Democracy in America Summary

The project Tocqueville undertook in writing Democracy in America was a highly ambitious one.
Having seen the failed attempts at democratic government in his native France, he wanted to study a
stable and prosperous democracy to gain insights into how it worked. His studies had led him to
conclude that the movement toward democracy and equality of conditions while it had progressed the
farthest in America was a universal phenomenon and a permanent historical tendency that could not
be stopped. Since this democratic trend was inevitable, Tocqueville wanted to analyze it in order to
determine its strengths and dangers so that governments could be formed to reinforce democracy's
strengths while counteracting its weaknesses. Therefore, while Democracy in America may at times
seem to be a rather disorganized collection of observations and thoughts on American democracy, it is
possible to gain a coherent sense of the work as a whole by looking at all of Tocqueville's various and
sundry remarks through the lens of one paramount theme: the preservation of liberty in the midst of a
growing equality of conditions. Volume One, the more optimistic half of the book, focuses mostly on
the structure of government and the institutions that help to maintain freedom in American society.
Volume Two focuses much more on individuals and the effects of the democratic mentality on the
thoughts and mores prevalent in society. Taking the work as a whole, one finds that main problems of
a democracy are the following: a disproportionately high portion of power in the legislative branch, an
abuse of or lack of love for freedom, an excessive drive for equality, individualism, and materialism.
The elements that Tocqueville believes can most successfully combat these dangerous democratic
tendencies are: an independent and influential judiciary, a strong executive branch, local selfgovernment, administrative de-centralization, religion, well-educated women, freedom of association,
and freedom of the press.
First, let us examine the dangers that Tocqueville sees facing American democracy. Most of the
problems lie in societal attitudes and tendencies, but there are a few institutional difficulties as well.
The first of these is the preponderance of legislative power. Because the legislature is most directly
representative of the will of the people, democracies tend to give it the most power of all the
governmental branches. Yet if there are not sufficient checks on this power, it can easily become
tyrannical. A related constitutional issue that weakens the independence of the executive and therefore
indirectly increases the power of the legislature is the ability of the president to be re-elected. At first
glance it is not obvious why this feature of American government weakens the president's power. It
would seem, in fact, to increase his influence by allowing him to remain in office longer. The problem
is that if the President has hopes of being re-elected, he will lose much of his ability to make
independent decisions based on his judgments. Instead, he will have to bow to the whims of the
people, constantly trying to make them happy although they may not have the knowledge to judge
what the best action for the country as a whole might be. Indirectly, therefore, allowing the President
to run for re-election increases the danger of the tyranny of the majority. Another problem with the
constitutional organization of American democracy is the direct election of representatives and the
short duration of their time in office. These provisions result in the selection of a mediocre body of
representatives as well as in the inability of representatives to act according to their best judgment,
since they must constantly be worrying about public opinion. By contrast, the Senate, whose members
are elected indirectly and serve longer terms in office, is composed of intelligent and well-educated
citizens. Perhaps it will be necessary to switch to a system of indirect election for representatives as
well. Otherwise, the laws will continue to be mediocre and often contradictory. If the state of affairs
continues, people may tire of the ineptitude of the system and abandon democracy all together.
The overriding but more intangible danger facing democracies is simply their excessive love for
equality. In fact, even the institutional problems are really only symptoms of this deeper mindset
which all democratic peoples tend to have. The doctrine of the sovereignty of the people and the
power of public opinion are corollaries to the idea of equality. If all are equal, then no one person has
any basis to claim the right to rule over another. The only just way to run a society, therefore, is to
base decisions on the will of the majority. Yet the problem with this idea is that it can quite easily lead
to despotism. Despotism can come at the hands of a single person or a multitude. In the case of a
democracy, there is a grave danger that the majority will become despotic. If there are no checks on
the power of the majority to influence the government, then it will have absolute power and those in
the minority will be helpless to resist. Perhaps even more insidious is the sheer moral force that that
the opinion of the majority has on society. As it has already been noted, if all are equal then no one

1 | Page

opinion has greater weight than another. The logical conclusion is that the opinion held by the
majority must be the best one. As a result, there is a tendency to abandon freedom of thought in
democratic societies. Going against the opinion of the majority is seen as an indirect claim to the
superiority of one's own opinion, which is directly contradictory to the principle of equality. This form
of tyranny, therefore, can be seen as even worse than past tyrannies which involved great physical
coercion and brutality. In a powerful passage in Chapter 7, Tocqueville states, "Formerly tyranny used
the clumsy weapons of chains and hangmen; nowadays even despotism, though it seemed to have
nothing to learn, has been perfected by civilization. . . . Under the absolute government of a single
man, despotism, to reach the soul, clumsily struck at the body, and the soul, escaping from such
glows, rose gloriously above it; but in democratic republics that is not at all how tyranny behaves; it
leaves the body alone and goes straight for the soul."
Two other side-effects of equalityboth of which also increase the likelihood of despotismare
individualism and materialism. As Tocqueville points out, "individualism is of democratic origin, and
threatens to grow as conditions get more equal." The reason for this phenomenon is that equality tends
to make people's interests focus in on themselves. There are no societal bonds or duties as there are in
an aristocracy which link people together and force them to realize their dependence on one another.
Individualism can contribute to the growth of despotism because if citizens become too individualistic
they will not bother to fulfill their civic duties or exercise their freedom. Materialism results from a
passion for equality because people think that they ought to be able to have as much wealth as
everyone else. Indirectly, materialism also comes from the philosophical tendency fostered by
democracies to disdain lofty ideas or thoughts of eternity. The effect of materialism is that people may
be so absorbed in their personal pursuit of wealth that they neglect to use their political freedom.
Further, people may actually willingly abandon their freedom in order to have a benevolent
despotism, which can provide an orderly society and ensure material prosperity.
Fortunately, however, Tocqueville does recognize the existence of institutions, which can help to
preserve liberty even in the midst of these despotic tendencies. Constitutionally, the independent
judiciary, with the power of judicial review, is extremely important. Because it can proclaim certain
laws unconstitutional, the Supreme Court provides practically the only check on the tyranny of the
majority. Judges are appointed, not elected, and they serve life terms, giving them a great deal of
independence to make the decisions that they think best without needing to worry excessively about
public opinion. A related beneficial institution in the American system is the jury. While juries may
not always be the best means of attaining justice, they serve a very positive political function of
forcing the citizens to think about other people's affairs and educating them in the use of their
freedom. For these reasons, Tocqueville believes that the jury system is "one of the most effective
means of popular education" (Chapter 8). Much like the jury system, the administrative
decentralization, which allows for local self-government is absolutely crucial as a means to keep
liberty alive by allowing the citizens to exercise it frequently. The existence of local liberties is one of
the most significant differences between America and France. Tocqueville attributes the failure of the
French Revolution mainly to the overwhelming administrative centralization, which took away the
citizens' ability to exercise their freedom, making them lose a taste for it and forget how to exercise it.
Non-institutional factors, which help to maintain freedom in the United States are the right of
association, the freedom of the press, and most importantly religion. Associations are an excellent tool
to combat individualism and to allow people to exercise their freedom by taking a part in politics. The
press is intimately connected to associations in that associations need a means of communicating with
their members and also a means of spreading their message to the public as a whole. In America,
religion is much more than another type of association and is highly beneficial both politically and
societally. Religion teaches people how to use their freedom well. Since the government provides no
absolute standards, it is necessary that religion provide some moral boundaries. As Tocqueville
remarks, "Despotism may be able to do without faith, but freedom cannot. . . . How could a society
escape destruction if, when political ties are relaxed, moral ties are not tightened? And what can be
done with a people master of itself if it is not subject to God?" (Chapter 9). By bringing people
together in a community of common belief, religion also combats individualism. Furthermore,
religion is practically the only means of counteracting the materialistic tendencies of democratic
peoples. Religion turns peoples minds beyond the physical, material aspects of life to the immortal

2 | Page

and eternal. So strongly does Tocqueville see the necessity for such a force in democratic society that
he warns society's leaders not to try to disturb the people's faith, for fear that "the soul may for a
moment be found empty of faith and love of physical pleasures come and spread and fill all."
One can clearly see that most, if not all, of the divergent strands of Democracy in America come
together when examining the relationship between freedom and equality in society. Above all,
Tocqueville has a passionate love for liberty and is concerned to point out the dangerous trends that
threaten to destroy it as well as the means by which it can be preserved. In the last few lines of the
book, Tocqueville writes, "The nations of our day cannot prevent conditions of equality from
spreading in their midst. But it depends upon themselves whether equality is to lead to servitude or
freedom, knowledge or barbarism, prosperity or wretchedness." Tocqueville's hope is that through the
insights he has communicated in this work, humanity will be better able direct themselves toward
freedom, knowledge and prosperity.
Democracy in America Summary and Analysis of Vol. I, Part 1, Chapters 1-5
Chapter 1: Physical Configuration of North America
Tocqueville begins within almost poetic description of the geographical layout of North America.
There are two regions, bordered on the north by the pole and on the south by the equator, and
separated in the middle by the Great Lakes. The region more suitable for human habitation is the
southern one because it has more natural divisions. The Mississippi River valley, still a largely
uninhabited wilderness, "is the most magnificent habitation ever prepared by God for man." The areas
east of the Alleghenies where the population is concentrated are much less suitable for agriculture.
When settlers first went to America, it was not completely uninhabited. The native tribes had a unique
social organization, which was rudimentary and coarse in comparison to Europe, but which had a
particular dignity as well. Though they were ignorant, they were not servile like many of the poor in
aristocratic countries. Remains of previous civilizations have been found, but no one knows anything
about them. Because the Indians were hunters, they did not actually possess the land. One gains
possession of land through agriculture. The area around the Mississippi and in the plains is so wellsuited for trade and industry that civilized man was destined to build a society there.
Analysis
Although it is straightforward and mostly descriptive, this first chapter still provides a few insights
into key themes of Tocqueville's philosophy. First of all, the notion of a divine plan guiding historya
crucial underlying assumption of Tocqueville's thoughtis evident. Tocqueville speaks of the
Mississippi valley as "prepared by God for man" and asserts that the European conquest of Indian
territory was destined by Providence.
Some of Tocqueville's ideas about inequality and aristocracy also begin to surface when Tocqueville
speaks about the Indians. He contrasts their simple dignity with the "coarseness of the common
people" in civilized countries, explaining that this coarseness is exacerbated by contact with the upper
classes. The reason for this phenomenon is that "where there are such rich and powerful men, the poor
and weak feel themselves weighed down by their inferiority; seeing no prospect of gaining equality,
they quite give up hope for themselves and allow themselves to fall below the proper dignity of
mankind." On the other hand, though the Indians may be "poor and ignorant," they are also "equal and
free." These comments point to Tocqueville's later, more developed analysis of the continual growth
in equality of conditions, its benefits and drawbacks, and in particular its often problematic relation to
freedom. These ideas are discussed at length in Volume II, Part II, but are constantly alluded to and
almost taken for granted throughout the book.
Chapter 2: Concerning Their Point of Departure and its Importance for the Future of the
Anglo-Americans
One needs to understand the origin of a nation in order to understand its social conditions and laws.
America is the only great nation for which we can see the origins. This chapter is important because it
"provides the germ of all that is to follow."
Immigrants to America all shared a common language. In addition, their English heritage provided
them with the knowledge and experience of local self-government, and the idea of the sovereignty of
the people was deeply rooted in the Tudor monarchy. Because of religious influences, the people had
chaste mores.

3 | Page

The land in America is not suitable for aristocracy because it is too difficult to handle and not fertile
enough to provide enough support for both a landlord and tenant. As result, a large middle class
formed.
There are two branches of colonies: the South and the North. The South began with Virginian settlers
who were in search of gold and profit. These settlers had generally low moral standards, and almost
immediately established slavery. These factors explain the mores and social conditions in the South.
In the North, all the immigrants came from educated classes. They left the comforts of home because
of their belief in Puritanism, which is not just a religious doctrine but also contains the most absolute
democratic theories. The Pilgrims established an orderly society immediately upon landing in 1620,
and the colony grew rapidly because of continued immigration. It was "a society homogeneous in all
its parts," the most perfect democracy that ever existed.
The English government encouraged the colonists and was actually glad that they left England
because they were seen as potential revolutionaries. The colonies enjoyed great internal freedom. The
settlers did not deny England's rule, but they did not take their internal ruling power from England.
They organized themselves independently.
Criminal law in New England was based on Biblical moral codes. The laws were extremely strict and
invasive. However, these were self-imposed and freely agreed upon. The people's mores were even
more austere than their laws.
The political laws were well ahead of their time, and included such features as participation of the
people in public affairs, individual freedom, trial by jury, etc. There was almost perfect equality of
wealth and intellect among the citizens. While the state was officially a monarchy, local independence
flourished, and each township was organized as a republic.
The laws demonstrated great knowledge of advanced social and political theory. They included
provisions for the poor and public education (on the grounds that ignorance is an ally of the Devil). In
this way, the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom were combined. In the sphere of morality
everything was absolute, but in the sphere of politics everything was open to debate. As a result,
religion and political freedom mutually supported one another. Religion is better off if it gains support
without state coercion, and political freedom is strengthened by religion because it helps to create and
maintain good mores, which are necessary for the responsible use of freedom.
Reasons for Some Peculiarities in the Laws and Customs of the Anglo-Americans
One needs to distinguish between elements of Puritan origin and elements of English origin. There are
some laws in America which do not seem to fit their ideology, but which are simply a result of
English influence. Such laws provide a slight aristocratic element.
Analysis
This chapter provides an introduction to two of the central themes of the work: the extreme equality of
conditions and its relation to political freedom, and the importance of religion for the maintenance of
freedom.
Tocqueville believes that history progresses with the inevitable growth of equality of conditions, and
he sees America as the furthest progression of this growth. The extraordinary level of equality can be
both a help and a hindrance to freedom. On the one hand, one cannot have complete equality without
complete freedom (see Volume II, Part II, Chapter II). Yet at the same time, Tocqueville recognizes
that in almost every situation, freedom is endangered by an overly ardent passion for equality. The
reason that freedom and equality have been able to coexist in America is the existence of deeply
rooted local self-government, which provides the citizens with a means for exercising their freedom.
The crucial importance of these local liberties is discussed in detail in Chapter 5, Volume 1.
Another key factor that has allowed America to maintain freedom is the influence of religion. Good
moresor the habits, customs and values of a societyare crucial especially in a democracy precisely
because there is so much freedom and people tend to adopt a relativistic attitude. Religion is the best
means of preserving wholesome mores and teaching people how to use their freedom well. As
Tocqueville writes, "Freedom sees religion as the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle
of its infancy, the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle of its infancy, and the divine
source of its rights. Religion is considered the guardian of mores, and mores are regarded as the
guarantee of the laws and pledge for the maintenance of freedom itself." Tocqueville speaks at length
about this idea in Chapter 9, Volume 1.

