponderant strength. Not only does it have
many rights, but all the rights that it does not have are at its mercy, and it
is to be feared that it will go so far as to take away from the provincial
governments their natural and necessary prerogatives.[*]
When it is, on the contrary, the provincial government that finds itself
vested with the right to regulate the mixed matters, an opposite tendency
reigns in society. Preponderant strength then resides in the province, not
p. Each isolated individual has an absolute right over himself, right that has no limit
in the material world except his strength, in the moral world except justice and reason.
A people, which is a collection of individuals, possesses a right of the same nature.
This right then takes the name of sovereignty.
⫽The people, taking this term in the sense not of a class but of all the classes of
citizens, the people.⫽
Every time an independent people acts and in whatever manner it acts, it does an
act of sovereignty. ⫽So you would try in vain to establish a distinction among the
acts of public authority between those that are due essentially to the right of sover-
eignty and those that are not inherent to it. What you can do is to distinguish between
the most and the least important of the habitual actions of the sovereign power.⫽
The sovereign power delegates a part or the totality of the exercise of its power
either to a man or to several.
But all the acts of the public authority, whatever they may be, derive from the
expressed or presumed will of the sovereign power. Sovereignty can have a multitude
of agents, but there is always only one sovereign power.
[In the margin] A people, an association of peoples, always represents a unique
individual. Sovereignty can have a multitude of agents, but there is always only one
sovereign power, just as in one man there is always only one will applied to different
objects and served by different organs (YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 82–84).
[*]. The central government of France possesses the right to act in everything in the
name of the nation and the right to regulate all matters of internal administration that
have a general character. These are immense prerogatives but it [they (ed.)] are not
enough for it and it uses the strength that they give to it to direct the use of communal
funds and to interfere in [interrupted text (ed.)].
in the nation; and you must fear that the national government will end up
being stripped of privileges necessary to its existence.q
So single peoples are naturally led toward centralization, and confed-
erations toward dismemberment.r
It only remains to apply these general ideas to the American Union.
To the particular states reverted inevitably the right to regulate purely
provincial matters.
In addition these same states retained that of fixing the civil and political
capacity of citizens, of regulating the relationships of men with each other,
and of administering justice to them; rights that are general in their nature,
but that do not necessarily belong to the national government.
We have seen that to the government of the Union was delegated the
power to command in the name of the entire nation in cases where the
nation would have to act as one and the same individual. It represented
the nation vis-à-vis foreigners; it led the common forces against the com-
mon enemy. In a word it was concerned with matters that I have called
exclusively national.
In this division of the rights of sovereignty the part of the Union still
seems at first glance greater than that of the states; a slightly more thorough
examination demonstrates that in fact it is less.
q. I cannot prevent myself from thinking that the men in America who fear the en-
croachments of the central government confuse two essentially distinct things: com-
plete and incomplete sovereignty.
In countries where sovereignty is not divided, and where the provinces administer
themselves and do not govern themselves, town [v: provincial] liberties are always in
danger. The natural tendency of society is to concentrate strength at the center and
it is only by a constant effort that provincial liberties are maintained.
But in a State [v: country] where sovereignty is divided, the greatest strength find-
ing itself placed in the extremities not at the center, the tendency of the society is to
split up and it is only with effort that it remains united. Consequently you have seen
nearly all the States where (illegible word) sovereignty was undivided finish [by (ed.)]
arriving at administrative despotism and the confederations at anarchy (YTC, CVh,
2, pp. 48–49).
r. “The natural tendency of a people, if you do not oppose it, is to concentrate social
forces indefinitely until you arrive at pure administrative despotism. The natural ten-
dency of confederations is to divide these forces indefinitely until you arrive at dismem-
berment” (YTC, CVh, 1, p. 78).
[⫽The Union is an almost imaginary being that is not easily apparent

to the senses⫽.]
The government of the Union executes more vast enterprises, but you
rarely feel it act. The provincial government does smaller things, but it never
rests and reveals its existence at each instant.
The government of the Union watches over the general interests of the
country; but the general interests of a people have only a debatable influ-
ence on individual happiness.
The affairs of the province, in contrast, visibly influence the well-being
of those who inhabit it.
The Union assures the independence and the greatness of the nation,
things that do not immediately touch individuals. The state maintains the
liberty, regulates the rights, guarantees the fortune, assures the life, the en-
tire future of each citizen.
The federal government is placed at a great distance from its subjects;
the provincial government is within reach of all. It is enough to raise your
voice in order to be heard by it. The central government has for it the pas-
sions of a few superior men who aspire to lead it; on the side of the pro-
vincial government is found the interest of second-rate men who only hope
to obtain power in their state; and it is these who, placed near the people,
exercise the most power over them.
So the Americans have much more to expect and to fear from the state
than from the Union; and following the natural march of the human heart,
they must be attached much more intensely to the first than to the second.
[⫽But men, whatever you say, are not led only by interests; they obey
habits and sentiments.⫽
{True patriotism remained with the state and did not pass to the Union.
The state has an ancient existence, the Union is comparatively a new
thing.}]
In this habits and sentiments are in agreement with interests.
When a compact nation divides its sovereignty and reaches the state of
confederation, memories, customs, habits struggle for a long time against
the laws and give the central government a strength that the latter deny it.
When confederated peoples unite in a single sovereignty, the same causes
act in the opposite direction. I do not doubt that if France became a con-
federated republic like that of the United States, the government would at
first show itself to be more energetic than that of the Union; and if the
Union constituted itself as a monarchy like France, I think that the Amer-
ican government would remain for some time weaker than ours. At the
moment when national life was created among the Anglo-Americans, pro-
vincial existence was already old, necessary relationships were established
between the towns and individuals of the same states; you were accustomed
there to considering certain matters from a common point of view, and
to dealing exclusively with certain enterprises as representing a special
interest.s
The Union is an immense body that offers to patriotism a vague object
to embrace. The state has settled forms and circumscribed limits; it rep-
resents a certain number of things known and dear to those who inhabit
it. It blends with the very image of the land, is identified with property,
with family, with memories of the past, with the work of the present, with
dreams of the future. So patriotism, which most often is only an extension
of individual egoism, has remained with the state and has not so to speak
passed to the Union.
Thus interests, habits, and sentiments unite to concentrate true political
life in the state, and not in the Union.
You can easily judge the difference in the strength of the two govern-
ments by seeing each of them move within the circle of its power.
Every time that a state government addresses itself to a man or to an
s. Among the causes that can hasten the dismemberment of the Union in the first
rank is found the state of weakness and inertia into which the federal government
would fall, if the central power came to this degree of feebleness that it could no
longer serve as arbiter among the different provincial interests and could not effec-
tively defend the confederation against foreigners; its usefulness would become
doubtful, and the Union would no longer exist except on paper; and each state would
tend to separate itself from it in order to find its strength in itself.
So it is very important, granting the fact of the Union, to try to find out if the
federal government tends to gain or to lose power.
The question of the strength and of the weakness of the federal government, im-
portant moreover in itself and separate from the question of the duration of the
Union, would still be important; for the strength or the weakness of the federal gov-
ernment, even if it had no influence on the duration of the Union, would necessarily
have an influence on prosperity and its progress (YTC, CVh, 1, pp. 80–81).
association of men its language is clear and imperative; it is the same with
the federal government when it is speaking to individuals; but as soon as it
finds itself facing a state, it begins to talk at length: it explains its motives
and justifies its conduct; it argues, advises, hardly ever commands. If doubts
arise about the limits of the constitutional powers of each government, the
provincial government claims its right with boldness and takes prompt and
energetic measures to sustain it. During this time the government of the
Union reasons; it appeals to the good sense of the nation, to its interests,
to its glory; it temporizes, negotiates; only when reduced to the last extrem-
ity does it finally determine to act. At first view you could believe that it is
the provincial government that is armed with the strength of the whole
nation and that Congress represents a state.
So the federal government, despite the efforts of those who constituted
it, is, as I have already said elsewhere, by its very nature a weak government
that more than any other needs the free support of the governed in order
to subsist.
It is easy to see that its object is to realize with ease the will that the states
have to remain united. This first condition fulfilled, it is wise, strong and
agile. It has been organized in such a way as usually to encounter only in-
dividuals before it and to overcome easily the resistance that some would
like to oppose to the common will; but the federal government has not been
established with the expectation that the states or several among them
would cease to want to be united.
If the sovereignty of the Union today entered into a struggle with that
of the states, you can easily foresee that it would succumb; I doubt even
that the battle would ever be engaged in a serious way.t Every time that an
obstinate resistance is put up against the federal government, you will see
t. What singularly favors the Union is that all the confederated states have reached
more or less the same degree of civilization and the same type of civilization. They
are thus naturally more suited for working together than a single nation whose parts
would not be perfectly homogeneous on this point.
The lack of homogeneity on this point, which hinders the government of a single
nation, is particularly contrary to a confederation because there the differences be-
tween the ideas and the mores of diverse populations find a legal expression and
strength.
it yield. Experience has proven until now that when a state stubbornly
wanted something and demanded it resolutely, the state never failed to ob-
tain it; and that when it clearly refused to act,53 it was left free to do so.
If the government of the Union had a force of its own, the physical
situation of the country would make the use of it very difficult.54
The United States covers an immense territory; long distances separate
the states; the population is spread over a country still half wilderness. If
the Union undertook by arms to hold the confederated states to their duty,
What will perhaps always prevent Switzerland from forming a very really united
country, is that the differences between the civilization of the cantons is striking. The
difference between the canton of Vaud and that of Appenzell is like that between the
XIXth century and the XVth.
The central government in confederations is always by its nature weaker than the
governments of States (for many reasons), but that is above all true when it is not an
active sovereignty that is being carved up, but several sovereignties that are merging.
In this case the memories, habits, interests struggle for a long time in the opposite
direction against the laws. The central government would for a long time remain very
much stronger in France than in the United States, even if France would become a
federated republic. The central government of the United States will for a long time
remain weaker than the current government of France, even if the Union would
become a monarchy. When national life was created among the Anglo-Americans.
Federal government.
Union requires in order to subsist rare simplicity of mores or of needs, or very
advanced civilization.
Weakness of the Union proven by facts.
1. All the amendments to the Constitution have been made in order to restrict
federal power. The federal government abandoned in practice certain of its prerog-
atives and took no new ones. Every time that the state resolutely stood up to the
Union, it more or less gained what it wanted.
1. Georgia in 1793 refusing to obey the decision of the Supreme Court. See Kent,
volume 1, p. 278.
2. Rebellion in Pennsylvania against the whiskey tax (YTC, CVh, 2, pp. 79–80).
53. See the conduct of the states of the North in the War of 1812. “During this war,”
Jefferson says in a letter of 17 [14 (ed.)] March 1817 to General Lafayette, “four of the eastern
states were no longer tied to the Union except as dead bodies to living men” ( Correspondance
de Jefferson, published by Conseil) [vol. II, pp. 296–97 (ed.)].
54. The state of peace in which the Union finds itself gives it no pretext for having a
permanent army. Without a permanent army, a government has nothing prepared in advance
in order to take advantage of the favorable moment, to overcome resistance, and to take sov-
ereign power by surprise.
its position would be analogous to that of England at the time of the War
of Independence.
Moreover, a government, were it strong, could only with difficulty es-
cape the consequences of a principle, once it accepted that principle itself
as the foundation of the public law that is to govern it. The confederation
has been formed by the free will of the states; the latter by uniting did not
lose their nationality and did not merge into one and the same people. If
today one of these very states wanted to withdraw its name from the con-
tract, it would be quite difficult to prove that it could not do so. The federal
government, in order to combat it, would not rely in a clear way on either
force or law.
For the federal government to triumph easily over the resistance that a
few of its subjects might put up, it would be necessary for the particular
interest of one or of several of them to be intimately linked to the existence
of the Union, as has often been seen in the history of confederations.
I suppose that, among these states that the federal bond gathers together,
there are some that alone enjoy the principal advantages of union, or whose
prosperity depends entirely on the fact of union; it is clear that the central
power will find in them a very great support for maintaining the others in
obedience. But then it will no longer draw its strength from itself, it will
draw it from a principle that is contrary to its nature. Peoples confederate
only to gain equal advantages from union, and in the case cited above the
federal government is strong because inequality reigns among the united
nations.
I suppose again that one of the confederated states has gained a pre-
ponderance great enough to take hold of the central power by itself alone;
it will consider the other states as its subjects and, in the alleged sovereignty
of the Union, will make its own sovereignty respected. Then great things
will be done in the name of the federal government, but truly speaking this
government will no longer exist.55
In these two cases the power that acts in the name of the confederation
55. In this way, the province of Holland in the republic of the Netherlands and the emperor
in the German Confederation sometimes put themselves in the place of the Union, and ex-
ploited the federal power in their particular interest.
becomes that much stronger the more you move away from the natural
state and the acknowledged principle of confederations.
In America the present union is useful to all the states, but it is essential
to none. If several states broke the federal bond, the fate of the others would
not be compromised, even though the sum of their happiness would be
less. Just as there is no state whose existence or prosperity is entirelyu linked
to the present union, neither is there one that is disposed to make very great
personal sacrifices to preserve it.
From another perspective, no state is seen for now to have, out of am-
bition, a great interest in maintaining the confederation as we see it today.
All undoubtedly do not exercise the same influence in federal councils, but
there is not one of them that should flatter itself about dominating them
and that can treat the other confederated states as inferiors or subjects.
So it seems to me certain that if one portion of the Union wanted se-
riously to separate from the other, not only would you not be able to prevent
it from doing so, but you would not even be tempted to try. So the present
Union will last only as long as all the states that compose it continue to
want to be part of it.
This point settled, we are now more at ease: it is no longer a matter of
trying to find out if the states currently confederated will be able to separate,
but if they will want to remain united.
Among all the reasons that make the present union useful to the Amer-
icans, you find two principal ones whose evidence easily strikes everyone.
Although the Americans are so to speak alone on their continent, com-
merce gives them as neighbors all the peoples with whom they traffic. So
despite their apparent isolation, the Americans need to be strong, and they
can only be strong by remaining united.
The states by dividing would not only diminish their strength vis-à-vis
foreigners, they would create foreigners on their own soil. From that mo-
ment they would enter into a system of internal customs; they would divide
valleys by imaginary lines; they would imprison the course of rivers and
u. The published text says “entirely,” while the manuscript says “intimately,” a word
that seems to work better.
hinder in all ways the exploitation of the immense continent that God
granted them as their domain.
Today they have no invasion to fear, consequently no army to maintain,
no taxes to levy [no military despotism to fear]; if the Union came to break
apart, the need for all these things would perhaps not take long to make
itself felt.
So the Americans have an immense interest in remaining united.
From another perspective it is nearly impossible to discover what type
of material interest one portion of the Union would have, for now, to sepa-
rate from the others.
When you cast your eyes over a map of the United States and you see
the chain of the Allegheny Mountains running from the Northeast to the
Southwest and covering the country over an expanse of 400 leagues, you
are tempted to believe that the purpose of Providence was to raise between
the Mississippi basin and the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean one of those
natural barriers that, opposing the permanent relationships of men with
each other, form like necessary limits to different peoples.
But the average height of the Allegheny Mountains does not surpass 800
meters.56 Their rounded summits and the spacious valleys that they enclose
within their contours present easy access in a thousand places. There is
more. The principal rivers that come to empty their waters into the Atlantic
Ocean, the Hudson, the Susquehanna, the Potomac, have their sources
beyond the Allegheny Mountains on the open plateau that borders the
Mississippi basin. Leaving this region57 they come out through the rampart
that seemed as though it should throw them back toward the west and,
once within the mountains, trace natural routes always open to men.
So no barrier is raised between the different parts of the country occu-
pied today by the Anglo-Americans. The Allegheny Mountains are far from
serving as limits to peoples; they do not even mark the boundaries of states.
56. Average height of the Allegheny Mountains according to Volney ( Tableau des États-
Unis, p. 33), 700 to 800 meters; 5,000 to 6,000 feet, according to Darby; the greatest height of
the Vosges is 1,400 meters above sea level.
57. See View of the United States, by Darby, pp. 64 and 79.
New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia enclose them within their precincts
and extend as far to the west as to the east of these mountains.58
The territory occupied today by the twenty-four states of the Union and
the three great districts that are not yet placed among the number of states,
although they already have inhabitants, covers an area of 131,144 square
leagues,59 that is to say that it already presents a surface almost equal to five
times that of France.[*] In these limits are found a varied soil, different
temperatures, and very diverse products.
This great expanse of territory occupied by the Anglo-American repub-
lics has given birth to doubts about the maintenance of their union. Here
distinctions must be made: conflicting interests are sometimes created in
the different provinces of a vast empire and end up coming into conflict;
then it happens that the great size of the State is what most compromises
its duration. But if the men who cover this vast territory do not have con-
flicting interests among themselves, its very expanse must be useful to their
prosperity, for the unity of government singularly favors the exchange that
can be made with the different products of the soil, and by making their
flow easier, it increases their value.
Now, I clearly see different interests in the different parts of the Union,
but I do not find any that conflict with each other.
The states of the South are nearly exclusively agricultural; the states of
the North are particularly manufacturing and commercial; the states of the
West are at the same time manufacturing and agricultural. In the South
tobacco, rice, cotton and sugar are harvested; in the North and in the West,
corn and wheat. These are the diverse sources of wealth. But in order to
draw upon these sources, there is a means common and equally favorable
to all; it is the Union.w
58. The chain of the Allegheny Mountains is not higher than that of the Vosges and does
not offer as many obstacles as the latter to the efforts of human industry. So the countries
situated on the eastern slope of the Allegheny Mountains are as naturally linked to the Valley
of the Mississippi as Franche-Comté, upper Burgundy and Alsace are to France.
59. 1,002,600 square miles. See View of the United States, by Darby, p. 435.
[*]. France, according to Malte-Brun, volume VIII, p. 178, has an area of 26,739
square leagues.
w. These ideas appear in two letters of Carey published in the National Intelligencer
of 28 and 31 December 1833. Tocqueville more than likely became aware of them.
The North, which carries the riches of the Anglo-Americans to all parts
of the world and the riches of the world into the Union, has a clear interest
in having the confederation continue to exist as it is today, so that the num-
ber of American producers and consumers that it is called to serve remains
the greatest possible. The North is the most natural middleman between
the south and the west of the Union, on the one hand, and the rest of the
world, on the other; so the North should want the South and the West to
remain united and prosperous so that they provide raw materials for its
manufacturing and cargo for its ships.
The South and the West have on their side a still more direct interest in
the preservation of the Union and the prosperity of the North. The prod-
ucts of the South are in large part exported overseas; so the South and the
West need the commercial resources of the North. They should want the
Union to have a great maritime power in order to be able to protect them
effectively. The South and the West should contribute willingly to the costs
of a navy, although they do not have ships; for if the fleets of Europe came
to blockade the ports of the South and the Mississippi delta, what would
become of the rice of the Carolinas, the tobacco of Virginia, the sugar and
cotton that grow in the valleys of the Mississippi? So there is not a portion
of the federal budget that does not apply to the preservation of a material
interest common to all the confederated states.
[To clarify this subject even more I want to make a comparison drawn
from France.
Provence gathers oil and Flanders harvests wheat; Burgundy produces
wine and Normandy raises livestock. Do these different provinces find in
the diversity of products reasons to hate each other? Isn’t [it (ed.)] on the
contrary the diversity of these products that gives them a common interest
in remaining united in order to exchange them more freely?
Georgia seems to me to have the same reasons to remain united with
Massachusetts as Provence with Flanders, and Ohio appears to me as nat-
urally linked to the state of New York as Burgundy to Normandy.]x
x. In a first version:
⫽It is not in the interests but in the passions1 of the Americans that you must seek
the causes of ruin that threaten the American Union.
Apart from this commercial utility, the South and the West of the Union
find a great political advantage in remaining united with each other and
with the North.
The South encloses in its bosom an immense population of slaves, a
population threatening at present, still more threatening in the future.
The states of the West occupy the bottom of a single valley. The rivers
that water the territory of these states, originating from the Rocky or the
Allegheny Mountains, all come to mingle their waters with that of the
Mississippi and flow with it toward the Gulf of Mexico. The states of the
West are entirely isolated by their position from the traditions of Europe
and the civilization of the Old World.
So the inhabitants of the South should desire to preserve the Union in
order not to live alone in the face of the Blacks, and the inhabitants of the
West, in order not to find themselves enclosed within the central part of
America without free communication with the world.
The North for its part should want the Union not to divide, in order to
remain as the link that joins this great body to the rest of the world.
So there exists a tight bond among the material interests of all parts of
the Union.
I will say as much for the opinions and the sentiments that you could
call the non-material interests of man.
The inhabitants of the United States speak a great deal about their love
What most compromises the fate of the Union is its very prosperity, is the rapid
growth of some parts.⫽
The states that adhere to . . .
1. ⫽This is clearly seen. The south, which has the greatest need to remain united,
gives signs of impatience. The north and the west, which could by themselves alone
form an immense republic, most want the union.
If interests alone were sufficient to maintain the Americans in the Union, there
would be no portion of the United States where the federal Constitution had warmer
adherents than in the south.
The south needs the north not only to guarantee the importation of its products,
but also to defend it from the Negroes who live in its bosom.
The Americans of the south are, however, the only ones who threaten to break
the federal bond.
So you must seek reasons other than those taken from interests properly speaking.⫽
of country; I admit that I do not trust this considered patriotism that is

