Week 1: DIA Introduction through Vol 1 Part 1 Ch. 3

[Xan]

Lily wrote: "Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "But we live in a different era, and it wouldn't hurt to see what might be lurking under the bedsheets..."

And if "providential or teleological" matters insofar as the val..."

A teleological view of history can screw with your interpretation of events and how you see them. You start looking for explanations that explain the end design rather than looking for explanations of events in time and place.

Edit:

A possible example is the elimination of primogeniture as critical to equality. T claims its replacement, partition, was critical to equality of conditions. Possible, but his explanation seems paper thin.

After enough generations, no matter how large the original property, families would own lots too small to support themselves. Equality in penury. Why didn't that happen instead? It probably did. There is just too much stuff going on for his simple explanation to be plausible.

[Marie]

This is my first time joining a discussion in this group and I am looking forward to it. I had heard of DIA before, but I didn't know it was a foreign perspective towards American democracy. I am fascinated by this.

Initially, I think T makes a good point on the importance of a common language in establishing democracy. This is almost prophetic considering he does not have the benefit of seeing English become a dominant language throughout the world.

David wrote: "DIA has been called a darling of the left and the right. How is this possible?"

lol, I would never guess that the right and the left could agree on anything containing a discussion of democracy. It almost seemed absurd to me until I finished reading the third chapter. I would imagine that the left supports DIA because of the way T criticizes aristocracy and discusses the role of feudalism in promoting inequality.

That would be my guess, although I am following along through audiobook, which does make me think I am missing some points here and there.

I have seen some questions on the history of Puritans coming to America to flee persecution. In this sense, I do believe that T is providing a much more accurate presentation of what happened than some history books we are familiar with.

Puritans weren't really persecuted in the sense that we consider persecution. They were engaged in an intellectual struggle, more or less, to practice the rituals of their particular sect. In some ways, a monarchy does maintain some similarities with a theocracy, and the King had some authority to define ritual practices, which created conflict for the Puritan conscious.

For example, before King James authorized his own version of the Bible, there was already a longstanding debate over Bible versions very similar to the ones that take place today. There was a long line of Bibles that had already been produced and the Puritans opposed Bibles with Catholic influence. If I am not mistaken, the Puritans preferred the Geneva Bible.

Implementing the King James Version within this debate may have been a smart political move to maintain a monarchy, but the Puritans seemed to want something that more closely resembled a theocracy. So the Puritans weren't really pursuing freedom either unless freedom is defined by the removal of monarchy alone.

Either way, I believe it is true when T says that the early settlers were people with intellectual reasons for fleeing their country of origin, and this could be a reason for a more successful establishment of democracy.

[David]

In order to show a little more love for the first chapter: the Outward Configuration. . ., I have to call out T's observations on the Great Lakes. If he only knew of the uneven isostatic rebound still being experienced since the mile thick glaciers that formed that vast bowl is indeed still tipping it.

The great lakes that bound this first region are not contained, as are most lakes in the Old World, by hills or rocks. Their flat banks rise only a few feet above the water’s surface. Hence each lake is like a vast bowl filled to the brim. The slightest change in the structure of the globe would send waves from these lakes racing off toward either the North Pole or the tropical sea.

[David]

Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "After enough generations, no matter how large the original property, families would own lots too small to support themselves."

This situation seems self-correcting. Nobody could sell a lot that small because who would buy a lot too small to support themselves, especially when you could pick up and move a little to the west and get a bigger lot? I would suppose if lots got so small, there would be some other person not requiring a lot of land to support themselves to buy them. Trades people, doctors, lawyers, etc.

[Marie]

Patrice wrote: "freedom and equality can be in opposition to each other. Venezuela is not free but enforced equality has made everyone miserable."

I was reminded of something along the same lines as this when I was listening to chapter 2.

"There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level,
and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom. Not that those nations whose social condition is democratic naturally despise liberty; on the contrary, they have an instinctive love of it. But liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol: they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty, and if they miss their aim resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing can satisfy them except equality, and rather than lose it they resolve to perish."

I would say that this demonstrates that a democratic process can be represented as a scale that can become imbalanced, and produce a harmful effect. Maybe we could even say that something like socialism and communism promotes the negatives of a democratic process because it has no system of checks and balances. It only has a desire to be equal as though equality equaled freedom.

IMO, I think this demonstrates the necessity of a republic to create a balance for the implementation of a democratic process. It creates a more effective system to use a democratic process even if doesn't always create perfect equality.