4 | Page

Tocqueville also briefly addresses the topic of separation of church and state. This separation is
mutually beneficial for both the church and state. In Tocqueville's view, which he elaborates in The
Old Regime and the French Revolution, the reason for the struggles between the church and state in
France was precisely the unnatural combination of the two before the French Revolution.
Chapter 3: Social State of the Anglo-Americans
The Striking Feature in the Social Condition of the Anglo-Americans is that it is Essentially
Democratic
The social state is the primary cause of most laws, and in America the social state is "eminently
democratic." There was a high degree of equality among immigrants, and people are respected on the
basis of intellect and virtue.
The South has rich landowners and slaves, but is not quite an aristocracy because there are no
aristocratic privileges.
The laws of inheritance in America yielded the final advance of equality. If inheritance law requires
equal sharing of property among the children, the land will be continually broken up and great landed
fortunes will be nearly impossible to sustain. The connection between the land and the family name
which exists when there are laws of primogeniture is eradicated. As a result, wealth circulates in
America with great rapidity.
There is not only equality in wealth, but also equality in education. None are totally ignorant, and few
are highly educated. There is no class with both the taste and leisure for intellectual pleasures. This
state of affairs creates a "middling standard." There is no aristocratic element in the society.
Political Consequences of the Social State of the Anglo-Americans
For equality in the political sphere, either every citizen or no citizen can have rights. The passion for
equality often overrides the desire for freedom; consequently people often surrender freedom for the
sake of equality.
Analysis
This chapter essentially continues to explain the equality that exists in America and the tension
between equality and freedom. A negative element of equality which Tocqueville mentions briefly is
its tendency to act as a leveler, bringing down those who would, in a more aristocratic society, become
outstanding individuals. While Tocqueville is saddened by this loss, he sees it as inevitable. The
second, more serious danger of the democratic passion for equality is its tendency to be pursued at the
cost of liberty. Tocqueville will speak later on in the book about the specific dangers of the tyranny of
the majority and democratic despotism. (See Volume 1: Chapter 7; Volume 2: Part II, Chapter 1; Part
IV, Chapter 6)
Chapter 4: The Principle of the Sovereignty of the People in America
The sovereignty of the people is recognized by both mores and laws in America. In the colonies, this
principle spread secretly within the provincial assemblies. With the advent of the Revolution, the
dogma of the sovereignty of the people took possession of the government and was coded into law.
The upper classes acquiesced to this principle in order to gain the goodwill of the people and enacted
legislation which strengthened it. Voting qualifications were progressively eradicated. In America, the
people really do rule.
Analysis
Recognizing the sovereignty of the people is essential for a democratic government. The Americans
have done this and followed this principle to its logical conclusions to an extraordinary degree, largely
as a result of their strong passion for equality. This principle can become dangerous, however, in that
it may lead to a tyranny of the majority.
Chapter 5: The Need to Study What Happens in the States Before Discussing the Government of
the Union
The American System of Townships
There are really two separate governments in America, the state government and the federal
government, even to the extent that there almost seem to be twenty-four little sovereign nations.
Because of the limited and specific scope of action of the federal government, the state government is
the normal authority. The states were the original center of power and the place where American
political principles were formed.
There are three centers of power in the state: the township, the country, and the state. The township is
rooted in nature and in man's natural sociability. But local freedom is rare, hard to establish and highly

5 | Page

vulnerable to being lost. To survive, freedom needs to be entrenched in mores. This type of freedom is
very elusive. No one in Europe understands it. Yet this freedom is absolutely essential and is the
people's strength. The only means for a nation to have true freedom is through local institutions. New
England is an excellent example because it has local liberties which are deeply rooted in tradition, law
and mores.
Powers of the New England Township
The township is the place where the people most directly exercise power to rule. Administrative duties
are in the hands of a few men, called "selectmen," elected on a yearly basis. Selectmen generally act
on already established principles agreed upon by the majority. To change anything they need summon
all the voters by calling a town meeting
Many other municipal officials are elected to perform the various town duties. There are nineteen
main officials, and all citizens are bound to accept these positions if elected.
Life in the Township
In America the principles of sovereignty and equality of the people are supreme. An American obeys
society because union with others is useful and he recognizes that authority is necessary for this
union. But in personal matters a person does what he wants.
Municipality liberty derives from principle of sovereignty of the people. Just as a person is sovereign
in all private matter, a township is sovereign in all matters only affecting the township.
Spirit of the Township in New England
The township has independence and power over its own sphere. Because of its power and strength it
wins the affection of its inhabitants. Taking away this local self-governance will give a country docile
subjects but not citizens. People are unwilling generally to work for matters that do not affect their
private interest. As a result. few are willing to try for high government offices which are hard to get
and which are out of direct sphere of personal interests. Therefore, since practical service is necessary
to maintain patriotism, giving people the responsibility to govern in areas directly related to their
interest is necessary for the fostering of a sense of civic duty. In the townships the government really
emanates from the governed, so people are proud of and respect it. This practice of governing in the
township acts as civic education, giving citizen clear ideas of duties and rights.
Administration in New England
The administration is almost invisible in America. Europeans think that weakening authority by taking
away rights of society is the way to achieve liberty, but in America, through the division of power,
authority is kept in check without diminishing its effectiveness. In the United States, the revolution
was guided by mature desire for freedom. While the law has much force, no one person has extreme
power. For example, in a small township there are nineteen officials, each with limited sphere of
authority
The Americans solve the problem of making the elected officials obey the central government by
making the official subject to the courts. Justices of the peace serve an administrative function, and
the sheriff makes sure the township obeys laws of state. If an official commits a crime, he is tried in
ordinary court.
The weakness in the system is that the administrative tribunal doesn't have the right to supervise
officials, and must rely on reports of misconduct or negligence. The reasoning for this is that in
America legislators appeal to private interest to ensure the execution of laws. The problem is that in
some cases no one may be so directly effected as to want to complain.
General Ideas Concerning Administration in the United States
As one goes farther from New England one sees the diminishing power of the township and the
increasing power of the county. The main governing principle that underlies the organization of the
township and county is that each is the best judge of his own interest and is best able to provide for
his own needs.
Tocqueville summarizes his description municipal government in America by stating: "Election of
administrative officers, irremovability from office, absence of administrative hierarchy, and the use of
judicial weapons to control secondary authorities are the chief characteristics of American
administration from Maine to the Floridas". The most striking feature of the government is its
decentralization.

6 | Page

Of the State
Tocqueville will speak only briefly on this subject because the constitution is based on familiar,
simple, rational theory which most constitutional governments have in common.
Legislative Power of the State
There are two legislative bodies, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate exists to
strengthen authority and the House to ensure representation of interests. The advantages deriving from
a bicameral legislature are slowing down the movement of assemblies and providing a means for
revision of laws. Americans are convinced that the division of powers is of utmost necessity.
The Executive Power of the State
The governor is the representative of executive power in the state. He is head of the military, and is
responsible for keeping order and for seeing that laws are executed. Because his term in office is
short, he is highly dependent on his constituents.
Political Effects of Administrative Decentralization in the United States
There are two types of centralization: governmental (dealing with nation-wide interests) and
administrative (dealing with more specialized concerns). Combining the two results in extremely
strong government, as in France under Louis XIV. Government centralization is necessary for the
country, but administrative centralization diminishes civic spirit.
In the United States there is no administrative centralization but high government centralization. The
strength of government centralization can be a danger because it can lead to a tyranny of the majority.
Administrative decentralization is beneficial because the citizens are better able to handle their own
affairs than the government, since the central power can not see all the small details of daily life. In
contrast with France, uniform rules are absent but this absence is good because it allows for freedom.
The problem in Europe is that people have no control over or no interest in management of local
affairs. As a result they become dependent on the government to come to their aid for everything; they
are subjects but not citizens.
The only solid and lasting foundation for a state's power is the free agreement of citizens, going
forward toward the same goal. The two things that can provide such a consensus are religion and
patriotism. Tocqueville admires the political effects of decentralization, because it makes people care
personally about the country's interests.
In the United States, as opposed to Europe, the people do not obey men; they obey justice or law.
Crime is almost always punished in America although power to investigate and to arrest is small,
because people see crime as a public offense and all try to contribute to catching the criminal.
A country and its citizens need liberty in small matters in order to be able to exercise it in larger ones.
The lack of these small liberties was a key factor in the failure of the French Revolution. The French
Revolution had two tendencies, one toward freedom and the other toward despotism. Its centralizing
tendencies made falling into tyranny easy.
While Americans disagree on almost everything, they are unanimous in their love of provincial
freedom.
Analysis
This chapter is one of the most essential parts of the book for understanding Tocqueville's views on
the nature of liberty and how to preserve it. Tocqueville's definition of liberty is highly ambivalent.
On the one hand, there is his relatively straightforward characterization of liberty as the ability to
govern oneself as much as possible through the administration of local affairs. Yet along this political
definition of liberty there is always a mention of how mysterious and elusive freedom is, and how
only a few noble souls can really appreciate freedom enough to make the sacrifices necessary to
preserve it. This idea is brought to the forefront in The Old Regime and the French Revolution, a work
which is thematically complementary toDemocracy in America. In a striking passage of The Old
Regime, Tocqueville writes about freedom's "intrinsic glamour," and calls it a "lofty aspiration which .
. . defies analysis." He goes on to say that freedom is "something one must feel and logic has no part
in it. It is a privilege of noble minds which God has fitted to receive it, and it inspires them with a
generous fervor. But to meaner souls, untouched by the sacred flame, it may well seem
incomprehensible." Keeping this passage in mind is helpful in understanding what Tocqueville really
means when he states at the beginning of this chapter in Democracy in America that communal
freedom "is seldom created, but rather springs up of its own accord. It grows, almost in secret, amid a

7 | Page

semi-barbarous society." This freedom is difficult to establish and even more difficult to sustain over
time.
The problem of maintaining freedom amidst the growing equality of conditions both in the United
States and Europe is Tocqueville's central concern in Democracy in America. Indeed, it would not be
too much to say that trying to resolve this problem was the primary goal of his life's work, both
intellectual and political. His motivation for traveling to America was to study how this fledgling
democracy maintained freedom although it had a high degree of equality. The key to this success, in
Tocqueville's view, is the administrative decentralization which allows people to exercise their liberty
through self-government in the townships: "Without local institutions a nation may give itself a free
government, but it has not got the spirit of liberty." For this reason, although Tocqueville recognizes
that administrative centralization may greatly increase the efficiency and uniformity of the
government, he admires the decentralized American system because of its political effects in allowing
the people to exercise their freedom. There is an implicit contrast here with France, where Tocqueville
blames the loss of liberty and in particular the failure of the French Revolution to gradual erosion of
local self-government in France throughout the nation's history since the Middle Ages. This idea is
Tocqueville's main thesis in The Old Regime. Tocqueville also speaks more specifically (and more
pessimistically) about the tension between liberty and equality in Volume II, particularly in Parts II
and IV.
In this chapter, Tocqueville also mentions the need for the cultivation of proper mores in order to
maintain freedom in a democracy. He speaks at length about this idea, and particularly about the
importance of certain legal institutions and of religion as the basis of these mores, in Chapter Nine.
But in this chapter one begins to see the emergence of this theme in several places, particularly in the
statement that "until communal freedom has come to form part of mores, it can easily be destroyed."
Another idea that is only briefly addressed in this chapter but developed more fully in Chapter Seven
and in Part IV of Volume II, is the danger that a democracy will degenerate into a tyranny of the
majority or a "democratic despotism." When speaking in this chapter about governmental
centralization, Tocqueville observes that "In America the legislature of each state is faced by no power
capable of resisting it. Nothing can check its progress, neither privileges, nor local immunities, nor
personal influence, nor even the authority of reason, for it represents the majority, which claims to be
the unique organ of reason." This passage has an ominous sense to it, and it seems to act almost as a
warning of the ease with which the government could become tyrannical. Tocqueville even tells the
reader directly that he will elaborate on this subject in later chapters when he states that "far from
being inadequately centralized, one can assert that the American governments carry it much too far;
that I will demonstrate later. . . . It is because of its very strength, not its weakness that it [the social
power] is threatened with destruction one day."
Chapter 6: Judicial Power in the United States and its Effect on Political Society
There are three general characteristics of judicial power: its role is to act as arbitrator, it rules on
particular cases rather than general principles, and it can only act when called upon. American's do
hold to these principles, but the judges there have an unusual amount of political power. The reason is
that the courts can base decisions of the constitution, allowing them to override some laws.
In America, the constitution is changeable, but it is "the fount of all authority." The court power is
checked by legislative ability to amend the constitution. Also, judges can only attack the law by
refusing to apply. This action reduces a law's moral force, but only the legislature can repeal the law.
The power of judicial review is one of the best barriers against tyranny of political assemblies.
Additionally, the courts hold public officials accountable for their actions, because all officials are
responsible before the courts.
Analysis
The courts are a great safeguard of that menace to freedom which Tocqueville at least alludes to in
nearly every chapter: the tyranny of the majority. The reason is that the courts are in some ways apolitical (the judges are appointed and have very long terms in office) and do not have to bow
constantly to the whims of the electorate as politicians do.