based upon interest and that interest, by changing object, can destroy.
Nor do I attach a very great importance to the language of the Ameri-
cans, when each day they express the intention of preserving the federal
system that their fathers adopted.
What maintains a large number of citizens under the same government
is much less the reasoned will to remain united than the instinctive and in
a way involuntary accord that results from similarity of sentiments and
resemblance of opinions.
I will never admit that men form a society by the sole fact that they
acknowledge the same leader and obey the same laws; there is a society only
when men consider a great number of objects in the same way; when they
have the same opinions on a great number of subjects; when, finally, the
same facts give rise among them to the same impressions and the same
thoughts.y
Whoever, considering the question from this point of view, would study
what is happening to the United States, would discover without difficulty
that their inhabitants, divided as they are into twenty-four distinct sover-
eignties, constitute nonetheless a single people; and perhaps he would even
come to think that the state of society more truly exists within the Anglo-
American Union than among certain nations of Europe that have never-
theless only a single legislation and are subject to one man alone.z
y. “What truly constitutes a society is not having the same government, the same
laws, the same language, it is having on a great number of points the same ideas and the
same opinions. The first things are all material. They are the means by which ideas and
opinions reign. Note well that for the despotic form itself (the one that has least need
for a society ) to be lasting, it must rely on this base” (YTC, CVh, 2, p.77).
z. Bond of American society./
Research what the ideas common to the Americans are. Ideas about the future.
Faith in human perfectibility, faith in civilization that is judged favorably in every
respect. Faith in liberty! This is universal.
Faith in the good sense and definitive reason of the people. This is general but not
universal.
You can do on that a very interesting (illegible word).
The true bond of the Americans is this much more than love of country and
nationality. These two things are more apparent than real, but the others differentiate
Although the Anglo-Americans have several religions, they all have the
same way of envisaging religion.a
They do not always agree on the means to take in order to govern well
and vary on some of the forms that are appropriate to give to the govern-
ment, but they agree on the general principles that should govern human
societies. From Maine to Florida, from the Missouri to the Atlantic Ocean,
they believe that the origin of all legitimate powers is in the people. They
conceive the same ideas on liberty and on equality; they profess the same
opinions on the press, the right of association, the jury, the responsibility
of the agents of power.
If we pass from political and religious ideas to the philosophical and
moral opinions that regulate the daily actions of life and guide conduct as
a whole, we will note the same agreement.
the Americans from all other peoples. What makes their common bond is what sepa-
rates them from the others.
[To the side: Many men in France believe that American society is lacking [a (ed.)]
bond. False idea. It has more of a true bond than ours.]
Shared ideas. Philosophical and general ideas.
That interest well understood is sufficient to lead men to do good.
That each man has the ability to govern himself.
That good is relative and that there it [makes (ed.)] continual progress in society;
that nothing there is or should be finished forever.
More special ideas, advantages of equality (YTC. CVh, 2, p. 78).
This note already contains the seeds of many ideas of the first part of the second volume.
a. Tocqueville had copied into one of his travel notebooks the following fragment,
an extract from a letter that he had written 8 July 1831 to Louis de Kergorlay:
It is clear that there still remains here a greater core of the Christian religion than in
any country in the world, to my knowledge, and I do not doubt that this disposition
of minds still influences the political regime. It gives a moral and well-ordered turn
to ideas; it stops the lapses of the spirit of innovation; above all it makes very rare
the disposition of the soul, so common among us, that makes you rush forward
against all obstacles per fas et nefas [by all possible paths] toward the goal that you
have chosen. It is certain that a party, whatever desire it had to gain a result, would
still believe itself obliged to march toward it only by means that would have an ap-
pearance of morality and would not openly shock religious beliefs, always more or
less moral even when they are false (alphabetic notebook A, YTC, BIIa, and Corres-
pondance avec Kergorlay, OC, XIII, 1, p. 231; this fragment is not published in Voyage,
OC, V, 1).
The Anglo-Americans60 place moral authority in universal reason, as

they do political power in the universality of citizens, and they consider
that you must rely on the sense of all in order to discern what is permitted
or forbidden, what is true or false. Most of them think that knowledge of
his interest well understood is sufficient to lead a man toward the just and
the honest. They believe that each person by birth has received the ability
to govern himself, and that no one has the right to force his fellow to be
happy. All have an intense faith in human perfectibility; they judge that the
diffusion of knowledge must necessarily produce useful results, ignorance
must lead to harmful effects; all consider society as a body in progress; hu-
manity as a changing scene, where nothing is or should be fixed forever,
and they admit that what seems good to them today can be replaced to-
morrow by something better that is still hidden.b
I do not say that all these opinions are correct, but they are American.
At the same time that the Anglo-Americans are thus united with each
other by these shared ideas, they are separated from all other peoples by a
sentiment, pride.
For fifty years it has not ceased to be repeated to the inhabitants of the
United States that they form the only religious, enlightened and free people.
They see that among them until now democratic institutions have pros-
60. I think I do not need to say that by this expression: the Anglo-Americans, I mean
only to speak about the great majority of them. A few isolated individuals always stand outside
of this majority.
b. At the same time that the Americans are thus united with each other by opinions,
what separates them from others, pride.
They are separated from all other peoples.
Religion, by a sentiment of pride.
Politics, they believe [themselves (ed.)] alone democratic.
Philosophy, are in a state to be free.
Economy, (illegible word) are wise.
If we pass from political and religious ideas to philosophical opinions, properly
speaking, to those that regulate the daily actions of life and direct conduct as a whole,
I will note the same agreement.
Most Americans accept that the knowledge of interest well understood is sufficient
to lead men to honesty (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 103).
pered, while they fail in the rest of the world; so they have an immense
opinion of themselves, and they are not far from believing that they form
a species apart in the human race.
Thus the dangers that menace the American Union do not arise from
diversity of opinions any more than from that of interests. They must be
sought in the variety of characters and in the passions of the Americans.
The men who inhabit the immense territory of the United States have
nearly all come from a shared stock; but over time climate and above all
slavery have introduced marked differences between the character of the
English of the South and the character of the English of the North.
It is generally believed among us that slavery gives to one portion of the
Union interests contrary to those of the others. I have not noted that this
was the case. Slavery has not created interests in the South contrary to those
of the North; but it has modified the character of the inhabitants of the
South, and has given them different habits.
I have shown elsewhere what influence servitude had exercised on the
commercial capacity of the Americans of the South; this same influence
extends equally to their mores.
The slave is a servant who does not argue and who submits to everything
without a murmur. Sometimes he murders his master, but he never resists
him. In the South there are no families so poor that they do not have slaves.
The American of the South from his birth finds himself invested with a
kind of domestic dictatorship; the first notions that he receives of life make
him know that he is born to command, and the first habit that he contracts
is that of dominating without difficulty. So education tends powerfully to
make the American of the South a man haughty, quick, irascible, violent,
ardent in his desires, impatient with obstacles; but easy to discourage if he
cannot triumph with the first blow.
The American of the North does not see slaves rush up around his cradle.
He does not even find free servants, for most often he is limited to providing
for his needs by himself. Soon after he is born, his mind is presented with
the idea of necessity from all directions. So he learns early to know on his
own the exact natural limit of his power; he does not expect to bend by
force wills that are opposed to his, and he knows that to gain the support
of his fellows it is above all necessary to win their favor. So he is patient,

thoughtful, tolerant,c slow to act, and persevering in his designs.
In the southern states the most pressing needs of man are always satisfied.
Thus the American of the South is not preoccupied by the material needs
of life; someone else takes care of thinking about them for him. Free on
this point, his imagination is directed toward other greater and less precisely
defined matters. [<So the whites in the south form an aristocratic body
{kind of aristocracy}. Consequently a certain feudal tendency reigns in their
thoughts and in their tastes.>] The American of the South loves grandeur,
luxury, glory, fame, pleasures, idleness above all; nothing forces him to make
efforts in order to live, and as he has no necessary work, he falls asleep and
does not undertake even useful work.
Because equality of fortunes reigns in the North, and slavery no longer
exists there, man there is absorbed, as it were, by these very material con-
cerns that the white scorns in the South. From his birth he is busy fighting
poverty, and he learns to place material comfort above all the enjoyments
of the mind and heart. His imagination, concentrated on the small details
of life, fades, his ideas are fewer and less general, but they become more
practical, clearer and more precise. Since he directs all the efforts of his
intelligence only toward the study of well-being, he does not take long to
excel there; he knows admirably how to make the most of nature and of
men in order to produce wealth; he understands marvelously the art of
making society work toward the prosperity of each one of its members,
and of extracting from individual egoism the happiness of all.
The man of the North has not only experience, but also learning; but
he does not prize knowledge as a pleasure. He values it as a means, and he
avidly takes hold only of its useful applications.
The American [{man}] of the South is more spontaneous, more witty,
more open, more generous, more intellectual and more brilliant.
The American [{man}] of the North is more active, more reasonable,
more enlightened and more skillful.
c. In the margin: “⫽Tolerant indicates a virtue. A word would be needed that indicates
the interested and necessary toleration of a man who needs others.⫽”
The one has the tastes, prejudices, weaknesses and the grandeur of all
aristocracies.
The other, the qualities and failings that characterize the middle class.
Bring two men together in society, give to these two men the same in-
terests and in part the same opinions; if their character, their enlightenment
and their civilization differ, there is a great chance that they will not get
along. The same remark is applicable to a society of nations.[*]
So slavery does not attack the American confederation directly by in-
terests, but indirectly by mores.
The states that joined the federal pact in 1790 numbered thirteen; the
confederation counts twenty-four of them today. The population that
amounted to nearly four million in 1790 had quadrupled in the space of
forty years; in 1830 it rose to nearly thirteen million.61
Such changes cannot take place without danger.
For a society of nations as for a society of individuals, there are three
principal ways to last: the wisdom of the members, their individual weak-
ness, and their small number.
The Americans who withdraw from the shores of the Atlantic Ocean in
order to plunge into the West are adventurers impatient with any kind of
yoke, greedy for wealth, often cast out by the states where they were born.
They arrive in the middle of the wilderness without knowing each other.
There they find to control them neither traditions nor family support, nor
examples. Among them the rule of laws is weak, and that of mores is weaker
still. So the men who daily populate the valleys of the Mississippi are in-
ferior in all ways to the Americans who inhabit the old limits of the Union.
They already exercise, however, a great influence in its councils, and they
[*]. It is to this diversity of characters that you must resort in order to explain how
every time there is a division of opinion among the Anglo-Americans, you have seen the
North on one side and the South on the other, often without being able to see the same
division found in their interests. {See from the time of Washington the question of the
tax on distilled liquors. Marshall, vol. 5, p. 185.}
61. Census of 1790 3,929,328
Census of 1830 12,856,165.
arrive at the government of common affairs before having learned to man-

age themselves.62
The weaker the members are individually, the greater the society’s
chances to last, for they then have security only by remaining united. When,
in 1790, the most populated of the American republics did not have
500,000 inhabitants,63 each one of them felt its insignificance as an inde-
pendent people, and this thought made obedience to a federal authority
easier. But when one of the confederated states numbers 2,000,000 inhab-
itants, as does the state of New York, and covers a territory whose area is
equal to one-quarter of that of France,64 it feels strong by itself, and if it
continues to desire the union as useful to its well-being, it no longer regards
it as necessary to its existence; it can do without it; and agreeing to remain
there, it does not take long to want to be preponderant in it.
The mere multiplication of members of the Union would already tend
powerfully to break the federal bond. All men placed at the same point of
view do not look at the same objects in the same way. This is so with all
the more reason when the point of view is different. So as the number of
American republics increases, you see the chance to gather the assent of all
to the same laws diminish.
Today the interests of the different parts of the Union are not in conflict
with each other; but who could foresee the various changes that the near
future will bring about in a country where each day creates cities and every
five years nations?
Since the founding of the English colonies the number of inhabitants
doubles every twenty-two years or so; I do not see any causes that should
for the next century stop this progressive movement of the Anglo-American
population. Before one hundred years have passed I think that the territory
62. This, it is true, is only a temporary peril. I do not doubt that with time society will
become settled and orderly in the west, as it has already become on the shores of the Atlantic
Ocean.
63. Pennsylvania had 431,373 inhabitants in 1790.
64. Area of the state of New York, 6,213 square leagues (46,500 square miles). See View
of the United States, by Darby, p. 435.
occupied or claimed by the United States will be covered by more than one
hundred million inhabitants and divided into forty states.65
I admit that these one hundred million men do not have different in-
terests; I grant them all, on the contrary, an equal advantage in remaining
united, and I say that, by the very fact that they are one hundred million,
forming forty distinct and unequally powerful nations, the maintenance of
the federal government is nothing more than a happy accident.
I would like to believe in human perfectibility; but until men have
changed in nature and are completely transformed, I will refuse to believe
in the duration of a government whose task is to hold together forty diverse
peoples spread over a surface equal to half of Europe,66 to avoid rivalries,
ambition, and struggles among them, and to bring the action of their in-
dependent wills together toward the accomplishment of the same projects.
But the greatest risk that the Union runs by growing comes from the
continual displacement of forces that takes place within it.
From the shores of Lake Superior to the Gulf of Mexico, you count as
the crow flies about four hundred French leagues. Along this immense line
winds the frontier of the United States; sometimes it stays within these
limits, most often it penetrates well beyond into the wilderness. It has been
calculated that along this entire vast front whites advanced each year on
average seven leagues.67 From time to time an obstacle presents itself: it is
an unproductive district, a lake, an Indian nation that is met unexpectedly
65. If the population continues to double in twenty-two years, for another century, as it
has done for two hundred years, in 1852 you will number in the United States twenty-four
million inhabitants, forty-eight in 1874, and ninety-six in 1896. It will be so even if you
encountered on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains terrain that was unsuitable for
agriculture. The lands already occupied can very easily hold this number of inhabitants. One
hundred million men spread over the soil occupied at this moment by the twenty-four states
and the three territories that compose the Union would only give 762 individuals per square
league, which would still be very far from the average population of France, which is 1,006;
from that of England, which is 1,457; and which would remain even below the population
of Switzerland. Switzerland, despite its lakes and mountains, numbers 783 inhabitants per
square league. See Malte-Brun, vol. VI, p. 92.
66. The territory of the United States has an area of 295,000 square leagues; that of Eu-
rope, according to Malte-Brun, vol. VI, p. 4, is 500,000.
67. See Legislative Documents, 20th Congress, n. 117, p. 105.
in its path. The column then stops an instant; its two extremities bend
toward each other and, after they have rejoined, the advance begins again.
There is in this gradual and continuous march of the European race towards
the Rocky Mountains something providential; it is like a flood of men that
rises unceasingly and that swells each day by the hand of God.
Within this first line of conquerors cities are built and vast states are
founded. In 1790, scarcely a few thousand pioneers were found spread
across the valleys of the Mississippi; today these same valleys hold as many
men as the entire nation contained in 1790. The population there reaches
nearly four million inhabitants.68 The city of Washington was founded in
1800, at the very center of the American confederation; now this city finds
itself at one of its extremities. The representatives of the last states of the
West,69 in order to take their seats in Congress, are already obliged to make
a journey as long as that of the traveler who goes from Vienna to Paris.
All the states of the Union are carried along at the same time towards
wealth; but all cannot grow and prosper in the same proportion.
In the north of the Union detached branches of the Allegheny Moun-
tain chain, advancing to the Atlantic Ocean, form spacious harbors and
ports always open to the largest ships. From the Potomac, in contrast, and
following the coast of America to the mouth of the Mississippi, you find
nothing more than a flat and sandy terrain. In this part of the Union the
mouths of nearly all the rivers are obstructed, and the ports that are open
here and there in the middle of lagoons do not present to ships the same
depth and offer to commerce much smaller facilities than those of the
North.
To this first inferiority which arises from nature another is joined that
comes from laws.
We have seen that slavery, which is abolished in the North, still exists in
the South, and I have shown the fatal influence that it exercises on the well-
being of the master himself.
68. 3,672,317, census of 1830.

69. From Jefferson, capital of the state of Missouri, to Washington, you count 1,019 miles,
or 420 postal leagues (American Almanac, 1831, p. 43 [44 (ed.)]).
So the North must be more commercial70 and more industrious than

the South. It is natural that population and wealth concentrate there more
rapidly.
The states situated on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean are already half
populated. Most of the lands have an owner; so those states cannot receive
the same number of emigrants as the states of the West that still offer an
unlimited field to industry. The basin of the Mississippi is infinitely more
fertile than the coast of the Atlantic Ocean. This reason added to all the
others vigorously pushes the Europeans toward the West. This is rigorously
demonstrated by figures.
If you work with the whole of the United States, you find that in forty
years the number of inhabitants there has more or less tripled. But if
you envisage only the basin of the Mississippi, you discover that in the
same period of time the population71 there has become thirty-one times
greater.72
Each day the center of federal power is displaced. Forty years ago the
70. In order to judge the difference that exists between the commercial movement of the
South and that of the North, it is enough to glance at the following picture:
In 1829, the ships of large and small commerce belonging to Virginia, the two Carolinas
and Georgia (the four large states of the South) had a tonnage of only 5,243.
In the same year, the vessels of the state of Massachusetts alone had a tonnage of 17,322
( Legislative Documents, 21st Congress, 2nd session, n. 140, p. 244).
Thus the state of Massachusetts alone had three times more ships than the above-named
four states.
The state of Massachusetts, however, has only 959 square leagues of area (7,335 square
miles) and 610,014 inhabitants, while the four states that I am speaking about have 27,204
square leagues (210,000 miles) and 3,047,767 inhabitants. Thus the area of the state of
Massachusetts forms only one thirtieth of the area of the four states, and its population is five
times smaller than theirs ( View of the United States, by Darby). Slavery harms in several
ways the commercial prosperity of the South: it diminishes the spirit of enterprise among
whites, and it prevents them from finding at their disposal the sailors that they need. The navy
recruits in general only from the lowest class of the population. Now it is slaves who in the
South form this class, and it is difficult to use them at sea; their service would be inferior to
that of whites, and you would always have to be afraid that they might revolt in the middle
of the ocean, or might take flight when reaching foreign shores.
71. View of the United States, by Darby, p. 444.
72. Note that, when I speak about the basin of the Mississippi, I am not including the
portion of the states of New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, placed west of the Allegheny
Mountains, and that should, however, be considered as also part of it.
majority of the citizens of the Union were on the shores of the sea in the
vicinity of the place where Washington is rising today; now it is deeper into
the land and more to the North; you can be sure that within twenty years
it will be on the other side of the Allegheny Mountains. Assuming that the
Union continues to exist, the basin of the Mississippi, because of its fertility
and its extent, is necessarily called to become the permanent center of fed-
eral power. In thirty or forty years the basin of the Mississippi will have
taken its natural rank. It is easy to calculate that then its population, com-
pared to that of the states placed on the shores of the Atlantic, will be in
proportion of about 40 to 11. So in a few more years the leadership of the
Union will escape completely from the states that formed it, and the popu-
lation of the valleys of the Mississippi will predominate in federal councils.
This continuous gravitation of strength and federal influence toward the
Northwest is revealed every ten years, when, after doing a federal census of
the population, the number of representatives that each state must send to
Congress is fixed once again.73
In 1790, Virginia had nineteen representatives in Congress. This number
continued to grow until 1813, when we saw it attain the figure of twenty-
three. From this time it began to decrease. In 1833 it was no more than
twenty-one.74 During this same period the state of New York followed an
73. You notice then that during the ten years that have just passed one state increased its
population in the proportion of 5 to 100, as Delaware; another was in the proportion of 250
to 100, as the territory of Michigan. Virginia finds that, during the same period, it increased
the number of its population in the relationship of 13 to 100, while the adjacent state of Ohio
increased the number of its population in the proportion of 61 to 100. See the general table
contained in the National Calendar;d you will be struck by the inequality in the fortune of
the different states.
d. It concerns the American Almanac for 1832, p. 162. The National Calendar also
contains figures on the census, but the percentages given by Tocqueville belong to the
American Almanac.
74. You are going to see further along that during the last period the population of Virginia
grew in the proportion of 13 to 100. It is necessary to explain how the number of the repre-
sentatives of a state can decrease when the population of the state, far from decreasing itself,
is advancing. I take as point of comparison Virginia, which I have already cited. The number
of representatives of Virginia, in 1823, was in proportion to the total number of representatives
of the Union; the number of representatives of Virginia in 1833 is equally in proportion to
the total number of representatives of the Union in 1833, and in proportion in relation to its
population, which increased during these ten years. So the relation of the new number of
opposite progression: in 1790, it had in Congress ten representatives; in 1813,

twenty-seven; in 1823, thirty-four; in 1833, forty. Ohio did not have a single
representative in 1803; in 1833 it had nineteen.
It is difficult to conceive of a lasting union between two peoples one of
whom is poor and weak, the other rich and strong, even if it would be proved
that the strength and wealth of one is not the cause of the weakness and
poverty of the other. Union is still more difficult to maintain in a time when
one is losing strength and when the other is in the process of gaining it.
This rapid and disproportionate increase of certain states threatens the
independence of the others. If New York, with its two million inhabitants
and its forty representatives, wanted to pass a law in Congress, it would
perhaps succeed. But even if the most powerful states did not seek to op-
press the least powerful, the danger would still exist, for it is in the possibility
of the deed almost as much as in the deed itself.
The weak rarely have confidence in the justice and reason of the strong.
So the states that are growing less quickly than the others cast a look of dis-
trust and envy on those that fortune favors. From that comes this profound
malaise and this vague uneasiness that you notice in one part of the Union,
and that contrast with the well-being and confidence that reign in the other.
I think that the hostile attitude taken by the South has no other causes.
The men of the South are of all Americans those who should most hold
on to the Union, for they are the ones who above all would suffer from
being abandoned to themselves; but they are the only ones who threaten
to break the bond of the confederation. What causes that? It is easy to say:
the South, which provided four Presidents to the confederation;75 which
knows today that federal power is escaping from it; which each year sees
representatives from Virginia to the old will be proportional, on the one hand, in relation to
the new total number of representatives to the old, and, on the other, in relation to the pro-
portions of increase for Virginia and for the entire Union. Thus in order for the number of
representatives from Virginia to remain stationary, it is sufficient that the relation of the
proportion of increase of the small country to that of the large be the inverse of the relation
of the new total number of representatives to the old; if this proportion of increase of the
Virginia population is in a weaker relation to the proportion of increase of the entire Union,
as the new number of representatives of the Union with the old, the number of representatives
of Virginia will be decreased.
75. Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.
the number of its representatives to Congress decrease and those of the