What I also like about T is that he seems to be very forward thinking. He doesn't seem to be suggesting that American democracy is the best of the best, but that we can learn things from its success that will be useful towards the inevitable movement towards improved social conditions. This seems like an idea that could be universally supported, which is a refreshing prospect considering the present political climate.

[[deleted user]]

David wrote: "True, but one may always wonder if someone significant supplied him with anything surp..."

I'm with you there!. I was wondering... which of the players from the Revolution might still have been alive and have been willing to talk?

[[deleted user]]

At 30 Lily wrote: "Not sure how relevant to this discussion, Adelle, but stream of consciousness reminds me of another aphorism: "There is no man less free than one who is slave to his possessions..."

Ah, Lily... I find that MOST intriguing!

1) Within DIA, as T wrote of how materialistic he found Americans to be. {WHY is that, I wonder?}

{A} Is it conspicuous consumption? "Look what I've got?" … Maybe because Americans didn't have titles or revered family names to give themselves a bit of prestige compared to their fellows? Is it because they HAVE the ability to better their condition...and thus they WANT to make the most of the opportunity to advance themselves AND to leave an inheritance for their children... so that THEIR children can advance further? As in … maybe the 1st generation doesn't have the wherewithal to go to college....but they'll work hard and save so that the NEXT generation can???

{B} And how DOES this materialistic bent enslave them? A couple of ways, I think: (i) In some ways...owning more would probably make them more inclined to be active in government/politics... to protect what they've managed to accumulate. One the other hand, (ii) I would think that additional land and/or belongings would tend to take up more of their time. --- Resulting??? in politics/government being primarily the field of those that are wealthy enough to hire workers to care for their goods, or, those who had slaves to care for their goods and do the physical/time-consuming labor. And... wasn't it in fact primarily the plantation owners in the South, and the well-to-do merchants of New England, who were most engaged in advocating for the Revolution? And those such as Thomas Paine who didn't have a lot to lose?

2) Within my own life... LOL... I find myself...if not quite a slave... perhaps an indentured servant to the STUFF in my home. I read The Gentle Art of Swedish Death Cleaning... I'm slowly, slowly, getting rid of "things."

Does make one wonder. What are the ramifications today? I'm going a bit too far here... but are people encouraged to accumulate in part to keep them busy---too busy to responsibly engage in politics? And to keep them earning---to increase tax revenue?

Excellent point to ponder, Lily. Thanks much.

[Mark]

So we have the individual and collective reasons that the original settlers came here with. About which the author can only speculate. Then we have the becoming a nation and our constitution, about which we all somewhat speculate. Then we have the author's observations about what he found when he visited here almost 200 years ago; and then we can speculate on maybe and how and what T. thought he saw has had a large or a small influence on what we seem to have today. There is no equality: biologically or institutionally, the wealthy and the powerful always have the advantage. Freedom, the freedom to do what? To be left alone I think that's mostly what we want; and liberty? How that differs from freedom I'm not quite sure.

[Marieke]

although I read all the reactions in this thread I would like to give my first impressions of the first chapters, knowing very well most off it probably already has been said.

In the introduction I think T. starts by saying that for centuries now there's a somewhat natural development in which the 'commoner' has gained more and more power or equality. Thus democracy grew. This wasn't a conscience movement though, but moreover an accidental consequence of power plays.

In modern times in France this has culminated in a shedding of the old feudal values without adopting a good new value system in which equality (the movement history is going) is settled in just laws. Because of this you get excesses like the French Revolution, which has lead to the idea that democracy in itself is bad (because in France it wasn't justly executed). Moreover it leads to the situation that the people most equipped to lead the movement of equality (i.e. church or enlightened noblemen) shed away from it.

Thus a small recapturing of my reading of the introduction. This lead me to ask some questions. First of all: what is T.'s standpoint about the developments he describes? At some times he seems a bit nostalgic about the feudal times. At other times he seems to actively propagate democracy (or his understanding of it) and equality. I guess this will be cleared up later in the book (or at least we will be able to say something more usefull about it).
Secondly I would like to question his analysis of worldwide movement to equality and democracy. My understanding is that in other parts of the world this development didn't take (as much) place as it had in Europe. China for example had been a centralised empire for ages. I feel a movement towards democracy and equality in other parts of the world was largely instituted by European entities. Furthermore, looking at more recent history, I wouldn't say the whole world is moving towards more democracy (even in name they claim to be).