8 | Page

Chapter 7: Political Jurisdiction in the United States

Sometimes it is necessary for the political representatives to have judicial power. In the United States,
the House of Representatives has the right to prosecute and the Senate has the right to punish. The
House must initiate the proceedings, and only public officials can be judged in this sort of trial
The United States differs from Europe in that political courts only have the power to remove from
office, not to punish under criminal law. In Europe the political judgment is more of a judicial act, but
in the United States it is more of an administrative measure. The reason is that in the United States,
the main aim of political jurisdiction is to take power away from those who abuse it.
In Europe political jurisdiction is used only in extreme situations, because it clearly violates the
division of power. In the United States, it is less of a danger to the division of power, and is used more
frequently.
The laws regarding political crimes are extremely vague in America. This vagueness, combined with
the mildness of the Senate's power to punish, makes political jurisdiction easier to use and thus more
influential. The American system guards against a high degree of legislative tyranny, but makes mild
legislative tyranny more likely.
Analysis
In this chapter one finds that, once again, Tocqueville's main concern is the tyranny of the majority.
He sees that in the American system, the power of political jurisdiction does not extend to imposing
penalties, making it rather mild. However, this mildness can itself be a danger, because there is less
hesitancy to use the power. The system guards against harsh tyranny, but makes soft tyranny of the
legislative branchwhich is most closely tied to the majoritymuch more likely.
Chapter 8: The Federal Constitution
History of the Federal Constitution
After the Revolution, the thirteen colonies were torn by common interests which made them desire
both unity and state autonomy. The first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, condemned the
federal government to weakness. It is extraordinary that no bloodshed was necessary to remedy the
problem. One of the great advantages the Americans had was that the leaders of the Revolution were
still alive to draft the new constitution, and these were men of great intelligence and character.
Summary of the Federal Constitution
To resolve the problem of dividing powers between the federal government and states, the lawgivers
carefully defined the federal powers and gave all other power to the state. In order to arbitrate disputes
about this authority, they created a federal Supreme Court to ensure the maintenance of the proper
division of power.
Prerogatives of the Federal Government
The federal government has the exclusive right of making war and peace, concluding commercial
treaties, and raising armies. The Union is also responsible for the regulation of currency, the postal
service, communication services and taxation. The federal government can intervene in the internal
affairs of states in certain rare cases where the state's conduct is endangering the Union. In some
respects the United States federal government has more power than European monarchies.
Legislative Powers
The creation of the House of Representatives and the Senate was a compromise between large and
small states, as well as between the principle of state independence and the principle of the
sovereignty of the people. "The principle of state independence prevailed in the shaping of the Senate,
the dogma of national sovereignty in the composition of the House of Representatives." Because of
the system's design, a minority of the nation dominant in the Senate could block the will of the
majority represented in the House. For the most part, however, this does not happen.
Another Difference Between the Senate and the House of Representative
Members of the House are elected directly, while senators are elected by the state legislatures.
Representatives serve two-year terms, and senators serve six-year terms. Treaties must be ratified by
the Senate.
The Executive Power
In order to make the President powerful enough to be effective yet not too powerful, the legislatures
cannot act directly to counter executive power, but they can supervise the President's actions in many
ways. The Senate has to approve of presidential appointments and treaties with foreign powers. In

9 | Page

addition, Congress could enact laws that would encroach on presidential power. The President has
veto power, but the legislature can still overturn a veto with a two-thirds majority.
How the Position of the President of the United States Differs From That of a Constitutional
King in France
External signs of power are unimportant and deceptive. Because the government in the United States
is federaldivided between the Union and the Statesnot national, power of the executive is limited.
The President has no real legislative power, as a monarch does, but only executes the law. The
President cannot choose the members of the legislative body and he cannot dissolve it.
The King of France is equal in power to the legislature, but the President of the United States has less
power than the legislature. The President's executive actions are under supervision and he is
answerable to the Congress for his actions. In both the United States and France, the real directing
power is public opinion.
Accidental Causes That May Increase the Influence of the Executive Power
Circumstances have kept the exercise of the executive power weak. The executive power shows itself
mainly in foreign relations and especially in times of international crises.
Why the President of the United States Has No Need, in Order to Direct Affairs, of a Majority in
the Two Houses
The reason that the executive power can act without the support of the legislature is that he is obliged
to execute the laws in spite of his disagreement, and there is little the he does independently. As a
result, the government still functions when there is division between the President and the Legislature.
Election of the President
The elective system for executive power is always dangerous because of the tendency for people to
want to gain power at all costs. The dangers are greater in proportion to the amount of power the
executive has. In the United States, there is little danger because the executive power is so weak, and
the term of power is relatively short. One of the problems of the system in elective states is that when
an election is approaching, the outgoing President has no incentive to do anything new, and the whole
nation is focused only on the election, not actually on present governance. When a new President is
elected there is always a period of instability. Yet since the powers of the executive are relatively
small, this problem is not fatal.
The President has complete freedom to choose his ministers, with the supervision of the Senate. This
system can be a hardship for ministers, since power changes hands every four years. However, this
difficulty is not so bad because it is fairly easy for former ministers to find other positions.
The more perilous a nation's position in foreign affairs, the more necessary it is to have a stable
executive power, and the more dangerous the elective system becomes to the national security.
Fortunately for America, it is relatively isolated from the rest of the world and is not threatened
externally.
Mode of Election
The aim of American lawgivers was to find a mode of election which expressed the will of the people,
by simple majority, without fear of delays in tabulating the votes or in gaining a simple majority. For
this reason, the electoral powers were delegated, increasing the chance of getting a majority and
easing the tabulation. The policy was that each state would nominate a certain number of electors,
equal to the number of members it sent to Congress, to elect the President. If none of the candidates
obtained a majority in the election, the House would elect the President from among the three
candidates who had received the most votes. The United States has only needed to resort to this last
measure twice: for the elecion of Jefferson in 1801 and Quincy Adams in 1825.
Crisis of Election
The time of Presidential election can be considered a time of national crisis, because all are
completely focused on the election, and factions tend to flare up and become even more passionate
than usual in lobbying for their causes. After the decision has been made, however, "the river which
momentarily overflowed its banks falls back to its bed," and all is calm once again.
Concerning the Reelection of the President
While at first consideration it seems natural that Presidential reelection ought to be allowed, the
practice is dangerous because the President may then make reelection, not caring for the government
of the country, his primary consideration. In the United States, the desire for reelection dominates the

10 | P a g e

President's thought. Therefore the principle of reelection increases the corrupting influence of elective
governments.
The lawgivers of American were wise in making the President independent of the whims of factions
and caprices of the people, while still subject to the general will of the majority. The principle of
reelection, however, undermines this independence. Thus the President of the United States is
completely under control of the people's whims.
The Federal Courts
To gain the obedience of the governed, governments can either use physical force or moral force. The
courts are generally the vehicles through which laws are given moral force. The judiciary needs to be
separate from the other powers, but it is still necessary that federal laws be under the jurisdiction of
federal, not state, courts, since the states are often in opposition to the federal government. The
judicial power of the union was concentrated in the Supreme Court, but other lower federal courts
were added to handle issues of lesser importance. The members of the Supreme Court were appointed
by the President and approved by the Senate, and they were irremovable to make them independent.
Means of Determining the Competence of the Federal Courts
The Supreme Court was given the power to decide all questions of competence, regarding disputes
over whether the case was one of federal or state jurisdiction. This power seems to threaten the
sovereignty of the states, but in practice it really does not.
Different Cases of Jurisdiction
The subject matter and the party involved were the two bases of federal competence. For example,
cases in which one of the parties is an ambassador automotically fall under federal jurisdiction, as do
cases in which the parties are from different states. Some of the cases which automatically fall under
federal jurisdiction because of their subject matter are cases dealing with foreign trade or with the
constitutionality of a law. The rules determining which courts have jurisdiction in which cases are
simply an extension of the principles of federalism in general, giving the central government enough
power to be effective and maintain national unity, while allowing the states independence in their own
sphere.
Procedure of the Federal Courts
Justice is weaker in federal states because sovereignty is divided. But, with great wisdom, the
Constitution arranged matters so that courts deal directly with individual, without the intermediary of
the states. When the federal courts want to overturn a state law, they do so indirectly, through suits
brought on by individuals who are harmed by the new law. The Supreme Court can also judge
disputes between states. It may be difficult, however, to make an entity as powerful as a state submit
to the ruling.
High Standing of the Supreme Court Among the Great Authorities in the State
The Supreme Court has higher standing than any court in any country. It is uniquely responsible for
the interpretation of laws and treaties and for questions dealing with international law. In addition,
unlike courts in Europe, the Supreme Court can try states as well as individuals.
The court's power is immense so long as people respect the law and obey it. The judges therefore need
to understand the spirit of the age and the limits of what popular opinion will accept. If the Supreme
Court acts rashly, the whole country is threatened. This danger is inherent in the nature of federal
government, because it requires a strong judicial authority.
The Superiority of the Federal Constitution Over That of the States
The main cause of the Federal Constitution's superiority is the character of its writers, all of whom
were remarkably enlightened and patriotic. Their foremost concern was the preservation of liberty.
Through the representative, bicameral legislative system and especially through the formation of the
Senate, they helped to guard against the tyranny of the majority.
Democracies have a tendency to concentrate power in the legislative branch, but such action yields
the "despotism of the majority." While the states' constitutions succumbed to this tendency, the
Federal Constitution did not.
The executive in the states has almost no power, but in the federal government it has enough power to
be effective. The states also fail to give the judiciary its proper independence
The two main dangers that threaten the existence of democracies are (1) "the subjection of the
legislative power to the will of the electoral body," and (2) "concentration of all other powers of

11 | P a g e

government into the hands of the legislative power." The states have succumbed to these dangers, but
the federal government has not.
What Distinguishes the Federal Constitution of the United States of America from All Other
Federal Constitutions
The United States Federal Government is much more powerful than that of European countries with
similar constitutions, because the United States Constitution made the federal government in charge
of not only dictating but also executing the laws.
The problem in other countries is the confusion of a federal government and an incomplete national
government. This was the problem the United States had under the Articles and remedying that
problem was what allowed the country to survive.
Advantages of the Federal System in General and Its Special Usefulness in America
Small nations are often a cradle of liberty because they offer little attraction for ambition and
despotism. When they become larger such nations tend to lose that liberty. There is no large nation in
history which has remained a republic. In large nations there is more ambition to take power, and
there is less ability for public resistance.
Large states do, however, have advantages. There tends to be a greater flow of ideas and more
intellectual centers. They are more secure in a war. Small nations may be happier but they are too
weak to be secure.
The federal system is an attempt to combine the advantages of small and large states. Local liberties
provide a perfect education in republican government which can then be applied to the whole nation.
The limitation of federal sovereignty also mitigates the ambition for power. "The Union is free and
happy like a small nation, glorious and strong like a great one."
Why the Federal System is Not Within Reach of All Nations and Why the Anglo-American's
Have Been Able to Adopt It
One of the defects of a federal system is its complication and the tension between state and federal
sovereignty. The government of America is only sustainable with a population well-educated in
political science.
The second defect is the weakness of the federal government. It is a danger that in a clash between the
federal government and a state or between the Supreme Court and a state, the state will refuse to obey.
The Union has the power of military and economic force, but the states have more support from the
people. For the confederation to last, people must have a fairly homogeneous civilization and
common needs.
The weakness of a confederation is shown in war, when, as in the War of 1812, the militia refuses to
obey the President. America has not dissolved because it has no great wars to fear.
Analysis
In examining the United States Constitution, Tocqueville is looking specifically for the ways in which
the United States has guarded itself against the ever-present danger of the tyranny of the majority,
which can take two forms: (1) "the subjection of the legislative power to the will of the electoral
body," or (2) "concentration of all other powers of government into the hands of the legislative
power."
The United States has succeeded in protecting itself, at least so far, from the tyranny of the majority
mostly through the checks and balances of the system. To avoid the first form of tyranny, a bicameral
legislature was formed in which the Senate, while still responsible to the people, has much more
independence from popular whims. Avoiding the second form involves both the executive and judicial
branches. The President has veto power and control of the military, giving him some ability to check
the power of the legislature. Yet Tocqueville recognizes that the legislature is definitely more powerful
than the President alone. The judiciary, however, has great ability to prevent Congressional tyranny
through its ability to declare certain laws unconstitutional. The judiciary is also extremely
independent of popular opinion, allowing it to act without needing to worry about re-election.
One specific provision of the Constitution, which worries Tocqueville is the ability for Presidential reelection. He fears this provision because it "makes the corrupting influence of elective governments
spread wider and more dangerous. It tends to degrade the political morality of the nation and to
substitute craft for patriotism." Allowing the President to be re-elected diminishes his independence
from the caprices of the majority. Tocqueville argues that if the President were not reeligible, his