North and of the West increase; the South, populated by ardent and iras-
cible men, is getting angry and is becoming uneasy. It looks at itself with
distress; examining the past, it wonders each day if it is not oppressed. If
it comes to find that a law of the Union is not clearly favorable to it, it cries
out that it is being abused by force; it complains ardently, and if its voice
is not heard, it becomes indignant and threatens to withdraw from a society
whose costs it bears, without getting any profits.
“The tariff laws,” said the inhabitants of Carolina in 1832, “enrich the
North and ruin the South, for, otherwise, how could you imagine that the
North, with its inhospitable climate and arid soil, would constantly increase
its wealth and power, while the South, which is the garden of America, is
falling rapidly into decline?”76
If the changes that I have talked about took place gradually, so that each
generation at least had the time to pass by along with the order of things
that it had witnessed, the danger would be less; but there is something pre-
cipitous, I could almost say revolutionary, in the progress that society makes
in America. The same citizen has been able to see his state march at the
head of the Union and then become powerless in federal councils. There
is one such Anglo-American republic that grew up as quickly as a man, and
that was born, grew and reached maturity in thirty years.
It must not be imagined, however, that the states that lose power are
becoming depopulated or are declining; their prosperity is not stopping;
they are growing even more quickly than any kingdom of Europe.77 But it
76. See the report made by its committee to the Convention that proclaimed nullification
in South Carolina.
77. The population of a country assuredly forms the first element of its wealth. During
this same period of 1820 to 1832, when Virginia lost two representatives to Congress, its popu-
lation increased in the proportion of 13.7 to 100; e that of the Carolinas in the relation of 15
to 100, and that of Georgia in the proportion of 51.5 to 100. (See American Almanac, 1832,
p. 162.) Now Russia, which is the European country where the population grows most quickly,
only increases in ten years the number of its inhabitants in the proportion of 9.5 to 100; France
in that of 7 to 100, and Europe as a whole in that of 4.7 to 100 (see Malte-Brun, vol. VI,
p. 95).
e. Draft of the note in the manuscript: “The population grew by 145,000 inhabitants
or 13.7 percent in ten years. See fifth census. It seems to me that by following this pro-
gression the population of Virginia would take about 75 years to double.”
seems to them that they are becoming poor because they are not becoming
rich as quickly as their neighbor, and they believe they are losing their power
because they suddenly come in contact with a power greater than theirs.78
So it is their sentiments and their passions that are wounded more than
their interests. But isn’t this enough for the confederation to be at risk? If
since the beginning of the world peoples and kings had in view only their
true utility, you would hardly know what war was among men.
Thus the greatest danger that threatens the United States arises from
their very prosperity; it tends to create among several of the confederated
states the intoxication that accompanies the rapid augmentation of wealth,
and, among others, the envy, distrust and the regrets that most often follow
its loss.
The Americans rejoice when contemplating this extraordinary move-
ment; they should, it seems to me, consider it with regret and with fear.
Whatever they do, the Americans of the United States will become one of
the greatest peoples of the world; they will cover nearly all of North
America with their offspring; the continent that they inhabit is their do-
main, it cannot escape them. So what presses them to take possession of
it today? Wealth, power and glory cannot fail to be theirs, and they rush
toward this immense fortune as if only a moment remained for them to
grasp it.
I believe I have demonstrated that the existence of the present confed-
eration depends entirely on the agreement of all the confederated states to
want to remain united; and from this given I tried to find out what the
causes are that could lead the different states to want to separate. But there
are two ways for the Union to perish. One of the confederated states can
want to withdraw from the contract and thus break the common bond
violently; most of the remarks that I have made before apply to this case.
The federal government can progressively lose its power by a simultaneous
tendency of the united republics to take back the use of their independence.
The central power, deprived successively of all of its prerogatives, reduced
78. It must be admitted, however, that the depreciation that has taken place in the value
of tobacco for fifty years has notably diminished the comfort of the farmers of the South; but
this fact is independent of the will of the men of the North as it is of theirs.
by a tacit agreement to powerlessness, would become incapable of fulfilling

its object, and the second Union would perish like the first, by a sort of
senile weakness.
The gradual weakening of the federal bond, which leads finally to the
annulment of the Union, is moreover in itself a distinct fact that can lead
to many other less extreme results before producing that final result. The
confederation would still exist, though the weakness of its government
could already have reduced the nation to powerlessness, and caused internal
anarchy and the slowing of the general prosperity of the country.
So after trying to find out what is leadingf the Anglo-Americans to be-
come disunited, it is important to examine whether, given the Union’s con-
tinued existence, their government is enlarging the sphere of its action or
is narrowing it, whether it is becoming more energetic or weaker.
The Americans are clearly preoccupied by a great fear. They notice that
among most peoples of the world the exercise of the rights of sovereignty
tend to become concentrated in a few hands, and they are afraid of the
idea that it will end up by being so among them. The statesmen themselves
experience these terrors, or at least pretend to experience them; for in
America centralization is not popular, and you cannot more skillfully
court the majority than by rising against the alleged encroachments of the
central power. The Americans refuse to see that in countries where this
centralizing tendency that frightens them manifests itself, you find only
a single people, while the Union is a confederation of different peoples;
a fact that is sufficient to disrupt all of the expectations based on the
analogy.
I admit that I consider these fears of a great number g of Americans as
entirely imaginary. Far from fearing like them the consolidation of sover-
eignty in the hands of the Union, I believe that the federal government is
becoming weaker in a visible way.
To prove what I am advancing on this point I will not resort to old
f. In the manuscript: “what could lead . . .”

g. The manuscript says: “of some Americans.”
facts, but to those that I was able to witness or that have taken place in
our time.h
When you examine attentively what is happening in the United States,
you discover without difficulty the existence of two contrary tendencies;they
are like two currents that travel over the same bed in opposite directions.
During the forty-five years that the Union has existed time has dealt with
a host of provincial prejudices that at first militated against it. The patriotic
sentiment that attached each of the Americans to his state has become less
exclusive. By getting to know each other better the various parts of the
Union have drawn closer. The mail, that great link between minds, today
penetrates into the heart of the wilderness;79 steamboats make all points of
the coast communicate with each other daily. Commerce descends and goes
back up the rivers of the interior with an unparalleled rapidity.80 To these
opportunities created by nature and art are joined instability of desires,
restlessness of spirit, and love of riches that, constantly pushing the Amer-
ican out of his house, put him in communication with a great number of
his fellow citizens. He travels his country in all directions; he visits all the
populations that inhabit it. You do not find a province of France whose
inhabitants know each other as perfectly as the 13 million men who cover
the surface of the United States.
h. In the margin: “⫽So the existence of the Union [v: the will to remain united], a
matter of chance. Its dismemberment, something always possible, something inevitable
with time.
“The weakening of the federal government as government apart from dismember-
ment, another question.⫽” The first intention of Tocqueville had been to acknowledge
in the introduction of the second part his error as to the danger of the dissolution of
the United States (see note b for p. 690 of the second volume and James T. Schleifer,
The Making of Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America,” pp. 102–11.
79. In 1832, the district of Michigan, which has only 31,639 inhabitants and still forms
only a wilderness scarcely cleared, showed the development of 940 miles of post roads. The
nearly entirely wild territory of Arkansas was already crossed by 1,938 miles of post roads. See
The Report of the Postmaster General, 30 November 1833. Carrying newspapers alone
throughout the Union brings in 254,796 dollars per year. [These documents are found in
National Calendar, 1833, p. 244. See “Report of the Postmaster General,” National Intel-
ligencer, 12 December 1833.]
80. In the course of ten years, from 1821 to 1831, 271 steamboats were launched just on the
rivers that water the valley of the Mississippi [ National Almanac, 1832, p. 255]. In 1829, there
were 256 steamboats in the United States. See Legislative Documents, n. 140, p. 274.
At the same time that the Americans mingle, they assimilate; the differ-
ences that climate, origin and institutions have placed between them di-
minish. They all get closer and closer to a common type. Each year thou-
sands of men who have left the North spread throughout all parts of the
Union: they bring with them their beliefs, their opinions, their mores, and
as their enlightenment is superior to that of the men among whom they
are going to live, they do not take long to take hold of affairs and to modify
society to their profit. This continual emigration of the North toward the
South singularly favors the fusion of all the provincial characters into one
single national character.j So the civilization of the North seems destined
to become the common measure against which all the rest must model
themselves one day.k
As the industry of the Americans makes progress, you see the commer-
cial bonds that unite all the confederated states tighten, and the union
moves from opinions into habits. The passage of time finally makes a host
of fantastic terrors that tormented the imagination of the men of 1789
disappear. The federal power has not become oppressive; it has not de-
stroyed the independence of the states; it does not lead the confederated
states to monarchy; with the Union the small states have not fallen into
dependence on the large. The confederation has continued to grow con-
stantly in population, in wealth, in power.
So I am persuaded that in our times the Americans have fewer natural
difficulties living united than they found in 1789; the Union has fewer en-
emies than then.m
j. Beaumont had written during his journey: “American uniformity./

“One of the principal causes of the uniformity of mores among the Americans, which
is always going to increase, comes from the spirit of emigration of the inhabitants of
New England, who bring everywhere their enterprising, industrious and mercantile
spirit. (Baltimore, 31 October 1831)” (YTC, CIX).
k. At the time of his conversation with Tocqueville and Beaumont, John Latrobe, a
lawyer from Baltimore, had insisted a great deal on the differences between the south
and the north of the United States and had not hesitated to assert: “I believe that all the
American continent must model itself one day on New England” (non-alphabetic note-
books 2 and 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 111).
m. “All superior men for the Union, all secondary men against” (YTC, CVh, 2,
p. 50).
And yet, if you want to study carefully the history of the United States
over forty-five years, you will easily be persuaded that the federal power is
declining.
It is not difficult to point out the causes of this phenomenon.
At the moment when the Constitution of 1789 was promulgated, ev-
erything was perishing in anarchy; the Union that followed this disorder
excited much fear and hatred; but it had ardent friends because it was the
expression of a great need. So although more attacked then than it is today,
the federal power rapidly reached its maximum power, as usually happens
to a government that triumphs after inflaming its forces in the struggle. In
this period the interpretation of the Constitution seemed to expand rather
than narrow federal sovereignty, and the Union presented in several respects
the spectacle of one and the same people led, within as without, by a single
government.n
But in order to reach this point the people in a way surpassed itself.
The Constitution had not destroyed the individuality of the states, and
all bodies, whatever they may be, have a secret instinct that carries them
toward independence. This instinct is still more pronounced in a country
like America, where each village forms a kind of republic accustomed to
governing itself.
So there was an effort made by the states that submitted to federal pre-
ponderance. And every effort, even if crowned with a great success, cannot
fail to weaken with the cause that gave it birth.
As the federal government consolidated its power, America resumed its
rank among nations, peace reappeared on its borders, public credit re-
covered; confusion was succeeded by a settled and [well-regulated] order
that allowed individual industry to follow its natural path and develop in
liberty.
This very prosperity began to make the Americans lose sight of the cause
n. In the margin: “⫽It was the temporary effect of the will of the sovereigns, and not
the permanent effect of the fusion of all sovereignty into a single one. If that had been
the case, the power of the Union instead of diminishing would have increased
constantly.⫽”
that had produced it; the danger having passed, they no longer found in
themselves the energy and patriotism that had helped to avert it. Delivered
from the fears that preoccupied them, they lapsed easily into the course of
their habits and abandoned themselves without resistance to the ordinary
tendency of their inclinations. From the moment when a strong govern-
ment no longer seemed necessary, some began again to think that it was a
nuisance. Everything prospered with the Union, and no one separated from
the Union; but they hardly wanted to feel the action of the power that
represented it. In general they desired to remain united, and in each par-
ticular fact they tended to become independent again. The principle of
confederation was each day more easily accepted and less applied; thus the
federal government itself, by creating order and peace, brought about its
decline.
As soon as this disposition of minds began to show itself outwardly,
party men who live on the passions of the people began to exploit it to their
profit.
From that moment the federal government found itself in a very critical
situation; its enemies had popular favor, and by promising to weaken it,
they gained the right to lead it.o
From that period onward every time the government of the Union en-
tered into a contest with that of the states, it has almost never ceased to
retreat. When there has been an occasion to interpret the terms of the fed-
eral Constitution, the interpretation has most often been against the Union
and favorable to the states.
The Constitution gave the federal government the care of providing for
the national interests. It had been thought that it was up to the federal
government to do or to encourage in the interior the great undertakings
(internal improvements ) that were of a nature to increase the prosperity of
the entire Union, such as, for example, canals.
The states became frightened by the idea of seeing an authority other
than their own thus dispose of a portion of their territory. They feared that
the central power, acquiring a formidable patronage in this way within their
o. In the margin: “⫽I believe, but it is to be verified, that the entry of the republicans
{federalists} to power was the first step, step indirect but real along this path.⫽”
own area, would come to exercise an influence there that they wanted to
reserve entirely to their agents alone.p
The democratic party that was always opposed to all developments of
the federal power then raised its voice; Congress was accused of usurpation;
the head of State, of ambition. The central government intimidated by
this uproar ended by recognizing its error itself, and by withdrawing strictly
into the sphere that was drawn for it.
The Constitution gives the Union the privilege of dealing with foreign
peoples. The Union had in general considered the Indian tribes that border
the frontiers of its territory from this point of view. As long as these savages
agreed to flee before civilization, the federal right was not contested; but
from the day when an Indian tribe undertook to settle on a piece of land,
the surrounding states claimed a right of possession over these lands and a
right of sovereignty over the men within them. The central government
hastened to recognize both, and after dealing with the Indians as with in-
dependent peoples, it delivered them as subjects to the legislative tyranny
of the states.81
Among the states that were formed along the Atlantic shore, several ex-
tended indefinitely to the West into the wilderness where Europeans had
not yet penetrated. Those whose limits were irrevocably fixed jealously saw
the immense future open to their neighbors. The former, in a spirit of con-
ciliation and in order to facilitate the act of Union, agreed to draw limits
for themselves and abandoned to the confederation all the territory that
could be found beyond those limits.82
Since this period the federal government has become the proprietor of
p. In the margin: “⫽Examine here the succession of messages of the various Presi-
dents who have followed each other for forty years. But wait to see if I cannot find an
agent for this research.⫽” See note a for p. 84.
81. See in the Legislative Documents that I have already cited in the chapter on the Indians
the letter of the President of the United States to the Cherokees, his correspondence on this
subject with his agents, and his messages to Congress.
82. The first act of cession took place on the part of the state of New York in 1780; Virginia,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, South Carolina, North Carolina followed this example at dif-
ferent periods. Georgia was the last; its act of cession dates only from 1802.
all the unsettled landTN 6 found outside of the thirteen states originally con-
federated. It is the federal government that undertakes to divide and to sell
that land, and the money that is brought in is put exclusively into the trea-
sury of the Union. With the aid of this revenue the federal government
buys the Indians’ lands from them, opens roads in new districts, and
facilitates with all its power the rapid development of society there.
Now, it has happened that in these very wilderness areas, formerly ceded
by the inhabitants on the shores of the Atlantic, new states have formed
over time. Congress has continued to sell, to the profit of the entire nation,
the unsettled lands that these states still enclose within them. But today
those states claim that once constituted they should have the exclusive right
to apply the proceeds of these sales to their own use. Since complaints had
become more and more threatening, Congress believed it necessary to take
away from the Union a part of the privileges that it had enjoyed until then,
and at the end of 1832, it passed a law that, without ceding to the new
republics of the West the ownership of their unsettled lands, nonetheless
applied the greatest part of the revenue that was drawn from it to their profit
alone.83
It is sufficient to travel across the United States to appreciate the advan-
tages that the country derives from the bank.r These advantages are of sev-
eral kinds; but there is one above all that strikes the foreigner; the notes of
Translator’s Note 6: American historians usually refer to the matter Tocque-

ville is discussing here as the controversy over public lands. Given the context, to translate
terrain inculte or terres incultes as uncultivated land(s) would miss the point; I have there-
fore used the term unsettled land(s), that is, public land not yet settled.
83. The President refused, it is true, to assent to this law, but he completely accepted its
principle. See Message of 8 December 1833.q
q. A note in another place of the chapter points out: “On all that see the language
of the President in 1833, National Calendar, p. 27.”
r. The discussion on the Bank of the United States and the question of the tariff
formed in the beginning two distinct sections under the titles: affair of the bank
of the united states and nullification affair. The first section began in this
place with this sentence: “The attacks directed at this moment against the Bank of the
United States can be considered as new proofs of the weakening of the federal principle.”
The details cited by Tocqueville could he been found in the congressional debates
published in the National Intelligencer at the end of 1833 and in the first months of 1834.
the Bank of the United States are accepted at the same value on the wil-
derness frontier as in Philadelphia, the seat of its operations.84
The Bank of the United States, however, is the object of great hatred.
Its directors have declared themselves against the President, and they are
accused not improbably of having abused their influence in order to hinder
his election. So the President, with all the fervor of a personal enmity, at-
tacks the institution that the former represent. What has encouraged the
President to pursue his vengeance in this way is that he feels supported by
the secret instincts of the majority.
The Bank forms the great monetary link of the Union as the Congress
is its great legislative link, and the same passions that tend to make the
states independent of the central power tend toward the destruction of
the Bank.
The Bank of the United States always holds in its hands a great num-
ber of the notes belonging to the provincial banks; every day it can oblige
the latter to redeem their notes in specie. For the Bank, in contrast, such
a danger is not to be feared; the greatness of its available resources allows
it to meet all expenses. Their existence thus threatened, the provincial
banks are forced to exercise restraint and to put into circulation only a
number of notes proportionate to their capital. Only with impatience
do the provincial banks endure this salutary control. So the newspapers
that are their creatures and the President, made by his interest into their
organ, attack the Bank with a kind of fury. Against it they stir up local
passions and the blind democratic instinct of the country. According to
them the directors of the Bank form an aristocratic and permanent body
whose influence cannot fail to make itself felt in the government, and
must sooner or later alter the principles of equality on which American
society rests.
The struggle of the Bank against its enemies is only one incident in the
great battle that the provinces wage in America against the central power;
84. The current Bank of the United States was created in 1816, with a capital of 35,000,000
dollars (185,500,000 fr.); its charter expires in 1836. Last year Congress passed a law to renew
it, but the President refused his assent. Today the struggle is engaged by both sides with an
extreme violence, and it is easy to predict the coming fall of the Bank.
the spirit of independence and democracy, against the spirit of hierarchy

and subordination. I am not claiming that the enemies of the Bank of the
United States are precisely the same individuals who on other points attack
the federal government; but I am saying that the attacks against the Bank
of the United States are the result of the same instincts that militate against
the federal government, and that the large number of the enemies of the
first is an unfortunate symptom of the weakening of the second.
But the Unions has never shown itself more feeble than in the famous
tariff affair.85
The wars of the French Revolution and that of 1812, by preventing free
communication between America and Europe, had created factories in the
north of the Union. When peace had reopened the road to the New World
to European products, the Americans believed they had to establish a
system of tariffs that could at the very same time protect their emerging
industry and pay off the amount of debts that the wars had made them
contract.
The states of the South,t which have no manufacturing to encourage
and which are only agricultural, did not take long to complain about this
measure.
I am not claiming to examine here what could be imaginary or real in
their complaints, I am telling the facts.
From 1820 onward, South Carolina declared in a petition to Congress
that the tariff law was unconstitutional, oppressive and unjust. After that
Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, the state of Alabama and that of
Mississippi, made more or less energetic complaints along the same lines.
s. Here the section on the Bank of the United States ended and the one on nullifi-
cation began, which finished with the words: “no use would be made of it” [p. 624].
85. For details of this affair, see principally Legislative Documents, 22nd Congress, 2nd
session, n. 30.
t. Some weeks before leaving America the author admitted to his brother, Édouard:
“I have only a superficial idea of the South of the Union, but in order to know it as well
as the North, it would be necessary to have stayed there six months” (letter of 20 January
1832, YTC, BIa2). Various complications, including a very severe winter, a shipwreck,
and the illness of Tocqueville, considerably reduced the time that the two friends had
decided to spend in the South. Their stay in New Orleans lasted scarcely two days.
Far from taking these murmurings into account, Congress, in the years
1824 and 1828, again raised the tariff duties and again sanctioned the
principle.
Then was produced or rather was recalled in the South a celebrated doc-
trine that took the name of nullification.u
I have shown in its place that the purpose of the federal Constitution
was not to establish a league, but to create a national government. The
Americans of the United States, in all cases foreseen by their Constitution,
form only one and the same people. On all those points the national will
expresses itself, as among all constitutional peoples, with the aid of a ma-
jority. Once the majority has spoken, the duty of the minority is to submit.
Such is the legal doctrine, the only one that is in agreement with the text
of the Constitution and the known intention of those who established it.
The nullifiers of the South claim on the contrary that the Americans,
by uniting, did not intend to blend into one and the same people, but that
they only wanted to form a league of independent peoples; it follows that
each state, having preserved its complete sovereignty if not in action at least
in principle, has the right to interpret the laws of Congress, and to suspend
within its borders the execution of those that to it seem opposed to the
Constitution or to justice.
The entire doctrine of nullification is found in summary in a sentence
pronounced in 1833 before the Senate of the United States by Mr. Calhoun,
avowed head of the nullifiers of the South:
“The Constitution is a compact, to which the states are parties in their
sovereign capacity; and that, as in all other cases of compact between parties
having no common umpire, each has a right to judge for itself [the extent
of its reserved powers].”v
u. “Nullifiers. See art. of the Revue” (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 43). Was it the Revue des deux
mondes?
v. These ideas appear in the speech of 26 February 1833 (reply to Webster), repro-
duced in the National Intelligencer of 26 March 1833. Tocqueville had as well obtained
first-hand information on this subject during his visit to Philadelphia in October 1831.
Tocqueville writes to his father on 7 October 1831:
We are in a great hurry to arrive in this last city. A remarkable event is happening
there at this moment; all the partisans of free trade have sent deputies who form what
It is clear that such a doctrine destroys the federal bond in principle and
in fact brings back the anarchy from which the Constitution of 1789 had
delivered the Americans.
When South Carolina saw that Congress showed itself deaf to its com-
plaints, it threatened to apply to the federal tariff law the doctrine of the
nullifiers. Congress persisted in its system; finally the storm broke.
In the course of 1832, the people of South Carolina86 called a national
[state] convention to decide on the extraordinary means that remained to
be taken; and on November 24 of the same year this convention published,
under the name of an ordinance, a law that nullified the federal tariff law,
and forbade levying the duties that were set forth there, and forbade ac-
cepting appeals that could be made to the federal courts.87 This ordinance
was supposed to be put in force only in the following month of February,
the Americans call a convention; it is a great assembly that, outside of the powers of
the State, discusses one of the questions most likely to agitate political passions in
this country, raises all the constitutional questions, and under the pretext of drafting
a petition to Congress, really plays the role of Congress. We are very curious to see
how things go within this convention. We will see there one of the most extreme
consequences of the dogma of the sovereignty of the people (YTC, BIa2).
In a note of 14 October of the same year, Tocqueville summarizes in this way his
ideas on the convention: “Of all that I have seen in America, it is the convention that
most struck me as the dangerous and impractical consequence among us of the sover-
eignty of the people” (alphabetic notebook B, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 238).
Memories of the revolution were too intense for Tocqueville to be able to accept the
arguments of Sparks and Gilpin who, in 1833, wrote to him to assure him that the res-
olution of the tariff problem had contributed more to strengthening than to weakening
the Union (Jared Sparks to Tocqueville, 30 August 1833; H. D. Gilpin to Tocqueville,
24 September 1833, in YTC, CId). Tocqueville got the opposite argument from the very
mouth of a former President of the United States, John Quincy Adams (non-alphabetic
notebooks 2 and 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC, V, 1, p. 97). James T. Schleifer (The
Making of Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America,” pp. 110–111) notes the little attention
given by critics to the interpretations of Sparks and Gilpin.
86. That is to say a majority of the people; for the opposing party, called Union Party,
always numbered a very strong and very active minority in its favor. Carolina can have about
47,000 voters; 30,000 were favorable to nullification, and 17,000 opposed.
87. This ordinance was preceded by a report of a committee charged with preparing the
draft; this report contains the exposition and the purpose of the law. You read there, p. 34:
and it was pointed out that if Congress modified the tariff before this time,
South Carolina would agree not to follow up on its threats with other mea-
sures. Later, but in a vague and unspecified way, the desire to submit the
question to an extraordinary assembly of all the confederated states was
expressed.
While waiting, South Carolina armed its militia and prepared for war.
What did Congress do? Congress, which had not listened to its entreat-
ing subjects, lent its ear to their complaints as soon as it saw them with
weapons in hand.88 It passed a law 89 according to which the duties set in
the tariff were to be progressively reduced over ten years, until they had
reached the point of not exceeding the needs of the government. Thus
Congress completely abandoned the tariff principle. For a duty that pro-
tected industry, Congress substituted a purely fiscal measure.90 In order to
hide its defeat, the government of the Union took recourse in an expedient
that is much used by weak governments: while yielding on the facts, it
showed itself inflexible on the principles. At the same time that Congress
changed the tariff legislation, it passed another law by virtue of which the
When the rights reserved to the several States are deliberately invaded, it is their right and
their duty to “interpose for the purpose of arresting the progress of the evil of usurpation,
and to maintain, within their respective limits, the authorities and privileges belonging
to them as independent sovereignties” [Virginia Resolutions of 1798. (ed.)]. If the several
States do not possess this right, it is in vain that they claim to be sovereign. [ . . . (ed.) . . . ]
South Carolina claims to be a sovereign State. She recognizes no tribunal upon earth as
above her authority. It is true, she has entered into a solemn compact of Union with other
sovereign States, but she claims, and will exercise the right to determine the extent of her
obligations under that compact, nor will she consent that any other power shall exercise
the right of judgment for her. And when that compact is violated by her co-States, or by
the Government which they have created, she asserts her unquestionable right “to judge
of the infractions as well as of the mode and measure of redress” [Kentucky Resolutions
of 1798 (ed.)].
88. What really decided Congress on this measure was a demonstration by the powerful
state of Virginia, whose legislature offered to serve as arbiter between the Union and South
Carolina. Until then, the latter had seemed entirely abandoned, even by the states that had
protested with it.
89. Law of 2 March 1833.
90. This law was suggested by Mr. Clay and passed in four days in both houses of Congress
by an immense majority.
President was vested with an extraordinary power to overcome by force the