Another point already mentioned is that freedom and equality apparently didn't apply to the slaves in America. I'm not sure about his position on that subject yet.

moving on to chapter 1: I didn't really read the discription of America as more than that. My guess was that he wanted to give the reader an idea about the land he was talking about, albeit that his discription is a bit plain, or lacking the variety in landscapes that encompasses America.
What I did pick up was his somewhat twofaced (?) admiration of the noble savage. What I thought was also interesting was that apparently it was common knowledge that the american natives were far bigger in numbers than in T.'s days, according to his contemplations on burial hills, but he still manages to depict America as an empty land.


moving on to chapter 2:
T. makes a division between first settlers in Virginia (quite literary golddiggers) and the New England Colonies. According to him in both there isn't a place for aristocracy, although in the southern colonies they do try. As everybody needs to toil to provide for their families, there simply isn't enough surplus to provide for aristocratic institutions. I wonder wether it is the lack of surplus or just the mentality of those who would go to America that makes the implementation of an aristocratic society somewhat impossible.
T. describes religion as an important inspiration (?) for lawmaking in the New England colonies. This leads to absurd laws against 'sinfull' behaviour, but also to democracy. Only in civil law there's redemptive aristocratic tendencies (like bail)

My questions here are: is it true that those laws were inspired by religion because the settlers were this religious? I think the democratic tendencies might have something to do with the fact that everybody would have to work really hard to merely survive and thus wouldn't be the person to get bossed around by others. Furthermore the ethic (?) laws for me point to an abundance of sinful behaviour. I wouldn't say the settlers aren't very religious, albeit they wouldn't only have existed of 100% puritans, but what I would like to argue is that there would be no need for laws about church visit when everybody would visit church from free will every sunday. I think the truth as always is much more complicated than T. would let us to believe here.

Chapter 3 puzzled me the most so far. As I understood T. argues that the inheritance laws propagate more equality. Without a will every close relative inherits, meaning property will be divided, thus, following T. propagating equality and discouraging aristocracy. Of course one can leave a will and circumnavigate the whole thing. More important is that in most of America you apparently could not will in the condition that the land couldn't be sold by your inheritors, thus devaluating landownership and preventing the appearance of 'dynasties' like the aristocracy in Europe.

T. goes on stating that this will lead (or had lead) to a stunning mediocracy of intelligence. T. states that everybody has to work to earn a fortune as it could not be inherited like in Europe. Thus although almost every American had little schooling, no American had the means for the kind of schooling in Europe, where aristocratic youth learned for the sake of learning.
I don't think I would agree with this. Of course the first generations would have to work to earn their fortune. But the children of the man who made his fortune would be able to pursue an academic schooling if they wanted and they would eventually inherit a greater fortune than their father did, even when it is divided between them all.

[Rafael]

Is a real democracy a land or country where there are extremely wealthy people and extremely poor people? In this place the poor have the same rights and the same power than have the wealthy?

[David]

Marie wrote: "This is my first time joining a discussion in this group and I am looking forward to it. I had heard of DIA before, but I didn't know it was a foreign perspective towards American democracy. I am f..."

Welcome to the discussion Marie, and thank you for your first, and obviously well thought out, post.

I have trouble labeling the Puritan's motives as intellectual. I suspect their reasons were more dogmatic than intellectual, but I do agree they were more intellectual, and better suited, for surviving in the new world than the fortune seekers who settled elsewhere.

[Marie]

"It is evident to all alike that a great democratic revolution is going on amongst us"

Does anyone agree that this is taking place? I am on the fence on this. In some respects, I want to say yes, but there are reasons I feel tentative about saying this wholeheartedly.

[David]

Rafael wrote: "Is a real democracy a land or country where there are extremely wealthy people and extremely poor people? In this place the poor have the same rights and the same power than have the wealthy?"

It depends on how you define power. That poor starving student and the rich business tycoon both get one vote, and they can both run for political office. However, the rich person, by nature of their wealth and greater resources and opportunities most often has a bigger influence on other people and outcomes than the poor person.

[Marie]

Marieke wrote: "T. goes on stating that this will lead (or had lead) to a stunning mediocracy of intelligence. T. states that everybody has to work to earn a fortune as it could not be inherited like in Europe. Thus although almost every American had little schooling, no American had the means for the kind of schooling in Europe, where aristocratic youth learned for the sake of learning.

I don't think I would agree with this. Of course the first generations would have to work to earn their fortune. But the children of the man who made his fortune would be able to pursue an academic schooling if they wanted and they would eventually inherit a greater fortune than their father did, even when it is divided between them all.
"

I thought his comments on how education changed in America were interesting too. However, I took his comments to mean that education to produce a professional life would mean the end of scholarship.

In this way, I would agree that this is true. The role of scholars like Erasmus or Newton, which produced the opinions of the Rennasaince have disappeared for the most part, and this has had an effect on the quality of our information sources.

