Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

could not have been confided to better hands. As regards M. de Tocqueville, besides his other qualifications, no one who had the pleasure of his acquaintance can have failed to notice an urbanity and courtesy of manner such as are seldom met with. A grandson of the great and virtuous Malesherbes, he had all the refinement and rational love of liberty which belonged to what was called in France la noblesse de robe, a title by which the old families of the legal profession were known, - naturally coupled with the feeling of caste which belongs to such a descent. It is well to bear this in mind, as it will tend to account for the general tone of M. de Tocqueville's opinions. The clew to that gentleman's theories can in no way be so well given as in his own words.

The Introduction to his "Democracy in America" begins thus. (We will here premise, that, having no English copy at hand, we translate from Gosselin's Paris edition of 1836.)

"Among the novel objects which, during my stay in the United States, attracted my attention, none struck me more forcibly than the equality of conditions. I soon discovered the prodigious influence of this leading fact on the march of society; it gives a certain direction to public spirit, a certain character to the laws; new maxims to those who govern, and peculiar habits to the governed. I at once saw that this same fact extends its influence far beyond political and legal questions, and that it is no less powerful in its operation on civil society than on the government. It creates opinions, gives rise to sentiments, suggests customs, and modifies all that it does not originate."

He then goes on to speak of Europe, and gives a most clear and interesting account of the growth of the same spirit of equality there, especially in France, and sums up as follows:

"The whole book on which the reader is now to enter has been written under the impression of a sort of religious terror, produced in the mind of the author by the prospect of this irresistible revolution, which has been marching on through so many ages in spite of every obstacle, and which we still see advancing in the midst of the ruins itself has made."

He draws a very just distinction between the result of this tendency in France and in the United States; but it is easy to see that the dread of our example in this respect is a bugbear which perpetually haunts him.

It is moreover very important, in forming a judgment of the value of M. de Tocqueville's work, to keep in mind the state in which he found things among us at the time of his visit in 1832. It was, as we all know, most critical. The prologue was then being recited of the great drama on which the curtain has just fallen. John C. Calhoun was then at the acme of his doleful career; the cry of nullification was then at its loudest, to be succeeded in no long time by the more appalling watchword of Secession. State rights, the true construction of the Constitution, the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, tariffs, and the "fortybale" theory were the standing topics of angry discussion in all parts of the Union. While the controversy was carried on at the North with quite enough of eagerness and warmth, it was raging south of Mason and Dixon's line with a degree of bitterness which might well cause astonishment to a foreigner newly come among us, and tend to mislead him in his estimate of the people and government. It was at such a period that M. de Tocqueville set foot on our shores, with a sincere desire to form an impartial judgment of the nature of our institutions, and of the probable destiny of our country. What means he took to this end will be best explained by himself.

"When," he says in his Introduction, "a point could be settled by means of written documents, I have been careful to refer to the original texts or to the most authentic and highly approved works. I have in my notes pointed out my authorities, which any one may verify. Whenever it was a question of opinions, of political customs, or of the study of manners, I have endeavored to consult the best-informed persons. In respect to important or doubtful matters, I was not contented with a single witness, but decided upon a balance of authorities.

"Here I must of course ask the reader to believe me on my simple word. I might often have cited, in support of what I advance, the authority of names which either are or deserve to be well known, but I have abstained from doing so. The stranger is often made acquainted, at the fireside of his host, with important truths which the latter would perhaps have withheld from the ear of friendship; with him constrained silence is relieved; there is nothing to fear from his imprudence, for he passes on.

"All these confidential communications were recorded by me as I received them, but they will never go beyond my portfolio. I prefer to weaken the effect of my statements, than to add my name to the

list of travellers who repay by mortification and embarrassment the generous hospitality they have received."

This resolution of M. de Tocqueville is no more than might have been expected from his propriety of feeling. This praiseworthy reticence locks up, however, as we suppose, the key to the true interpretation of M. de Tocqueville's book. Could we see the authority for some of the writer's heresies, we should probably have little difficulty in recognizing the ear-mark of their true owner.