resistance that then was no longer to be feared.
South Carolina did not even agree to leave to the Union these weak
appearances of victory; the same national [state] convention that had nul-
lified the tariff law, having assembled again, accepted the concession that
had been offered to it; but at the same time it declared that it would only
persist more forcefully in the doctrine of the nullifiers, and to prove it, it
annulled the law that conferred extraordinary powers on the President, even
though it was very certain that no use would be made of it.
Nearly all the actions that I have just spoken about took place during
the Presidency of General Jackson. You cannot deny that in the tariff
affair the latter upheld the rights of the Union with skill and vigor. I
believe, however, that, among the number of dangers that the federal
power runs today, you must include the very conduct of the one who
represents it.
Some persons in Europe have formed an opinion concerning the influ-
ence that General Jackson can exercise in the affairs of his country that
seems very extravagant to those who have seen things up close.
You have heard it said that General Jackson had won battles, that he was
an energetic man, led by character and habit to the use of force, avid for
power and a despot by taste. All that is perhaps true, but the consequences
that have been drawn from these truths are great mistakes.
It has been imagined that General Jackson wanted to establish a dicta-
torship in the United States, that he was going to make the military spirit
reign there, and extend the central power to the point of endangering pro-
vincial liberties. In America the time for such undertakings and the century
of such men has not yet arrived. If General Jackson had wanted to dom-
inate in this way, he would assuredly have lost his political position and
compromised his life; so he has not been so imprudent as to attempt it.
Far from wanting to extend federal power, the current President repre-
sents, on the contrary, the party that wants to restrict this power to the
clearest and most precise terms of the Constitution, and that does not ac-
cept any interpretation that can ever be favorable to the government of the
Union; far from presenting himself as the champion of centralization,
General Jackson is the agent of provincial jealousies; it is the decentralizing
passions (if I can express myself in this way) that brought him to sovereign
power. He remains and prospers there by flattering these passions each day.
General Jackson is the slave of the majority; he follows it in its will, in its
desires, in its half-discovered instincts, or rather he divines it and runs to
put himself at its head.
Each time that the government of the states struggles with that of the
Union it is rare that the President is not the first to doubt his right; he is
almost always ahead of the legislative power; when there is room for in-
terpretation on the extent of federal power, he lines up in a way against
himself; he belittles himself, he hides, he stands aside.[*] It is not that he is
naturally weak or an enemy of the union; when the majority declared itself
against the pretensions of the nullifiers of the South, you saw him put
himself at its head, formulate with clarity and energy the doctrine that the
majority professed and be the first to call for the use of force. General Jack-
son, to use a comparison borrowed from the vocabulary of American par-
ties, seems to me federal by taste and republican by calculation.w
After thus demeaning himself before the majority in order to win its
favor, General Jackson rises again; he then marches toward the objects that
the majority itself pursues, or toward those that it does not see with jealousy,
overturning every obstacle before him. Strong due to a support that his
predecessors did not have, he tramples underfoot his personal enemies
wherever he finds them, with an ease that no President has found; on his
own responsibility he takes measures that none before him would ever have
dared to take; it even happens that he treats the national representationwith
a sort of almost insulting disdain; he refuses to approve the laws passed by
Congress, and often neglects to respond to this great body. He is like a
favorite who sometimes treats his master rudely. So the power of General
Jackson is constantly increasing; but that of the President is decreasing. In
[*]. See message of 1832, in fine [at the end]. National Calendar, p. 31.
w. The remarks on Jackson and the American Presidency earned Tocqueville severe
criticisms from Thomas H. Benton (Thirty Years’ View; or, a History of the Working of
the American Government for Thirty Years, from 1820 to 1850, New York: Appleton and
Company, 1854, I, pp. 111–14). For an introduction to the ideas of Tocqueville on the
Presidency, see Hugh Brogan, “Tocqueville and the American Presidency,” Journal of
American Studies 15, no. 3 (1981): 357–75. See as well note f for p. 372.
his hands the federal government is strong; it will pass enervated to his
successor.
Either I am strangely mistaken, or the federal government tends each
day to become weaker; it is withdrawing successively from affairs, it is nar-
rowing more and more the circle of its action. Naturally weak, it is aban-
doning even the appearance of strength. From another perspective I
thought I saw in the United States that the sentiment of independence was
becoming more and more intense in the states, the love of provincial gov-
ernment more and more pronounced.
The Union is desired; but reduced to a shadow. They want it strong in
certain cases and weak in all the others; they pretend that in time of war it
can gather in its hand the national forces and all the resources of the coun-
try, and that in time of peace it does not so to speak exist; as if this alter-
nation between debility and vigor was natural.
I see nothing that can for now stop this general movement of minds;
the causes that have given it birth do not cease to operate in the same di-
rection. So it will continue, and it can be predicted that, unless some ex-
traordinary circumstance arises, the government of the Union will grow
weaker each day.
I believe however that we are still far from the time when the federal
power, incapable of protecting its own existence and bringing peace to the
country, will fade away in a sense by itself. The Union is in the mores, it is
desired; its results are clear, its benefits visible. When it is noticed that the
weakness of the federal government compromises the existence of the
Union, I do not doubt that we will see the birth of a movement of reaction
in favor of strength.
The government of the United States is, of all the federal governments
that have been established until now, the one that is most naturally destined
to act; as long as you do not attack it in an indirect manner by the inter-
pretation of its laws, as long as you do not profoundly alter its substance,
a change of opinion, an internal crisis, a war, could suddenly restore the
vigor that it needs.
What I wanted to note is only this: many men among us think that in
the United States there is a movement of minds that favors centralization
of power in the hands of the President and Congress. I claim that an op-
posite movement is clearly observed. As the federal government grows

older, far from gaining strength and threatening the sovereignty of the
states, I say that it tends to become weaker each day, and that the sovereignty
of the Union alone is in danger. That is what the present reveals. What will
be the final result of this tendency, what events can stop, slow or hasten the
movement that I have described? The future hides them, and I do not claim
to be able to lift its veil.
Of Republican Institutions in the United States,

What Are Their Chances of Lasting?
The Union is only an accident.—Republican institutions
have more of a future.—The republic is, for now, the natural
state of the Anglo-Americans.—Why.—In order to destroy it,
it would be necessary to change all the laws at the same time and
modify all the mores.—Difficulties that the Americans have in
creating an aristocracy.
The dismemberment of the Union, by introducing war within the states

confederated today and with it permanent armies, dictatorship and taxes,
could in the long run compromise the fate of republican institutions there.
But you must not confuse the future of the republic with that of the
Union.x
The Union is an accident that will only last as long as circumstances
favor it, but the republic seems to me the natural state of the Americans,
and only the continuous action of contrary causes acting always in the same
way could replace it with monarchy.y
x. “Division of the American empire./

“When I spoke to Mr. Schermerhorn about the possible division that could take place
among the united provinces, he seemed to me not to believe that the thing was to be
feared in the least in the near future, but thinks that it could happen someday by and by.
“April 1831” (YTC, BIIb, unpublished travel note).
y. In the margin: “⫽The republic in the United States does not arise only from the
laws, but from the nature of the country, from habits, from mores.⫽”
The Union exists principally in the law that created it. A single revolu-
tion, a change in public opinion can shatter it forever. The republic has
deeper roots.z
z. Of the different ways that you can imagine the republic./

What is understood by republic in the United States is an ordered State actually
based on the enlightened will of the people. It is a government where [v: liberty of
discussion and thought reigns from which] resolutions mature over a long time, are
debated slowly and are executed with maturity. What is called the republic in the
United States is the tranquil rule of the majority. The majority, after it has had the
time to recognize itself and to take note of its existence, is the source of all powers.
But the majority itself is not omnipotent; above it in the moral world are found
humanity and reason, in the material world, vested rights. The majority in its om-
nipotence recognizes these two barriers, and if it has sometimes happened to overturn
them, it felt itself carried away by its passions beyond its rights, just as man constantly
happens to do evil, while entirely recognizing the existence and the sanctity of virtue.
That is what is understood by republic in the United States.
[In the margin: I cannot believe that the Roman republic could have begun at the
time of Catilina./
It is this government that must leave to each man the largest part of his indepen-
dence and liberty and that is the farthest removed from despotism.]
[To the side: In all the countries where this republic would be practical, I would
be a republican.]
But we have made strange discoveries in Europe and we are much more advanced
than that.
The republic according to certain men in Europe is not the rule of the majority
as has been believed until now; it is the rule of those who speak in the name of the
majority. It is not the people who act in these kinds of governments, it is those who
want the greatest good for the people. Republican government is, moreover, the only
one in which the right to do everything must be recognized and that must not keep
strictly to any divine or human law in order to reach the end that it proposes, which
is nothing other than the greatest happiness of humanity. This end in itself alone
justifies all the rest.
[In the margin: Happy distinction that allows acting in the name of nations with-
out consulting them.]
Republican liberty does not try to persuade but to break; it proceeds only by sud-
den movements and always has the ax or the hammer in hand in order to make its
way in the world.
[In the margin: Republican liberty is the power to dare anything (illegible word,
crossed out), it is scorn for all the rules, [v: holy laws] from those of morality to those
of common sense.
You believed that the cause of aristocracy was lost. But here are (illegible word).
I tell you that those men are the only partisans of aristocracy, at least not still the
aristocracy of the rich and the nobles in truth. They are the aristocracy of cut-th[roats
(ed.)]
[⫽Dispersed over an immense and half empty a territory, the Americans

have found themselves from the beginning divided into a great number of
small distinct societies that were not naturally attached to a common center.
When I see one of these alleged republicans, it seems to me that I always hear him
say [v: see the executioner in his official outfit standing on the scaffold crying out]:
Peoples of the earth (for it is always the entire earth that he addresses from their [sic ]
rooftop) come to us, for except for your fathers there has never been anything more
foolish than you, and if you do not put your destiny in our hands, you will never be
able to prosper, unless we get involved in your destiny.
You imagined, fellow citizens, that the republic was by its nature a mild and pros-
perous government, and you thought that the trial that had formerly been made of
it among us must not be imputed to the system itself, but to those who put it into
practice and to the extraordinary circumstances in which the (illegible word) was
found; know that the republic that we are proposing is very exactly the one that you
have seen in the past, and that it can be established as such only with the aid of a
profound and radical revolution in property and in ranks. Some have told you that
the men made so famous by the misfortunes of a generation were madmen, miserable
men intoxicated with power and blood by an unexpected success, and that you must
not charge liberty with the evils that they did in its name. Beware of listening to such
language, fellow citizens; the men that you hear about did only what they had to do.
What are called their crimes are actions as beautiful as they are immortal. They sac-
rificed themselves for you, ungrateful men, even while slitting your throats. You
would perhaps be tempted to believe that we, their successors, adopt their love for
the good while deploring their errors; do not be mistaken, fellow citizens; we think
that in our time as in theirs dictatorship alone can save the country and that liberty
can be established only after punishing writers [v: all our adversaries] by death, and
that respect for rights can arise only after trampling all rights under foot. [v: We
admire on all points these great men and we burn to walk in their steps; while waiting,
we kiss the sacred dust where they left their footprint. And even their costumes, holy
relic, we would like to make reappear in order to begin from now on to resemble
them in a few ways.]
So come to us dear fellow citizens, come so we can share your fortunes among
ourselves [v: so we can trample your beliefs underfoot] and so we can cut your throat
following the principles that we received from our fathers and that we will leave to
our children. How to resist such language? Aren’t these agreeable speeches and pleas-
ant missionaries?
[To the side: As long as those who sincerely want the establishment of the republic
do not push far away from their ranks such miserable men, the kings of Europe can
still rest easy on their thrones] (YTC, CVh, 2, pp. 68–74).
This fragment, of complicated transcription, contains various other variants and
versions.
a. While preparing the plan for this chapter, Tocqueville had noted: “The republic
is in a way the natural state of small, enlightened States” (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 43).
So it was necessary that each one of these small societies took care of its
own affairs, since nowhere did you see a central authority that could nat-
urally provide for them. Town and provincial liberty were introduced to
America by the English, but they arose there all by themselves by the very
nature of things. Now, town and provincial liberty are the basis of [v: the
only lasting foundation that you can give to] republican institutions and as
long as they exist in the United States, the United States will remain
republican.⫽]
What is understood by republic in the United States is the slow and
tranquil action of society on itself. It is an ordered state actually based on
the enlightened will of the people. It is a conciliatory government, where
resolutions mature over a long time, are debated slowly and are executed
with maturity.
Republicans in the United States value mores, respect beliefs, recognize
rights. They profess this opinion, that a people must be moral, religious
and moderate, in proportion as it is free. What is called a republic in the
United States is the tranquil rule of the majority. The majority, after it has
had the time to recognize itself and to take note of its existence, is the
common source of powers. But the majority itself is not omnipotent.
Above it in the moral world are found humanity, justice and reason; in the
political world, vested rights. The majority recognizes these two barriers,
and if it happens to cross them, it is because the majority has passions, like
every man; and like him, it can do evil while perceiving good. [{For me, I
will have no difficulty in saying, in all countries where the republic is prac-
tical, I will be republican.}]
But we have made strange discoveries in Europe.
According to some among us, the republic is not the rule of the majority,
as we have believed until now; it is the rule of those who answer for the
majority. It is not the people who lead these sorts of governments, but those
who know the greatest good of the people: happy distinction, that allows
acting in the name of nations without consulting them, and claiming their
gratitude while trampling them underfoot.b Republican government is,
b. “⫽Royalty has had its valets and its spies, why would the republic not have its cut-
throats?
moreover, the only one in which the right to do everything must be rec-
ognized, and that can despise what men until now have respected, from the
highest laws of morality to the ordinary rules of common sense.
Until our time it had been thought that despotism was odious, whatever
its forms. But it has been discovered in our day that there are legitimate
tyrannies and holy injustices in the world, provided that they are exercised
in the name of the people.
[⫽That is not a vague theory; they are maxims that are professed while
basing them on facts. These doctrines have found ardent missionaries. I
believe that I hear them saying to us:
You imagined, they say to us, that the republic was by its nature a free
and tolerant government, and you thought perhaps that the trial that had
formerly been made of it among us must not be imputed to the system
itself, but to those who put it into practice and to the extraordinary cir-
cumstances in which this country found itself.⫽]c
The ideas that the Americans have formed about the republic singularly
facilitate its use for them and ensure that it will last.d Among them, if the
practice of republican government is often bad, at least the theory is good,
and the people always finish by conforming their acts to it.
It was impossible in the beginning and it would still be very difficult in
America to establish a centralized administration. Men are spread over too
large a space and are separated by too many natural obstacles for one man
to be able to undertake to direct the details of their existence. So America
is par excellence the country of provincial and town government.
“An aristocracy of wolves, worse.

“Great capitals annul the representative system⫽” (YTC, CVj, 2, p. 22).
c. In the margin: “⫽Some limit themselves to praising the disinterestedness of Robes-
pierre and the greatness of soul of Danton. Others go still further.⫽”
d. Tocqueville wrote to Ernest de Chabrol, 9 June 1831:
Here we are very far from the ancient republics, it must be admitted, and yet this
people is republican and I do not doubt that it will be for a long time still. And the
republic is for it the best of governments.
I explain this phenomenon to myself only by thinking that America finds itself
for now in a physical situation so happy that particular interest is never contrary to
general interest, which is certainly not the case in Europe (YTC, BIa2).
To this cause, whose action made itself equally felt on all the Europeans
of the New World, the Anglo-Americans added several others that are par-
ticular to them.
When the colonies of North America were established, municipalliberty
had already penetrated English laws as well as mores, and the English em-
igrants adopted it not only as something necessary, but also as a good whose
value they knew.
[We have seen furthermore that in this matter the influence exercised by
the country has been greater or lesser depending on the circumstances that
accompanied colonization and the previously contracted habits of the
colonists.
The French carried to America the tradition of absolute monarchy; the
English came there with the customs of a free people.
⫽When the French arrived in Canada they first founded a city that they
called Québec. From this city the population spread little by little by de-
grees, like a tree that spreads it roots in a circle. Québec has remained the
central point, and the French of Canada are still today only one and the
same people, submitted in most cases to one and the same government.⫽
{It was not this way in the United States, above all in the part of the
country that was called New England.}] We have seen, furthermore, how
the colonies were founded. Each province and each district so to speak was
populated separately by men strangers to one another, or associated for dif-
ferent ends.
So the English of the United States found themselves from the begin-
ning divided into a great number of small distinct societies that were at-
tached to no common center, and it was necessary for each one of these
small societies to take care of its own affairs, since nowhere did you see a
central authority that naturally had to and easily could provide for them.
Thus the nature of the country, the very manner in which the English
colonies were founded, the habits of the first emigrants, all united to de-
velop town and provincial liberties there to an extraordinary degree.
In the United States the institutions of the country are therefore as a
whole essentially republican; to destroy in a lasting way the laws that es-
tablished the republic, it would be necessary in a way to abolish all the laws
all at once.
If today a party undertook to establish a monarchy in the United States,

it would be in a still more difficult position than whoever would want at
the present moment to proclaim the republic in France. Royalty would not
find legislation prepared for it in advance, and then in actual fact you would
see a monarchy surrounded by republican institutions.e
The monarchical principle would penetrate with as much difficulty into
the mores of the Americans.
In the United States, the dogma of the sovereignty of the people is not
an isolated doctrine that is attached neither to the habits nor to the ensem-
ble of dominant ideas; you can on the contrary envisage it as the last link
in a chain of opinions that envelops the entire Anglo-American world.
Providence has given to each individual, what ever he is, the degree of reason
necessary for him to be able to direct himself in the things that interest him
exclusively. Such is the great maxim on which in the United States civil
and political society rests: the father of the family applies it to his children,
the master to his servants, the town to those it administers, the province
to the town, the state to the provinces, the Union to the states. Extended
to the whole of the nation, it becomes the dogma of the sovereignty of
the people.
[⫽So the republican principle of the sovereignty of the people is not
only a political principle, but also a civil principle.⫽]
Thus in the United States the generative principle of the republic is the
same one that regulates most human actions. So the republic, if I can ex-
press myself in this way, penetrates the ideas, the opinions and all the habits
of the Americans at the same time that it is established in their laws; and
in order to succeed in changing the laws, they would have to be changed
wholesale as it were. In the United States the religion of the greatest number
itself is republican; it subjects the truths of the other world to individual
reason, as politics relinquishes to the good sense of all the responsibility for
the interests of this one; and it agrees that each man should freely take the
e. “25 October 1831.—The people are always right, that is the dogma of the republic
the same as the king can do no wrong is the religion of monarchical States. It is a great
question to know if one is more false than the other; but what is very certain is that
neither the one nor the other is true” (pocket notebook 3, YTC, BIIa, and Voyage, OC,
V, 1, p. 184).
path that will lead him to heaven, in the same way that the law recognizes
the right of each citizen to choose his government.
Clearly only a long series of facts, all having the same tendency, can
substitute for this ensemble of laws, opinions and mores an ensemble of
the opposite mores, opinions and laws.
If the republican principles must perish in America, they will succumb
only after a long social effort, frequently interrupted, often resumed; sev-
eral times they will seem to arise again, and will disappear never to return
only when an entirely new people will have taken the place of those who
exist today. Now, nothing can portend such a revolution, no sign an-
nounces it.
What strikes you the most on your arrival in the United States is the
type of tumultuous movement in which political society is immersed. The
laws change constantly, and at first view it seems impossible that a people
so little sure of its will does not soon substitute for the present form of its
government an entirely new form. These fears are premature. There are as
regards political institutions two types of instability that must not be con-
fused. The one is attached to secondary laws; that one can reign for a long
time within a well-settled society. The other constantly shakes the very
foundations of the constitution, and attacks the generative principles of
the laws; this one is always followed by troubles and revolutions; the nation
that suffers it is in a violent and transitory state. Experience demonstrates
that these two types of legislative instability do not have a necessary link
between them, for we have seen them exist conjoined or separately de-
pending on times and places. The first is found in the United States, but
not the second. The Americans frequently change the laws, but the foun-
dation of the Constitution is respected.
Today the republican principle reigns in America as the monarchical
principle dominated in France under Louis XIV. The French of that time
were not only friends of monarchy, but also they did not imagine that you
could put anything in its place; they acknowledged it as you acknowledge
the course of the sun and the vicissitudes of the seasons. Among them royal
power had no more advocates than adversaries.
This is how the republic exists in America, without struggle, without op-
position, without proof, by a tacit agreement, a sort of consensus universalis.
Nonetheless, I think that by changing their administrative procedures

as often as they do, the inhabitants of the United States compromise the
future of republican government.
Hampered constantly in their projects by the continual changeability of
legislation, it is to be feared that men will end up considering the republic
as an inconvenient way to live in society; the evil resulting from the insta-
bility of secondary laws would then put into question the existence of the
fundamental laws, and would lead indirectly to a revolution. But this time
is still very far from us.
What you can foresee from now on is that by leaving the republic the
Americans would pass rapidly to despotism, without stopping for a very
long time at monarchy. Montesquieu said that there was nothing more ab-
solute than the authority of a prince who followed a republic since the
undefined powers that had been given without fear to an elective magistrate
are then put into the hands of a hereditary leader.f This is generally true
but particularly applicable to a democratic republic. In the United States
the magistrates are not elected by a particular class of citizens, but by the
majority of the nation; they represent immediately the passions of the mul-
titude, and depend entirely on its will; so they inspire neither hate nor fear.
Also I have noted the little care that has been taken to limit their powers
by tracing limits to its action, and what an immense share has been left to
their arbitrariness. This order of things has created habits that would sur-
vive it. The American magistrate would keep his undefined power while
ceasing to be responsible, and it is impossible to say where tyranny would
then stop.
[⫽If Napoleon had followed Louis XIV, {he would have found royal
power strong but surrounded by impediments that would have imposed
limits on his spirit of domination} he would have shown himself more
stable but not as absolute as he was. Napoleon following a representative
of the people could do anything.⫽]
There are men among us who are waiting to see aristocracy arise in Amer-
f. Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes et la grandeur des Romains et de leur

décadence, chapter XV, in Œuvres complètes (Paris: Pléiade, 1951), I, p. 150.
ica and who already foresee with exactitude the period when it must grasp
power.
I have already said, and I repeat, that the current movement of American
society seems to me more and more democratic.
I do not claim, however, that one day the Americans will not end by
restricting among themselves the circle of political rights, or by confiscating
these very rights for the profit of one man; but I cannot believe that they
will ever grant the exclusive use of those rights to a particular class of cit-
izens or, in other words, that they will establish an aristocracy.
An aristocratic body is composed of a certain number of citizens who,
without being placed very far from the crowd, raise themselves nonetheless
in a permanent manner above it; you touch and cannot strike them; you
mix with them each day, and cannot merge with them.
It is impossible to imagine anything more contrary to the nature and to
the secret instincts of the human heart than a subjugation of this type; left
to themselves men will always prefer the arbitrary power of a king to the
regular administration of nobles.
In order to last an aristocracy needs to establish inequality in prin-
ciple, to legalize it in advance, and to introduce it into the family at
the same time that it spreads it throughout the society; all things that
repulse natural equity so strongly that only by coercion can you obtain
them from men.
Since human societies have existed I do not believe that you can cite the
example of a single people that, left to itself and by its own efforts, has
created an aristocracy within itself; all the aristocracies of the Middle Ages
are daughters of conquest. The conqueror was the noble, the conquered
the serf. Force then imposed inequality, which once entered into the mores
lasted by itself and passed naturally into the laws.
You have seen societies that, because of events prior to their existence,
are so to speak born aristocratic, and that are then led by each century back
toward democracy. Such was the fate of the Romans, and that of the bar-
barians who came after them. But a people who, starting from civilization
and democracy, would come closer by degrees to inequality of conditions,
and would finish by establishing within itself inviolable privileges and ex-
clusive categories, there is something that would be new in the world.
Nothing indicates that America is destined to be the first to give such a

spectacle.
[⫽I do not know if the Americans, like all peoples who have run the
course before them, will end by submitting to one master, but I cannot
believe that they will ever have a true aristocracy./
A party that undertook to establish monarchy in America today would
find itself in as difficult a position as the one that wanted to proclaim the
republic in France. In France you would implant the republican principle
in the middle of secondary institutions that are still eminently monarchical.
In America you would establish a king who would find in his hands only
republican institutions.⫽]
Some Considerations on the Causes of the