This has resulted in euphemisms like "if it's on the internet, it must be true," that is in response to the multitude of social media philosophers who are limited in their educational backgrounds by comparison.

Although, there was an interesting article I was reading by Bart Erhman the other day talking about college professors and research. He was saying there is a push for college professors to take on research within the last 20 years or so. https://ehrmanblog.org/university-pro...

Some of the private universities have always maintained programs that allowed professors to take on the role of scholars, but I think it is still true that scholarship is not what it once was. For better or worse, it has changed in drastic ways that have affected us.

Although, I am primarily basing my opinion on "In America there are comparatively few who are rich enough to live without a profession. Every profession requires an apprenticeship, which limits the time of instruction to the early years of life. At fifteen they enter upon their calling, and thus their education ends at the age when ours begins. " taken from chapter 3.

I may be missing where T is making a connection between education and the development of wealth, and I would agree with what you are saying in that case. I do also believe that education creates greater opportunities to develop wealth for future generations and that we can afford to sacrifice scholarship to a certain extent for this opportunity.

[Mark]

Harvard College, now Harvard University was established by vote by the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony for the training of clergy in 1636. Almost 200 years before Tocqueville came to visit.

[David]

Mark said, "So we have the individual and collective reasons that the original settlers came here with. About which the author can only speculate. Then we have the becoming a nation and our constitution, about which we all somewhat speculate.

Do T's speculations make any sense? Are they consistent with other other information from other sources? Also, T admits that this is not an exhaustive history of America. Is it a fair summary suitable for introducing some possible reasons for or aspects of democracy in the book? Do you disagree with the analogy he uses comparing the early years of a man and a nation shedding light on their later development?, If so, why? Or do you feel this is just a job of reverse engineering, and if so, why, and wouldn't that be useful too?

Mark said, "Then we have the author's observations about what he found when he visited here almost 200 years ago; and then we can speculate on maybe and how and what T. thought he saw has had a large or a small influence on what we seem to have today.

I think 187 year old opinions are interesting in and of themselves and it is T doing the speculations that we have agreed to let him tell us about. He has barely begun to tell us anything or what he thinks are benefits and dangers of what he observed or how he thinks they may play out, for America or for other countries, including the checks and balances available to the citizens.

Mark said, "There is no equality: biologically or institutionally, the wealthy and the powerful always have the advantage. Freedom, the freedom to do what? To be left alone I think that's mostly what we want; and liberty? How that differs from freedom I'm not quite sure.

What does T think about your opinions here? I suspect he would agree with you to a greater or lessor degree on inequalities that exist. I don't know yet what he has to say about the wealthy in a democracy yet and what the dangers and the levelers might be, but I think he might get to them eventually. Maybe T agrees with your opinion and thinks the wealthy are a new form of aristocracy to be wary of? We don't know yet. I think it is also safe to say T understands your notion of wanting to be left alone very well; in fact he coins a brand new term for it later and sees it as a danger to democracy because it is a byproduct of equality of conditions that must therefore exist in some significant degree.

I will also submit for consideration a few of Adler's rules on the importance of suspending judgement until you have given the author a fair chance and understand what the author is saying in its entirety, most notably:
Rule 10: When you disagree, do so reasonably, and not disputatiously or contentiously.
Rule 11:Respect the difference between knowledge and mere personal opinion by giving reasons for any critical judgement you make.

[Mark]

David wrote: "Mark said, "So we have the individual and collective reasons that the original settlers came here with. About which the author can only speculate. Then we have the becoming a nation and our constit..."
I'm sorry David I think you completely misunderstood my remarks. I was just doing a little summary of the opening remarks. I'm very satisfied with what I have read so far by de Tocqueville. I got the impression from your remarks and some of your close associates that you didn't think much of De Tocqueville at all. Thank you for pointing out to me how to behave when reading a book. Peace.

[Lily]

Mark wrote: "...some of your close associates..."

? Although this board does have a number of members who have been in conversation with each other off and on, to greater and lesser extents, for many years, I personally would hesitate to label its participants or any group thereof as "close associates." So I am a little at a loss as to the significance/implication of your characterization.

I got the impression from your remarks and some of your close associates that you didn't think much of De Tocqueville at all.

Mark -- I will be curious as to whether the conversations here will sustain that impression for you. Personally, my impression is more one of posters testing their early thoughts about (and maybe just initial gut reactions to) what they have read in these first chapters, with maybe some previous perceptions thrown in.

[Gary]

Patrice wrote: "...when we broke away from england and had our constitution, that when we got real freedom of religion..."

