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

[Rex]

This thread is ballooning at an overwhelming rate, but I did want to toss in some observations on the introduction in part afforded by my critical edition.

First, Tocqueville is more than willing to use the term "democracy" in a way that transcends political organization. As he wrote in one manuscript, "When I say 'democracy' here I do not mean to speak only about a political form of government, but of a social state." Namely, equality of conditions.

Second, he actually toned down his belief in the providential character of the development of democracy in the finished edition. He was quite explicit in earlier drafts that it is "the direct product of the divine will." His father Hervé and brother Édouard, who both critiqued these early drafts, complained that his conviction about the imminent dominance of democracy was too strong for most of his readers to accept. Nevertheless, Alexis retained the assertion that "equality of conditions is a providential fact."

In another portion deleted from the final manuscript, Alexis declares, "Instead of wanting to raise impotent dikes [against democracy], let us seek rather build the holy ark that must carry the human species over this ocean without shores." This would be accomplished by developing (as per the finished edition) "a new political science... for a world entirely new." And this was Alexis de Tocqueville's great project, to help especially French society navigate the confusing and unfamiliar modern world. This is no mere travelogue!

Nolla comments, "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 probably borrows the concept from Montesquieu."

[[deleted user]]

At87Gary wrote: "
Actually, adoption of the Constitution did not of itself create what we think of today as freedom of religion. Catholics and Jews were still persecutedt..."

True, discrimination remained. But the Constitution's point, if I remember correctly, was that should be no government sponsored/mandated religion such as there had been in England. People might be discriminated against DUE to their religion...and yes, that no doubt did negatively impact their lives, but they WERE free to practice their religion... The Government did not ban religions...People weren't jailed or fined for holding to their religions.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

[[deleted user]]

At 92 Lily wrote: "Sidebar: apparently supporting America had severe financial repercussions on France at the time..."

Very. I read Andrew Roberts' Napoleon last year. Have to keep in mind that much of the French motivation to help us was to harm their long-time enemy England.

And :-) I look forward to reading about whom T spoke with!

[[deleted user]]

At 93 Rafael wrote: "D
So there's no equality. There is a democracy without equality? I hope De Tocqueville deals with this issue.


But remember... T is writing of equality of conditions. A citizen could rise from a lower socio-economic level to a higher one, right? Might be difficult... but it could be done. Example: Benjamin Franklin. I suppose it might be somewhat similar to a track race... Some people will finish well; some people will finish way behind. But they all start from the same position.

[Rafael]

Thomas wrote: "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."

I read that, I don't know if I am dumb but I don't get what he meant by this phrase. I never saw, or at least I don't remember seeing that, people who have less rights demanding less rights for everyone. Actually who have more rights are those who demands less rights for the other ones.

[Rafael]

Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "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. ."

Yes, but the natives had no defenses against these diseases, the colonists had. Except malaria, but these diseases already existed in europe, not in America. Colonists died from these diseases? They did but not at the rate of the natives.

[Xan]

Rafael wrote: "Thomas wrote: "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..."

Reminiscent of Nietzsche's slave morality?

[Rafael]

Adelle wrote: "At 93 Rafael wrote: "D
So there's no equality. There is a democracy without equality? I hope De Tocqueville deals with this issue.


But remember... T is writing of equality of conditions. A citize..."

I understand that, but actually they came not from the same position. The fact that do not exist aristocracy do not mean that people is equal. Those who have the right friends or those who have access to knowledge are ahead than those people who have none of these advantages. For example. Some people starts ahead of others at this running.

[Tamara]

Adelle #125 wrote: "People might be discriminated against DUE to their religion...and yes, that no doubt did negatively impact their lives, but they WERE free to practice their religion... ..."

Adelle # 127 wrote: "I suppose it might be somewhat similar to a track race... Some people will finish well; some people will finish way behind. But they all start from the same position."

Isn't there a contradiction here? If we acknowledge people might be discriminated against because of their religion, how can we claim they all start from the same position? Some people obviously have advantages over others because of their religion.

[Tamara]

Rafael wrote: "Yes, but the natives had no defenses against these diseases, the colonists had. Except malaria, but these diseases already existed in europe, not in America. Colonists died from these diseases? They did but not at the rate of the natives. .."

I think I read in Vine Deloria's God Is Red: A Native View of Religion as well as in several other books that the Native Americans were intentionally given blankets with smallpox germs since they were susceptible to old world diseases.

[Rafael]

Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Rafael wrote: "Thomas wrote: "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 mo..."