Commercial Greatness of the United States
The Americans are called by nature to be a great maritime
people.—Extent of their shores.—Depth of the ports.—Greatness
of the rivers.—It is however much less to physical causes than to
intellectual and moral causes that you must attribute the
commercial superiority of the Anglo-Americans.—Reason for this
opinion.—Future of the Anglo-Americans as commercial
people.—The ruin of the Union would not stop the maritime
development of the peoples who compose it.—Why.—The Anglo-
Americans are naturally called to serve the needs of the
inhabitants of South America.—They will become, like the
English, the carriers of a large part of the world.
From the Bay of Fundy to the Sabine River in the Gulf of Mexico, the
coast of the United States extends the length of about nine hundred
leagues.
These coasts form a single unbroken line; they are all placed under the
same rule.
No people in the world can offer to commerce deeper, more vast and
more secure ports than the Americans.
The inhabitants of the United States form a great civilized nation that
fortune has placed in the middle of the wilderness, twelve hundred leagues
from the principal center of civilization. So America has daily need of Eu-
rope. With time the Americans will undoubtedly manage to produce or to
manufacture at home most of the objects that they need, but the two con-
tinents will never be able to live entirely independent of each other; too
many natural bonds exist between their needs, their ideas, their habits and
their mores.
[⫽Europe has no less need of the United States than the latter of
Europe.⫽]
The Union has products that have become necessary to us, and that our
soil totally refuses to provide, or can do so only at great cost. The Americans
consume only a very small part of these products; they sell us the rest.
So Europe is the market of America, as America is the market of Europe;
and maritime commerce is as necessary to the inhabitants of the United
States in order to bring their raw materials to our ports as to transport our
manufactured goods to them.
So the United States would have to provide great resources to the in-
dustry of maritime peoples, if they gave up commerce themselves, as the
Spanish of Mexico have done until now; or they would have to become
one of the premier maritime powers of the globe. This alternative was
inevitable.
The Anglo-Americans have at all times shown a decided taste for the sea.
Independence, by breaking the commercial ties that united them to England,
gave their maritime genius a new and powerful development. Since this pe-
riod the number of ships of the Union has increased in a progression almost
as rapid as the number of inhabitants. Today it is the Americans themselves
who carry to their shores nine-tenths of the products of Europe.91 It is also
91. The total value of imports for the year ending 30 September 1832 was 101,029,266
dollars. Imports brought on foreign ships represented only a sum total of 10,731,037 dollars,
about one tenth.g
g. Tocqueville obtained this information from the American Almanac for 1834,
pp. 141–42.
the Americans who carry to European consumers three-quarters of the ex-

ports of the New World.92
The ships of the United States fill the port of Le Havre and that of
Liverpool. You see only a small number of English or French vessels in the
port of New York.93
Thus not only does the American merchant stand up to the competition
on his own soil, but he also fights foreigners with advantage on theirs.
This is easily explained. Of all the vessels of the world it is the ships
of the United States that cross the seas most cheaply. As long as the mer-
chant marine of the United States keeps this advantage over the others,
not only will it keep what it has conquered, but each day it will increase
its conquests.
To know why the Americans sail at lower cost than other men is a dif-
ficult problem to solve. You are tempted at first to attribute this superiority
to some material advantages that nature would have put within their reach
alone; but it is not that.
American ships cost almost as much to build as ours;94 they are not better
constructed, and in general do not last as long.
The salary of the American sailor is higher than that of the sailor of
92. The total value of exports during the same year was 87,176,943 dollars; the value ex-
ported on foreign vessels was 21,036,183 dollars, or about one quarter ( William’s Register,
1833, p. 398).
93. During the years 1829, 1830, 1831, ships with a total tonnage of 3,307,719 entered the
ports of the Union. Foreign ships provided a tonnage of only 544,591 of the total. So they were
in the proportion of about 16 to 100 ( National Calendar, 1833, p. 304 [305 (ed.)]).
During the years 1820, 1826 and 1831, English vessels that entered the ports of London,
Liverpool and Hull had a tonnage of 443,800. Foreign vessels that entered the same ports
during the same years had a tonnage of 159,431. So the relationship between them was about
as 36 to 100 ( Companion to the Almanac, 1834, p. 169).
In the year 1832, the relationship of foreign ships and English ships that entered the ports
of Great Britain was as 20 to 100.
94. Raw materials in general cost less in America than in Europe, but the price of labor
is very much higher there.
Europe; what proves it is the large number of Europeans that you find in
the merchant marine of the United States.h
So how do the Americans sail more cheaply than we?
I think that you would look in vain for the causes of this superiority
in material advantages; it is due to purely intellectual and moral qual-
ities.
Here is a comparison that will make my thought clear.
During the wars of the Revolution the French introduced into military
art a new tactic that troubled the oldest generals and all but destroyed the
oldest monarchies of Europe. They undertook for the first time to do
without a host of things that until then had been judged indispensable
to war; they required from their soldiers new efforts that civilized nations
had never demanded from theirs; you saw them do everything on the
run, and without hesitating risk the life of men in view of the result to
be gained.
The French were less numerous and less rich than their enemies; they
possessed infinitely fewer resources; they were constantly victorious, how-
ever, until the latter decided to imitate them.
The Americans introduced something analogous to commerce. What
the French did for victory, they do for economy.j
The European navigator ventures only with prudence onto the sea; he
leaves only when the weather is inviting; if an unforeseen accident happens
to him, he returns to port; at night he furls part of his sails, and when he
h. Commerce.
Mr. Schermerhorn claimed that the construction of vessels, the pay of sailors and the
different expenses of navigation cost more for the Americans than for the French; he
attributed the superiority of the first only to their extreme activity, constantly stim-
ulated by the passion to make a fortune, and the almost total absence of restriction.
It is an established opinion in France that the Americans are the merchants of the world
who sail at least expense.
April 1831 (unpublished travel note, YTC, BIIa).
j. “The Americans apply to commerce the same principles and the same manner that
Bonaparte applied to war” (YTC, CVj, 2, p. 18).
sees the Ocean turn white as land nears, he slows his course and checks the
sun.
The American neglects these precautions and defies these dangers. He
leaves while the storm is still raging; night and day he spreads all of his sails
to the wind; while in route, he repairs his ship strained by the storm; and
when he finally approaches the end of his journey, he continues to sail to-
ward the shore as if he already saw port. [⫽He often perishes, but even
more often he reaches port before his competitors.⫽]
The American is often shipwrecked;k but no navigator crosses the sea as
rapidly as he. [⫽Of all men the American seems to me to be the one who
has conceived the greatest and the most accurate idea of the value of time.
There is no portion so small of day or night that does not have a value . . .
in his eyes. He saves hours as the Dutch merchant saved capital. That is the
secret of his success.⫽] Doing the same things that someone else does in
less time, he can do them at less cost.
Before coming to the end of a long voyage, the European navigator be-
lieves that he must touch land several times on his way. He loses precious
time looking for a port of call or awaiting the opportunity to leave one, and
each day he pays the duty to remain there.
The American navigator leaves from Boston to go to buy tea in China.
He arrives in Canton, remains there a few days and comes back. He has
covered in less than two years the entire circumference of the globe, and
he has seen land only once. During a crossing of eight or ten months he
has drunk brackish water and lived on salted meat; he has fought constantly
against the sea, against disease, against boredom; but upon his return he
can sell a pound of tea for one penny less than the English merchant. The
goal is reached.
I cannot express my thought better than by saying that the Americans
put a kind of heroism in their way of doing commerce.
k. Francis Grund (The Americans, in Their Moral, Social and Political Relations, Bos-
ton: Marsh, Capen and Lyon, 1837, pp. 293–94) denies this assertion. In his opinion the
number of accidents was not proportionately higher in the American navy, because the
number of miles covered by American ships was superior to that covered by European
ships. Grund is inspired otherwise on many occasions by the Democracy, without ever
ceasing to criticize Tocqueville.
[⫽Heroism that is not only calculation, but also suggested by nature.

Natural heroism that must give them not only the trade of America but
make them carriers to nations.⫽]
It will always be very difficult for the merchant of Europe to follow the
same course as his competitor from America. The American, while acting
in the way I described above, is following not only a calculation; he is above
all obeying his nature.
The inhabitant of the United States experiences all the needs and all the
desires to which an advanced civilization gives rise, and he does not find
around him as in Europe a society skillfully organized to satisfy them; so
he is often obliged to obtain by himself the various objects that his edu-
cation and his habits have made necessary for him. In America it sometimes
happens that the same man plows his field, builds his house, fashions his
tools, makes his shoes and weaves by hand the crude fabric that has to cover
him. This harms the perfection of industry, but serves powerfully to de-
velop the intelligence of the worker. There is nothing that tends more to
materialize man and remove from his work even the trace of soul than the
great division of labor. [<With the division of labor you do better and more
economically what you already did, but you do not innovate. The division
of labor is an element of wealth more than of progress.
The art of dividing labor is the art of confiscating the intelligence of the
greatest number for the profit of a few.>]m In a country like America where
m. Intelligence of the people in America./

It has been noted in Europe that division of labor made man infinitely more suitable
for taking care of the detail to which he was applying himself, but reduced his general
capacity. The worker thus classed becomes past master in his specialty, brute in all
the rest. Example of England. Frightening state of the working classes in this country.
What makes the American of the people so intelligent a man is that the division
of labor does not exist so to speak in America. Each man does a little of everything.
He does each thing not as well as the European who takes care of it exclusively, but
his general capacity is one hundred times greater. Great cause of superiority in the
habitual matters of life and in the government of society (YTC, CVe, p. 53).
J. B. Say had criticized the effects of the division of labor in chapter VIII of the first
volume of his Traité d’économie politique. Tocqueville and Beaumont read Say aboard
the Havre during their Atlantic crossing. We do not know if it was the Traité or the six
volumes of Cours d’économie politique. In 1834 when he prepared his memoir on pau-
perism, following his visit to England the preceding year, Tocqueville also read the work
specialized men are so rare, you cannot require a long apprenticeship of

each one of those who take up a profession. So the Americans find it very
easy to change profession, and they make the most of it, depending on the
needs of the moment. You meet some of them who have been successively
lawyers, farmers, merchants, evangelical ministers, doctors. If the American
is less skillful than the European in each trade, there are hardly any of them
that are entirely unknown to him. His ability is more general, the circle of
his intelligence is wider. So the inhabitant of the United States is never
stopped by any axiom of trade; he escapes all prejudices of profession; he
is no more attached to one system of operation than to another; he does
not feel more tied to an old method than to a new one; he has created no
habit for himself, and he easily escapes from the sway that foreign habits
could exercise over his mind, for he knows that his country resembles no
other, and that its situation is new in the world [so he always follows his
reason and never practice].
The American inhabits a land of wonders, around him everything is
constantly stirring, and each movement seems to be an improvement. So
the idea of the new is intimately linked in his mind to the idea of the better.
Nowhere does he see the limit that nature might have put on the efforts of
man; in his eyes what is not is what has not yet been attempted.n
This universal movement that reigns in the United States, these frequent
reversals of fortune, this unexpected displacement of public and private
wealth, all join together to keep the soul in a sort of feverish agitation that
admirably disposes it to all efforts, and maintains it so to speak above [itself
and] the common level of humanity. For an American all of life happens
like a game of chance, a time of revolution, a day of battle.
These same causes, operating at the same time on all individuals, finish
of Viscount Alban de Villeneuve-Bargemont (Economie politique chrétienne, ou recherches

sur la nature et les causes du paupérisme . . . , Paris: Paulin, 1834, 3 vols.), in which England
is the constant example of the evils produced by the excesses of industry.
n. “⫽For the American the past is in a way like the future: it does not exist. He sees
nowhere the natural limit that nature has put on the efforts of man; according to him
what is not, is what has not yet been tried⫽” (YTC, CVh, 2, p. 47).
by stamping an irresistible impulse on the national character. So an Amer-

ican taken at random must be a man ardent in his desires, enterprising,
adventurous, above all an innovator. This spirit is found in fact in all his
works; he introduces it into his political laws, into his religious doctrines,
into his theories of social economy, into his private industry; he carries it
everywhere with him, deep in the woods, as well as within the cities. It is
this same spirit applied to maritime commerce that makes the American
sail more quickly and more cheaply than all the merchants of the world.
As long as the sailors of the United States keep these intellectual advan-
tages and the practical superiority that derives from them, not only will
they continue to provide for the needs of the producers and consumers of
their country, but also they will tend more and more to become, like the
English,95 the carriers of other peoples.
This is beginning to be achieved before our eyes. Already we are seeing
American sailors introduce themselves as middlemen in the commerce of
several of the nations of Europe;96 America offers them an even greater
future.
The Spanish and the Portuguese founded in South America great col-
onies that have since become empires. Civil war and despotism today des-
olate these vast countries. The population movement is stopping, and the
small number of men who live there, absorbed by the concern of defending
themselves, scarcely feel the need to improve their lot.
But it cannot always be so. Europe left to itself managed by its own
efforts to pierce the shadows of the Middle Ages; South America is Chris-
tian like us; it has our laws, our customs; it contains all the seeds of civi-
lization that have developed within European nations and their offshoots;
beyond what we had, South America has our example: why would it remain
forever barbarous?
95. It must not be believed that English vessels are uniquely occupied in transporting for-
eign goods to England or in transporting English products to foreigners; today the merchant
marine of England is like a great enterprise of public carts, ready to serve all producers of the
world and to connect all peoples. The maritime genius of the Americans leads them to raise
an enterprise rivaling that of the English [and often they will manage to serve the same pro-
ducers more cheaply].
96. One part of the commerce of the Mediterranean is already done on American vessels.
It is clearly only a question of time here. A more or less distant period

will undoubtedly come when the South Americans will form flourishing
and enlightened nations.
But when the Spanish and the Portuguese of South America begin to
experience the needs of civilized peoples, they will still be far from able to
satisfy them themselves; newly born to civilization, they will be subject to
the superiority already acquired by their elders. They will be farmers for a
long time before becoming manufacturers and merchants, and they will
need the intervention of foreigners in order to go and sell their products
overseas and to obtain in exchange the objects whose necessity will now
make itself felt.
You cannot doubt that the Americans of North America are called one
day to provide for the needs of the Americans of South America. Nature
placed the first near the second. It thus provided the North Americans with
great opportunities to know and estimate the needs of the South Ameri-
cans, to strike up permanent relations with these peoples, and gradually to
take possession of their market. The merchant of the United States could
lose these natural advantages only if he was very inferior to the merchant
of Europe; and he is, on the contrary, superior to him on several points.
The Americans of the United States already exercise a great moral influence
over all the peoples of the New World. From them comes enlightenment.
All the nations that inhabit the same continent are already accustomed to
considering them as the most enlightened, most powerful and wealthiest
offshoots of the great American family. So they turn their view constantly
toward the Union and they assimilate themselves, as much as it is within
their power, to the peoples that compose it. Each day they come to draw
political doctrines from the United States and borrow laws from them.
The Americans of the United States are vis-à-vis the peoples of South
America precisely in the same situation as their fathers, the English, vis-à-
vis the Italians, the Spanish, the Portuguese and all those peoples of Europe
who, being less advanced in civilization and industry, receive from their
hands most of the objects of consumption.
England is today the natural center of commerce of nearly all the nations
that are near it; the American Union is called to fulfill the same role in the
other hemisphere. So every people that arises or that grows up in the New
World arises and grows up there in a way to the profit of the Anglo-
American.
If the Union came to break up, the commerce of the states that formed
it would undoubtedly be slowed for some time in its development, but less
than is thought. It is clear that whatever happens the commercial states will
remain united. They all touch each other; among them there is a perfect
identity of opinion, interests and mores, and alone they can make up a very
great maritime power. Thus even if the South of the Union became in-
dependent of the North, the result would not be that it could do without
the North. I said that the South is not commercial; nothing yet indicates
that it must become so.[*] So the Americans of the South of the United
States will be obliged for a long time to resort to foreigners in order to export
their products and to bring to them the objects that are necessary for their
needs. Now of all the middlemen that they can take their neighbors of the
North are surely those who can serve them more cheaply. So they will serve
them, for the lowest price is the supreme law of commerce. There is no
sovereign will or national prejudices that can struggle for long against the
lowest price. You cannot see more venomous hatred than that which exists
between the Americans of the United States and the English. In spite of
these hostile sentiments, however, the English provide to the Americans
most manufactured goods, for the sole reason that the English sell them for
less than other peoples. The growing prosperity of America thus turns, de-
spite the desire of the Americans, to the profit of the manufacturing in-
dustry of England.
[*]. ⫽This is due to the combination of several natural causes whose influence it is
very difficult to combat. The South, if you thus call all the country situated south of the
Potomac, possesses very few good mercantile ports and has no military port except Nor-
folk in Virginia.
As long as slavery exists in [the (ed.)] South you will not be able to recruit sailors there.
The population that provides sailors in the North does not exist in the South; it is re-
placed there by slaves who cannot be used to do commerce.1 We have seen moreover
that slavery takes away from the Americans of the South some of the qualities most
appropriate for succeeding on the seas.⫽
1. ⫽They would not serve as well as white sailors and would desert in foreign
countries.⫽
Reason shows and experience proves that no commercial greatness is

lasting if it cannot be combined as needed with military power.
This truth is as well understood in the United States as anywhere else.
The Americans are already in the position of making their flag respected;
soon they will be able to make it feared.
I am persuaded that the dismemberment of the Union, far from dimin-
ishing the naval forces of the Americans, would tend strongly to increase
them. Today the commercial states are linked to those that are not com-
mercial, and the latter often go along only reluctantly with increasing a
maritime power from which they profit only indirectly.
If, on the contrary, all the commercial states of the Union formed only
one and the same people, trade would become for them a national interest
of the first order, so they would be disposed to make very great sacrifices
to protect their ships, and nothing would prevent them from followingtheir
desires on this point.
[In the present condition in which the affairs of the commercial world
find themselves, there is no policy more naturally indicated than that of
France.
France is called to be always one of the great maritime powers, but she
can never become the first except by chance. Since France cannot hope to
dominate the sea in a lasting way, her visible interest is to prevent another
from dominating there [v: to rise up against the domination of the sea] and
to make the most liberal maxims as regards commerce prevail in the whole
world.
Even if the principle of the independence of neutral nations were not
based on the right of nations, France should therefore still uphold it with
all her strength. The independence of neutral nations is a guarantee against
maritime tyranny, and France is the necessary champion of freedom of the
seas.
It is from this point of view that France is the natural enemy of England.
She will always be so whatever you do, as long as England is able to impose
its laws on the ocean.
America is at present in a position analogous to that of France. It is
powerful without being able to dominate; it is liberal because it cannot
oppress.
So America is the natural ally of France, in the same way that England
is its enemy.o Everything that is done to the profit of the naval greatness
of the United States is done in a way to the profit of France; for the mar-
itime power of the Americans, by increasing, divides the dominion of the
sea and gives to the French the liberty that they need.
If maritime forces come to reach a balance between England and Amer-
ica, which will happen I think in a period that is not far away, the role of
France will be, by going alternately to the side of the weaker, to prevent
either one of them from entirely dominating the sea and thus to maintain
liberty there.
But this balance itself will not be settled.]
I think that nations, like men, almost always show from their youth the
principal features of their destiny. When I see in what spirit the Anglo-
Americans manage commerce, the opportunities that they find for doing
it, the successes that they achieve, I cannot keep myself from believing that
one day they will become the premier maritime power of the globe. They
are pushed to take possession of the seas, as the Romans to conquer the
world.
o. Tocqueville expressed himself in similar terms in a letter to John C. Spencer of 10

November 1841 (Virginia Historical Society, reproduced in Correspondance étrangère,
OC, VII, pp. 84–86). Two years later he explains to Niles: “I have let the chain of my
relationships with the United States break a bit. I regret it. I would like to renew it. I
place there an interest of heart and also of patriotism, for one of the foundations of my
politics is that in spite of prejudices and quarrels over details, France and the United
States are allies so natural and so necessary to one another that they must never for a
moment lose sight of one another” (Letter of 15 June 1843, YTC, DIIa). Tocqueville’s
brief time at the ministry of foreign affairs coincided paradoxically with a moment of
great tension between the two countries.
Conclusion a
Here I am approaching the end. Until now, while speaking of the future
destiny of the United States, I forced myself to divide my subject into vari-
ous parts in order to study each one of them with more care.
Now I would like to bring all of them together in a single point of view.
What I will say will be less detailed, but more sure. I will see each object
less distinctly; I will take up general facts with more certitude. I will be like
a traveler who, while coming outside the walls of a vast city, climbs up the
adjacent hill. As he moves away, the men that he has just left disappear from
his view; their houses blend together; he no longer sees the public squares;
he makes out the path of the streets with difficulty; but his eyes follow more
easily the contours of the city, and for the first time he grasps its form. It
seems to me that I too discover before me the whole future of the English
race in the New World. The details of this immense tableau have remained
in shadow; but my eyes take in the entire view, and I conceive a clear idea
of the whole.
The territory occupied or possessed today by the United States of Amer-
ica forms about one-twentieth of inhabited lands.b
However extensive these limits are, you would be wrong to believe that
the Anglo-American race will stay within them forever; it is already spread-
ing very far beyond.
There was a time when we too were able to create in the American wil-
a. In the manuscript, the conclusion is found in a jacket with the title: ⫽future of
the republican principle in the united states.⫽
b. In an earlier draft, the conclusion began here with this paragraph: “⫽The American
confederation occupies or possesses a territory whose surface is estimated at 2,257,3741
square miles. Thus the United States alone has under its domination about one-twentieth
of inhabited lands.⫽
“1. ⫽View of the United States, by Darby, p. 57.⫽”
649
650 conclusion
derness a great French nation and balance the destinies of the New World
with the English. France formerly possessed in North America a territory
nearly as vast as the whole of Europe. The three greatestc rivers of the con-
tinent then flowed entirely under our laws. The Indian nations that live
from the mouth of the Saint Lawrence to the Mississippi delta heard only
our language spoken; all the European settlements spread over this im-
mense space recalled the memory of the homeland; they were Louisbourg,
Montmorency, Duquesne, Saint-Louis, Vincennes, La Nouvelle Orléans,
all names dear to France and familiar to our ears.
But a combination of circumstances that would be too long to enumerate1
deprived us of this magnificent heritage. Everyplace where the French were
too few and not well established, they disappeared. What was left gathered
into a small space and passed under other laws. The four hundred thousand
French of Lower Canada today form like the remnant of an ancient people
lost amid the waves of a new nation.d Around them the foreign population
grows constantly; it is spreading in all directions; it even penetrates the ranks
of the former masters of the soil, dominates in their cities, and distorts their
c. The manuscript says: “The two greatest . . .”

