Essay 8: Necessity of Studying What Takes Place in the Particular States before Speaking of the Government of the Union – Volume 1 Part 1 Chapter 5 Subchapters 9 to 11 of Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville
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 79 (starting at the heading “On The State”) through 82 (stop at the heading “Administrative Decentralization”) of this edition of Democracy in America.
The core of America’s federal system of government is viable state governments. America is called “the United States” to institutionalize the importance of distributed and diverse state governance as a balance to centralized power.
De Tocqueville fully understood this unique America concept by declaring “The Necessity of Examining What Happened in Individual States Before Considering the Union as a Whole”.
State legislatures, except Nebraska, mirror the two legislative chambers at the national level. In 1934, Nebraskans voted to merge their two legislative houses determining unicameralism would be more efficient and cheaper.
The concept of two legislative chambers, at both the national and state levels, began with the Royal Charter that established Jamestown in Virginia. It evolved from the Charter holders into governance by the King’s Representative (Royal Governor) and his Advisory Council. This evolved into the Senate at both the national and state level.
As De Tocqueville explains:
“The Senate is usually a legislative body; but sometimes it becomes an administrative and judicial body.”
A state’s House of Representatives, called the House of Delegates in some states, also has its roots in Jamestown. When the settlers demanded their own voice, the Virginia House of Burgesses, in 1619, became the first democratically elected legislative body in America.
De Tocqueville explains the difference:
“The other branch of the legislature, ordinally called the House of Representatives, participates in no administrative power and takes part in judicial power only by accusing public officials before the Senate.”
The House of Burgesses became a proving ground for what would become the “lower house” at the national and state levels. “Upper” and “Lower” house designations were derived from their location within Jamestown’s legislative building. The House of Burgesses was located on the ground floor while the Governor’s Advisory Council met on the second floor.
Drawing from British tradition, the members of the House held their positions for shorter periods of time to be held closely accountable by those they represented.
De Tocqueville explains:
“By granting to the senators the privilege of being chosen for several years, and being renewed seriatim, the law takes care to preserve in the legislative body a nucleus of men already accustomed to public business, and capable of exercising a salutary influence upon the junior members.”
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, writing under the pseudonym “PUBLIUS”, outlined this binding of the House of Representatives more closely to those they served in Federalist No. 52:
“Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured…. It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration.”
This unique legislative environment of having different terms and therefore different mandates/perspectives was considered a strength by de Tocqueville:
“To divide legislative strength, thus to slow the movement of political assemblies, and to create a court of appeal for the revision of laws – such are the sole advantages that result from the current constitutions of the two houses in the United States.”
De Tocqueville embraced the universal wisdom of how America’s state legislatures governed:
“This theory, nearly ignored in ancient republics, introduced into the world almost haphazardly like most great truths, unknown to several modern peoples, has at length passed into the political science of our day as an axiom.”
De Tocqueville then turns his attention to state governors.
He outlines the governor’s role as a “moderator and counsel”. This is very different from the powerful Royal Governors they replaced. Governors serve as a counterbalance to the legislature as each chamber balances each other. This institutionalized series of “checks and balances” creates a web of accountability at both the state and national level. The lessons learned from royal overreach were embedded to prevent future tyranny.
Governors also have the power to “stop or at least to slow movement” of legislation. This check on legislative power arises from the lessons learned from the English Revolution (1640-1660) when Charles I’s royal tyranny was replaced with Oliver Cromwell’s legislative dictatorship.
A governor, in their role as moderator, do set “out the needs of the country to the legislative body and makes it known what means he judges useful to employ in order to provide for them.” The legislature’s role is to approve or reject the governor’s agenda, serving as a balance to executive power.
De Tocqueville, who had previously outlined the importance of local government in America, explains that “the governor does not enter into the administration of townships and counties”.
Each level of government in America has its own role, power, and independence. From the national level on down to local communities, America’s strength is a structure that prevents centralized tyranny.
Scot Faulkner was the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. Earlier, he served on the White House staff. He is Vice President of the George Washington Institute of Living Ethics at Shepherd University and the President of Friends of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park.
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.
It seems to me that many people today don’t like the concept of federalism, or that they don’t understand federalism. Regardless of one’s opinion regarding abortion, many people today reject the idea that each state should decide; instead, they want a federal law. Maybe the word itself, federalism, is confusing in that it sounds like the federal government makes all laws and that state and local governments deal only with local matters, like zoning, property taxes, etc. The drive towards making federal laws with respect to other matters, such as federal auto mandates, energy, education, health care in general, among others, seems to be driving us away from the founder’s vision and true meaning of federalism. I never hear our politicians speak about the true definition of federalism, so it seems natural that people be confused. The politicians seem to assume that everyone knows the definition.
It seems to me that many people today don’t like the concept of federalism, or that they don’t understand federalism. Regardless of one’s opinion regarding abortion, for example, many people today reject the idea that each state should decide; instead, they want a federal law. Maybe the word itself, federalism, is confusing in that it sounds like the federal government makes all laws and that state and local governments deal only with local matters, like zoning, property taxes, etc. The drive towards making federal laws with respect to other matters, such as federal auto mandates, energy, education, health care in general, among others, seems to be driving us away from the founder’s vision and true meaning of federalism. The politicians seem to assume that everyone knows the definition; I don’t think they do.
I have to first say this is a great essay written for a very informative 90 day study. Its my opinion that the Bill of Rights by simple interpretation severely restricts “states” rights, in that rectifying “equal rights” for individual citizens across the nation rather than 50 different interpretations at the state level. For instance it is continually argued that the right to own and bare guns has the be a national right. This at the same time as Abortion rights are up to the states. Very confusing for the normal citizen.
Thanks for the discussion.
Hi Paul – Congratulations! You are the winner for Week Four of our free book drawing of Democracy in America! We will be shipping out your book soon! I believe we have your most recent address, but if you want to update us, please email us at orders@ConstitutingAmerica.org – thank you for commenting on the blog!