I did not read Nietzsche, sorry. You can explain that concept?

[Rafael]

Natives were wiped out by environment issues. Like those in Easter island. They destroyed the forests there turning the island unable to sustain them. Surely diseases existed in America but the natives had defenses against these ones, like europeans had to flu, for example.

[Rafael]

I don't know american indian culture, but the brazilian indians were hunter gatherers. They only stayed in an area for some months and then they moved for another place to let the nature recover there and so on. So here would be not uncommon a indian village be abandoned for some time.

[Rex]

Tamara wrote: "I think I read in Vine Deloria's God Is Red: A Native View of Religion as well as in several other books that the Native Americans were intentionally given blankets with smallpox germs since they were susceptible to old world diseases."

There is one documented episode where this happened, in 1763 during the siege of Fort Pitt. Delaware emissaries trying to persuade the British to surrender were given blankets and a handkerchief from a smallpox ward. It's a famous episode, though it probably didn't actually succeed in spreading the disease among the Delaware, who had already experienced an epidemic anyway. More disastrous during this period was the British destruction of crops and homes, making natives more vulnerable to disease.

[Tamara]

Rex wrote: "There is one documented episode where this happened, in 1763 during the siege of Fort Pitt. Delaware emissaries trying to persuade the British to surrender were given blankets and a handkerchief from a smallpox ward..."

Thanks for the clarification, Rex.

[Rafael]

Tamara wrote: "Rafael wrote: "Yes, but the natives had no defenses against these diseases, the colonists had. Except malaria, but these diseases already existed in europe, not in America. Colonists died from thes..."

I added it to my to-read books. Thank you.

[Rex]

On the subject of American native vulnerability to European diseases, Jake Page in his history In the Hands of the Great Spirit explains that the natives' ancestors who immigrated from Asia crossed a region too cold for the vectors of the pandemic diseases that evolved in Eurasia like smallpox. In fact, deadly epidemic diseases were to all appearances unknown in America prior to European introduction, and when they arrived they killed millions. Native Americans as a whole have a comparatively limited genetic range, so disease could spread quickly across the continent, and lacking any inherited immunity, the effect on the population was devastating. In a matter of decades, by some estimates, more American Indians died than have been born in the four centuries since—in most cases before they had even heard of the arrival of white people on their continent.

[Rafael]

Patrice wrote: "the wampanog indians of plymouth were wiped out by rat urine. i dont know how to provide the link but you can google it."

I looked there https://slate.com/technology/2012/11/...

Only the black rat can hold Leptospirosis and this species is native from Asia.

[David]

This clip from Wikipedia is very consistent with my understanding of European introduced disease on Native American populations:

Many Native American tribes experienced great depopulation, averaging 25–50 percent of the tribes' members lost to disease. Additionally, smaller tribes neared extinction after facing a severely destructive spread of disease. The significant toll that this took is expounded upon in the article Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. A specific example was Cortes' invasion of Mexico. Before his arrival, the Mexican population is estimated to have been around 25 to 30 million. Fifty years later, the Mexican population was reduced to 3 million, mainly by infectious disease. This shows the main effect of the arrival of Europeans in the new world. With no natural immunity against these pathogens, Native Americans died in huge numbers. Yale historian David Brion Davis describes this as "the greatest genocide in the history of man. Yet it's increasingly clear that most of the carnage had nothing to do with European barbarism. The worst of the suffering was caused not by swords or guns but by germs."] By 1700, less than five thousand Native Americans remained in the southeastern coastal region. In Florida alone, there were seven hundred thousand Native Americans in 1520, but by 1700 the number was around 2000. In summer 1639, a smallpox epidemic struck the Huron natives in the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes regions. The disease had reached the Huron tribes through traders returning from Québec and remained in the region throughout the winter. When the epidemic was over, the Huron population had been reduced to roughly 9000 people, about half of what it had been before 1634. The Iroquois people faced similar losses.

Disease did not only have a direct impact on death, but an indirect impact as well. Losses from disease weakened communities, as they had fewer people to contribute to their community. There were fewer people to hunt, plant crops, and otherwise support their society through other physical means. Loss of cultural knowledge transfer also impacted the population. By missing the right time to hunt or plant the crops, the food supply would be affected, thus weakening the community from not having enough food, and becoming more vulnerable for the next epidemic. Communities were also impacted by disease if many of their population who regularly did the physical tasks of providing food and water suddenly could not. The communities under such crisis were often unable to care for the disabled, elderly, or young.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_...