1. In first place this one: free peoples accustomed to the municipal regime succeed much
more easily than others in creating flourishing colonies. The habit of thinking for yourself and
governing yourself is indispensable in a new country, where success necessarily depends in large
part on the individual efforts of the colonists.
d. In a small fragment belonging to one of the appendices of the Penitentiary System,
Tocqueville explains why according to him the French do not have good colonies (re-
peated in Écrits et discours politiques, OC, III, 1, pp. 35–40). Among the reasons advanced
he cites the continental character of France, the love of the Frenchman for his country,
the legal habits and bad political education that accustom citizens to the existence of a
tutelary power ready to help in the slightest difficulty. In the same way Tocqueville ex-
plains how Canada, even better than France, allows the damaging effects of adminis-
trative centralization to be studied (L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution, OC, II, 1, pp. 286–
87). See in this regard: Jean-Michel Leclerq, “Alexis de Tocqueville in Canada (24 August
to 2 September 1831),” Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française 22, no. 3 (1968): 356–64;
Edgar McInnis, “A Letter from Alexis de Tocqueville on the Canadian Rebellion of
1837,” Canadian Historical Review 19, no. 4 (1938): 394–97; and Gérard Bergeron, Quand
Tocqueville et Siegfried nous observaient . . . (Quebec: Presses de l’Université du Québec,
1990).
conclusion 651
language. This population is identical to that of the United States. So I am

right to say that the English race does not stop at the limits of the Union,
but is advancing very far beyond toward the northeast.
In the northwest you find only a few unimportant Russian settlements;
but in the southwest Mexico arises before the steps of the Anglo-American
like a barrier.
Thus there are truly speaking only two rival races that share the New
World today, the Spanish and the English.
The limits that are to separate these two races have been fixed by a treaty.
But however favorable this treaty may be to the Anglo-Americans, I do not
doubt that they are soon going to break it.
Beyond the frontiers of the Union, next to Mexico, extend vast prov-
inces that still lack inhabitants. The men of the United States will penetrate
these uninhabited areas even before those who have the right to occupy
them. They will appropriate the soil, they will establish a society, and when
the rightful owner finally appears, he will find the wilderness made fertile
and foreigners calmly settled on his inheritance.
The land of the New World belongs to the first occupant, and empire
is the prize for the race.
Countries already populated will have difficulty protecting themselves
from invasion.
I have already spoken before about what is happening in the province
of Texas. Each day the inhabitants of the United States enter little by little
into Texas; they acquire lands there, and even while submitting to the laws
of the country, they are establishing the dominion of their language and
their mores. The province of Texas is still under the rule of Mexico; but
soon you will no longer find any Mexicans there so to speak. Something
similar is happening everywhere the Anglo-Americans enter into contact
with populations of another origin.
You cannot conceal the fact that the English race has acquired an im-
mense preponderance over all the other European races of the New World.
It is very superior to them in civilization, in industry and in power. As long
as it has before it only uninhabited or sparsely inhabited countries, as long
as it does not find in its path aggregated populations, through which it will
652 conclusion
be impossible for it to clear a passage, you will see it spread without ceasing.
It will not stop at lines drawn in treaties, but will overflow these imaginary
dikes from all directions.
[{The Constitution of the United States has been credited with the pro-
gress that the population makes each year.}]
What also marvelously facilitates this rapid development of the English
race in the New World is the geographic position that it occupies there.
When you go up toward the north above its northern frontiers, you
find polar ice, and when you descend a few degrees below its southern
limits, you get into the heat of the equator. So the English of America
are located in the most temperate zone and the most habitable part of the
continent.
You imagine that the prodigious movement that is noted in the increase
of the population of the United States dates only from independence. That
is an error. The population grew as quickly under the colonial system as
today; it doubled the same in about twenty-two years. But then it applied
to thousands of inhabitants; now it applies to millions. The same fact that
passed unnoticed a century ago strikes all minds today.e
The English of Canada, who obey a king, increase in number and spread
almost as quickly as the English of the United States, who live under a
republican government.
During the eight years that the War of Independence lasted, the popu-
lation did not cease to increase following the proportion previously in-
dicated.
Although there then existed on the frontiers of the West great Indian
nations allied with the English, the movement of emigration toward
the West never, so to speak, relented. While the enemy ravaged the coasts
e. In the margin: “⫽Nothing can slow it,

neither political event,
nor civil discords,
nor bad laws, nor wars.⫽”
conclusion 653
of the Atlantic, Kentucky, the western districts of Pennsylvania, the state

of Vermont and that of Maine filled up with inhabitants. Nor did the
disorder that followed the war prevent the population from growing and
stop its progressive march into the wilderness. Thus the difference in
laws, the state of peace or the state of war, order or anarchy, influenced
only in an imperceptible way the successive development of the Anglo-
Americans.
This is easily understood. No causes exist that are general enough to
make themselves felt at the same time at all the points of a territory so
immense. Thus there is always a large portion of the country where you
are sure to find a shelter from the calamities that strike another, and however
great the evils may be, the remedy offered is always greater still.
So it must not be believed that it is possible to stop the expansion of the
English race of the New World. The dismemberment of the Union, by
leading to war on the continent, the abolition of the republic, by intro-
ducing tyranny there, can retard its development, but not prevent it from
attaining the necessary complement of its destiny. There is no power on
earth that can close to the steps of the emigrants this fertile wilderness that
is open in all areas to industry and that presents a refuge from all miseries.
Future events, whatever they may be, will not take away from the Americans
either their climate, or their interior seas, or their great rivers, or the fertility
of their soil. Bad laws, revolution and anarchy, cannot destroy among them
the taste for well-being and the spirit of enterprise that seems the distinctive
character of their race, or completely extinguish the knowledge that en-
lightens them.
[⫽It would be as easy to stop the waves of the sea as to prevent the waves
of Anglo-American emigration from reaching the shores of the Pacific
Ocean.⫽]
Thus amid the uncertainty of the future there is at least one event that
is certain. At some period that we can call near at hand, since it concerns
the life of peoples, the Anglo-Americans will cover alone all the immense
space included between the areas of polar ice and the tropics; they will
spread from the strands of the Atlantic Ocean to the shores of the Pacific.
I think that the territory over which the Anglo-American race must
654 conclusion
someday spread equals three-quarters of Europe.2 The climate of the

Union is, everything considered, preferable to that of Europe; its natural
advantages are as great; it is clear that its population cannot fail one day to
be proportionate to ours.
Europe, divided among so many diverse peoples; Europe, through con-
stantly recurring wars and the barbarism of the Middle Ages, succeeded in
having four hundred ten inhabitants3 per square league. What cause so
powerful could prevent the United States from having as many one day?
Many centuries will pass before the various offshoots of the English race
of America cease showing a common physiognomy. You cannot foresee the
period when man will be able to establish permanent inequality of con-
ditions in the New World.
So whatever differences are made one day in the destiny of the various
offshoots of the great Anglo-American family by peace or war, liberty or
tyranny, prosperity or poverty, they will all at least preserve an analogous
social state and will have in common customs and ideas that derive from
the social state.
The bond of religion alone was sufficient in the Middle Ages to bring the
diverse races that peopled Europe together in the same civilization. The En-
glish of the New World have a thousand other bonds with each other, and
they live in a century when everything is trying to become equal among men.
The Middle Ages was a period of division. Each people, each province,
each city, each family then tended strongly to become more individual.f
Today an opposite movement makes itself felt; peoples seem to march to-
ward unity. Intellectual links unite the most distant parts of the earth, and
men cannot remain strangers to one another for a single day, or ignorant
of what is happening in no matter what corner of the universe. Conse-
2. The United States alone already covers a space equal to half of Europe. The surface of
Europe is 500,000 square leagues; its population 205,000,000 inhabitants. Malte-Brun, vol.
VI, book CXIV, p. 4.
3. See Malte-Brun, vol. VI, book CXVI, p. 92.
f. Tocqueville will for the first time use the term “individualism” in chapter II of the
second part of the second volume.
conclusion 655
quently you notice today less difference between Europeans and their de-
scendants of the New World, despite the Ocean that divides them, than
between certain cities of the XIIIth century that were separated only by a
river.
If this movement of assimilation brings foreign peoples together, it is
opposed with greater reason to the offshoots of the same people becoming
strangers to each other.
So a time will come when you will be able to see in North America one
hundred and fifty milliong men4 equal to one another, who will all belong
to the same family, who will have the same point of departure, the same
civilization, the same language, the same religion, the same habits, the same
mores, and among whom thought will circulate with the same form and
will be painted with the same colors. All the rest is doubtful, but this is
certain. Now here is a fact entirely new in the world, and imagination itself
cannot grasp its import.
Today there are two great peoples on earth who, starting from different
points, seem to advance toward the same goal: these are the Russians and
the Anglo-Americans.
Both grew up in obscurity; and while the attention of men was oc-
cupied elsewhere, they suddenly took their place in the first rank of na-
tions, and the world learned of their birth and their greatness nearly at
the same time.
All other peoples seem to have almost reached the limits drawn by na-
ture, and have nothing more to do except maintain themselves; but these
two are growing.5 All the others have stopped or move ahead only with a
thousand efforts; these two alone walk with an easy and rapid stride along
a path whose limit cannot yet be seen.
The American struggles against obstacles that nature opposes to him; the
Russian is grappling with men. The one combats the wilderness and bar-
g. The figure is missing in the manuscript.

4. It is the population proportionate to that of Europe, by taking the average of 410 men
per square league.
5. Russia is of all the nations of the Old World the one whose population is increasing
most rapidly, keeping the proportion. [See Malte-Brun, vol. VI, p. 95.]
656 conclusion
barism; the other, civilization clothed in all its arms. Consequently the con-
quests of the American are made with the farmer’s plow, those of the Rus-
sian with the soldier’s sword.
To reach his goal the first relies on personal interest, and, without di-
recting them, allows the strength and reason of individuals to operate.
The second in a way concentrates all the power of society in one man.
The one has as principal means of action liberty; the other, servitude.
Their point of departure is different, their paths are varied; nonetheless,
each one of them seems called by a secret design of Providence to hold in
its hands one day the destinies of half the world.h
h. This passage is one of the best known of the Democracy, and probably one of the
most cited of the entire book. It gained Tocqueville a reputation as a prophet that has
not failed to harm the overall interpretation of his work. If several critics have noted
that a similar idea is found among authors as diverse as Edmund Dana, Alexander Hill
Everett, the Abbé de Pradt, Madame de Staël, Edward Everett (in two reviews of Pradt),
John Bristed, Stendhal, and Michel Chevalier, it must nonetheless be noted that the
theories of Tocqueville sometimes differ perceptibly from those of these authors. M. de
Pradt (Du système permanent de l’Europe à l’égard de la Russie et des affaires de l’Orient,
Paris: Pichon and Didier, 1828), for example, does oppose two powers, but they are En-
gland as maritime force and Russia as land force. He only incidentally mentions that
America could avenge Europe (p. 5). Alexander Everett (America: Or a General Survey
of the Political Situation of the Several Powers of the Western Continent . . . , Philadelphia:
H. C. Carey and I. Lee, 1827), for his part, conceives three great powers: Russia, England,
and the United States.
You cannot understand why Tocqueville terminates his considerations with this af-
firmation if you forget that his interest in the United States is nearly equal to the one he
had for Russia. This is clear not only in his correspondence with the Circourts, Greg,
Madame Phillimore, Everett, or Corcelle, but also in long conversations that he was able
to have with Theodore Sedgwick in 1834 or with Grandmaison twenty years later. The
latter notes that in 1854, Tocqueville continued to think that the Slavic race and the
Anglo-Saxon race would one day share the world. His interest in Russia had led him to
read the work of Baron de Haxthausen (Études sur la situation intérieure, la vie nationale
et les institutions rurales de la Russie, Hanover, 1847–1853, 3 vols.). Grandmaison reports
that Tocqueville asserted: “a young and intelligent man, courageous enough to learn
Russian and to spend some years in Russia, would find there the subject of a very curious
study and of a book of high interest that would come to be a counterpart to his own
work on America.” And he adds: “This idea preoccupied him a great deal; you felt with
him the regret of not being able to execute it, and I believe he would have willingly
pushed me into this undertaking, if I had given him the slightest opening from my side”
(“Séjour d’Alexis de Tocqueville en Touraine, préparation du livre sur l’Ancien Régime,”
conclusion 657
Correspondant, 114, 1879, pp. 926–49; cf. p. 943). Beaumont, perhaps persuaded by the
author, will do for the Revue des deux mondes a review of the book of Haxthausen (“La
Russie et les Etats-Unis sous le rapport économique,” Revue des deux mondes, 2nd series,
5, 1854, pp. 1163–83). See note y for p. 158. Also see on this subject: René Rémond, Les
États-Unis devant l’opinion française, 1815–1852, Paris: Armand Colin, 1962, I, pp. 378–
79 note; Theodore Draper, “The Idea of the ‘Cold War’ and Its Prophets. On Tocque-
ville and Others,” Encounter, 52, 1979, pp. 34–45 (Draper insists on the fact that Tocque-
ville never considered a possible confrontation between the two countries); Bernard
Fabian, Alexis de Tocqueville Amerikabild: Genetische Untersuchungen über Zusammen-
hänge mit der Zeitgenössischen, Insbesondere der Englischen Amerika-Interpretation, Hei-
delberg: C. Winter, 1957; and Philip Merlan, “A Precursor of Tocqueville,” Pacific His-
torical Review 35, no. 4 (1966): 467–68.
Notes
First Part
(A) Page 36
See, concerning the lands of the west that Europeans have not yet pene-
trated, the two voyages undertaken by Major Long, at the expense of
Congress.
Concerning the great American desert, Mr. Long says notably that a line
must be drawn about parallel to the 20th degree of longitude (meridian of
Washington),1 beginning at the Red River and ending at the Platte River.
Extending from this imaginary line to the Rocky Mountains, which border
the Mississippi Valley in the west, are immense plains, generally covered
with sand which is unsuitable for agriculture, or strewn with granite stones.
They are deprived of water in the summer. There only great herds of buffalo
and wild horses are found. Some Indian hordes are seen as well, but only
a small number.
Major Long has heard it said that, ascending the Platte River, in the same
direction, this same desert would always be found on the left; but he was
not able personally to verify the accuracy of this report. Long’s Expedition,
vol. II, p. 361.
Whatever confidence Major Long’s account merits, it must not be for-
gotten, however, that he only crossed the country that he is speaking about,
without making any great zigzags outside the line that he followed.
1. The 20th degree of longitude, following the meridian of Washington, is approximately

the equivalent of the 99th degree following the meridian of Paris.
658
notes 659
(B) Page 38
South America, in the region between the tropics, produces an incredible
profusion of climbing plants known by the generic name of creepers. The
flora of the Antilles alone offers more than forty different species.
Among the most graceful of these bushes is the grenadilla. Descourtiz,a
in his description of the plant kingdom of the Antilles, says that this lovely
plant attaches itself to trees by means of its tendrils, and forms moving
arcades and colonnades, made rich and elegant by the beauty of the crimson
flowers, variegated with blue, that decorate them and that delight the sense
of smell with the scent they give off; vol. I, p. 265.
The acacia with large pods is a very thick creeper that grows rapidly and,
going from tree to tree, sometimes covers more than a half-league; vol. III,
p. 227.
(C) Page 40
On the American Languages
The languages spoken by the Indians of America, from the Arctic Pole to
Cape Horn, are all formed, it is said, on the same model, and subject to
the same grammatical rules; from that it can be concluded that, in all like-
lihood, all the Indian nations came from the same stock.
Each tribal band of the American continent speaks a different dialect;
but the languages strictly speaking are very few in number, which would
tend as well to prove that the nations of the New World do not have a very
ancient origin.
Finally the languages of America are extremely regular, so it is probable
that the peoples who use them have not yet been subjected to great revo-
lutions and have not mixed with foreign nations by necessity or voluntarily;
a. M. E. Descourtiz, Voyages d’un naturaliste et ses observations, Dufart Père, 1809,

3 vols.
660 notes
for it is in general the union of several languages into a single one that
produces irregularities of grammar.
Not long ago the American languages, and in particular, the languages
of North America, attracted the serious attention of philologists. It was
discovered then, for the first time, that this idiom of a barbarous people
was the product of a system of very complicated ideas and of very clever
combinations. It was noticed that these languages were very rich and that,
when forming them, great care had been taken to show consideration for
the sensitivity of the ear.
The grammatical system of the Americans differs from all others on sev-
eral points, but principally in this one.
Some peoples of Europe, among others the Germans, have the ability
to combine different expressions as needed, and thus to give a complex
meaning to certain words. The Indians have extended this ability in the
most surprising way, and have succeeded in fixing so to speak at a single
point a very large number of ideas. This will be easily understood with the
help of an example cited by Mr. Duponceau, in the Memoirs of the Amer-
ican Philosophical Society.
When, he says, a Delaware woman plays with a cat or with a dog, you
sometimes hear her pronounce the word kuligatschis. The word is com-
posed in this way: K is the sign of the second person and means you or
your; uli, which is pronounced ouli, is a fragment of the word wulit, which
means beautiful, pretty; gat is another fragment of the word wichgat, which
means paw; finally schis, which is pronounced chise, is the diminutive end-
ing which carries with it the idea of smallness. Thus, in a single word, the
Indian woman has said: Your pretty little paw.
Here is another example that shows with what felicity the savages of
America know how to compose their words.
A young man in the Delaware language is called pilapé. This word is
formed from pilsit, chaste, innocent; and from lénapé, man: that is to say
man in his purity and his innocence.
This ability to combine words is noticeable above all in a very strange
way of forming verbs. The most complicated action is often rendered by
a single verb; nearly all the nuances of the idea bear upon the verb and
modify it.
notes 661
Those who would like to examine in more detail this subject that I myself
have only touched on very superficially, should read:
1. The Correspondence of Mr. Duponceau with the Reverend Hec-
welder [Heckewelder (ed.)], relating to the Indian languages. This corre-
spondence is found in the first volume of the Memoirs of the American
Philosophical Society, published in Philadelphia, in 1819, Abraham Small,
pp. 356–464.
2. The grammar of the Delaware or Lenape language by Geiberger,b and
the preface of Mr. Duponceau, which is added. The whole thing is found
in the same collections, vol. III.
3. A very well done summary of these works, contained at the end of
volume VI of the Encyclopedia Americana.
(D) Page 42
We find in Charlevoix, volume I, p. 235, the history of the first war that
the French of Canada had to sustain, in 1610, against the Iroquois. The
latter, although armed with bows and arrows, offered a desperate resistance
to the French and their allies. Charlevoix, who is not good at doing por-
traits, shows very well in this piece the contrast that the mores of the
Europeans presented to those of the savages, as well as the different ways
in which these two races understood honor.
“The French,” he says, “grabbed the beaver skins that covered the
Iroquois, whom they saw spread out over the ground; the Hurons, their
allies, were scandalized by this spectacle. The latter, on their side, began to
exercise their ordinary cruelties on the prisoners, and devoured one of those
who had been killed, which horrified the French. “Thus,” adds Charlevoix,
“these barbarians gloried in a disinterestedness that they were surprised not
to find in our nation, and did not understand that there was much less evil
in stripping the dead than in eating their flesh like wild beasts.”
b. David Zeisberger, “A Grammar of the Language of the Lenni Lanâpé,” translated

by P. S. Duponceau, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, III, 1827, pp. 65–
250.
662 notes
The same Charlevoix, in another place, vol. I, p. 230 [–231 (ed.)], depicts
in this way the first torture that Champlain witnessed, and the return of
the Hurons to their village.
“After having done eight leagues,” he says, “our allies stopped, and, tak-
ing one of their captives, they reproached him for all the cruelties that he
had exercised on the warriors of their nation who had fallen into his hands,
and they declared to him that he must expect to be treated in the same
manner, adding that, if he had courage, he would display it by singing. He
soon started to sing his song [of death, then his song (ed.)] of war, and all
those that he knew, but with a very sad tone, says Champlain, who had not
yet had the time to know that all of the music of the savages is somewhat
lugubrious. His torture, accompanied by all the horrors that we will speak
of later, frightened the French who in vain did their utmost to put an end
to it.c The following night, because a Huron dreamed that they were being
pursued, the retreat changed into a veritable flight, and the savages did not
stop anywhere again until they were out of any danger.
“From the moment that they saw the huts of their village, they cut long
sticks to which they attached their share of the scalps and carried them
triumphantly. At this sight the women ran, jumped in swimming, and,
reaching the canoes took these bloody scalps from the hands of their hus-
bands, and hung them around their necks.
“These warriors offered one of these horrible trophies to Champlain,
and also made him a present of some bows and some arrows, the only spoils
of the Iroquois that they had wanted to take, begging him to show them
to the king of France.”
Champlain lived alone all one winter amid these barbarians, without his
person or his property being compromised for one instant.
(E) Page 64
Although the Puritan rigor that prevailed at the birth of the English col-
onies of America has already become much weaker, you still find extraor-
dinary traces of it in the habits and in the laws.
c. Tocqueville omits here the details of the dismemberment and death of the Indian.
notes 663
In 1792, at the very period when the anti-Christian republic of France

began its ephemeral existence, the legislative body of Massachusetts pro-
mulgated the law that you are about to read, in order to force citizens to
observe Sunday. Here are the preamble and the principal provisions of this
law, which deserves to attract all the reader’s attention:
Whereas, says the legislator, Sunday observance is in the public interest;
that it produces a useful suspension of work; that it leads men to reflect
upon the duties of life and the errors to which humanity is so prone; that
it allows us in private and in public to honor God, creator and governor
of the universe, and allows us to devote ourselves to those acts of charity
that are the adornment and the relief of Christian societies;
Whereas some irreligious or thoughtless persons, forgetting the duties
imposed by Sunday and the benefits that society gains from them, profane
the Holy Day in pursuit of their pleasures or their work; that this behavior
is contrary to their own interests as Christians; that, in addition, it is of a
nature to disturb those who do not follow their example, and brings real
harm to the entire society by introducing the taste for dissipation and dis-
solute habits;
The Senate and the House of Representatives order the following:
1. No one will be able, on Sunday, to keep his shop or workshop open.