Actually, adoption of the Constitution did not of itself create what we think of today as freedom of religion. Catholics and Jews were still persecuted, and some states still had state-supported churches.

In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State’s constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches.
smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-t...

[David]

Patrice wrote: "coincidentally came upon a quote of Benjamin franklins: democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting over what to have for lunch. liberty is a well armed lamb."

Unfortunately I have to report that Wikiquote says that is misattributed to Franklin.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

Widely attributed to Franklin on the Internet, sometimes without the second sentence. It is not found in any of his known writings, and the word "lunch" is not known to have appeared anywhere in English literature until the 1820s, decades after his death. The phrasing itself has a very modern tone and the second sentence especially might not even be as old as the internet. Some of these observations are made in response to a query at Google Answers
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjami...

However there is this from Jefferson.

From Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 16 January 1787

. . .Among the [European Governments], under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor. . .

[David]

Gary wrote: "Patrice wrote: "...when we broke away from england and had our constitution, that when we got real freedom of religion..."

Actually, adoption of the Constitution did not of itself create what we t..."

Don't forget Jefferson's 1789 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

[Lily]

Adelle wrote: "I'm with you there!. I was wondering... which of the players from the Revolution might stil..."

Adelle -- we will reach that, if not in the text, in some of the supplementary notes from his letters, et al. I'm too lazy (or something) to go looking for it tonight. As I recall, he was delighted to meet some, disappointed to be unable to see ...???

I do recall from looking at timelines for the period how late into T's life that Lafayette died. (1834 -- that was easy to find.) Lafayette was seemingly much involved in France after returning from America. Sidebar: apparently supporting America had severe financial repercussions on France at the time. Very non-teleological cause and effects resulted?

[Rafael]

David wrote: "Rafael wrote: "Is a real democracy a land or country where there are extremely wealthy people and extremely poor people? In this place the poor have the same rights and the same power than have the..."

So there's no equality. There is a democracy without equality? I hope De Tocqueville deals with this issue.

[Thomas]

Rafael wrote: "So there's no equality. There is a democracy without equality? I hope De Tocqueville deals with this issue. "

I'm sure he will continue to deal with this issue, but I think he has already started:

"It is impossible to believe that equality will not eventually find its way into the political world, as it does everywhere else. To conceive of men remaining forever unequal on a single point, yet equal on all others, is impossible; they must come in the end to be equal upon all.

Now, I know of only two methods of establishing equality in the political world; rights must be given to every citizen, or none at all to anyone..." (Chap. 3)

But Tocqueville then points out that when these rights are extended universally that the result is a kind of slavery. Those who have less demand that those who have more bend to them -- the price of equality is loss of liberty. And yet nations "whose social condition is democratic have an instinctive love of [liberty]."

There seems to be a delicate balancing act going on here. If equality is established as a matter of right, but perfect democracy comes only at the price of liberty, perhaps what will be established is an imperfect equality balanced by an imperfect liberty.

[Wendel]

Chapter 1 - T. does not devote much space to the American Indian. That makes sense given his subject, but apparently not much was known about the subject either - 350 years after Columbus. All American tribes speaking dialects of one language?

About the American genocide he has this to say: Although the vast country we have just described was inhabited by countless native tribes, it is justifiable to assert that, at the time of its discovery, it formed only a desert. The Indians took up residence there but did not possess it. It is through agriculture that man takes ownership over the soil and the first inhabitants of North America lived off the products of hunting. Their unforgiving prejudices, their indomitable passions, their vices and, still more perhaps, their savage virtues, exposed them to inevitable destruction.

That made me think of the ferocity with which the European nobility used to defend its hunting domains against poachers, not to mention anyone thinking of clearing a field therein. The sad conclusion is hard to dispute, though I would replace 'their' by 'our': Our unforgiving prejudices, our indomitable passions, our vices and, still more perhaps, our savage virtues …

[Wendel]

Chapter 2 - America is the only country in which we have been able to watch the natural and peaceful development of a society and define the influence exerted by the origins upon the future of the states.

What a strange idea, as if America started as a tabula rasa. As if the immigrants did not bring with them - in their heads - whole loads of history! America may have less antiquities compared to Europe, it surely has just as much history.

[Alexey]

Thomas wrote: "There seems to be a delicate balancing act going on here. If equality is established as a matter of right, but perfect democracy comes only at the price of liberty, perhaps what will be established is an imperfect equality balanced by an imperfect liberty. "

Better to say dynamic balancing between imperfect liberty and equality. I suppose, we will have a lot of opportunity to discuss cases of dynamic balance of imperfect alternatives in DiA. T. shows many of them but rarely called them as such.

