Essay 46: A Few Remarks On The Present Day State And The Probable Future Of The Three Races Which Live In The Territory Of The United States (Vol. 1 Pt. 2 Ch. 10, Subch. 3)

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 348 (heading and 2 lines) – 379 (top paragraph) of this edition of Democracy in America.

American Union Will Last? What Dangers Threaten It?

Near the end of Volume One of Democracy in America, De Tocqueville discusses the possible dangers that might, in the future, lead to the dissolution of the American federal Union. If the amount of time De Tocqueville takes to discuss this topic is an indication of its importance, he must have taken this issue very seriously, as it is one of the longest chapters in the book. In fact, it had been an issue of utmost concern to President George Washington in his “Farewell Address” (1796), and of a young Abraham Lincoln in his 1838 address titled “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,” delivered shortly after the first volume of Democracy in America was published.

De Tocqueville begins by observing that, in the long run, the survival of the Union depends heavily on how long the delicate federal balance of powers and responsibilities between nation and states can be maintained. If that balance tips too far toward the national government, the states might become irrelevant; if it tips too far toward favoring state sovereignty over the national authority, the states might disassociate and thus break up the Union. This problem seems unavoidable because of the very nature of the federal Union, which sought to combine thirteen mostly sovereign and independent states into one nation under a national government.

The framers of the Constitution, De Tocqueville notes, “had not been charged with constituting the government of a unitary people, but with regulating the association of several peoples.” In other words, the founders faced the challenge of creating a single nation comprised not of a unitary people but of confederated peoples distinguished by several distinct characteristics. The problem is this: “Unitary peoples are therefore naturally brought toward centralization” (or strengthening the importance of the nation), and confederations toward dismemberment.” Or, to put it differently, a unitary people feels a kind of “patriotism” toward the nation, whereas confederated peoples tend to feel more “patriotism” toward their particular state, region, or section of the Union.

What makes the peoples in the American Union so different and, therefore, inclined to identify more as members of their state or section, rather than as Americans in the larger sense? Tocqueville points out many of the same differences that were emphasized by the Antifederalist Brutus in his essays opposing ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88. De Tocqueville notes the number of diverse commercial interests among the states and sections of the Union, especially between the Northern and Southern states, but also between the original Eastern states and the newer states of the West. De Tocqueville, however, seems to place more stress on different ideas, opinions, and passions among the states and sections – especially those that shape the mores, in fact the very character of the peoples inhabiting those sections.

To illustrate this potentially disruptive difference of character, De Tocqueville writes on how the institution of slavery “has modified the character of the inhabitants of the South and given them different habits.” Raised to be both self-reliant but needing the voluntary cooperation of his fellow citizens, the “American of the North” is more “patient, reflective, tolerant, slow to act, and persevering in his designs.” He is “more active, more reasonable, more enlightened, and more skillful.” The American of the South, having been raised with the benefit of slaves serving his material needs, “loves greatness, luxury, glory, noise, pleasures, above all idleness,” and is “more spontaneous, more spiritual, more open, more generous, more intellectual, and more brilliant.” The man of the North has the characteristics of the middle class, whereas the man of the South “has the tastes, prejudices, weaknesses, and greatness of all aristocracies.” De Tocqueville’s point is that these powerful differences in character tend to divide rather than unite citizens as one American people. “Slavery therefore,” De Tocqueville writes, “does not attack the American confederation directly by its interests, but indirectly by its mores.”

The localization of slavery in the South does, however, potentially threaten the survival of the Union in a political sense. With westward expansion, the centers of influence shift from the original states of the East (both North and South) to the new states of the West. With the addition of new states – and therefore new representatives in Congress – the delicate balance of political power between free and slave states is jeopardized. The people of the South especially see how this affects the institution of slavery in their states in the future. The South, De Tocqueville observes, “knows that federal power is escaping it, that each year sees the number of its representatives in Congress diminish and those of the North and West grow – the South, populated by ardent and irascible men, is irritated and restive.” In this De Tocqueville sees the tendency of the Southern states to tend more and more toward asserting the importance of states’ rights or sovereignty, as evidenced by the nullification crisis in South Carolina in 1832. Thus De Tocqueville predicts that if the Union is dissolved, it will likely be by one of two means: either by the abrupt secession of states from the Union, or by a gradual reversal over time toward complete state independence.

Christopher Burkett is Associate Professor of Political Science at Ashland University and Academic Director of the Ashbrook Scholar Program and Academies. He is editor of Ashbrook’s 50 Core American Documents, and has written on the American Founding, Progressivism, and American Foreign Policy. He holds a B.A. from Ashland University, and received his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Dallas.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

PRINT ARTICLE