12 | P a g e

responsibility toward the people would not diminish, "but the people's favor would not have been so
necessary to him that he must in everything bend to its will."
All things considered, Tocqueville believes that through a combination of Constitutional wisdom,
embedded local liberties, and accidental factors such as geography and the composition of the
populace, the United States has done a remarkable job in creating a democratic government, which is
relatively stable and safeguards liberty.
Chapter 1: Why It Can Strictly Be Said That the People Govern in the United States
The people both make and execute the laws in the United States, by electing their representatives and
serving on juries. "The majority rules in the name of the people."
Chapter 2: Parties in the United States
"Parties are an evil inherent in free government." Great parties are those which are attached to lofty
principles rather than private interest, and their action can often cause a revolution. Small parties are
pettier and only agitate and corrupt society. America used to have great parties, but it no longer does.
After the Revolution, there were two great parties, one of whichthe Federalistswanted to restrict
popular power and the other of whichthe Republicanswanted to extend it. The Federalists had power
only until Jefferson was elected, but this period was extremely important for America because during
that time they worked against the negative tendencies of democracy, and when the Republicans gained
power they adopted many of the Federalist's ideas. As a result, there are no longer any great political
parties in the United States. Still, beneath the petty differences of the parties there is the underlying
battle between restricting and extending public power.
Remains of the Aristocratic Party in the United States
The rich are somewhat excluded from government, and their can often even be a disadvantage in
trying to gain political power. As a result, they close in on themselves and go about pursuing their
own private interests. They act as if they support republican government, but in reality they "have a
great distaste for their country's democratic institutions."
Analysis
The key point in this chapter once again revolves around the dangerous democratic tendency to fall
into tyranny of the majority. The Federalist party's ability to gain power was crucial precisely because
the Federalists wanted to restrict public power, and as a result they began a tradition which acted as a
moderating influence on the demands of the majority.
Chapter 3: Freedom of the Press in the United States
Freedom of the press is necessary because the only real alternative to it is complete despotism.
Especially in a society where the people are sovereign, censorship would be inherently contradictory
to the overriding societal principles.
The press has less power in the United States than it does in France, because attacking existing laws in
the United States is not revolutionary; in fact it is perfectly acceptable. The force of the press is also
lessened because freedom of the press is not a novelty in the United States, it is decentralized, and the
people tend not to react passionately to anything that does not affect their material interests.
Decentralization has particularly strong effects. It prevents people from being unified by a single
current of opinion, but it also tends to result in poor journalism because there is an excessive number
of papers and not enough talented journalists. Recognizing the lack of journalistic competence, the
people generally do not take the journalists' opinions seriously, but simply focus on the facts. Still, the
power of the press is immense simply because it allows all people to remain informed about politics.
People in America tend to stubbornly stick to their own opinions, simply because they chose them. So
many opinions are floating about that people tend to distrust all of them, and end up focusing mostly
on tangible, material interests.
Analysis
The press can clearly be a means both of keeping liberty alive and of fostering the tyranny of the
majority. It maintains liberty by keeping the people informed of politics and thereby encouraging
political activity and the exercise of freedom. It can, however, foster the tyranny of the majority by
influencing vast numbers of people at once. The decentralization of the American press, however,
makes this unifying and all-encompassing influence unlikely.
Two other democratic tendencies are also brought out in this brief chapter: materialism and relativism.
Toqueville notices that people are concerned primarily about their material interests. In addition, the
people superficially adopt an opinion and cling to it not because they are convinced it is true but

13 | P a g e

because they do not think they can discover what is true, and consider most opinions to be generally
equal. Volume 2 addresses these issues in more detail.
Chapter 4: Political Association in the United States
Americans use the right of assembly more frequently and effectively than anywhere else in the world.
The right of association is related to the freedom to write, but associations are more powerful than the
press. Political associations can become extremely powerful, even dangerously so. While freedom of
the press is "the constitutive element in freedom" and therefore cannot be limited, the freedom of
association may have to be limited. In America, however, there are no limitations. Its danger has been
seen already, however, in the nullification crisis South Carolina. Yet in spite of the danger, unlimited
freedom of association is good in the United States because it is a guarantee against the tyranny of the
majority.
Association is natural to human beings, and is therefore an inalienable right. In the United States, as
opposed to Europe, associations are primarily peaceful and use legal means, precisely because they
know that such means can indeed have an effect. Universal suffrage is perhaps the best guarantee
against the violence of political associations in the United States, because no association can claim to
represent a majority. It is obvious that association represent only a minority, and thus their moral force
is diminished.
Analysis
While they can be dangerous in some situations and political climates, associations are highly
beneficial in the United States, because they guard against the tyranny of the majority and are not
inclined to violence or revolution. Tocqueville writes that "the omnipotence of the majority seems to
me such a danger to the American republics that the dangerous expedient used to curb it is actually
something good." In a sense, this dynamic is quite ironic, because it demonstrates how, at least in this
case, "extreme democracy forestalls the dangers of democracy."
Chapter 5: Government By Democracy In America
Universal Suffrage
All the states in the Union have universal suffrage (as defined by the times).
The People's Choice and the Instincts of American Democracy in Such Choices
In the United States the common people generally have more good qualities than the rulers. The level
of intelligence of a society as a whole is limited by the amount of leisure that the people have.
Because the lower classes have little leisure they often lack the education to discern who will be the
best person to rule in their interests. In addition, the people may not always want to elect the person
with the highest merit, because, with their dominant passion for equality, superiority annoys them.
The Americans do not hate the higher classes, but simply keep them from power. At the same time,
men of distinction of repelled from political power because they feel cheapened by being up for
election.
Elements Which May Provide a Partial Corrective to These Instincts of Democracy
In times of great distress, great virtue is often brought to the fore in people. Thus, in the time of the
American Revolution and immediately following it, great leaders rose up.
Mores are also an important means of correcting democracy's negative tendencies. In New England,
where liberty and morality are well-established in the habits of the people, the citizens tend to make
better choices in electing their leaders. In other areas the situation is much worse.
The House of Representative is filled with people of "vulgar demeanor," while the Senate is filled
with eloquent and well-educated statesmen. The reason for this dichotomy is that Representative are
directly elected while Senators are indirectly elected. Perhaps the Americans will need to modify their
system to use indirect election more frequently.
Influence of American Democracy Upon Electoral Laws
Rare elections expose the state to the danger of violent crisis, but frequent elections result in a state of
inconstancy and agitation. Americans have chosen the latter danger over the former, and as a result
their laws are often highly unstable and incoherent.
Public Officers Under the Rule of American Democracy
Public officials have no external signs of their power, such as uniforms, and all officials receive
salaries so that the lower classes have access to all positions. Yet while all citizens are eligible for
office, not many desire it because it is an inherently unstable and unpredictable occupation. Ambitious
men generally avoid public office to pursue private wealth. Thus, those who run for office do so

14 | P a g e

because they do not think they can manage their own private affairs successfully. This problem is
another cause responsible for the "large number of vulgar men holding public positions."
The Arbitrary Power of Magistrates Under the Sway of American Democracy
In democracy the people are confident of their ability to take power away from the magistrates, and
consequently are not concerned about allowing to have a great amount of arbitrary power.
Administrative Instability in the United States
Few historical records exist in the United States; the only source is newspapers. The administrations
are unstable, and do not bother to keep records or look to past records to decide how to act.
Public Expenses Under the Rule of American Democracy
Expenses in free states are always greater than in despotic ones. Every society will different economic
classes ranging from the rich to the poor. The economic laws depend on which class is in power. If the
middle class rules, the laws will be the most economical. However, in countries with universal
suffrage, generally the poor make the laws, because they are in the majority, and the poor will have a
tendency to spend too much, because very few taxes fall upon them.
Democracies also tend to spend a lot because they have a constant and feverish desire for
improvement and innovation, both of which are costly. Its expenditures can also be unproductive
because people change their minds often and projects may remain uncompleted.
The Instincts of American Democracy in Fixing the Salaries of Officials
High officials generally are given low salaries, because those who vote to fix the salaries have little
chance of ever receiving that position. Secondary officials, however, are relatively well paid because
the people consider them more on their level, and are more sympathetic to them. "Democracy gives
little to the rulers and much to the ruled." In aristocracies, the case is the opposite.
Can the Public Expenditure of the United States Be Compared with That of France?
To judge the extent of public expenditure one needs to know both the national wealth and the
proportion of it which is used for state expenses. A nation's wealth is composed of real property and
personal property. The value of property is extremely difficult to judge. Yet even judging the amount
of taxation is not an easy task, because each individual township has its own separate expenses.
Therefore one cannot really compare either the expenditure or the wealth of the United State and
France.
Yet by observing other external factors one can get a sense of which country taxes a larger proportion
of its citizens' income. It is clear that America has much lower taxes than France. France, however,
needs more money because it needs maintain a large army.
In spite of the fact that taxes are lower in America, it is still possible that the country is not
economical, because it seems that a lot of money is wasted. In addition, a lot of money is spent to help
the lower classes, a good but expensive practice. Therefore the government of America is not an
inexpensive one.
Corruption and Vices of the Rulers in a Democracy and Consequent Effect on Public Morality
In aristocracies, rulers are much more likely to attempt to use their influence and wealth to bribe the
governed, but in democracies the rulers themselves are much more corruptible. This tendency can be
dangerous because it gives people the example that immorality may result in success and honor.
"There comes about an odious mingling of the conceptions of baseness and power, of unworthiness
and success, and of profit and dishonor."
The Efforts of Which Democracy is Capable
It is difficult to tell how much sacrifice a democracy can impose on itself, because there has not been
a great war in America since the War of Independence. In that war, people made great sacrifices at the
beginning but toward the end stopped giving money and volunteering for the army. There is no
conscription in America.
Democracies are not well-suited for waging wars, because the people are more inclined to quick
bursts of enthusiasm than sustained effort. There is less glamour to warfare in a democratic country
than in an aristocracy. In addition, a democracy cannot pull together its resources as quickly as an
aristocracy.
American Democracy's Power of Self-Control
Democracy is endangered by the people's shortsightedness and their tendency to choose momentary
pleasures over long-term gain. They only obey laws of which they see the utility. An example is that,
although most crimes are the result of drunkenness, legislators are afraid to impose a tax on alcohol

15 | P a g e

for fear of a revolt. It takes democracies a long time to see reason, because they cannot come to the
truth merely intellectually; they need to experience it.
How American Democracy Conducts the External Affairs of the State
Washington and Jefferson have set the course for American foreign policy. Washington directed the
country to steer clear of foreign alliances and never to get involved in the internal quarrels of Europe.
American foreign policy is more a matter of abstention than action.
In general, democratic governments are inferior in their control of foreign affairs. Democracies have
little patience to plan out and sustain a great undertaking as is necessary in foreign affairs.
Aristocracies are excellent in directing foreign affairs, and it almost always the case that in such
matters the interests of the aristocrats are the same as the interests of the people. Democracies tend to
abandon long-term, well-thought out plans in favor of momentary passions and sympathies.
Analysis
In this chapter, Tocqueville brings out a lot of the weaknesses of democracies. At the root of these
weaknesses is the inability of democratic peoples to make well-reasoned, dispassionate choices. This
weakness is due for the most part to the tendency of democratic peoples to be swayed more by whims
and passions than by reason. The results of the people's whimsical nature is evident in several areas:
the election of government officials, the inefficient use of money, and the lack of skill in conducting
foreign affairs.
In choosing government officials, democracies have a double problem: the people tend to choose
poorly because their passion for equality makes them dislike those who are superior, and those who
have the capacity to rule do not want the position it is unstable and has few rewards. The means of
counteracting this problem is, for the most part, good mores, formed especially by good education in
virtue and the experience of local liberties. New England is exemplary in this regard. Institutionally,
the problem can be solved by using indirect election.
Democracies tend to waste a lot of money because the people, governed more by impulse than by
reason, embark on a wide range of projects and explore every possible innovation, most of which are
impractical and many of which are never even finished because people tire of an idea when it ceases
to become a novelty. The poor, being in the majority, are the ones who can have the largest influence
on laws. As a result, taxes tend to be high because the poor are exempt from them and receive the
greatest benefit from government services.
Conducting foreign affairs well requires patience, reason, and fortitude, but in democracies "the
people feel more strongly than they reason; and if present ills are great, it is to be feared that they will
forget the greater evils that perhaps await them in case of defeat." On a personal level, the citizens
tend have little capacity for sustained self-sacrifice, a necessary requirement for winning a war.
There may, however, be an ever more profound danger lurking in this democratic tendency to follow
the passions rather than reason. The passions and whims of the people cloud their ability to see the
truth and realize which laws would actually be in their best interests. They cannot come to the truth
without a long experience of trial and error which brings them eventually to find the best course of
action. Tocqueville writes that "a democracy cannot get at the truth without experience, and many
nations may perish for lack of the time to discover their mistakes." America was fortunate to have
time to fix its mistakes because there was no immediate danger threatening it. Yet this inability to see
the truth may be a problem hurts society internally in the long run.
Chapter 6: The Real Advantages Derived by American Society From Democratic Government
The General Tendency of Laws Under the Sway of American Democracy and the Instincts of
Those Who Apply Them
The defects of democracy are obvious, but the advantages can only be seen in the long run. Laws in
America "are often defective or incomplete." Democracy's laws tend toward the good of the greatest
number, but an aristocracy is much more skilled in legislation. Democracy's lack of skill is not fatal,
however, because mistakes are retrievable. In addition, the people keep watch on the actions of their
legislators and make sure that they are not deviating from the public interest. Legislators may not be
highly skilled, but they will never pursue aims hostile to the majority.
Public Spirit in the United States
There are two types of patriotism. One type stems from an instinctive love, based on feeling rather
than reason, and is often ephemeral. The other is a more rational and lasting patriotism, "engendered
by enlightenment," and "mingled with personal interest." The best way to promote this more steady