No one will be able, on that day, to be active in any work or business
whatsoever, attend any concert, ball or show of any sort, nor pursue any
kind of hunt, game, recreation, under penalty of a fine. The fine will
not be less than 10 shillings, and will not exceed 20 shillings for each
offense.
2. No traveler, driver, carter, except in case of necessity, will be able to
travel on Sunday, under penalty of the same fine.
3. Hotelkeepers, retailers, innkeepers, will prevent any person living in
their town from visiting them on Sunday, in order to pass the time in
pleasure or business. In case of offense, the innkeeper and his guest will
pay the fine. Moreover, the innkeeper will lose his license.
4. Whoever, being in good health and without having a sufficient rea-
son, fails for three months to attend public worship will be condemned
to a 10 shilling fine.
5. Whoever, within the confines of a church, displays inappropriate
behavior will pay a fine of 5 to 40 shillings.
664 notes
6. The tythingmen of the towns2 are charged with responsibility for

enforcing this law. They have the right to visit on Sunday all the rooms
of hotels or public places. The innkeeper who refuses their entry into his
establishment will be condemned for this fact alone to a fine of 40
shillings.
The tythingmen must stop travelers and inquire after the reason that
has forced them to be on the road on Sunday. Whoever refuses to answer
will be condemned to a fine that could be 5 pounds sterling.
If the reason given by the traveler does not seem sufficient to the ty-
thingman, he will bring the said traveler before the justice of the peace of
the district (Law of 8 March 1792. General Laws of Massachusetts, vol. I,
p. 410).
On 11 March 1797, a new law increased the level of fines, half of which
was to belong to the one who brought proceedings against the offender.
Same collection, vol. I, p. 535.
On 16 February, 1816, a new law confirmed these same measures. Same
collection, vol. II, p. 405.
Analogous provisions exist in the laws of the state of New York, revised
in 1827 and 1828. (See Revised Statutes, 1st part, ch. XX, p. 675). It is said
there that on Sunday no one will be able to hunt, fish, gamble or frequent
establishments where drink is served. No one will be able to travel, if it is
not out of necessity.
This is not the only trace left in the laws by the religious spirit and the
austere mores of the first emigrants.
You read in the revised statutes of the state of New York, vol. I, p. 662
[–663 (ed.)], the following article:
Every person who shall win or lose at play, or by betting at any time, the
sum or value of twenty-five dollars or upwards, within the space of
twenty-four hours, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on con-
viction shall be fined not less than five times the value or sum so lost or
won; which [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] shall be paid to the overseers of the poor of
the town. [ . . . (ed.) . . . ]
2. These are officials elected each year who, by their functions, are at the very same time
close to the rural guard and to the officer of the criminal investigation department.
notes 665
Every person who shall [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] lose at any time or sitting the
sum or value of twenty-five dollars or upwards[. . . (Ed) . . . ] may [ . . .
(ed.) . . . ] sue for and recover the money. [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] The overseers of
the poor of the town where the offense was committed may sue for and
recover the sum or value so lost and paid, together with treble the said sum
or value, from the winner thereof for the benefit of the poor.
The laws that we have just cited are very recent; but who could com-
prehend them without going back to the very origin of the colonies? I do
not doubt that today the penal portion of this legislation is only very rarely
applied; the laws retain their inflexibility when the mores have already bent
before the movement of the times. Sunday observance in America, how-
ever, is still what most strikes the foreigner.d
There is notably a large American city in which, beginning Saturday
evening, social movement is as if suspended. You cross it at the hour that
seems to invite those of mature years to business and youth to pleasure,
and you find yourself in a profound solitude. Not only is no one working,
but also no one appears to be alive. You hear neither the movement of
industry nor the accents of joy, nor even the confused murmurings that
arise constantly within a large city. Chains are hung in the vicinity of the
churches; the half-closed shutters of the houses only reluctantly allow a ray
of sunlight to penetrate the dwelling of the citizens. Scarcely here and there
do you see an isolated man who is passing noiselessly through deserted
crossroads and along abandoned streets.
The next morning at the beginning of day, the rattle of carriages, the
noise of hammers, the cries of the population begin again to make them-
selves heard; the city awakens; a restless crowd rushes toward the centers of
commerce and industry; everyone stirs, everyone becomes agitated, every-
one hurries around you. A sort of lethargic drowsiness is followed by a
feverish activity; you would say that each person has only a single day at
his disposal in order to gain wealth and to enjoy it.
d. See the appendix sects in america.

666 notes
(F) Page 70
It is needless to say that, in the chapter that you have just read, I did not
intend to do a history of America. My only goal was to enable the reader
to appreciate the influence that the opinions and mores of the first emi-
grants exercised on the fate of the different colonies and on that of the
Union in general. So I had to limit myself to citing a few unconnected
fragments.
I do not know if I am wrong, but it seems to me that by following the
path that I am only pointing out here, someone could present some por-
traits of the first years of the American republic that would be worthy of
the attention of the public, and that would undoubtedly provide material
for statesmen to consider. Not able to devote myself to this work, I wanted
at least to facilitate it for others. So I believed that I should present here a
short list and an abridged analysis of the works that seemed to me most
useful to draw upon.
In the number of general documents that could fruitfully be consulted,
I will place first the work entitled: Historical Collection of State Papers and
other authentic documents, intended as materials for an history of the United
States of America, by Ebenezer Hazard.
The first volume of this compilation, which was printed in Philadelphia
in 1792, contains the exact text of all the charters granted by the crown of
England to the emigrants, as well as the principal acts of the colonial gov-
ernments during the first years of their existence. You find there, among
others, a great number of authentic documents on the affairs of New En-
gland and Virginia during this period.
The second volume is dedicated almost entirely to the acts of the con-
federation of 1643. This federal pact, which took place among the colonies
of New England, with the goal of resisting the Indians, was the first ex-
ample of union given by the Anglo-Americans. There were also several
other confederations of the same nature, until that of 1776, which led to
the independence of the colonies.
The historical collection of Philadelphia is found in the Royal Li-
brary.
Each colony has as well its historical memorials, several of which are
notes 667
very precious. I begin my study with Virginia, which is the state populated
earliest.
The first of all the historians of Virginia is its founder Captain John
Smith. Captain Smith left us a volume in quarto, entitled: The General
History of Virginia and New-England, by Captain John Smith, some time
governor in those countryes and admiral of New-England, printed in London
in 1627. (This volume is found at the Royal Library.) The work of Smith
is embellished with very interesting maps and plates, which date from the
time when it was printed. The account of the historian extends from the
year 1584 to 1626. Smith’s book is esteemed and deserves to be so. The
author is one of the most famous adventurers who appeared in the century
full of adventurers; he lived at the end of that century. The book itself
breathes this fervor of discoveries, this spirit of enterprise that characterized
the men of that time; there you find those chivalrous mores that were mixed
with business and were made to serve the acquisition of wealth.
But what is remarkable above all in Captain Smith is that he mixed, with
the virtues of his contemporaries, qualities that remained foreign to most
of them; his style is simple and clear, all of his accounts have the stamp of
truth, his descriptions are not ornate.
This author throws precious light on the state of the Indians at the period
of the discovery of North America.
The second historian to consult is Beverley. The work of Beverley, which
forms a volume in duodecimo, was translated into French and printed in
Amsterdam in 1707. The author begins his accounts in the year 1585 and
ends them in the year 1700. The first part of his book contains historical
documents, properly so called, relative to the early years of the colony. The
second contains a curious portrait of the state of the Indians at that distant
period. The third gives very clear ideas about the mores, social state, laws
and political habits of the Virginians at the time of the author.
Beverly was of Virginian origin, which made him say at the beginning
“that he begs readers not to examine his work with too strict a critical eye,
seeing that since he was born in the Indies, he does not aspire to purity of
language.” Despite this modesty of the colonist, the author shows through-
out his book that he bears the supremacy of the mother country with im-
patience. You find as well in the work of Beverley numerous traces of this
668 notes
spirit of civil liberty that has, since that time, animated the English colonies
of America. You also find the trace of the divisions that have existed for
such a long time among them, and that delayed their independence. Bev-
erley detests his Catholic neighbors of Maryland still more than the English
government. The style of this author is simple; his accounts are often full
of interest and inspire confidence. The French translation of Beverley’s
history is found in the Royal Library.
I saw in America, but I was not able to find again in France, a work that
also merits consultation; it is entitled: History of Virginia, by William Stith.
This book offers interesting details, but it seemed long and diffuse to me.
The oldest and best document that you can consult on the history of
the Carolinas is a small book in quarto, entitled: The History of Carolina,
by John Lawson, printed in London in 1718.
The work of Lawson contains first a voyage of discovery in the west of
Carolina. This voyage is written as a journal; the accounts of the author are
confused; his observations are very superficial; you only find a quite striking
portrait of the ravages caused by smallpox and brandy among the savages of
this period, and an interesting portrait of the corruption of mores that
reigned among them, and that the presence of the Europeans favored.
The second part of the work of Lawson is dedicated to retracing the
physical state of Carolina and to making its products known.
In the third part, the author does an interesting description of the mores,
customs and government of the Indians of this period.
There is often spirit and originality in this portion of the book.
The history by Lawson ends with the charter granted to Carolina at the
time of Charles II.
The general tone of this work is light, often licentious, and forms a per-
fect contrast with the profoundly grave style of the works published at this
same time in New England.
The history by Lawson is an extremely rare document in America that
cannot be obtained in Europe. There is, however, a copy of it in the Royal
Library.
From the southern extremity of the United States, I pass immediately
to the northern extremity. The intermediate space was populated only later.
notes 669
I must first point out a very curious compilation entitled: Collection of

the Massachusetts Historical Society, printed for the first time in Boston in
1792, reprinted in 1806. This work is not in the Royal Library, nor, I believe,
in any other.
The collection (which continues) contains a host of very precious doc-
uments relating to the history of the different states of New England. There
you find unpublished correspondence and authentic pieces that were hid-
den away in the provincial archives. The complete work of Gookin relating
to the Indians has been inserted there.
Several times, in the course of the chapter to which this note belongs,
I pointed out the work of Nathaniel Morton entitled: New England’s
Memorial. What I said about this work is enough to prove that it is worthy
to draw the attention of those who would like to know the history of New
England. The book by Nathaniel Morton forms a volume in octavo, re-
printed in Boston in 1826. It is not in the Royal Library.
The most respected and most important document that we possess on
the history of New England is the work of the Reverend Cotton Mather,
entitled: Magnalia Christi Americana, or the ecclesiastical history of New En-
gland, 1620–1698, 2 vol. in octavo, reprinted in Hartford in 1820. I do not
believe that it is found in the Royal Library.
The author divided his work into seven books.
The first presents the history of what prepared and led to the founding
of New England.
The second contains the life of the first governors and principal mag-
istrates who administered this country.
The third is consecrated to the life and works of the evangelical ministers
who, during this same period, led souls there.
In the fourth, the author describes the founding and development of
the university of Cambridge (Massachusetts).
In the fifth, he explains the principles and discipline of the Church of
New England.
The sixth is consecrated to retracing certain facts that denote, according
to Mather, the salutary action of Providence on the inhabitants of New
England.
670 notes
In the seventh, finally, the author teaches us the heresies and troubles to
which the Church of New England has been exposed.
Cotton Mather was an evangelical minister who, born in Boston, spent
his life there.
All the ardor and all the religious passions that led to the founding of
New England animate and give life to his accounts. You frequently find
traces of bad taste in his way of writing; but he captivates, because he is
full of enthusiasm that ends by communicating itself to the reader. He is
often intolerant, more often gullible; but you never see in him the desire
to deceive; sometimes his work even presents beautiful passages and true
and profound ideas such as these:
Before the arrival of the Puritans, he says, vol. I, ch. IV, p. 61, the English
had tried several times to settle the country that we live in; but since they
did not aim higher than the success of their material interests, they were
soon defeated by obstacles; this wasn’t the case with the men who arrived
in America, pushed and sustained by a noble religious idea. Although the
latter found more enemies than perhaps the founders of any other colony
ever had, they persisted in their plan, and the settlement that they estab-
lished still exists today.
Mather sometimes mixes, with the austerity of these portraits, images
full of sweetness and tenderness. After speaking about an English lady
whose religious fervor had brought her to America with her husband, and
who soon succumbed to the hardships and miseries of exile, he adds:
“As for her virtuous spouse, Isaac Johnson, Esq., He try’d to live without
her, lik’d it not, and dy’d” (V. I, p. 71.)
Mather’s book admirably reveals the time and country that he is trying
to describe.
If he wants to teach us what motives led the Puritans to seek a refuge
beyond the seas, he says:
The God of Heaven served as it were, a summons upon the spirits of
his people in the English nation; stirring up the spirits of thousands which
notes 671
never saw the faces of each other, with a most unanimous inclination to
leave all the pleasant accommodations of their native country; and go over
a terrible ocean, into a more terrible desart [sic ], for the pure enjoyment
of all his ordinances.
It is now reasonable that before we pass any further [he adds] the reasons
of this undertaking should be more exactly made known unto the pos-
terity of those that were the undertakers, lest they come at length to forget
and neglect the true interest of New-England. Wherefore I shall now tran-
scribe some of them from a manuscript, wherein they were then tendered
unto consideration.
[ . . . (ed.) . . . ]
First, It will be a service unto the Church of great consequence, to carry
the Gospel into those parts of the world, and raise a bulwark against the
kingdom of antichrist, which the Jesuites [sic ] labour to rear up in all parts
of the world.
Secondly, All other Churches of Europe have been brought under des-
olations; and it may be feared that the like judgments are coming upon
us; and who knows but God hath provided this place to be a refuge for
many, whom he means to save out of the General Destruction.
Thirdly, The land grows weary of her inhabitants, insomuch that man,
which is the most precious of all creatures, is here more vile and base than
the earth he treads upon: children, neighbors, and friends, especially the
poor, are counted the greatest burdens, which if things were right would
be the chiefest earthly blessings.
Fourthly, We are grown to that intemperance in all excess of riot, as
no mean estate almost will suffice a man to keep sail with his equals, and
he that fails in it, must live in scorn and contempt: hence it comes to pass,
that all arts and trades are carried in that deceitful manner, and unrighteous
course, as it is almost impossible for a good upright man to maintain his
constant charge, and live comfortably in them.
Fifthly, The schools of learning and religion are so corrupted, as [ . . .
(ed.) . . . ] most children, even the best, wittiest, and of the fairest hopes,
are perverted, corrupted, and utterly overthrown, by the multitude of evil
examples and licentious behaviours in these seminaries.
672 notes
Sixthly, The whole earth is the Lord’s garden, and he hath given it to
the sons of Adam, to be tilled and improved by them: why then should
we stand starving here for places of habitation and in the mean time suffer
whole countries, as profitable for the use of man, to lye [sic ] waste without
any improvement?
Seventhly, What can be a better or nobler work, and more worthy of
a christian, than to erect and support a reformed particular Church in its
infancy, and unite our forces with such a company of faithful people, as
by a timely assistance may grow stronger and prosper; but for want of it,
may be put to great hazard, if not be wholly ruined.
Eighthly, If any such as are known to be godly, and live in wealth and
prosperity here, shall forsake all this to join with this reformed church, and
with it run the hazard of an hard and mean condition, it will be an example
of great use, both for the removing of scandal and to give more life unto
the faith of God’s people in their prayers for the plantation, and also to
encourage others to join the more willingly in it.
Later, explaining the principles of the Church of New England on moral

matters, Mather rises up violently against the custom of drinking toasts at
dinner, which he calls a pagan and abominable habit.
He proscribes with the same rigor all ornaments that women can put in
their hair, and condemns without pity the fashion of showing the neck and
arms that, he says, is becoming established among them.
In another part of the work, he recounts at great length several instances
of witchcraft that frightened New England. You see that the visible action
of the devil in the affairs of this world seems to him an incontestable and
proven truth.
In a great number of places in this same book a spirit of civil liberty and
political independence is revealed that characterized the contemporaries of
the author. Their principles in matters of government appear at each step.
Thus, for example, you see the inhabitants of Massachusetts, from the year
1630 [1636 (ed.)], ten years after the founding of Plymouth, devote 400
pounds sterling to the establishment of the university of Cambridge.
If I pass from general documents relating to the history of New England
to those that relate to the various states included in its limits, I will first
notes 673
have to point out the work entitled: The History of the Colony of Massa-
chusetts, by Hutchinson, Lieutenant-Governor of the Massachusetts province,
2 vols. in octavo. A copy of this book is found in the Royal Library; it is a
second edition printed in London in 1765.
The history of Hutchinson, which I cited several times in the chapter
to which this note relates, begins in the year 1628 and finishes in 1750. A
great air of truthfulness reigns in the whole book; the style is simple and
unaffected. This history is very detailed.
The best document to consult, for Connecticut, is the history of Ben-
jamin Trumbull, entitled: A Complete History of Connecticut, Civil and
Ecclesiastical, 1630–1764, 2 vols. in octavo, printed in 1818 at New Haven. I
do not believe that Trumbull’s work is found in the Royal Library.
This history contains a clear and cold exposition of all the events that
took place in Connecticut during the period indicated by the title. The
author drew upon the best sources, and his accounts retain the stamp of
truth. All that he says about the early years of Connecticut is extremely
interesting. See notably in his work the Constitution of 1639, vol. I, ch. VI,
p. 100 [–103 (ed.)]; and also the Penal Laws of Connecticut, vol. I, ch. VII,
p. 123.
The work of Jeremy Belknap entitled: History of New Hampshire, 2 vols.
in octavo, printed in Boston in 1792, is rightly well regarded. See particu-
larly, in Belknap’s work, ch. III of the first volume. In this chapter, the
author gives extremely valuable details about the political and religious
principles of the Puritans, about the causes of their emigration, and about
their laws. There you find this interesting quotation from a sermon deliv-
ered in 1663:
New England must constantly recall that it was founded for a religious
purpose and not for a commercial purpose. It is written on its forehead
that it professed purity in matters of doctrine and discipline. May mer-
chants and all those who are busy piling up money remember, therefore,
that it is religion, and not gain, that was the object of the founding of
these colonies. If there is someone among us who, in his estimation of
the world and of religion, looks upon the first as 13 and takes the second
674 notes
only as 12, he is not prompted by the sentiments of a true son of New