The result of M. de Tocqueville's mode of proceeding is just what might have been looked for. So long as he discusses the origin and history of our government, which he gets at by consulting historical and other documents, nothing can be more fair or more trustworthy than what he has to say. Not only are his facts indisputable, but his manner of stating and elucidating them is all that could be wished. Not so when he comes to deal with the questions of the day, and the future of the United States. That section of his tenth chapter which is headed, "What are the Chances of the Duration of the American Union, and what are the Dangers which threaten it," is a standing example of reasoning refuted by events, as well as a warning to authors, however able, who undertake to pronounce upon the institutions of a country on the strength of a few months' acquaintance. M. de Tocqueville fell into the mistake of attempting to decide, by a process of reasoning a priori, a question not to be settled but by the crucial test, which might never be applied. He assumes at the outset that the United States are a mere confederation of sovereignties. In this section, he says:

"If a contest should arise to-day between the States and the Union, it is easy to perceive that the latter must succumb. I question even whether the struggle could ever be brought to a serious issue. Whenever an obstinate resistance shall be made to the Federal government, it will give in (on le verra céder). Experience has proved thus far, that, whenever a state has obstinately insisted upon anything, and was resolved to obtain what it asked, it has never failed to succeed; and when it has refused point-blank to act, it has been let alone."

This statement he undertakes to prove by a course of reason

ing which, though now quite worthless otherwise, is not without its use in showing how the wisest men may deceive themselves when arguing in support of a foregone conclusion. He lays down with great minuteness the distinction between the prerogatives which belong to the national government and those which belong to the separate States, and concludes that the latter must needs prevail over the former; that the local sovereignties are constantly gaining ground, so that the national government, growing daily more and more weak, must finally die of inanition. He follows up the argument with a cogency of logic which defies all refutation, winding up the whole with an axiom from which, he ventures to affirm, there is no escape.

"It seems then certain to me, that if one portion of the Union wished seriously to separate from the other, not only would it be impossible to prevent it, but that prevention would not even be attempted. The existing government will therefore last only so long as every one of the States composing it shall continue to wish to form a part of it."

So confident is M. de Tocqueville that this position is impregnable, that he goes on in the following complacent strain:—

"This point settled, we see our way more clearly (nous voici plus à laise). We need no longer trouble ourselves to inquire whether the confederate States actually can separate, but whether or not they will desire to remain united."

He then goes into a minute examination of the inducements the States have to remain together; which, in the existing state of things, is, to say the least, amusing. A favorite notion of M. de Tocqueville was, that the State governments, being more immediately connected with the domestic interests and every-day concerns of men, would in time become the great objects of ambition, and would eventually gain the ascendency over the national Congress. Now, nothing is more notorious than that the fact is just the other way. As the concerns of the nation become more vast, and the offices, diplomatic and domestic, more important and desirable, a seat in Congress is the constant aim of every aspirant for political distinction; the local legislatures being, for such men, merely stepping-stones to that object.

But we will allow M. de Tocqueville to proceed with the development of his views on the general question of the nationality of the United States. He says further:

"I have shown, in another place, that the object of the Federal Constitution was not to establish a league, but to create a national government. The Americans, in all the cases provided for in their Constitution, form but one and the same people. Upon all these points, the national will, as in all constitutional communities, is expressed by means of majorities. The majority having once decided, the duty of the minority is to submit. Such is the legal doctrine, and the only one in accordance with the text of the Constitution and the known intentions of those who established it.

"The nullifiers of the South affirm, on the contrary, that the Americans, in forming the Union, had no intention of consolidating themselves into one and the same people, but that they meant only to form a league of independent States; whence 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 own limits, those which it thinks opposed to the Constitution or to justice.

[ocr errors]

"The doctrine of Nullification is embodied in a sentence pronounced in 1833 before the Senate of the United States by Mr. Calhoun, the acknowledged leader of the nullifiers of the South. The Constitution,' he says, 'is a contract, in which the States appear in the attitude of sovereigns. Now, wherever a contract is made between parties who acknowledge no common arbiter, each of them reserves to itself the right of judging independently the extent of its obligation.' It is manifest," adds M. de Tocqueville, "that a doctrine like this annuls in principle the federal bond, and, in fact, brings back the state of anarchy from which the Americans had been delivered by the Constitution of the United States."

We here see Mr. Calhoun laying down the law without the least reservation, and begging the whole question in dispute; and we have seen M. de Tocqueville coming to the same result by a logical argument in all the forms. M. de Tocqueville here declares, very justly, that Mr. Calhoun's doctrine leads to anarchy, by annulling the federal contract; we have also seen that he has proved, to his own satisfaction at least, that the doctrine may be sustained by strictly logical reasoning. It follows that M. de Tocqueville himself thinks that the federal bond

« AnteriorContinuar »