16 | P a g e

patriotism is to make people take a personal interest in their country's fate by giving them a share in
government. This is what the United States has done, and the result is that Americans are extremely
patriotic.
The Idea of Rights in the United States
Rights are absolutely essential for a cohesive and prosperous society. In America, because everyone
has some sort of property, all recognize the right of property in principle. Likewise, the democratic
government "makes the idea of political rights penetrate right down to the last citizen." A moral and
religious conception of rights seems to be disappearing; therefore it is absolutely essential to link the
idea of rights to personal interest. America has been able to do this by giving people political rights
from the beginning, but in other countries it may be difficult to extend political rights because, having
been deprived of rights for so long, the people may use them unwisely.
Respect for Laws in the United States
Giving the people a part in lawmaking can result in a lower quality of legislation but also can give the
laws greater moral strength. In America people have a personal interest in obeying the laws, even laws
which they disagree with, because they know that at some point they will share the opinion of the
majority and will want the minority to follow the law as well. While the rich may often be in the
minority, their discontent is not dangerous because their wealth makes breaking the law too risky.
Activity Prevailing in All Parts of the Political Body in the United States; the Influence Thereby
Exerted on Society
The rush of political activity always present in the United States is remarkable. There are always
people calling for reform, lobbying for a cause, or expressing some concern. The American's greatest
pleasure comes from talking about and taking a hand in the government of society. These habits of
freedom are a great guard against despotism.
While the people may not manage public affairs well, it is good for society anyway because taking
responsibility for government broadens people's concerns beyond their own interests and makes them
care for society at large. Things may not be done well, but many things are accomplished because of
the extraordinary amount of political energy and activity. Democracy does not engender great virtue
or nobility, but it also lessens the number of great crimes and increases general well-being.
Analysis
This chapter expands on some of the previous chapters ideas about the generally poor quality of
American legislation, but also point out many of the advantages of the democratic method. One
advantage is that while the laws in a democracy may not be crafted with the utmost skill, they are at
least not positively dangerous or aimed against the well-being of the majority, as they very well might
be in an aristocracy. Furthermore, the popular origin of laws gives them greater moral force. In
addition, allowing people to have a role in the government of the nation makes them see the nation's
interests as their and be more patriotic. The most important effect of the people's ability to take part in
making the laws, however, the strong public spirit and practice in freedom which such activity
provides. Because the people have had political rights from the beginning in America, the habits of
freedom are deeply entrenched. Tocqueville writes that "if despotism ever came to be established in
the United States it would find it even more difficult to overcome the habits that have sprung from
freedom than to conquer the love of freedom itself."
In discussing the benefits of America's deep-rooted habits of political freedom, Tocqueville makes a
very significant comment in relation to the nature of freedom and the difficulty of acquiring and
maintaining it. He states: "It cannot be repeated too often: nothing is more fertile in marvels than the
art of being free, but nothing is harder than freedom's apprenticeship. The same is not true of
despotism. Despotism often presents itself as the repairer of all the ills suffered, the support of just
rights, defender of the oppressed, and founder of order. Peoples are lulled to sleep by the temporary
prosperity it engenders, and when they do wake up, they are wretched. But liberty is generally born in
stormy weather, growing with difficulty amid civil discords, and only when it is already old does one
see the blessings it has brought." This statement is crucial in that it reveals one of the most pressing
dilemma's which Tocqueville faces, especially in regard to his desire to improve the political situation
in France. Tocqueville realizes that the French lack the "apprenticeship" in liberty which the
Americans have had, and that it is very difficult to make people appreciate freedom enough to make
the sacrifices necessary to attain it. Tending to be short-sighted, people will see that despotism can
bring great stability, order, and even prosperity to the country, and so may be willing to surrender their

17 | P a g e

freedom. Tocqueville elaborates on this idea, especially with regard to the tension between liberty and
equality, in Volume II, Part II, Chapter 1.
The idea that democracy has a "middling effect" on the people is also explained more fully in this
chapter. Tocqueville had mentioned this tendency briefly earlier in the book, but here he speaks about
it more at length. He observes that democracies do not tend to produce men of great heroism or virtue,
but rather mild, average characters. "If you think it profitable to turn man's intellectual and moral
activity toward the necessities of physical life and use them to produce well-being, if you think that
reason is more use to men than genius, if your object is not to create heroic virtues but rather tranquil
habits, if you would rather contemplate vices than crimes, . . . then it is good to make conditions equal
and to establish democratic government." Significantly, however, Tocqueville notes that whatever a
person may think is best actually does not matter, because forces beyond human control are naturally
leading to an ever-increasing equality of conditions. The only way to react is simply to make the best
of the situations, trying to enhance democracy's strengths and minimize its weaknesses.
Chapter 7: The Omnipotence of the Majority in the United States and Its Effects
The essence of democratic government is the sovereignty of the majority's will. The Americans want
their legislators to be elected directly and to serve short terms in office so that the people have more
chances to exert their influence. The legislature is also the most powerful branch of the government.
In some states, even the judges are elected by majority vote.
The moral authority of the majority stems from "the theory of equality applied to brains"that is, since
everyone's opinion is of equal worth, the best opinion must be the opinion of the majority. The
majority's authority is further strengthened by the idea that the interest of the greater number should
take precedence over that of the lesser number.
These ideas have not created class antagonisms in the United States because most colonial settlers
were already relatively equal in status, wealth and education. In addition, most people support the
rights of the majority because the hope one day to profit from them.
How in America the Omnipotence of the Majority Increases the Legislative and Administrative
Instability Natural to Democracies
The vices of democracy increase with the growing power of the majority. For instance, legislative
instability plagues the United States, because the legislative powerthe power most influenced by the
will of the majorityis sovereign. As a result, American laws have an extremely short duration, and
execution of the laws is unstable as well. The public easily becomes impassioned to fight for certain
causes, but when achieving goals require patience and tenacity, they quickly give up.
Tyranny of the Majority
Justice places boundaries on the will of the majority. If a single person can abuse authority against his
adversaries, a majority can do the same against a minority. For a society to function, it is necessary to
have some social power superior to all others, but that power is dangerous when there is no obstacle to
restrain and moderate it.
The biggest problem with the democratic government of the United States is not its weakness but its
overwhelming strength, and "the shortage of guarantees against tyranny." There is no one to whom a
person can turn if has suffered injustice, because everything is controlled by the majority. The fact that
America has not yet fallen into this tyranny of the majority is due not to its governmental institutions
or laws but to its mores.
Effect of the Omnipotence of the Majority on the Arbitrary Power of the American Public
Officials
The majority allows the magistrates to have a large amount of arbitrary power because it knows that
they are constantly under its supervision. "It treats them as a master treats his servants if, always
seeing them under his eyes, he could direct or correct them at any moment."
The Power Exercised by the Majority in America over Thought
Control of public thought is the most complete form of tyranny. In America, once the majority's
opinion has been pronounced, no one contradicts it. There is extremely little independence of mind
and freedom of discussion. People who disagree with the majority have no other power to whom they
can resort for help, because the majority is the sole authority and source of strength. This control
extends over writing as well as speech. There may be no official restrictions on writing, but if a person
challenges the opinion of the majority all doorsprofessionally and sociallyare shut to him. In
democratic republics, tyranny "leaves the body alone and goes straight for the soul." This tyranny of

18 | P a g e

the majority is the reason for the lack of literary genius in America, because great writers need
freedom of spirit. Right now the power of the majority is well-used, because mores are good, but it
may not always be so.
Effects of the Majority's Tyranny on American National Character; the Courtier Spirit in the
United States
The rareness of outstanding politicians in America is due to the despotism of the majority. In
democracies the temptation to live off of one's passions is much greater than in monarchies or
aristocracies, and the result is that standards of conduct in general are lowered.
When speaking to people in private one finds that their opinions differ and that they may criticize the
government, but in public everyone seems to be of one mind. Politicians in the United States are of
such poor quality because they are the flatterers of the majority and have submitted themselves to its
tyranny in order to gain power.
The Greatest Danger to the American Republics Comes from the Omnipotence of the Majority
The power directing society in a democracy may be unstable, but it is extremely strong. America thus
has to fear tyranny much more than anarchy, and if anarchy comes about it will be the result of
tyranny driving the minority to desperation. Tocqueville quotes Jefferson, who writes that it is
necessary "to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part,'" and that "the
tyranny of the legislature is the most formidable dread at present.'"
Analysis
Always concerned with the maintenance of freedom in a nation, Tocqueville is especially troubled by
the tendency of democracies to succumb to the tyranny of the majority, a tyranny no less real and no
less terrible than an autocratic tyranny. In the United States, where the principle of the sovereignty of
the people reigns supreme, the force of the majority is overpowering. While so far the omnipotence of
the majority has only resulted in small inconveniences such as legislative incompleteness, "the
consequences of this state of affairs are fate-laden and dangerous for the future." Omnipotence in
human hands is always dangerous; "only God can be omnipotent without danger, because His wisdom
and justice are always equal to His power." The rule of the majority in America is living proof that
majority's power is well out of proportion with its wisdom and justice.
The dangerous effects of the omnipotence of the majority are already evident in the lack of free
thought in America. While, in principle and by law, everyone can say, think or write whatever he
likes, in reality the opinion of the majority becomes an unquestionable dogma. "Formerly," write
Tocqueville, "tyranny used the clumsy weapons of chains and hangmen; nowadays even despotism,
though it seemed to have nothing more to learn, has been perfected by civilization." Tyranny in
democracies goes straight to the soul. It is all the more dangerous precisely because it is hidden and
exercises no external physical constraints; thus hardly anyone is able to recognize and no one reacts
against it. Besides, a majority of the people are benefiting from it, and consequently will not want to
oppose it. Therefore the tyranny of the majority is a great danger to all nations in which the ideals of
equality and sovereignty of the people are paramount. The ways to combat this fatal tendency have
been touched upon in previous chaptersfor instance, local liberties, good mores, an independent
executive, and a strong judiciarybut they will be systematically discussed in the following chapter.
Chapter 8: What Tempers the Tyranny of the Majority in the United States
Absence of Administrative Centralization
While America is highly centralized governmentally, its administration is very decentralized. As a
result, "the majority, though it often has a despot's tastes and instincts, still lacks the most improved
instruments of tyranny." The central government operates only within a limited sphere, and
consequently the tyranny of the majority is limited to that small sphere as well. In addition, the
majority does not have the administrative ability to enforce its will everywhere.
The Temper of the American Legal Profession and How it Serves to Counterbalance Democracy
Lawyers act as an aristocratic class, tempering the negative effects of democracy. From their studies,
lawyers derive a taste for order and formalities, and a dislike for the whims and passions of
democracy. Lawyers' knowledge also makes them a somewhat privileged class, and their common
profession provides a common link among them. "Hidden at the bottom of a lawyer's soul one finds
the tastes and habits of an aristocracy." Lawyers love order above all, and as a result they are
conservative and supportive of authority.

19 | P a g e

In a democracy lawyers' are especially able to gain political power, because they step into the place
that the rich and the nobles would occupy in an aristocracy. The people do not dislike lawyers because
they come from among their own ranks. They therefore have a unique capability to mingle an
aristocratic element into a democracy.
The aristocrat element in lawyers is due not only to their knowledge but also to the type of laws that
exist in the United States. Because laws are often founded on precedent, it is difficult for the common
people to follow them on their own. Where laws are all simply written out, as in France, lawyers are
not needed as much and are not respected as highly.
For the most part, lawyers and judges influence democracy through the courts. Laws diminishing
judicial power, especially making judges elected officials and subjecting them to frequent reelection,
are extremely harmful to a democracy. The influence of lawyers can be seen in that while political
laws are constantly changing, civil lawsover which lawyers have great influencehave changed so
little that they are practically outdated.
Even beyond its official powers, the laws influence spreads out into all areas of political life. Legal
language is often used, and most public officials are or have been lawyers and retain their legal habits.
The power of lawyers is inconspicuous yet highly effective; it enwraps the whole of society,
penetrating each component class and constantly working in secret upon its unconscious patient, till in
the end it has molded it to its desire."
The Jury in the United States Considered as a Political Institution
Judicially speaking, the effectiveness of the jury system is contestable, since the members of juries
often lack the expertise necessary to make good decisions. Yet its principle importance and its benefits
can be seen in considering the jury as a political institution. The idea of a jury is an eminently
republican one, because it places control of society directly into the hands of the people. The jury
system is a direct consequence of the sovereignty of the people.
Juries are excellent for inculcating good mores into the minds of the people. They instill "habits of the
judicial mind," which are necessary for the proper use of freedom, and they teach people to be
equitable and to take responsibility for their own actions. Furthermore, juries force citizens to pay
attention to the affairs of others, thereby combating individualism. Juries are therefore "the most
effective means of popular education."
Analysis
After last chapter's dismal predictions, this chapter provides a few rays of hope, and explains why the
tyranny of the majority is not absolutely overwhelming in America.
The first mitigating factor is the lack of administrative centralization, an attribute of American
democracy which Tocqueville discusses in more detail in chapter five. In a place like France, where
the administration is highly centralized, there would be no obstacles to the tyranny of the majority, but
in America, even "if the laws were oppressive, liberty would still find some shelter from the way the
law is carried into execution, and the majority would not know how to enter into . . . the puerilities of
administrative tyranny."
Lawyers and the judiciary branch of the government in general also provide a necessary aristocratic
force which tempers the despotic tendencies of democracy. In chapters six and seven Tocqueville
describes the judiciary and hints at its importance, but here he shows clearly how it counteracts some
of democracy's defects. Tocqueville writes that "it is at the bar or the bench that the American
aristocracy is found. The more one reflects on what happens in the United States, the more one feels
convinced that the legal body forms the most powerful and, so today, the only counterbalance to
democracy in the country." This counterbalance comes in just where democracy needs it, to provide a
healthy sense of order and rationality when the people tend to be easily swayed by their whims.
Tocqueville observes that "when the American people get intoxicated by their passions or carried
away by their ideas, the lawyers apply an almost invisible brake which slows them down and halts
them."
Tocqueville also has a unique and highly insightful view on the importance of the jury system. Its
benefit does not lie at all in its ability to render just judgments. In fact, Tocqueville thinks that a judge
with more legal expertise would do a much better job. Yet the jury system is highly beneficent in the
political sphere, because it is a powerful tool for public education, particularly in teaching people how
to use their freedom responsibly, a lesson which is extremely crucial for the well-being of a
democracy. As Tocqueville remarks, the jury system "should be regarded as a free school which is

