Liberty regards religion as its companion in all its battles and its triumphs, -as the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims. It considers religion as the safeguard of morality, and morality as the best security of law, and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom.*

REASONS OF CERTAIN ANOMALIES WHICH THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS PRESENT.

Remains of Aristocratic Institutions amidst the most complete Democracy. - Why? — Careful Distinction to be drawn between what is of Puritanical and what of English Origin.

THE reader is cautioned not to draw too general or too absolute an inference from what has been said. The social condition, the religion, and the manners of the first emigrants undoubtedly exercised an immense influence on the destiny of their new country. Nevertheless, they could not found a state of things originating solely in themselves: no man can entirely shake off the influence of the past; and the settlers, intentionally or not, mingled habits and notions derived from their education and the traditions of their country with those habits and notions which were exclusively their own. To know and to judge the AngloAmericans of the present day, it is therefore necessary to distinguish what is of Puritanical and what of English origin.

Laws and customs are frequently to be met with in the United States which contrast strongly with all that surrounds them. These laws seem to be drawn up in a spirit contrary to the prevailing tenor of American legislation; and these customs are no less opposed to the general tone of society. If the English colonies had been founded in an age of darkness, or if their origin was already lost in the lapse of years, the problem would be insoluble.

I shall quote a single example to illustrate my meaning. The civil and criminal procedure of the Americans has *See Appendix F.

only two means of action, committal or bail. The first act of the magistrate is to exact security from the defendant, or, in case of refusal, to incarcerate him: the ground of the accusation and the importance of the charges against him are then discussed.

It is evident that such a legislation is hostile to the poor, and favorable only to the rich. The poor man has not always a security to produce, even in a civil case; and if he is obliged to wait for justice in prison, he is speedily reduced to distress. A wealthy person, on the contrary, always escapes imprisonment in civil cases; nay, more, if he has committed a crime, he may readily elude punishment by breaking his bail. Thus all the penalties of the law are, for him, reduced to fines.* Nothing can be more aristocratic than this system of legislation. Yet in America, it is the poor who make the law, and they usually reserve the greatest advantages of society to themselves. The explanation of the phenomenon is to be found in England; the laws of which I speak are English, and the Americans have retained them, although repugnant to the general tenor of their legislation and the mass of their ideas.

Next to its habits, the thing which a nation is least apt to change is its civil legislation. Civil laws are familiarly known only to lawyers, whose direct interest it is to maintain them as they are, whether good or bad, simply because they themselves are conversant with them. The bulk of the nation is scarcely acquainted with them; it sees their action only in particular cases, can with difficulty detect their tendency, and obeys them without thought.

I have quoted one instance where it would have been easy to adduce many others. The picture of American society has, if I may so speak, a surface-covering of democracy, beneath which the old aristocratic colors some times peep out.

* Crimes no doubt exist for which bail is inadmissible, but they are few in number.

CHAPTER III.

SOCIAL CONDITION OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS.

OCIAL condition is commonly the result of circum

SOCIAL

stances, sometimes of laws, oftener still of these two causes united; but when once established, it may justly be considered as itself the source of almost all the laws, the usages, and the ideas which regulate the conduct of nations: whatever it does not produce, it modifies.

If we would become acquainted with the legislation and the manners of a nation, therefore, we must begin by the study of its social condition.

THE STRIKING CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SOCIAL CONDITION OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS IS ITS ESSENTIAL DEMOCRACY.

-

The first Emigrants of New England. - Their Equality.-Aristocratic Laws introduced in the South. -Period of the Revolution. Change in the Laws of Inheritance. - Effects produced by this Change. - Democracy carried to its utmost Limits in the new States of the West.-Equality of Mental Endowments.

MANY important observations suggest themselves upon the social condition of the Anglo-Americans; but there is one which takes precedence of all the rest. The social condition of the Americans is eminently democratic; this was its character at the foundation of the colonies, and it is still more strongly marked at the present day.

I have stated in the preceding chapter that great equality existed among the emigrants who settled on the shores

of New England. Even the germs of aristocracy were never planted in that part of the Union. The only influence which obtained there was that of intellect; the people were used to reverence certain names as the emblems of knowledge and virtue. Some of their fellow-citizens acquired a power over the others which might truly have been called aristocratic, if it had been capable of transmission from father to son.

This was the state of things to the east of the Hudson: to the southwest of that river, and as far as the Floridas, the case was different. In most of the States situated to the southwest of the Hudson some great English proprietors had settled, who had imported with them aristocratic principles and the English law of inheritance. I have explained the reasons why it was impossible ever to establish a powerful aristocracy in America; these reasons existed with less force to the southwest of the Hudson. In the South, one man, aided by slaves, could cultivate a great extent of country; it was therefore common to see rich landed proprietors. But their influence was not altogether aristocratic, as that term is understood in Europe, since they possessed no privileges; and the cultivation of their estates being carried on by slaves, they had no tenants depending on them, and consequently no patronage. Still, the great proprietors south of the Hudson constituted a superior class, having ideas and tastes of its own, and forming the centre of political action. This kind of aristocracy sympathized with the body of the people, whose passions and interests it easily embraced; but it was too weak and too short-lived to excite either love or hatred. This was the class which headed the insurrection in the South, and furnished the best leaders of the American Revolution.

The

At this period, society was shaken to its centre. people, in whose name the struggle had taken place, con

ceived the desire of exercising the authority which it had acquired; its democratic tendencies were awakened; and having thrown off the yoke of the mother country, it aspired to independence of every kind. The influence of individuals gradually ceased to be felt, and custom and law united to produce the same result.

But the law of inheritance was the last step to equality. I am surprised that ancient and modern jurists have not attributed to this law a greater influence on human affairs.*

* I understand by the law of inheritance all those laws whose principal object it is to regulate the distribution of property after the death of its owner. The law of entail is of this number: it certainly prevents the owner from disposing of his possessions before his death; but this is solely with the view of preserving them entire for the heir. The principal object, therefore, of the law of entail, is to regulate the descent of property after the death of its owner: its other provisions are merely means to this end.

[We have had one modern jurist, Daniel Webster, who anticipated De Tocqueville in pointing out the prodigious influence, upon social and political affairs, of laws regulating the tenure and inheritance of property. In his oration delivered at Plymouth, December 22, 1820, Mr. Webster said: "The character of the political institutions of New England was determined by the fundamental laws respecting property." He enumerated the abolition of the right of primogeniture, the, curtailment of entails, long trusts, and other processes for fettering and tying up lands, and the facilities offered for the alienation of estates through subjecting them to every species of debt, through public registries and the simplicity of our forms of conveyance, as acts which "fixed the future frame and form of the government.” "The consequence of all these causes," he said, "has been a great subdivision of the soil and a great equality of condition, — the true basis, most certainly, of a popular government."

In alluding to the law in France which renders compulsory an equal division of estates on the death of their owners, Mr. Webster ventured to predict that, "if the government do not change the law, the law, in half a century, will change the government; and this change will not be in favor of the power of the crown, as some European writers have supposed, but against it."

This remarkable prophecy, uttered in December, 1820, was fulfilled first by the Revolution of July, 1830, and then, in a still more marked degree, by that of February, 1848.-Aм. ED.]