England.
Readers will find in Belknap more general ideas and more power of thought
than that presented until now by the other American historians.
I do not know if this book is found in the Royal Library.
Among the states of the center that are already old, and that merit our
interest, the states of New York and Pennsylvania stand out above all. The
best history that we have of the state of New York is entitled: History of
New York, by William Smith, printed in London in 1757. A French trans-
lation exists, also printed in London in 1757, 1 vol. in duodecimo. Smith
provides us with useful details on the wars of the French and English in
America. He is, of all the American historians, the one who best shows the
famous confederation of the Iroquois.
As for Pennsylvania, I cannot do better than to point to the work of
Proud entitled: The History of Pennsylvania, From the Original Institution
and Settlement of That Province, under the First Proprietor and Governor
William Penn, in 1681 till after the Year 1742, by Robert Proud, 2 vols. in
octavo, printed in Philadelphia in 1797.
This work particularly deserves the attention of the reader; it contains
a host of very interesting documents on Penn, the doctrine of the Quakers,
the character, mores, customs of the first inhabitants of Pennsylvania. As
far as I know, it is not in the Royal Library.
I do not need to add that among the most important documents relative
to Pennsylvania are the works of Penn himself and those of Franklin. These
works are known by a great number of readers.
Most of the books that I have just cited had already been consulted by
me during my stay in America. The Royal Library has kindly entrusted me
with some of them; others have been loaned to me by Mr. Warden, former
consul general of the United States to Paris, author of an excellent book
on America. I do not want to conclude this note without extending to Mr.
Warden the expression of my gratitude.
notes 675
(G) Page 84
You find what follows in the Mémoires de Jefferson:
In the first years of the English settlement in Virginia, when land was
obtained for little, or even for nothing, several far-seeing individuals ac-
quired great land concessions, and desiring to maintain the splendor of
their families, they entailed their wealth to their descendants. The trans-
mission of these properties from generation to generation, to men who
carried the same name, had finally produced a distinct class of families
that, with the legal privilege of perpetuating their wealth, thus formed a
kind of patrician order distinguished by the grandeur and the luxury of
their holdings. It was from among this group that the king usually chose
the members of his council ( Jefferson’s Memoirs ).
In the United States, the principal provisions of English law relating to

inheritance were universally rejected.
The first rule of inheritance is, says Mr. Kent, that if a person owning real
estate, dies seized, or as owner, without devising the same, the estate shall
descend to his lawful descendants in the direct line of lineal descent; and
if there be but one person, then to him or her alone, and if more than
one person, and all of equal degree of consanguinity to the ancestor, then
the inheritance shall descend to the several persons as tenants in common
in equal parts [ . . . (ed.) . . . ] without distinction of sex.
This rule was prescribed for the first time in the state of New York by a
statute of 23 February 1786 (see Revised Statutes, vol. III; Appendix, p. 48);
it has been adopted since in the revised statutes of the same state. It prevails
now throughout the United States, the sole exception being that, in the
state of Vermont, the male heir has a double share. Kent’s Commentaries,
vol. IV, p. 370.
Mr. Kent, in the same work, vol. IV, pp. 1–22, reviews American legis-
lation relative to entail. The outcome is that before the American Revo-
lution the English laws on entail formed the common law in the colonies.
Entail strictly speaking (Estates’ tail ) was abolished in Virginia in 1776 (this
abolition took place on the motion of Jefferson; see Jefferson’s Memoirs ),
in the state of New York in 1786. The same abolition has taken place since
676 notes
in North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Missouri. In Vermont,

the states of Indiana, Illinois, South Carolina and Louisiana, entail has al-
ways been unusual. The states that believed they had to keep English leg-
islation relative to entail modified it in a way to remove its principal aris-
tocratic characteristics. “Our general principles in matters of government,”
says Mr. Kent, “tend to favor the free circulation of property.”e
What singularly strikes the French reader who studies American legis-
lation relative to inheritance is that our laws on the same matter are still
infinitely more democratic than theirs.
American laws divide the wealth of the father equally, but only in the
case where his will is not known: “for every man, says the law, in the State
of New York (Revised Statutes, vol. III; Appendix, p. 51), has full liberty,
power and authority, to dispose of his goods by a will, to bequeath, divide,
in favor of whatever person it may be, provided that he does not make out
his will in favor of a political body or an organized company.”
French law makes equal or nearly equal division the rule of the testator.
Most of the American republics still allow entail and limit themselves
to restricting the effects.
French law allows entail in no case.f
If the social state of Americans is still more democratic than ours, our
laws are thus more democratic than theirs. This is explained better than
you think: in France democracy is still busy demolishing; in America it
reigns tranquilly over the ruins.
e. The quoted text reads: “The general policy of this country does not encourage
restraints upon the power of alienation of land.” Kent’s Commentaries, volume IV,
p. 17.
f. Hervé de Tocqueville: “I read that with surprise. The law authorizes the father tes-
tator to favor one of his children. In collateral line it leaves a very much greater latitude”
(YTC, CIIIb, 2, p. 99).
notes 677
(H) Page 97
Summary of Electoral Conditions in the United States
All the states grant the enjoyment of electoral rights at age twenty-one. In
all the states, you have to have resided a certain time in the district where
you vote. This time varies from three months to two years.
As for the property qualification: in the state of Massachusetts, to be a
voter, you have to have 3 pounds sterling of income, or 60 of capital.
In Rhode Island, you have to own property valued at 133 dollars (704
francs).
In Connecticut, you have to have a property with an income of 17 dollars
(about 90 francs). A year of service in the militia gives the right to vote as
well.
In New Jersey, the voter must have wealth of 50 pounds sterling.
In South Carolina and Maryland, the voter must own 50 acres of
land.
In Tennessee, you must own some property.
In the states of Mississippi, Ohio, Georgia, Virginia, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, New York, it is sufficient, to be a voter, to pay taxes: in most of
these states, service in the militia is the equivalent of paying taxes.
In Maine and in New Hampshire, it is sufficient not to be included on
the list of the poor.
Finally in the states of Missouri, Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, Indiana,
Kentucky, Vermont, no condition is required having to do with the wealth
of the voter.
Only North Carolina, I think, imposes on the voter for the Senate con-
ditions other than those imposed on voters for the House of Representa-
tives. The first must own property of 50 acres of land. It is sufficient, in
order to be able to elect representatives, to pay a tax.
(I) Page 161

A prohibitive system exists in the United States. The small number of cus-
toms officials and the great extent of coastline make smuggling very easy;
678 notes
it is done infinitely less there than elsewhere, however, because each person
works to repress it.
Since there is no preventive surveillance in the United States, you see
more fires there than in Europe; but in general they are extinguished sooner,
because the surrounding population does not fail to go quickly to the place
of danger.
(K) Page 165

It is not correct to say that centralization was born out of the French Rev-
olution; the French Revolution perfected it, but did not create it. The taste
for centralization and the mania for regulation go back in France to the
period when the jurists entered into the government; which takes us back
to the time of Philippe le Bel [the Fair]. Since that time, these two things
have never ceased to increase. Here is what M. de Malesherbes, speaking
in the name of the Cour des aides, said to King Louis XVI in 1775:3
There remained to each body, to each community of citizens the right
to administer its own affairs; a right that we do not say was part of the
original constitution of the kingdom, for it goes back much further: it is
natural law, it is the law of reason. But it has been taken away from your
subjects, Sire, and we will not be afraid to say that the administration has
fallen in this respect into excesses that can be called childish.
Since powerful ministers made it a political principle not to allow the
national assembly to be convoked, we have gone step by step to the point
of declaring null and void deliberations of the inhabitants of a village
when they are not authorized by an intendant; so that, if this community
has an expenditure to make, the assent of the subdelegate of the intendant
must be gained, consequently the plan that he adopted must be followed,
the workers that he favors must be used, they must be paid as he sees fit;
and if the community has a court case to sustain, it must also be authorized
to do so by the intendant; the case must be argued before this first tribunal
before being brought before the courts. And if the opinion of the inten-
3. See Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire du droit public de la France en matière

d’impôts, p. 654, printed in Brussels in 1779.
notes 679
dant is against the inhabitants, or if their adversary has the ear of the
intendant, the community is deprived of the ability to defend its rights.
Here, Sire, are the means by which some have worked to smother in France
all municipal spirit, to extinguish, if it could be done, even the sentiments
of citizens; the entire nation has been so to speak prohibited and it has
been given guardians.g
What could you say better today, now that the French Revolution has
made what are called its conquests in the matter of centralization?
In 1789, Jefferson wrote from Paris to one of his friends: “Never was
there a country where the mania for governing too much had taken deeper
roots and done more mischief than in France.” Letter to Madison, 28 Au-
gust 1789.
The truth is that in France, for several centuries, the central power has
always done all that it could to extend administrative centralization; in this
course it has never had any other limit than its strength.
The central power born from the French Revolution went further in this
than any of its predecessors, because it was stronger and more clever than
any of them. Louis XIV submitted the details of communal existence to the
wishes of the intendant; Napoleon submitted them to those of the minister.
It is always the same principle, extended to consequences more or less remote.
(L) Page 170

This immutability of the constitution in France is a necessary consequence
of our laws.
And, to speak first about the most important of all the laws, that which
regulates the order of succession to the throne, what is more immutable in
its principle than a political order based on the natural order of succession
g. Count de Boissy d’Anglas, Essais sur la vie, les écrits et les opinions de M. de Males-
herbes (Paris: Treuttel and Würtz, 1819), I, pp. 305–6 (quoted in YTC, CVh, 5, p. 3). We
know that this idea that the process of centralization predates the Revolution is the prin-
cipal thesis of the Old Regime and the Revolution.
Also see Luis Dı́ez del Corral, El pensamiento polı́tico de Tocqueville (Madrid: Alianza
Universidad, 1989), pp. 137–80.
680 notes
from father to son? In 1814, Louis XVIII had this perpetuity of the law of
political succession acknowledged in favor of his family. Those who settled
the results of the revolution of 1830 followed his example; only they estab-
lished the perpetuity of the law to the profit of another family; in this they
imitated chancellor Maupeou, who, while instituting the new parlement on
the ruins of the old, took care to declare in the same ordinance that the
new magistrates would be irremovable as their predecessors were.
The laws of 1830 do not, any more than those of 1814, indicate any means
to change the constitution. Now, it is clear that the ordinary means of leg-
islation cannot be sufficient for that.
From what does the king derive his powers? From the constitution.From
what the peers? From the constitution. From what the deputies? From the
constitution. How then would the king, the peers and the deputies be able,
by uniting, to change something in a law by the sole virtue of which they
govern? Outside the constitution they are nothing; so on what ground
would they stand in order to change the constitution? One of two things:
either their efforts are powerless against the charter, which continues to exist
in spite of them, and then they continue to rule in its name; or they succeed
in changing the charter, and then, since the law by which they exist no
longer exists, they are no longer anything themselves. By destroying the
charter, they are destroyed.
That is still much more obvious in the laws of 1830 than in those of 1814.
In 1814, the royal power put itself, in a way, outside and above the consti-
tution; but in 1830, by its own admission, it is created by the constitution
and is absolutely nothing without it.
Thus a part of our constitution is immutable, because it has been joined
with the destiny of a family; and the whole of the constitution is equally
immutable, because no legal means are seen to change it.
All this is not applicable to England. Since England has no written con-
stitution, who can say that its constitution is being changed?
notes 681
(M) Page 171

The most respected authors who have written about the English consti-
tution establish, as though trying to out do each other, this omnipotence
of Parliament.
Delolme says [book I (ed.)], ch. x, p. 77: It is a fundamental principle
with the English lawyers, that parliament can do everything, except making a
woman a man or a man a woman.
Blackstone expresses himself still more categorically, if not more ener-
getically, than Delolme; in these terms [book V, ch. II]:
“The power and jurisdiction of Parliament,” says sir Edward Coke (4 Inst.
36), “is so transcendent and absolute, that it cannot be confined, either
for causes or persons, within any bounds. And of this high court,” he adds,
“it may be truly said, Si antiquitatem spectes, est vetustissima; si dignitatem,
est honoratissima; si jurisdictionem, est capacissima. It hath sovereign and
uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining,
abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws concerning mat-
ters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, mili-
tary, maritime, or criminal: this being the place where that absolute des-
potice [sic ] power, which must in all governments reside somewhere, is
entrusted by the constitution of these kingdoms. All mischief and griev-
ances, operations and remedies, that transcend the ordinary course of laws
are within the reach of this extraordinary tribunal. It can regulate or new
model the succession to the crown; as was done in the reign of Henry VIII
and William III. It can alter the established religion of the land; as was
done in a variety of instances, in the reigns of king Henry VIII. and his
three children. It can change and create afresh even the constitution of the
kingdom and of parliaments themselves; as was done by the act of union
and the several statutes for triennial and septennial elections. It can, in
short, do everything that is not naturally impossible; and therefore some
have not scrupled to call it’s [sic ] power, by a figure rather too bold, the
omnipotence of parliament.”
682 notes
(N) Page 185

There is no subject on which the American constitutions agree more than
on political jurisdiction.
All the constitutions that deal with this subject give the house of
representatives the exclusive right to accuse, except only the Constitution
of North Carolina, which grants the same right to the grand juries (ar-
ticle 23).
Nearly all the constitutions give to the senate, or to the assembly that
takes its place, the exclusive right to judge.
The only penalties that the political courts can pronounce are: dismissal
or banning from public offices in the future. Only the Constitution of Vir-
ginia allows pronouncing all types of penalties.
Crimes that can lead to political jurisdiction are: in the federal Consti-
tution (sect. IV, art. I) [Article II, Section 4 (ed.)], in that of Indiana (art.
3, pp. 23 and 24), of New York (art. 5), of Delaware (art. 5), high treason,
corruption and other high crimes or misdemeanors;
In the Constitution of Massachusetts (ch. I, sect. II), of North Carolina
(art. 23), and of Virginia (p. 252), bad conduct and bad administration;
In the Constitution of New Hampshire (p. 105), corruption, reprehen-
sible schemes, and bad administration;
In Vermont (ch. II, art. 24), bad administration;
In South Carolina (art. 5), Kentucky (art. 5), Tennessee (art. 4), Ohio
(art. 1, #23, 24), Louisiana (art. 5), Mississippi (art. 5), Alabama (art. 6),
Pennsylvania (art. 4), crimes committed in office.
In the states of Illinois, Georgia, Maine and Connecticut, no crime is
specified.
(O) Page 276

It is true that the powers of Europe can wage great maritime wars against
the Union; but it is always easier and less dangerous to sustain a maritime
war than a continental war. Maritime war requires only a single kind of
effort. A commercial people that consents to give its government the money
notes 683
needed is always sure to have fleets. Now, sacrifices of money can be con-
cealed from nations much more easily than sacrifices of men and personal
efforts. Defeats at sea, moreover, rarely compromise the existence or the
independence of the people who experience them.
As for continental wars, it is clear that the peoples of Europe cannot
wage dangerous wars against the American Union.
It is very difficult to transport to and to maintain in America more than
25,000 soldiers; this represents a nation of about 2,000,000 people. The
greatest European nation fighting against the Union in this way is in the
same position as a nation of 2,000,000 inhabitants would be in a war
against one of 12,000,000. Add to this that the American has all of his
resources at hand and the European is 1,500 leagues from his, and that the
immensity of the territory of the United States alone would present an
insurmountable obstacle to conquest.
Second Part
(A) Page 298
In April 1704 the first American newspaper appeared. It was published in
Boston. See Collection of the Historical Society of Massachusetts, vol. VI,
p. 66.
You would be wrong to believe that the periodical press has always been
entirely free in America; attempts were made there to establish something
analogous to prior censorship and to the surety bond.
Here is what you find in the legislative documents of Massachusetts, for
the date of 14 January 1722.
The committee named by the general assembly (the legislative body of
the province) to study the affair relating to the newspaper entitled: New
England Courant h
h. In the first edition: “Courant (which was written by the celebrated Franklin) . . .”
The error was corrected in the following editions.
684 notes
thinks that the tendency of the said newspaper is to ridicule religion and
make it sink into contempt; that the holy authors are treated in a profane
and irreverent manner; that the conduct of the ministers of the Gospel is
interpreted with malice; that the government of His Majesty is insulted,
and that the peace and tranquillity of this province are disturbed by the
said newspaper; consequently, the committee is of the opinion that, in the
future, James Franklin, printer and editor, be forbidden to print or publish
the said newspaper or any other writing, without having submitted them
in advance to the Secretary of the province. The justices of the peace of
the town of Suffolk will be charged with obtaining from Mr. Franklin a
bond that will be a pledge for his good conduct during the coming year.
The proposal of the committee was accepted and became law, but the
effect was null. The newspaper eluded the interdiction by putting the name
of Benjamin Franklin in place of James Franklin beneath its columns, and
opinion finally put an end to the measure.
(B) Page 445

In order to be county voters (those who represent landed property) before
the reform bill passed in 1832, it was necessary to have by sole ownership
or by lifetime lease capital in land bringing in 40 shillings in net income.
This law was made under Henry VI, about 1450. It has been calculated that
40 shillings at the time of Henry VI would be equivalent to 30 pounds
sterling today. This amount adopted in the XVth century was allowed to
remain, however, until 1832, which proves how much the English consti-
tution became democratic over time, even while appearing immobile. See
Delolme, book I, ch. IV; also see Blackstone, book I, ch. IV.
English jurors are chosen by the county sheriff (Delolme, vol. I, ch XII
[XIII (ed.)]. The sheriff is in general a prominent man of the county; he
fulfills judicial and administrative functions; he represents the King, and is
named by him every year (Blackstone, book I, ch. IX). His position puts
him above suspicion of corruption on the part of the parties; if, moreover,
his impartiality is put in doubt, the jury that he has named can be recused
en masse, and then another officer is charged with choosing new jurors. See
Blackstone, book III, ch. XXIII.
notes 685
To have the right to be a juror, it is necessary to own capital in land, with

a value of at least 10 shillings in income. (Blackstone, book III, ch. XXIII).
You will note that this condition was imposed during the reign of William
and Mary, that is toward 1700, a period when the value of money was in-
finitely higher than today. You see that the English based their jury system,
not on capacity but on landed property, like all their other political
institutions.
In the end farmers were admitted to the jury, but it was required that
their leases be very long, and that they have a net income of 20 shillings,
apart from the rent. (Blackstone, idem.)
(C) Page 445

The federal constitution introduced the jury into the courts of the Union
in the same way that the states had introduced it into their particular courts;
in addition, the federal constitution did not establish its own rules about
the choice of jurors. Federal courts draw from the ordinary list of jurors
that each state has drawn up for its use. So it is the laws of the states that
must be examined to know the theory of the composition of the jury in
America. See Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, book III, ch.
XXXVIII, pp. 654–59; Sergeant’s Constitutional Law, p. 165. Also see the
federal laws of 1789, 1800 and 1820 on the subject.
To show clearly the principles of the Americans regarding the compo-
sition of the jury, I have drawn upon the laws of states far from each other.
Here are the general ideas that can be derived from this examination.
In America, all citizens who are voters have the right to be jurors. The
large state of New York has, however, established a slight difference between
those two capacities; but it is in the direction opposite to our laws, that is
to say, there are fewer jurors than voters in the state of New York. In general,
you can say that in the United States the right to be part of a jury, like the
right to elect representatives, extends to everyone; but the exercise of this
right is not put indiscriminately into all hands.
Each year a body of municipal or district magistrates, called selectmen
in New England, supervisors in the state of New York, trustees in Ohio,
parish sheriffs in Louisiana, choose for each district a certain number of
686 notes
citizens having the right to be jurors, and among whom they assume the
capacity to be so. These magistrates, being elected themselves, do not excite
distrust; their powers are very extensive and very arbitrary, like those of
republican magistrates in general, and it is said that they often use those
powers, above all in New England, in order to remove unworthy or incom-
petent jurors.
The names of the jurors thus chosen are sent on to the county court,
and from the totality of these names, the jury that must deliver the verdict
in each affair is drawn by lot.
The Americans have, moreover, tried by all possible means to put the
jury within reach of the people, and to make it as little burdensome as
possible. Since the jurors are very numerous, each person’s turn comes
scarcely every three years. The sessions are held in the chief seat of each
county; the county corresponds more or less to our arrondissement. Thus,
the court comes to be located near the jury, instead of drawing the jury
close to it, as in France; finally the jurors are paid, either by the state, or by
the parties. They receive, in general, one dollar (5.42 fr.) per day, apart from
travel expenses. In America the jury is still regarded as a burden, but it is a
burden easy to bear, and one you submit to without difficulty.
See Brevard’s Digest of the Public Statute Law of South Carolina, 2nd
vol., p. 338; id., vol. I, pp. 454 and 456; id., vol. II, p. 218.
See The General Laws of Massachusetts revised and published by authority
of the legislature, vol. II, pp. 331, 187 [141].
See The Revised Statutes of the State of New York, vol. II, pp. 720, 411,
717, 643.
See The Statute Law of the State of Tennessee, vol. I, p. 209.
See Acts of the State of Ohio, pp. 95 and 210.
See Digeste général des actes de la législature de la Louisiane, vol. II, p. 55.
(D) Page 449

When you closely examine the constitution of the civil jury among the
English, you easily discover that the jurors never escape the control of the
judge.
It is true that the verdict of the jury, civil as well as criminal, generally
notes 687
includes fact and law in a simple statement. Example: A house is claimed

by Peter as one he bought, here is the fact. His adversary raises the objection
of the incompetence of the seller, here is the law. The jury limits itself to
saying that the house will be put back in Peter’s hands; thus it decides fact
and law. When introducing the jury in civil matters, the English did not
keep the infallibility of the opinion of the jurors that they granted in crim-
inal matters, when the verdict is favorable.
If the judge thinks that the verdict has made a false application of the
law, he can refuse to receive it, and send the jurors back to deliberate.
If the judge allows the verdict without comment, the proceedings are
still not entirely settled: there are several paths of recourse open against the
decision. The principal one consists of asking the courts to void the verdict
and to assemble a new jury. It is true to say that such a demand is rarely
granted and never more than two times. Nonetheless, I saw the case happen
before my eyes. See Blackstone, book III, ch. XXIV; id., book III, ch. XXV.

Tocqueville 1593-01 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tocqueville 1593-01 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tocqueville 1593-01 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

democracy in america

Edited by Eduardo Nolla

Translated from the French by James T. Schleifer

English translation, translator’s note, index, 䉷 2010 by Liberty Fund, Inc.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

chapter 1: Exterior Configuration of North America 33

chapter 2: Of the Point of Departure and Its Importance for

chapter 3: Social State of the Anglo-Americans 74

Political Consequences of the Social State of the Anglo-Americans 89

chapter 4: Of the Principle of the Sovereignty of the People

chapter 5: Necessity of Studying What Happens in the

chapter 6: Of the Judicial Power in the United States and Its

chapter 7: Of Political Jurisdiction in the United States 179

chapter 8: Of the Federal Constitution 186

chapter 1: How It Can Be Strictly Said That in the United

chapter 4: Of Political Association in the United States 302

chapter 5: Of the Government of Democracy in America 313

chapter 6: What Are the Real Advantages That American

chapter 7: Of the Omnipotence of the Majority in the United

chapter 8: Of What Tempers Tyranny of the Majority in the

chapter 9: Of the Principal Causes That Tend to Maintain the

Of the Influence of Mores on Maintaining the Democratic Republic in

Part I: Influence of Democracy on the

chapter 1: Of the Philosophical Method of the Americans 697

chapter 13: Literary Physiognomy of Democratic Centuries 800

chapter 14: Of the Literary Industry 813

chapter 15: Why the Study of Greek and Latin Literature Is

chapter 16: How American Democracy Has Modified the

chapter 17: Of Some Sources of Poetry among

chapter 18: Why American Writers and Orators Are

chapter 19: Some Observations on the Theater of

chapter 20: Of Some Tendencies Particular to Historians in

chapter 21: Of Parliamentary Eloquence in the United States 861

Part II: Influence of Democracy on the

chapter 1: Why Democratic Peoples Show a More Ardent and

chapter 2: Of Individualism in Democratic Countries 881

chapter 3: How Individualism Is Greater at the End of a

chapter 4: How the Americans Combat Individualism with

chapter 5: Of the Use That Americans Make of Association

chapter 6: Of the Relation between Associations

chapter 7: Relations between Civil Associations and

chapter 8: How the Americans Combat Individualism by the

chapter 9: How the Americans Apply the Doctrine of Interest

chapter 10: Of the Taste for Material Well-Being in America 930

chapter 11: Of the Particular Effects Produced by the Love of

chapter 12: Why Certain Americans Exhibit So Excited

chapter 13: Why the Americans Appear So Restless Amid

chapter 14: How the Taste for Material Enjoyment Is United,

chapter 15: How from Time to Time Religious Beliefs Divert

chapter 16: How the Excessive Love of Well-Being Can

chapter 17: How, in Times of Equality and Doubt, It Is

chapter 18: Why, among the Americans, All Honest Professions

chapter 19: What Makes Nearly All Americans Tend toward

chapter 20: How Aristocracy Could Emerge from Industry 980

Part III: Influence of Democracy on

chapter 1: How Mores Become Milder as Conditions

chapter 2: How Democracy Makes the Habitual Relations of

chapter 3: Why the Americans Have So Little Susceptibility in

chapter 4: Consequences of the Three Preceding Chapters 1005