20 | P a g e

always open and in which each juror learns his rights, comes into daily contact with the best-educated
and most-enlightened members of the upper classes, and is given practical lessons in the law, lessons
which the advocate's efforts, the judge's advice, and also the very passions of the litigants bring within
his mental grasp. I think that the main reason for the practical intelligence and the political good sense
of the Americans is their long experience with juries in civil cases." Juries thus provide a way both to
allow the people to exercise their freedom and to teach them how to use it well.
Chapter 9: Causes Tending to Maintain a Democratic Republic in the United States
Accidental or Providential Causes Helping to Maintain a Democratic Republic in the United
States
America has no powerful nations and consequently no great wars. There is no great capital in the
country that has an influence over the whole land, and this situation helps to maintain the local
liberties which are so important for freedom. The land itself has helped America to remain strong
because it gave the people the ability to remain equal and free, and provided the means for general
prosperity which aids government stability.
The western migration is an extraordinary phenomenon, in which people band together in search of
fortune. The restless spirit which drives people to move west is very good for the country, because it
prevents the population from being concentrated in only a few places. Material concerns are what
really move the American people, driving them to action and exerting a strong influence over their
opinions.
Influence of the Laws upon the Maintenance of a Democratic Republic in the United States
It is not necessary to repeat all the details about American laws found in other chapters, but there are
three main factors in these laws that help to maintain a democratic republic in the United States: the
federal form of government, the communal institutions which moderate the despotism of the majority,
and the organization of judicial power.
Influence of Mores upon the Maintenance of a Democratic Republic in the United States
Tocqueville uses the word mores to mean "the whole moral and intellectual states of a people." Mores
are one of the great causes helping to maintain American democracy.
Religion Considered as a Political Institution and How it Powerfully Contributes to the
Maintenance of a Democratic Republic Among the Americans
Religion and politics go hand in hand in America, because the Christianity of the settlers was highly
democratic and republican in character. There have also been many Catholic immigrants that came to
America. Catholicism is actually very favorable to equality of condition, because the same standards
and ideas apply to everyone. While the Catholics are very obedient on articles of faith, political ideas
are believed to be open to debate, and consequently they are very independent citizens. Therefore all
religious ideas in the United States are quite to conducive to democratic and republican institutions.
Indirect Influence of Religious Beliefs upon Political Society in the United States
It is very important for society that its members should profess some religion, because it provides a
common morality. America is one of the most religious countries, and religious beliefs have a
powerful influence in directing mores. Women tend to be more influenced by religion than men, and
women also have a very important role in shaping mores through their domestic work. In morality,
everything in America is certain and absolute, but in politics everything is up for debate. Religion is
thus the primary political institution in that it teaches people how to use their freedom wisely. Even
those who are not very religious realize religion's importance for the maintenance of republican
institutions.
The Main Causes That Make Religion Powerful in America
Eighteenth-century philosophers were incorrect when they said that enlightenment would replace
religion, because in America one finds that the most free and enlightened people are also the most
religious. The main reason for religion's strength in America is the separation of church and state. In
America the clergy never hold public office and are not politically active. While the power of religion
seems diminished without an alliance with political power, it is actually stronger. Religion is natural
for the human person, and widespread irreligiousity only comes about in unnatural circumstances.
Political power is by nature ephemeral, and thus if religion wants to have lasting influence it is best
for it to remain independent of politics. In addition, in a democratic country it is extremely important
that religion remain apolitical because the political sphere is constantly in a state of flux and is always
changing according to public opinion.

21 | P a g e

The two dangers which religion faces are schism and indifference. In the case of schism, beliefs are
modified but do not die. But when religion is slowly undermined by doctrines that assert its falseness
without offering another belief in its place, people lose their belief without even being completely
aware of it. In such a situation, unbelievers still consider religion useful and often do not proclaim
their unbelief, while believers are not afraid to manifest their beliefs. Religion is therefore still
honored publicly.
In France this analysis does not apply because the close union of religion and politics has created an
unnatural state of vehement unbelief.
How the Enlightenment, Habits and Practical Experience of the Americans Contribute to the
Success of Democratic Institutions
The American spirit is highly pragmatic. They are few highly learned people, but also extremely few
uneducated people. Public education is a great contribution to the maintenance of a democratic
republic, especially when education also teaches proper mores. Americans have gained most of their
knowledge of government from experiencefrom taking a share in legislation. Education in the United
States is directed toward political life.
The Laws Contribute More the Maintenance of the Democratic Republic in the United States
Than Do the Physical Circumstances of the Country, and Mores Do More Than the Laws
The United States is the only democracy which has been able to maintain itself without violence. This
situation is not due only to geography, because in South America the people have not even been to
maintain any sort of stable government. American legislation, as a whole, has also contributed to the
success of democracy. But the greatest factor allowing the United States to maintain a democracy is
mores.
Elsewhere Than in America, Would Laws and Mores Be Enough to Maintain Democratic
Institutions?
If one just transplanted the Anglo-Americans, with their particular ideas and mores, to Europe in its
present state, they would to modify their laws to live there. But perhaps in Europe one could have a
democratic society with more centralized national strength. Americans have many of the same
negative democratic passions as Europeans, such as a uniquely democratic envy expressed toward
anyone who seemed to place himself above the level of others. But Americans have combated some of
democracy's weaknesses, opposing "the idea of rights to feelings of envy" and balancing "the stability
of religious morality to the constant changes in the world of politics."
The Importance of the Foregoing in Relation to Europe
The reason so much time has been spent discussing these matters is that they are relevant to the whole
world. The barriers holding tyranny back in most of Europe are gone, particularly the loss of religion
and the degeneration of mores. European nations will soon either become tyrannies or democracies.
The gradual development of good mores and democratic institutions is therefore the only way to
remain free. While democracy has its faults and imperfections, it is preferable to despotism.
Analysis
Living in the wake of the French Revolution and witnessing the turmoil and instability of his
nation, Alexis de Tocqueville was confronted first-hand with the problem of how religion and the state
should relate. In comparing and contrasting the general political and social situations in America and
France, Tocqueville found two highly disparate configurations of the church-state relationship and
was able to observe the ramifications of those configurations in society as a whole. Tocqueville's
observations led him to argue in both Democracy in America and The Old Regime and the French
Revolution that religion is one of the main factors necessary for the maintenance of democratic
society. When church and state are separate, democracy and religion complement each almost
perfectly, although tensions do exist between the two. In Democracy in America, Tocqueville argues
that religion corrects many of the prominent flaws of democracyindividualism, materialism, lack of
stability, and the tendency to misuse or undervalue libertywhile the separation of church and state
helps religion to maintain and even increase its influence in society.
In contrasting America and France, the one all-important factor that Tocqueville sees as creating a
salutary religious situation in America as opposed to France is the separation of church and state.
Tocqueville believes that the discarding of religion was one of the main reasons for the French
Revolution's failure and for the huge social and political turmoil which ensued. The revolutionaries
did not realize that Christian beliefs were actually in line with their principles and could have aided

22 | P a g e

their cause. Tocqueville remarks: "By a strange concatenation of events, religion for the moment has
become entangled with those institutions which democracy overthrows, and so is it is often brought to
rebuff the equality which it loves and to abuse freedom as its adversary, whereas by taking it by the
hand it could sanctify its striving" (Introduction)
During Tocqueville's travels in America, he found that "the main reason for the quiet sway of religion
over their country was the complete separation of church and state." Upon investigating the situation,
Tocqueville was surprised to find that priests "held no public appointments," that "most of [the clergy]
seemed voluntarily to steer clear of power," and that "they were careful to keep clear of all parties."
To an eighteenth-century Frenchman, accustomed to the political interference of the Church, the
attitudes of the clergy in America must have indeed seemed strange. Yet what was even more striking
to Tocqueville was that "by diminishing the apparent power of religion one increased its real
strength." What he came to understand was that religion is not an accidental phenomenon which must
be forced upon a people by the power of the government. On the contrary, "Religion . . . is only one
particular form of hope, and it is as natural to the human heart as hope itself. It is by a sort of
intellectual aberration, and in a way by doing violence to their own nature, that men detach
themselves from religious beliefs; an invincible alienation draws them back. Incredulity is an
accident; faith is the only permanent state of mankind." As a result of this natural religious inclination
in man, separating the church from the state does not in any way reduce religion's force but actually
tends to increase its strength in society.
Political power is by nature transient and ephemeral; even the most permanent and stable
governments are not immune to changes in laws or even complete revolutions. "The powers of society
are all more or less transitory," posits Tocqueville, "and there has never been a government supported
by some invariable disposition of the human heart or one founded upon some interest that is
immortal." Religion, on the other hand, is a timeless and eternal force in the heart of man. If it
connects itself to earthly powers, religion will suffer the misfortune of being dragged down by the
vicissitudes of politics: "Alone, [a religion] may hope for immortality; linked to ephemeral powers, it
follows their fortunes and often falls together with the passions of a day sustaining them." This idea is
especially true in democratic nations, where the sway of opinion can so easily change the social and
legal arrangements. Therefore it is particularly important that America has kept religion completely
separate from the political sphere. As Tocqueville asserts, "If the Americans, who change the head of
state every four years, elect new legislators every two years and replace provincial administrators
every year, and if the Americans, who had handed over the world of politics to the experiments of
innovators, had not placed religion beyond their reach, what could it hold on to in the ebb and flow of
human opinions?" While religion in America may not have the same powerful, external force that it
does in nations where the church is connected to the state, "its influence is more lasting" because it
has not tied itself to the transitory earthly regime.
Tocqueville's experiences clearly demonstrate that religion will fare much better in a society where
church and state are separate, but now the question is whether society itself fares better as a result of
religion's influence. The answer from Tocqueville is a resounding yes, especially for democratic
republics. In fact, religion is one of the most powerful forces working for the maintenance of
democratic society. As a result of their excessive love for equality and their misunderstanding of and
lack of appreciation for liberty, democracies are in danger of degenerating into individualistic,
unstable, materialistic, and even despotic societies. Religion is among the most effective and
important counters to these maleficent tendencies of democratic nations.
These tendencies are discussed much more in Volume Two, but in this chapter Tocqueville focuses on
how religion fulfills the essential role of teaching people to use their liberty well. One of the most
important ways in which religion performs this task is through its influence on women. While with the
many temptations prompted by ambition and greed "religion is often powerless to restrain men," "it
reigns supreme in the souls of women, and it is women who shape mores." Women's vehicle for
shaping mores is their influence in domestic life. Tocqueville observes that "of all countries in the
world America is the one in which the marriage tie is most respected." The societal significance of
strong and happy marriages is not to be underestimated. As Tocqueville points out, "In Europe all the
disorders of society are born around the domestic hearth and not far from the nuptial bed." The
problem is that when domestic life is unsettled, disorderly and unstable, these tendencies carry over
into political life as well. On the other hand, "when the American returns from the turmoil of politics