[Rafael]

The book and movie documentary Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond give good information about this matter.

[Tamara]

Rafael wrote: "The book and movie documentary Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond give good information about this matter."

Looks fascinating. I've put it on my to-read list. Thanks.

[David]

Here are some more questions to consider for this week's discussion and beyond.

1. Tocqueville was French, and my sources tell me he was not a flawless English speaker. What is he going to miss during his travels in 1830 America as a non-native English speaking foreigner?

2. Why does Tocqueville begin his book about America with geography and history lessons?

3. Does Tocqueville adequately support his claim that New England is essentially the origin of American democracy? Is he right?

4. Since the creation of a democratic constitution in Athens centuries earlier, is there anything we can say is the same or anything we can say is new about American democracy, short of our 1830s American Civics lesson next week of course, no spoilers. :)

5. Why is equality of conditions the foundation of democracy, rather than the more often cited idea of individual freedom?

6. Given that there are always inequalities, can the principle of equality be the basis for a stable society?

[David]

Patrice wrote: ". . .new england small towns with their church steeples, modest homes and village greens are more typically american. however the aristocrats of the south, washington, Jefferson and Madison had a huge impact as well. ."

You seem to be in agreement with Tocqueville's statements from chapter 3:

Still, the great landowners south of the Hudson constituted a superior class, with ideas and tastes of its own and generally concentrating political activity within its own ranks. It was a sort of aristocracy that differed little from the mass of the population, whose passions and interests it readily embraced, arousing neither love nor hatred. In short, it was feeble and not particularly robust. In the South it was this class that took command of the insurrection. To it the American Revolution is indebted for its greatest men.

Do you think there were any benefits in the diversity between New England and the South that helped or hindered the establishment of a democracy in America? Can we rightly call the differences diversity?

[Rex]

Those interested in the relationship between the Puritans and the origins of democracy might do well to look up Michael Walzer's classic The Revolution of the Saints, which posits Puritanism (broadly) as the seed of both democracy and totalitarianism. Early Puritanism was rigorously egalitarian, granting to all its members equal voice in the assembly, with even women given more authority than was otherwise common. But it was also rigidly conformist; Puritans were expected to monitor and correct one another, with (as Tocqueville notes) little room for private conscience.

[Alexey]

Speaking of the race allegory and equality of conditions, T seems to be content with everyone competing in the same league, not necessarily with the same starting position. I.e. starting position may be different but prize is achievable for all. In the Europe of the day, starting position determined what could be achieved.

[Wendel]

Concerning the immaterial factors behind American equality. I enjoyed seeing the narrow-minded moralism of the Pilgrims contrasted with their tradition of self-government under the law. And all that coming from a catholic squire! However, he makes Mr. Hyde look like a harmless eccentric, as if Dr. Jekyll was always bound to win. And that I don’t buy.

Earnest protestantism may induce respect for education, a sense of personal responsibility, clean living, prudent economics, low tolerance for corruption and a wider sphere of action for women. But it may also result in stifling conformism, numb conservatism, brooding introspection, religious masochism, and - sometimes - scarlet excesses. And let’s not forget the joyless living.

So what will it be, who will win? I have a hunch that external factors make a difference. And a bit of impurity - trade is often mentioned in this connection. In Holland we like to believe that the civil authorities saved us - always in a hurry to show their respect for the eldermen, but sabotaging attempts at imposing strict living wherever possible. Bad for business.

No wonder the Puritans found life in our towns not pure enough. If you want to liven up your next party you might suggest the Pilgrims fled not to, but from liberty. In fact, all want a level of freedom that feels just right, not more. And of course we think nobody should be allowed to abuse it.

Also, I am still waiting to hear how the Pilgrim spirit conquered the continent - if it ever did. In 1831 Andrew Jackson was president, and his sense of equality and freedom was an altogether different cup of tea. It will be interesting to see how T. will deal with that (he must notice the difference?).

[Wendel]

American democratic education cannot lead to excellency - says T. Well, if you need proof that America is not a democracy, this must be it.

In 1830 intellecual life in the US may have been a bit dull, but the gap with Europe was soon closed. And now we (Europeans) are only better in sports, that is, the sports that really matter, like korfball .

Or, T. missed the mark completely. A probable cause: the time for scholars of leisure - like T. - was running out. The future was for professionals, and not only in democracies.

[Alexey]

Wendel wrote: "American democratic education cannot lead to excellency - says T. Well, if you need proof that America is not a democracy, this must be it.