[Alexey]

Wendell wrote: "What a strange idea, as if America started as a tabula rasa. As if the immigrants did not bring with them - in their heads - whole loads of history! America may have less antiquities compared to Europe, it surely has just as much history."

I am totally with you, it is a very strange idea. But de Tocqueville seems to stick to it, tabula rasa for him is one of the necessary conditions for the successful democracy. Because it provides equality, without overcoming inequality with all its consequences.

[Dave]

Just a quick further comment on treatment of the issue of inequality in the book. At the end of chapter 2, T does also single out the example of the cash bail system, and how it is unfavourable to the poor.

Watching (an unhealthy amount of) American films growing up, where this issue of posting bail seems to crop up a lot, this always struck me as one of the inequities of the American legal system. Interesting that, almost two centuries after publication of DiA, it is currently a live issue of debate in the US, with California due to drop cash bail later this year.

[Wendel]

Chapter 2 - All the immigrants spoke the same language, all were children of the same people.

Not literally true, but reminding us how different the US was in 1831 - before the start of the great migration in the late 1840s. The white population was still overwhelmingly WASP - even the Irish migrants came mostly from protestant Ulster.

And - do we need to repeat it? - no white person, American or not, would consider Black and Indian Americans as part of the nation. That was not necessarily a sign of enmity, the idea simply did not exist. Not even among the Blacks and Indians, I suppose.

[Wendel]

T. presents two basic explanations for the development of equality in North America. First, the abscence of an aristocracy, second, the presence of the Puritans. However, this model applies only in the region east of the Hudson river. So we still have to see how equality spread over the continent.

First things first (erst das Fressen, dann die Moral). No large landholdings means no aristocray (given T.s definition of aristocracy). And the costs of agricultural production were too high to sustain large landholdings. That’s the basic idea. Actually there were large domains in the Hudson valley. Disintegrating when T visited the region, though maybe not because of low yields. But in general T.’s remarks - sketchy and crude - do not contradict what I read elsewhere.

Scarcity of capital and labor as major factors, plus the limited choice of marketable cash crops. Constraints that were most acute in the north. Placing tobacco growing Virginia (also economically) somewhere halfway between New Englands subsistence farming and large scale, slavery based, Caribean sugar exports.

Constraints are clearly not always a bad thing. In Europe one finds early republics in difficult area’s, in the Swiss mountains and the Dutch wettlands. But also in the Italian cities - therefore I’m sure T. doesn’t give enough credit to New Englands sailors and whalers, and the merchants of Boston. Likewise, his ideas on Puritanism may lack some nuance. That's for another post.

[Marieke]

Quite unrelated (again) to the posts above: I've given the inheritance stuff another thought (I know, quite obsessive). What I came up with was the following (please feel free to correct me or tell me I'm uninformed):

T. comes from a tradition in which richdom is defined by landownership. In traditional feudal society landownership (with al the feudal rights) was mostly confined to either nobility or the church. Nobles tried to enhance their positions by either marrying inheritors or by taking someone elses land by force.
In America I think he saw that inheritance was dischained from landownership. So not the possesion of the land defined your riches, but the money this land could be sold. Money thus became the leading value in defining ones wealth.

I somehow get why in T. eyes this would lead to more equality: anyone could become rich. But I still don't get how he manages to say this would lead to everybody owning a smaller and smaller lot of land. But I guess this is explained by Wendells remark that this was going on during T.'s visit.

[Marieke]

Alexey wrote: "Wendell wrote: "What a strange idea, as if America started as a tabula rasa. As if the immigrants did not bring with them - in their heads - whole loads of history! America may have less antiquitie..."

I too noticed the idea of tabula rasa T. propagates. I think the tabula rasa-theory has always in one way been present in the representation of America. The picture of an empty land discovered and conquered (can you conquer an empty land) by the superior Europeans has been painted almost from the beginning.
I always thought it funny that, although the Middle-Ages are pictured as backward, just after that Europeans would be so much better than natives anywhere else in the world.

But as noted this is just the one instance of tabula rasa as it is presented in our image of America.
The other one and one that T. both seems to advocate as disprove is the idea that the people coming to America didn't have any background to account from. Because of T.'s remarks about the relgious background of many laws, I think he also disproves the tabula rasa he propagates when he is talking about a lack of aristocracy in America.

[Alexey]

Dave wrote: "Just a quick further comment on treatment of the issue of inequality in the book. At the end of chapter 2, T does also single out the example of the cash bail system, and how it is unfavourable to ..."