23 | P a g e

to the bosom of the family, he immediately finds a perfect picture of order and peace. . . . And as the
regularity of life brings him happiness, he easily forms the habit of regulating his opinions as well as
his tastes." Even beyond helping to temper his passions, domestic life provides the American with
"that love of order which he carries over into the affairs of the state."
The laws in democratic societies are relatively lenient, and there are few restrictions on the types of
new legislation that can be enacted. This leniency can be dangerous, for it can lead to the enactment
of laws which may ostensibly be for the benefit of society but which in fact can lead to tyranny.
Thanks to the prominence of Christian moral principles, however, "no one in the United States has
dared to profess the maxim that everything is allowed in the interests of society, an impious maxim
apparently invented in an age of freedom in order to legitimize every future tyrant." Religion therefore
acts as a powerful force to prevent Americans from abusing their freedom in order to gain power at
the cost of their countrymen's liberty. As Tocqueville asserts, "While the law allows the American
people to do everything, there are things which religion prevents them from imagining and forbids
them to dare." It is for the reason that Tocqueville makes the rather bold claim that religion "should
therefore be considered as the first of their political institutions, for although it did not give them the
taste for liberty, it singularly facilitates their use thereof." Tocqueville's warning to the French
revolutionaries who would like to eradicate religion from their country is particularly relevant in this
context. He writes that "despotism may be able to do without faith, but freedom cannot. Religion is
much more needed in the republic they advocate than in the monarchy they attack, and in democratic
republics most of all. How could society escape destruction if, when political ties are relaxed, moral
ties are not tightened? And what can be done with a people master of itself if it is not subject to God?"
What Tocqueville's analysisboth in this chapter and in Volume Twodemonstrates is that religion is
one of the key forces that tends to the preservation of democratic societies. Indeed, considering his
lengthy and detailed treatment of it and his constant praise for its benefits, it is not too much to claim
that in Tocqueville's opinion religion is the important and most necessary element in any democracy.
It buoys up and corrects democratic societies at their weakest points, helping society to run more
smoothly in both political and private matters, and helping individuals within society to leader happier
and more fulfilling lives.
Chapter 10: Some Considerations Concerning the Present State and Probably Future of the
Three Races That Inhabit the Territory of the United States
In the United States, the European, the Negro and Indian coexist uneasily, with the Europeans
dominating the other races tyrannically. The situation of the negroes has led them to a state of
submission and demoralization, while the Indians have remained independent but their civilization has
split up and has consequently degenerated.
The Present State and the Probably Future of the Indian Tribes Inhabiting the Territory of the
Union
The Indian tribes are gradually disappearing from America as a result of pressure from the white man
and encroachment on their land by settlers. The situation has led to great misery and hardship for the
Indian peoples. The Indian race seems doomed to perish because they do not want to assimilate
themselves and are not strong enough to prevent the European's takeover. The Indians are equally
intelligent, but simply have a different social state and way of life incompatible with European
civilization. Both the states and the Union treat the Indians cruelly and pitilessly.
Situation of the Black Race in the United States; Dangers Entailed for the Whites by Its
Presence
The presence of blacks is the greatest danger threatening the United States. Abolishing slavery will be
extremely difficult because they will not be able to blend easily with the rest of the population. Even
in areas where legal barriers are coming down, prejudices seem immovable. Slavery was abolished in
the North only because it was not profitable there. Even if they wanted to, the southerners would have
difficulty abolishing slavery because they are afraid of the high proportion of blacks in the South.
The only possibility for the future is that blacks and whites must completely mingle or completely
separate. The first possibility seems nearly impossible. Some whites have tried to bring the blacks
back to Africa by establishing the country of Liberia, but the project has been unsuccessful. To solve
the problem the southerners need either to free the slaves and accept them as equal members of
society or to keep them in slavery as long as possible. The situation in the South is terrible but is the

24 | P a g e

natural consequence of slavery. In the end the blacks will either e freed or seize freedom themselves,
but the consequences for the whites do not look promising.
What Are the Chances That the American Union Will Last? What Dangers Threaten It?
Will it may seem that the government of the Union is stronger than that of the states because of its
powers to handle exclusively national concerns such as foreign relations, the states actually have a
larger portion of sovereignty. Local and state governments carry out the activities which have a much
more direct effect on citizens and the citizens tend to have more attachment to it. The federal
government is thus rather feeble in its powers and requires the free support of the governed to be
effective. In battles between states and the federal government, the states so far have always gotten
their way.
Currently the Union is useful for the states but not necessary for them. They could easily separate if
they wanted to. Yet for economic and security it is much better for the states to remain united.
Furthermore, the people in general want to remain united because of similar feelings and opinions,
and agree about the general principles of government and morality. Slavery does not create conflicting
interests between the North and South, but it does create a strong difference in mores. Perhaps the
greatest danger threatening the Union is its prosperity, because certain areas are growing rich more
rapidly and others, especially the South may be envious and distrustful of the growing power of the
North.
The Americans' biggest fear is against too much centralization of power, but they ought to fear the
opposite. The Union has been strengthened by increased communication, mingling of the population,
and commercial interdependence, but at the same time now that America has become stable and
prosperous the people do not feel the need for a strong union to provide stability and security. An
example of the weakness of the Union is the attempt nullification in South Carolina in 1832. Although
the Union held together, it conceded to South Carolina the tariff reductions that it had asked for.
Concerning the Republican Institutions of the United States and Their Chances of Survival
The republican nature of America is deeply rooted and will survive even if the Union doesn't. In order
to destroy the republican institutions in America it would be necessary to destroy all the laws and
substantially change the people's mores at the same time. America will never become a monarchy or
an aristocracy because the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people is paramount. Still, the instability
of laws and administrative procedures does endanger the future of republican government because it
may be seen as ineffective. In general, however, the present trend is toward ever-increasing
democracy.
Some Considerations Concerning the Causes of the Commercial Greatness of the United States
America has the best and most secure ports of any nation in the world. American sailors, with their
innovative and adventurous nature, are taking the upper hand in international trade. One day America
will probably be the leading naval power of the globe.
Analysis
As much of its ideas and observations are now basically obsolete, this chapter does not provide many
insights into the book's main themes, which are timeless in their relevance. It is interesting to see,
however, that in this pre-Civil War era Tocqueville recognizes the danger of the Union's breaking up
as a result of a conflict over state's rights. Though he does not see slavery as a key factor in the
conflict, he does predict that resolving the issue will be highly problematic for the southerners.
In this chapter we also find a brief reiteration of the deep-seated, powerful and lasting influence of
republican institutions, particularly local liberties, on the America people.
Conclusion
The Union is bound to expand beyond its current boundaries to take over the land currently in Spanish
control. Even if the Union were to dissolve or the republic were to degenerate into a tyranny, the
American people are destined to expand throughout the whole continent. All sharing in a common
English ancestry, there is no foreseeable time when equality of conditions will cease to exist in
America. There are two great nations currently in existence: America and Russia. While their
government and national character are extremely diverse, "each seems called by some secret design of
Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world."
Democracy in America Summary and Analysis of Vol. II, Part 1, Chapters 1-21

25 | P a g e

Part I: Influence of Democracy on the Intellectual Movements in the United States

Chapter I: Concerning the Philosophical Approach of the Americans
The American people pay little attention to philosophy, yet they all think according to the same
method. Most people rely on individual effort and judgment for their decisions. There is a distaste for
accepting anything on the basis of authority, and they think that everything can be explained by
human intelligence. As a result they have an aversion to the supernatural. Basically, the Americans are
following Descartes's method perfectly, allowing all traditional ideas to be open for attack. This
method can only take root in a society where there is a high degree of equality.
Why is it that the French apply the Cartesian method more strictly than the Americans although the
Americans have more liberty? The first reason is the peculiar power of religion in America. Religion
is believed without discussion, because it has set its own limits so that laws and politics can change
without affecting beliefs. The second reason is that there was no democratic revolution in America,
and consequently no anarchy extreme social animosities to upset all traditional ideas.
Chapter 2: Concerning the Principal Source of Beliefs Among Democratic Peoples
Societies needs at least some dogmatic beliefsthat is, opinions taken on trust without
discussionbecause without common ideas common action is impossible, and without common action
society cannot exist, much less prosper. Even individually, man needs dogmatic beliefs because there
is simply not enough time in life to examine and prove all the truths which he makes use of in daily
life. Anyone who refused to accept anything without proving it himself would never be firmly
convinced of anything. Therefore authority also plays a part in intellectual and moral life.
Equality tends to give make men overestimate the power of human reason, and generally look to
themselves or those around them for the truth. People are very unlikely to believe in the ideas of any
one man or class, but are very willing to trust public opinion. Since all are considered to be equally
capable of knowing the truth, people assume that truth must lie with the majority. Even the strength of
religion is based mostly on public opinion.
Equality can have two results: inducing men to think innovatively, or leading him to stop thinking
entirely, completely bound by the will of the greatest number.
Chapter 3: Why the Americans Show More Aptitude and Taste for General Ideas Than Their
English Forefathers
In aristocratic societies where there is much inequality, people are so different that there is little
incentive to make generalizations about humanity. In democracies, however, people tend to think that
truths applicable to one person are applicable to all. Until the coming of Jesus Christ, the idea that all
people are equal was unheard of. In times of equality people tend to generalize because there is little
time to think and generalizing saves them the time needed to analyze particular cases.
Chapter 4: Why the Americans Have Never Been as Eager as the French for General Ideas
About Political Affairs
The Americans have much more practical experience in political affairs than the French. The
democratic institutions which force each citizen to take a hand in the practical realities of government
force them to look at particular cases rather than general political theories.
Chapter 5: How Religion in the United States Makes Use of Democratic Instincts
Almost every human action results from some general conception of God and the duties one owes to
one's fellow man. These ideas are therefore extremely important. Yet, preoccupied by the daily duties,
people often lack the time to think these matters over seriously. Religion provides the answers to the
necessary questions of life. Even if the religion is not true, it greatly contributes to man's happiness
and dignity.
When a people's religion is destroyed people despair of finding the answers to the ultimate questions
of human existence. This state debilitates the soul and prepares a people to hand over their freedom in
search of some sort of stability.
Religion is especially important to combat the negative results of egalitarianism, such as materialism
and egoism. Since religion is so crucial in democracies, it is important for religion to confine itself to
its proper sphere; otherwise the antipathy to dogmatic beliefs will lead to complete loss of faith. In a
sense, however, democracy can be helpful to Christian beliefs because people naturally accept the
unity of God and the moral law because such ideas are consistent with equality.
The taste for well-being is the most dominant passion of democratic peoples, and consequently a
religion which attempts to completely detach people from the goods of this world would be doomed

26 | P a g e

to fail. Rather, religion needs moderate the excessive taste for well-being and encourage the use of
honest means for its pursuit. In addition, all matters that are not essential articles of faith religion
needs to acquiesce with the majority's opinion, because the opinion of the majority rules. The
American clergy are aware of these needs and act accordingly. As a result, religion is very strong in
America both from its own power and from the support of public opinion.
Chapter 6: Concerning the Progress of Roman Catholicism in the United States
In America Roman Catholicism seems to be growing in popularity, because the people are attracted by
Catholicism's discipline and unity.
Chapter 7: What Causes Democratic Nations to Incline Toward Pantheism
The concept of unity is very attractive to the democratic mentality, and thus pantheism, which
includes God and the universe in one great whole, has been growing in popularity.
Chapter 8: How Equality Suggests to the Americans the Idea of the Indefinite Perfectibility of
Man
In democratic nations where all are equal, laws and ideas are always changing, and new truths are
constantly discovered, people tend to think that there is an unlimited capability for progress and
human perfectibility.
Chapter 9: Why the Example of the Americans Does Not Prove That a Democratic People Can
Have No Aptitude or Taste for Science, Literature, or the Arts
There were special circumstances which gave the Americans a distaste for the arts, such as their
religion, their ambitious drive for wealth. In addition, they were able to simply to take theoretical
knowledge from Europe rather than having to think of it themselves.
In general, however, democracy ought to favor the increase of enlightenment in its own way. Since all
legal inequalities are abolished, the only source of disparity in fortunes will be natural talents and
intellect. Therefore people will begin to appreciate the value of knowledge since they see that it yields
prosperity.
Chapter 10: Why the Americans Are More Concerned With the Applications Than With the
Theory of Science
Americans concern themselves only with the practical side of science, because theoretical, abstract
knowledge requires deep thought and meditation, for which democratic society is not conducive.
People in democratic nations tend to be involved in continual activity, which does not allow time to
reflect deeply on the basis of their ideas before acting upon them. Democratic people are always
concerned primarily with bettering their lot, and consequently are only interested in practical methods
and innovations which will allow to increase their material prosperity. While the danger of this
attitude is not immediately apparent, it could lead to a dwindling away of civilization if people
become so preoccupied with the material and practical that they forget the basic principles altogether.
Chapter 11: In What Spirit the Americans Cultivate the Arts
Democratic peoples tend to have a taste for the useful more than a love of beauty. Since all people
want access to as many goods as possible, they are willing to sacrifice the quality of those goods in
order to be able to afford them. "Quantity increases; quality goes down." People are concerned more
with appearances than with reality.
Chapter 12: Why the Americans Erect Some Petty Monuments and Others That Are Very
Grand
Individuals are very divided and weak in a democracy, but the state which represents them all is very
strong. As a result, public monuments are conceived on a grand scale.
Chapter 13: Literary Characteristics of Democratic Centuries
Americans have no real literature of their own; they always read English works. The true American
writings are in journalism. In democracy people will tend to pursue literature only as a form of
relaxation or entertainment. As a result, they will not tend to produce works of great depth or
erudition.
Chapter 14: The Industry of Literature
In democracies, literature tends to take on an industrial spirit and writers look at it as a trade by which
to earn a living, rather than as a passionate intellectual endeavor.
Chapter 15: Why the Study of Greek and Latin Literature is Useful in Democratic Societies
Greek and Latin literature is excellent for democracies because it emphasizes precisely those qualities
which democratic literature tends to lack and provides an antidote to its defects.