In 1830 intellecual life in the US may have been a bit d..."

Though you are right, I think T would not agree, that professionalism is equal to exellency. He might have a point yet.

[Xan]

Rafael wrote: "Yes, but the natives had no defenses against these diseases, the colonists had. Except malaria, but these diseases already existed in europe, not in America. Colonists died from these diseases? They did but not at the rate of the natives."

Hi, Rafael.

The colonists infected themselves. Typhoid and dysentery are transmitted through contaminated food and water, so you can imagine on those ships . . . and of course once here the diseases stayed.

And, yes, natives suffered more for the reason you give. My point was simply that both suffered epidemics, not that they suffered equally.

[Xan]

Rafael wrote: "I did not read Nietzsche, sorry. You can explain that concept? "

Actually, no. I was being too cute by half (not serious), and I'm not a fan Nietzsche's slave morality, so I'm bowing out. Sorry.

[David]

Cphe wrote: "Dave wrote: "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..."

The whole idea of the Native Americans occupying the land vs. possessing it by use of agriculture has been bothering me. I know there was a lot of racially motivated rationalization going on, and farming was maybe not to a European scale, or maybe it was, but the Native Americans had certainly been growing crops prior to the colonists., most notably, maize (corn), beans, and squash, the three sisters. The old Thanksgiving legends even portray Tisquantum, aka Squanto, a member of the Pawtuxet tribe teaching the colonists how to grow corn, without which they would not have survived.

Called maize in many languages, corn was first cultivated in the area of Mexico more than 7,000 years ago, and spread throughout North and South America. Native Americans probably bred the first corn from wild grasses, and crossed high-yielding plants to make hybrids. . .Native Americans, including the Lenape of the Delaware Valley, used corn for many types of food. The foods which we know were derived from corn in the Iroquois nations include dumplings, tamales, hominy, and a ceremonial "wedding cake" bread.
https://www.nps.gov/dewa/learn/nature...

It seems T was taken in by the "occupying only" theory as he does not seem to refute it, at least not yet.

[Kyle]

David wrote: "I think it is safe to say here that the big deal regarding the democracy in America for Tocqueville, even above freedom and liberty, is equal conditions, even though it is painfully obvious to us t..."

I got the sense from reading that AT seems to speak a bit pejoratively about those whom he seems to see as prioritizing "equality" over "freedom". Perhaps I'm interpreting him wrong.

"[...] one also encounters a depraved taste for equality in the human heart that brings the weak to want to draw the strong to their level and that reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom" (ed. Mansfield, Winthrop, pg 52).

Is he speaking more of what he's seen in France in this passage or is this an accusation (concession?) he is making regarding his view of Americans?

[Kyle]

Patrice wrote: " interesting that he does mention the church as a path to democracy. "

It seems that AT goes much further:
" It [freedom] considers religion as the safeguard of mores; and mores as the guarantee of laws and the pledge of its own duration (ed. Mansfield/Winthrop, 44).

Is AT implying that without religion, freedom would disintegrate over time? Is AT assuming a particular sect? It seems that AT would a future areligiosity as problematic for the endurance of freedom, but how does his argument square with an unforseen future pluralistic religiosity? Could the "religion" that AT notes as the safeguard of mores be expanded to more than he may have considered in terms of what he saw as Western Christianity?

[Ashley]

Well, friends, I’ve lost the forest in the trees here. I’m enjoying DIA, but I really can’t follow this conversation at all. I realize the value of supplementary/support material, but this is my first time reading DIA, and the support stuff is confusing more than helping me at this point. I really prefer the SJC spirit of responding to text directly. Happy reading, everyone. I’ll be continuing my read independently.

[Rafael]

Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Rafael wrote: "Yes, but the natives had no defenses against these diseases, the colonists had. Except malaria, but these diseases already existed in europe, not in America. Colonists died from thes..."

It's ok. I understood you now.

[Wendel]

Don’t give up on us, Ashley. A first thread is always a bit frantic, especially in this group.

Some are patient enough to watch patterns develop slowly, others feel they need a preliminary model of where a book is coming from and what it basically is trying to tell us. And some come with more assumptions, more context than others.

But usually these differences level out soon enough. Just ignore comments you cannot use at the moment. I’m sure things will calm down next week (I will, promise).

[Wendel]

Kyle wrote @166: "Is he speaking more of what he's seen in France in this passage or is this an accusation (concession?) he is making regarding his view of Americans?..."