I think T’s meaning of equality is varied in the book, but generally it seems wrong to identify it with an equality in wealth. I supposed that more suitable description is if you have a dollar it is still a dollar, no matter who you are. This was true for America, but not for the large part of the Europe. A recent example is Soviet Union - there was not a great inequality in revenue, but what you could do with money depends not (only) on amount of money, but (mostly) on your status and connections.

[David]

Marieke wrote: "Another point already mentioned is that freedom and equality apparently didn't apply to the slaves in America. I'm not sure about his position on that subject yet."

He will have much more to say about slavery later on, but this clip from chapter 2 should give you a pretty good idea of where Tocqueville stands on the issue of slavery:

Slavery, as I will explain later, dishonors labor. It introduces idleness into society and, with it, ignorance and pride, poverty and luxury. It saps the powers of the mind and lulls human activity to sleep. The influence of slavery, combined with the English character, explains the mores and social state of the South.

Additionally, based on their first time observations of Slavery in America his traveling partner, Gustave August de Beaumont produced a novel of his own: Marie Or, Slavery in the United States: A Novel of Jacksonian America

. . .Notable as the first abolitionist novel to focus on racial prejudice rather than bondage as a social evil, Beaumont's work was also the first to link prejudice against American Indians to prejudice against blacks.

It sounds like one to consider adding to our bookshelf.

[Lily]

@95 Wendel wrote: "Chapter 1 - T. does not devote much space to the American Indian. That makes sense given his subject, but apparently not much was known about the subject either - 350 years after Columbus. All Amer..."

...exposed them to inevitable destruction.

I haven't gotten any sense yet from Tocqueville that he understood the extent to which that "inevitable destruction" came about from exposure to "white man's diseases," especially smallpox.

(view spoiler)[ One source says this about early colonial days: East Coast Tribes 1600-1800- epidemics and disease from French settlers killed 25-90% of the Indian population-
a smallpox epidemic in 1633 killed ⅓ of the Iroquois population
The Plains Indians 1800-1870- Several smallpox epidemics wiped out over half of the population.
https://www.tamdistrict.org/cms/lib8/... (hide spoiler)]

[Xan]

Yes, and pathogens did a pretty good job killing colonists too. As with pathogens in general, as one moves along the temperature gradient to warmer climes the number of dangerous pathogens increases. So the Puritans kind of lucked out (relatively).

For the first part of the 17th century, Malaria, Dysentery, Typhoid, Salt from brackish water, and starvation took so many colonists' lives in Virginia that at times they couldn't replace them fast enough.

Yet they did keep coming. Tells you how great life must have been back in Merry Ol' England. Survivors were tough, and they probably didn't take kindly to aristocrats or other symbols of power telling them what to do. They figured they earned their home. Perhaps an undocumented factor in equality of condition?

[Wendel]

Marieke wrote: "I've given the inheritance stuff another thought ..."

To protect the aristocracy as a class the law in feudal countries used to limit the rights of individual proprietors to do with their property as they wished. Elizabeth Bennet may have been her fathers pride and joy, he was, in the interest in the unity of the family property, not allowed to provide for her and her sisters.

The repeal of such laws concerning entailed property is of utmost importance to T., and not without reason. There is an obvious effect on equality when most parents will want to give their children an equal share. With an average of more than two children this must lead to ever smaller estates (assuming that the total amount of property remains the same).

Even so, T. exaggerates the effects. He is mourning the disappearance of his way of life and his class, but is it true that free inheritance laws stimulate selfishness and a loss of family feeling? Anyway, entailment has now been discarded everywhere. Except Britain.

PS: I read that the Dutch royal family tried to entail the crown jewels - to stop Willem Alexander dividing them among his daughters? :). Without success, nobody may reign beyond the grave (so they established a trust, the law has a solution for every problem).

[Lily]

Wendel wrote: "...no white person, American or not, would consider Black and Indian Americans as part of the nation...."

That may be overstating, Wendel. Yes, many of the Indian relationships were established along nation lines, as treaties, as... But there were also the fights that led to counting 3/5 of a slave* for the purposes of representation, albeit obviously those slaves were not emancipated, i.e., had no rights to vote. But that was true for significant other parts of the population as well. Aren't voting rights in the purview of the states? But, then, voting rights probably aren't the only criteria for being considered part of a nation -- haven't really thought of exactly what those are, or were, through history....

*Corrected, thanks to the heads up from Wendel.

[Dave]

Alexey wrote: "I think T’s meaning of equality is varied in the book, but generally it seems wrong to identify it with an equality in wealth."

Agree about the need to be careful, especially when using certain terms like equality and democracy, not to strip them of the context in which T writes them. For example, I've read some historians who say that there was democracy in America long before the Pilgrims arrived, but this is certainly not democracy as T understands it.

