Alexis de Tocqueville was born in 1805 in revolutionary France. His family was of aristocratic stock, but both his mother and father spent time in jail. Tocqueville studied law in Paris and then gained permission to complete a study of the American penal system. He traveled widely in the U.S., visiting American prisons and taking note of everything else he saw along the way. Tocqueville even managed to visit with President Andrew Jackson.
After returning to Paris, Tocqueville began a much bigger work on American culture and politics, a book he titled Democracy in America. Tocqueville believed that equality was the great political and social idea of the time, and he admired American individualism. However, he expressed many other opinions about the U.S. system of government that were not so favorable. For instance, Tocqueville pointed out that while Americans had more freedom of expression than Europeans, they spent little time or energy trying to develop new ideas in the public sphere. Tocqueville also warned about a democratic "tyranny of the majority," which he felt would emerge if alternative viewpoints weren’t encouraged and discussed. Most of Tocqueville's conclusions about the U.S. government were positive, but he also noted the mistreatment of Native Americans and the shameful persistence of slavery long after Europe had banned the practice.
Tocqueville's works were rediscovered in the 20th century and given more attention. At that time, his work was seen as a confirmation of the U.S. political system’s superiority and its resistance to tyranny. The best way to understand Tocqueville's portrayal of American democracy, though, is to consider that he was writing for his French countrymen, many still devoted to the restoration of the monarchy. Tocqueville wanted to convince the people of France that the democratic social revolution he had witnessed in America was a better path to freedom and security than monarchy.
Examine some of Tocqueville's assessments of American democracy for yourself. Read the passage below, and then answer the questions beside the text.
What did Tocqueville think of American leadership when he visited in 1835 compared to the revolutionary era?
- Its leaders were better than before due to additional experience.
- Its leaders were much less inspiring than in the early days.
- Its leaders were basically the same, having outlived most of their peers.
- Its leaders were slightly more forceful in their approach to power.
Tocqueville believed that the earlier colonial leaders were more enthusiastic and motivated, and therefore, better able to accomplish more. In 1835, leaders were more complacent.
Tocqueville believed that the earlier colonial leaders were more enthusiastic and motivated, and therefore, better able to accomplish more. In 1835, leaders were more complacent.
Tocqueville believed that the earlier colonial leaders were more enthusiastic and motivated, and therefore, better able to accomplish more. In 1835, leaders more complacent.
Tocqueville believed that the earlier colonial leaders were more enthusiastic and motivated, and therefore, better able to accomplish more. In 1835, leaders more complacent.
According to Tocqueville, was the quality of leadership uniform across the country?
- It was consistent due to the stabilizing power of a strong central government.
- It was not consistent due to regional differences in American culture.
- It was not consistent due to individual differences in levels of patriotism.
- It was consistent due to the number of Constitutional Amendments passed.
From his traditional French centralist point of view, it seemed to Tocqueville that cultural and social conditions in the Southern slave states were very much unfavorable for good leadership.
From his traditional French centralist point of view, it seemed to Tocqueville that cultural and social conditions in the Southern slave states were very much unfavorable for good leadership.
From his traditional French centralist point of view, it seemed to Tocqueville that cultural and social conditions in the Southern slave states were very much unfavorable for good leadership.
From his traditional French centralist point of view, it seemed to Tocqueville that cultural and social conditions in the Southern slave states were very much unfavorable for good leadership.
Summary
Questions answered correctly:
Questions answered incorrectly:
I have already observed that the American statesmen of the present day are very inferior to those who stood at the head of affairs fifty years ago. This is as much a consequence of the circumstances as of the laws of the country. When America was struggling in the high cause of independence to throw off the yoke of another country, and when it was about to usher a new nation into the world, the spirits of its inhabitants were roused to the height which their great efforts required. In this general excitement the most distinguished men were ready to forestall the wants of the community, and the people clung to them for support, and placed them at its head. But events of this magnitude are rare, and it is from an inspection of the ordinary course of affairs that our judgment must be formed.
If passing occurrences sometimes act as checks upon the passions of democracy, the intelligence and the manners of the community exercise an influence which is not less powerful and far more permanent. This is extremely perceptible in the United States. In New England the education and the liberties of the communities were engendered by the moral and religious principles of their founders. Where society has acquired a sufficient degree of stability to enable it to hold certain maxims and to retain fixed habits, the lower orders are accustomed to respect intellectual superiority and to submit to it without complaint, although they set at naught all those privileges which wealth and birth have introduced among mankind. The democracy in New England consequently makes a more judicious choice than it does elsewhere.
But as we descend towards the South, to those States in which the constitution of society is more modern and less strong, where instruction is less general, and where the principles of morality, of religion, and of liberty are less happily combined, we perceive that the talents and the virtues of those who are in authority become more and more rare.