T. says that people are prepared to give up liberty to satisfy their instinct for equality. That did not happen in America, so yes, I think he may have France in mind.

But is it true that French revolutionaries were primarily motivated by jealousy? Or does this idea rather reflect T.s aristocratic background?

[Wendel]

Kyle wrote @167: "Is AT implying that without religion, freedom would disintegrate over time?..."

Probably T assumes that a moral life without religion is impossible. And if democracy is less able to control us by force, morality is all the more important.

But maybe he is (also) implying that democracy needs a strong sense of community. That religion is needed for social bonding. Like nationalism.

But what if there is more than one religion? What if religious sentiments get antagonistic?

[[deleted user]]

At 131 Rafael wrote: "I understand that, but actually they came not from the same position. The fact that do not exist aristocracy do not mean that people is equal. Those who have the right friends or those who have access to knowledge are ahead than those people who have none of these advantages. For example. Some people starts ahead of others at this running.
"

I can see it from that perspective, too. I even feel, "That's not fair."... It's not... but that's how life is. People, and the circumstances in people's lives, are NOT equal, and yes, of course, people with more money and better education, those who grew up in stable families, are those who had parents who sacrificed much of their own lives in order to make a better life for their children... those people likely DO have advantages. But I don't necessarily see that as the responsibility of the government to try to equalize those inequities. Not at the most basic governmental level. But... the government should ensure that each gets one vote... that's what I mean by everyone being equal (well...at the time... every male citizen who met the definition of a qualified voter in their home state) … and they "could" advance... tough...but it could be done. Lincoln wasn't born rich. Jackson wasn't born rich. Hamilton certainly wasn't. Something akin to what T had written, I think in the Introduction... that people from what had been the lower classes COULD become more... they could become merchants, or clergy... some entered the law... "Equal" in that there was no law that said "You can't be a priest... You can't be a lawyer. You can't run for office." And you're right... the odds are stacked against them...but it can be done.

In part, too... someone earlier had posted that the colonies didn't actually start "fresh" with no history.... That they brought their history from England, etc., with them.

And I think it's that way with people, too. They don't start "fresh"... they are limited or given possibilities by what their parents, grandparents, etc. have done. Some parents who may not be able to pass much financially on to their children manage to give their children a tremendous people in themselves...and that is an advantage in life, I think.

I think perhaps that is part of what the "myth of America" is... the belief that one can make it here regardless of who one's people were. That may well be more myth than reality.

Sorry... I seem to have strayed. I'll get back on track.

[[deleted user]]

At 132 Tamara wrote: "
Isn't there a contradiction here? If we acknowledge people might be discriminated against because of their religion, how can we claim they all start from the same position? Some people obviously have advantages over others because of their religion. ..."."

IS there a contradiction? I don't see it. They start from the legal position--- i.e., the government does NOT make anyone's religion illegal---so I see the people and their religions as legally equal in that regard; and the government does not choose ANY official religion for the country such that everyone must pay to support such as had existed in some countries in Europe---so see the people and their religions as legally equal in that regard, too.

How does the government discriminate against some people's religions? How does the government give advantages to some religions over others?

[[deleted user]]

Tamara wrote: "I think I read in Vine Deloria's God Is Red: A Native View of Religion as well as in several other books that the Native Americans were intentionally given blankets with smallpox germs since they were susceptible to old world diseases.
."

I grew up hearing/reading that, too (I grew up near the Mandan Indian village where many, many Indians had indeed died from smallpox). But I read on History.net and other sources that that has largely been debunked. historynet.com/smallpox-in-the-blanke.... https://www.bing.com/search?q=myth+or...

[[deleted user]]

Rex wrote: "On the subject of American native vulnerability to European diseases, Jake Page in his history In the Hands of the Great Spirit explains that the natives' ancestors who immigrated from Asia crossed..."

Very interesting.

[[deleted user]]

David wrote: "This clip from Wikipedia is very consistent with my understanding of European introduced disease on Native American populations:Many Native American tribes experienced great depopulation, averaging..."

I appreciate your posting.

[[deleted user]]

At 102 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 the land..."

I could well be wrong. (I often am.) From what I learned growing up, it was because they had such different perspectives. The settlers came with their history that individuals "own" a piece of land. An individual would have legal papers to "prove" he owns the land. The Indian tribes, especially those that were hunters or those who moved from place to place, had no concept of people owning land. The famous story of the island of Manhattan being sold for beads. Supposedly the settlers thinking they got a good deal, and the Indians thinking it was something of a farce because no one can own the land. Or this, https://knowledgenuts.com/2013/10/20/...