In the specific case of bail, however, T does appear to be making the case that equality before the law should not be predicated on wealth:
"Il est évident qu'une pareille législation est dirigée contre le pauvre, et ne favorise que le riche"

(As an aside, this passage stuck out for me because it contains a "false friend" that I wasn't aware of, i.e. "caution" in French means bail in English. The French word "bail" means lease)

[Lily]

@107Lily wrote: "..."

Decided I knew little about when the germ theory of disease became well known and accepted. A quick glance at the article below suggests that it was within Tocqueville's lifetime, actually about the time he was exploring and writing, perhaps even later:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_th...

Probably one of the areas where Xan's concerns about teleological explanations sometimes would have been appropriate.

[Thomas]

Wendel wrote: "Chapter 1 - T. does not devote much space to the American Indian. That makes sense given his subject, but apparently not much was known about the subject either - 350 years after Columbus. All Amer..."

It's worth pointing out that the Indian Removal Act was passed in 1830, the year before Toqueville's visit, and that Andrew Jackson's top priority was to "remove" Native Americans at any cost. This culminated in the infamous Trail of Tears in 1838, but this genocide was well on its way when Toqueville was present in 1831.

[David]

Cphe wrote: "With language being a common denominator .......do you think that was why there was so much tension between the founding settlers and the Indigenous tribes and why they weren't able to both share t..."

The different languages only contributed to the over-riding racial tensions, fear, and greed. The one big clue Tocqueville includes, almost nonchalantly is:

The Indians occupied [the land] but did not possess it. It is through agriculture that man takes possession of the soil. . .

[Wendel]

Lily wrote: "That may be overstating,. ."

What's life without overstating things, Lily? I'm sure if you go looking for exceptions, you will find them. But the three-fifths rule (if there ever was chutzpah ..) did not define a community. It obviously recognised blacks as human beings, but that is it.

It seems to me that the idea that all inhabitants in the US could form a community was totally alien at the time. That is not meant as a moral judgement (can you blame someone for not doing something that is outside his or her competence?), but as a way to understand.

[Xan]

These first chapters make it sound like the U.S. functioned as a whole instead of as states acting individually with little contact between states at a distance.

Communication and transportation between different parts of the country were slow, ponderous, and all too often nonexistent. It could take a long time to travel, say, from Massachusetts to Georgia and even longer from New York to a state on the other side of the Adirondacks.

And there was practically no communication across the mountains between families and individuals. Long distance trade was dependent on shipping where that was possible, and where it wasn't, there may have been no long distance trading at all.

These states were so isolated and independent of one another that many worried the country would collapse into multiple countries (and there were movements in different areas to do just that.) This is why business and federal officials together pushed for railroads -- to connect the country, to unify it.

It's kind of hard to argue equality of condition at the country level, when the country was as disconnected as it was.

[Dave]

David wrote: "The one big clue Tocqueville includes, almost nonchalantly is: The Indians occupied [the land] but did not possess it. It is through agriculture that man takes possession of the soil..."

Yes, I noted that too. Just before that, he also nonchalantly mentions another civilisation that preceded them in the same region and that were more advanced. Does anyone know who he's referring to?

[Roger]

Indians were not citizens of the US until 1924. Black slaves were not until emancipated.

[Lily]

Wendel wrote: "What's life without overstating things, Lily? I'm sure if you go looking for exceptions, you will find them. But the three-fifths rule..."

{g} Speaking of overstating -- thanks for the catch, Wendel. I'll go back and correct my post from 4/5ths to 3/5! Of course, America isn't the only place where counting its population has mattered. One of the other Goodreads boards is pondering Gogol's Dead Souls at the moment. Russia long had a structure that depended on serfs. And the U.S. has census disputes winding their way through the courts at the moment.

[Lily]

Roger wrote: "Indians were not citizens of the US until 1924. Black slaves were not until emancipated."

Certainly citizenship is one way of defining being part of a nation -- and probably a logical one, too. Then, in today's world, we find ourselves embroiled in issues like DACA. And I don't intend to sidetrack this discussion into a political one, only to raise questions as to how do we circumscribe the concept of "nation."

[David]

Dave wrote: "Does anyone know who he's referring to? "

T is probably referring to the remains of Meso-Indian or Archaic stage indigenous people , aka, the mound-builders of the Ohio and Great Lakes regions, which came before the the league of nations and their contemporaries which we are most familiar with in the East at this time. Before the mound builders were the clovis people of the Paleo-Indian or Lithic stage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...