[Aleph]

Sympathizing with Ashley. This afternoon I read the first segment with care. Now I've just skimmed through the 179 comments so far. Skimmed. TLDR.

What emerges foremost for me so far is the opportunity to see post-Revolutionary pre-Civil War USA through the lens of a French sensibility.

I have no sense that Tocqueville thought that Democracy in America was occasional writing for contemporary consumption only.

To denigrate Tocqueville's take on historical trajectory seems fatuous. History has only one trajectory, except maybe for speculative fictionizing of an alternative, like Dick's The Man in the High Castle. Granted, interpretations can vary, and these include the uninteresting "one damn thing after another" construction.

A better term than tabula rasa for "empty new land" is terra nullius. A thing which it never was.

Anyone who imagines a sort of pristine USA in the earlier days could benefit from a read of Wendy Warren's New England Bound (2017) and Nancy Isenberg's White Trash (2016).

Colonialist settlers who seek to minimize the deliberate use of smallpox as a tool for Indigenous genocide in North America might profit from a read of Tom Swanky's body of work. One short version here: https://bcbooklook.com/2017/03/13/102-they-came-they-say-they-smallpoxed/

I'd prefer to be more focused on Tocqueville's text and times, but this is what the skim just frothed up.

[Rafael]

Adelle wrote: "At 131 Rafael wrote: "I understand that, but actually they came not from the same position. The fact that do not exist aristocracy do not mean that people is equal. Those who have the right friends..."

You did not straw. Your explanation makes sense and i can see your point, but my point is that to be born equal in rights is not the same as to be truly equal .

[Thomas]

David wrote: "Tocqueville loves presenting paradoxes and then resolving them somehow. ."

I was wondering if anyone else had noted this, and here I find it in your opening remarks. He seems quite fond of dichotomies, presented in a striking way that sounds rhetorical, or even romantic at times. North America is divided into two vast regions... why two? Only two? The description that follows of " a methodical order" separating "land and water, mountains and valleys" is vastly oversimplified, for the sake, I think, of style.

His description of religion and liberty -- Puritanical religion, no less, as the mother of liberty, is equally paradoxical. "In America, religion is the road to knowledge, and observance of the divine laws leads man to civil freedom." He is not speaking of freedom of religion here. He is claiming that these two "tendencies, apparently so discrepant, are far from conflicting; they advance together and support each other." But they don't. It could be argued that religion subjugates "the liberty that makes men grow more evil," in Winthrop's words, but this is still restriction of liberty under the authority of religion.

Chapter 3 sets up the dichotomy of equality and greatness. Toqueville maintains that in their zeal for equality, Americans sacrifice liberty and the opportunity to achieve any sort of grand achievement. The great landed estates have been partitioned, fortunes change hands rapidly due to more equal opportunity to make money (and "I know of no country where the love of money has taken stronger hold on the affections of men...") and basic education is available to everyone, with the natural consequence that a superior education is available to none.

This back-and-forth pattern of dichotomy and resolution seems slightly suspicious to me. It's clever, and it smells of rhetoric. I like his style; it flows, and it is fun to read. That's what worries me.

[Alexey]

Thomas wrote: "with the natural consequence that a superior education is available to none."

Agree with all but do not understand this. Why 'natural consequence'?

[Thomas]

Alexey wrote: "Thomas wrote: "with the natural consequence that a superior education is available to none."

Agree with all but do not understand this. Why 'natural consequence'?"

Excellent question. Toqueville writes:

Primary instruction is within the reach of everybody; superior instruction is scarcely to be obtained by any. This is not surprising; it is, in fact, the necessary consequence of what I have advanced above.

Earlier he argues that intellectual pursuit is tied to wealth. Since almost all wealthy Americans start out poor, they do not have the leisure for study, and by the time they are wealthy they do not have the inclination to study. The result is a "middling standard" for human knowledge.

It does not seem to me an airtight argument.

[Alexey]

Thomas wrote: "It does not seem to me an airtight argument."

To me too. I have reread this passage and understood what caused my question - de Tocqueville did not state that 'superior instruction is scarcely to be obtained by any' is a natural consequence of 'primary instruction is within the reach of everybody'. But this is not the most interesting things in his statement about education, as I understand even before independence there were as many universities in the colonies as in the UK. Very strange thing if we assume that 'superior instruction is scarcely to be obtained by any'.

de Tocqueville seems to stack the cards (presumably unintentionally).