27 | P a g e

Chapter 16: How American Democracy Modified the English Language

The restlessness and constant change prevalent in democracies affects language as all else. Many new
words are created, especially for purposes of industry or politics. Rules of style and formalities of
expression tend to vanish.
Chapter 17: On Some Sources of Poetic Inspiration in Democracies
Democracies are not concerned about the past, but the future can be a great source of poetic
inspiration for them. They will also focus mostly on humanity, with its passions, doubts, and fortunes.
Chapter 18: Why American Writers and Speakers are Often Bombastic
Since most of the time democratic people are thinking of petty individual concerns, when they think
of grander subjects they tend to take them entirely out of proportion.
Chapter 19: Some Observations on the Theater Among Democratic Peoples
Drama is the most natural of all literary tastes for democratic peoples because it requires the least
study and effort. Dramatic and literary conventions are entirely ignored, and drama generally appeals
to the emotions. The theater is still not very popular, however, because of the Puritan abhorrence for
it.
Chapter 20: Some Characteristics Peculiar to Historians in Democratic Centuries
Democratic historians tend to downplay the influence of individuals and relate everything to great
general causes. They also tend to exhibit a certain fatalism, making them doubt free will entirely and
question the ability of individual actions to have any impact on the course of events.
Chapter 21: Of Parliamentary Eloquence in the United States
Democratic representatives think more about their constituents than about their party. As a result,
congressmen tend to speak often simply to prove to their constituents that they are fighting for their
interests.
Analysis
The philosophical tendencies of the Americas may be a great danger to their liberty. The Americans'
sense of equality leads them to doubt any sort of authoritative claims and at the same time to
confidently assert that "everything in the world can be explained and that nothing passes beyond the
limits of intelligence," placing extreme faith in the abilities of human reason. At the same time, it is
clear that "since life is too short . . . and human faculties are too limited [to prove all truths for
oneself], man has to accept as certain a whole heap of facts and opinions which he has neither leisure
nor power to examine and verify for himself." Therefore, the combined influence of equality, the
exaltation of human reason, and the need accept some truths on authority, leads to the establishment
of public opinion as the absolute arbiter of truth. This philosophical tendency only amplifies the
political tendency leading toward tyranny of the majority. As Tocqueville writes, "If democratic
peoples substituted the absolute power of a majority for all the various powers that used excessively
to impede or hold back the upsurge of individual thought, the evil itself would only have changed its
form. . . . They would only have succeeded in the difficult task of giving slavery a new face. . . . For
myself, if I feel the hand of power heavy on my brow, I am little concerned to know who it is that
oppresses me; I am no better inclined to pass my head under the yoke because a million men hold it
for me."
Democracy, combined with the historical situation of America, seems to condemn the Americans to a
future of intellectual and literary mediocrity. While this lack of intellectualism may not be good for
the society, it is not nearly so great a harm or danger of the tendency toward democratic despotism.
Volume II, Part II: Influence of Democracy on the Sentiments of the Americans
Chapter 1: Why Democratic Nations Show a More Ardent and Enduring Love for Equality
Than for Liberty
People in democratic nations love equality much more than liberty. The most perfect form of equality
requires complete freedom. Yet imperfect equality can allow for great despotism. Equality is so
deeply ingrained in laws, social conditions, mores, habits and opinions that destroying it would be
extremely difficult. Political liberty, on the other hand, is easily lost. In addition, the dangers of liberty
are immediate and easy to see, but the dangers of equality are subtle and visible only in the long run.
Conversely, the benefits of liberty can only be seen over time and exercising liberty requires sacrifice,
while the advantages of equality are felt immediately and easy to obtain. In most modern nations,
equality preceded liberty, and it is a more deep-seated passion. As a result, democratic peoples want
equality even if it means losing liberty.

28 | P a g e

Chapter 2: Of Individualism in Democracies

In times of equality people tend to be individualistic, disposing each citizen to isolate himself and
limit his interests to a small circle of relatives and friends. This individualism is dangerous to society
because it eventually merges into egoism, which "sterilizes the seed of every virtue."
Chapter 3: How Individualism is More Pronounced at the End of a Democratic Revolution
Than at Any Other Time
When people have just attained independence they have "a presumptuous confidence in their strength"
and do not think they will ever need the help of others. Thus they care for nobody but themselves.
Chapter 4: How the Americans Combat the Effects of Individualism by Free Institutions
Because despots have every interest in keeping people isolated, the individualism resulting from
equality makes despotism a great danger to democracy. Exercising freedom through participation in
public affairs is therefore extremely important, because it gives people a personal interest in thinking
about others in society. Local self-government forces the people to act together and feel their
dependence on one another.
Chapter 5: On the Use Which the Americans Make of Associations in Civil Life
Americans are continually forming associations of every type. Since citizens in democratic societies
are independent and weak, they need to form associations in order to have some influence. It is
extremely salutary to democratic life that citizens need to form numerous associations, because it
combats individualism and circulates new thoughts and ideas. Associations take the place of powerful
individuals whom equality of conditions have eliminated.
Chapter 6: On the Connection Between Associations and Newspapers
Newspapers enable the cooperation of a large number of people by allowing thousands of readers to
see the same thoughts and ideas. There is a reciprocal relationship between newspapers and
associations: newspapers aid the formation of associations, and associations produce newspapers as a
means of communication. In addition, the less centralized the governmental administration is, the
more newspapers there will be, and vice versa. The reason is that local administrators need to be
informed about the state of public affairs.
Chapter 7: Relationships Between Civil and Political Assocations
Political and civil associations are strongly related in that civil associations prepare the way for
political ones, while politics engenders a taste for association and teaches the art of association.
Politics also draws together people of different social circles, and political associations act "as great
free schools to which all citizens come to be taught the general theory of association." While the
unlimited right of political association can be very dangerous, as stated in Volume One, associations
also are highly beneficial and limiting themthough it may be necessarywill cause harm to society.
Chapter 8: How the Americans Combat Individualism by the Doctrine of Self-Interest Properly
Understood
While Americans generally do not speak of the abstract beauty of virtue, they recognize its usefulness
and realize that "by serving his fellows man serves himself and that doing good is to his private
advantage." While the doctrine of self-interest properly understood does not lead to great virtue, it
does establish virtuous habits. Because this doctrine is not always entirely self-evident, it is necessary
to educate people about it.
Chapter 9: How the Americans Apply the Doctrine of Self-Interest Properly Understood to
Religion
Religions teach men that being good is in their self-interest because they will be rewarded in the
afterlife. While self-interest is not the only driving force behind religious people, it is the main way in
which religions gain popularity. Therefore this doctrine in no way opposes religion but actually
supports it.
Chapter 10: The Taste for Physical Comfort in America
Everyone in America is preoccupied with physical well-being and comfort, because all either think
that they can attain more comforts or are afraid of losing the comforts they have. "Love of comfort
has become the dominant national taste."
Chapter 11: Particular Effects of the Love of Physical Pleasures in Democratic Times
In democratic countries the love of pleasures never leads to great excesses as it does in aristocratic
ones, because people are generally concerned with petty aims and the indulgence of small wants.
People do not allow themselves to go after greatly disordered pleasures because their sense of

29 | P a g e

morality restrains them, but they allow themselves to be completely dominated by love of permitted
comforts.
Chapter 12: Why Some Americans Display Enthusiastic Forms of Spirituality
The soul has a natural desire for the infinite and immortal, and the pleasures of the senses can never
completely numb or pacify it. As a result, there are occasions of great religious fervor when they
break out of the confines of searching for material pleasures.
Chapter 13: Why the Americans Are Often So Restless in the Midst of Their Prosperity
Americans cleave to their material prosperity with a feverish anxiousness, making them restless in
their desire to enjoy as many pleasures as possible in a limited time. A result of this insatiable drive
for comfort is that Americans are generally unable to sustain an enduring effort towards one goal,
because they are so accustomed to instant gratification.
Equality is another cause of this restlessness. Equality can never be complete, because there are
always inequalities of talent and intelligence. Yet the more equal conditions become, the more
noticeable and irritating the slightest inequalities become, and the more insatiable the longing for
equality becomes as well. This insatiable longing is the cause of general anxiousness and uneasiness.
Chapter 14: How in America the Taste for Physical Pleasures is Combined With Love for
Freedom and Attention to Public Affairs
The taste for physical pleasures can lead people to be industrious, form associations and exercise their
political freedom. Yet because the greed for pleasure can also make people forget about the
connection between private wealth and general prosperity, people may disdain the exercise of their
political rights. In such a climate of political indifference, a despot or a small faction could easily
come to power as long as he guarantees good order and material prosperity. Americans have not fallen
into this state because they regard freedom "as the best tool and the firmest guarantee for their
prosperity."
Chapter 15: How Religious Beliefs Turn the Thoughts of Americans Toward Spiritual Things
Religion is a great aid to Americans because it leads them from time to time to forget about their petty
passions and think about the eternal. Because in democracies people's natural instincts are for material
prosperity, there is a danger that they may forget about the more sublime aspects of existence. It is
therefore extremely important to cultivate a taste for the infinite and a love of spiritual pleasures.
Materialism is dangerous for all nations, but particularly for democracies, because materialism
strengthens the already excessive drive for material pleasures. Religion is a great antidote to
materialism because it teaches people that soul is immortal. One should therefore guard religion
carefully in a democratic society. While it would not be good for religious ministers to take part in
politics or for the state to mandate a religion, the state somehow needs to support religion. The only
possible way seems to be for government leaders to teach religious morality through their own
example.
Chapter 16: How Excessive Love of Prosperity Can Do Harm to It
Whatever elevates the soul also enables it to succeed in physical or practical endeavors. If one
complete ignores the soul, one may lose the ability to enjoy or acquire physical pleasures.
Chapter 17: Why in Ages of Equality and Skepticism It Is Important to Set Distant Goals for
Human Endeavor
The social instability inherent in democracy combined with a skeptical outlook on life which
questions the possibility of great lasting achievements can lead people to limit their endeavors to
ephemeral and petty aims. Philosophers and legislators must, in such a case, strive to help people look
more to the future and establish long-term goals.
Chapter 18: Why Americans Consider All Honest Callings Honorable
Because in democratic societies there is no hereditary wealth, everyone needs to work for a living and
therefore every honest profession is seen as honorable.
Chapter 19: What Gives Almost All Americans a Preference for Industrial Callings
Agriculture requires persevering effort before yielding a profit, and therefore democratic people prefer
industrial callings.
Chapter 20: How an Aristocracy May Be Created by Industry
With the increase of the division of labor, workmen's abilities become much more limited because the
simple and repetitive nature of their work. The masters, on the other hand, continually expand and
exercise their intelligence. In this way an aristocracy is formed. However, the situation is very

30 | P a g e

different from traditional aristocracies because the rich do not have a strong bond linking them
together; nor is there a reciprocal bond of duty between the master and workmen as there was between
the aristocrat and peasant.
Analysis
In this part of the book Tocqueville provides a more in-depth philosophical analysis of the precarious
balance between equality and freedom, which is the central concern of his work.
Ideally, equality and freedom are perfectly compatible. Tocqueville asserts that "man cannot be
absolutely equal without being entirely free." To better illustrate this point, Tocqueville imagines a
somewhat utopian political scenario where equality and freedom would blend perfectly: "Let us
suppose that all the citizens take a part in the government and that each of them has an equal right to
do so. Then, no man is different from his fellows, and nobody can wield tyrannical power; men will
be perfectly free because they are entirely equal, and they will be perfectly equal because they are
entirely free." Therefore, equality and freedom are not inherently contradictoryin fact they are
complementary. Yet the equality Tocqueville describes is not sameness; rather, it is equality of rights.
Tocqueville himself does not make this distinction explicitly in his writings, yet one can infer it by his
use of the word equality in both a negative and positive sense. In the negative sense, equality seems to
be synonymous with uniformity, while in the positive it means equal liberties. Perhaps the problem is
precisely that most people fail to make this distinction, or do not appreciate its importance. For the
negative aspect of equality is most often found where there is no liberty, such as under a despotic
government. At the same time, however, a desire for equal liberties can also be satisfied under a
despotic government, in which there are equal liberties because there are no liberties at all. The
challenge, therefore, comes back to maintaining the desire for liberty for its own sake.
In the end, Tocqueville considers freedom to be a noble desire that has an almost mystical character
about it and which is very difficult to sustain. Tocqueville believes that freedom attracts men because
of "its intrinsic glamour, a fascination it has in itself. . . . For only in countries where it reigns can a
man speak, live, and breathe freely, owing obedience to no authority save God and the laws of the
land. The man who asks of freedom any more than itself is born to be a slave" (The Old Regime and
the French Revolution). The problem with freedom is that precisely because it is so lofty and its
benefits so intangible, Tocqueville is afraid that it will be overcome by the desire for equality, which
is both more easily attained and more visible. He expresses this concern most explicitly when he
states that "only perceptive and clearsighted men see the dangers with which equality threatens us,"
but "the ills which liberty brings may be immediate." Conversely, "the good things that freedom
brings are seen only as time passes," while "the advantages of equality are felt immediately." Among
democratic peoples especially, there is a great danger of losing liberty. Tocqueville writes that "their
passion for equality is ardent, insatiable, eternal, and invincible. They want equality in freedom, and if
they cannot have that, they still want it in slavery."
Because it is so easy to lose sight of the benefits of liberty, Tocqueville believes that the formation of
institutions that work to foster people's sense of liberty is crucial in any society. Tocqueville lauds the
propensity of Americans to form associations and write newspapers because he realizes that they help
people to realize their dependence on their fellow citizens and take an interest in public affairs.
Considering the tendencies of democratic peoples to become individualistic, one can see how crucial
it is to have institutions and civic duties which force people to look beyond their own interests and
think about the problems of the community.
Another means of combating the individualism and political apathy born of equality is through local
liberties. In America, on the other hand, the lawgivers gave "each part of the land its own political life
so that there should be an infinite number of occasions for the citizens to act together and so that
every day they should feel that they depended on one another." In this way, "the Americans have used
liberty to combat the individualism born of equality, and they have won."
Tocqueville argues that local liberties are much more important than political rights in deciding the
general affairs of the whole country, because a person "has little understanding of the way in which
the fate of the state can influence his own lot," while minor questions of local interest have an obvious
visible effect on his everyday life (511). As a result, people will be much more effectively drawn
together and more likely to exercise their liberty if they are given control of minor local affairs. Most
importantly, "free institutions and the political rights enjoyed there provide a thousand continual
reminders to every citizen that he lives in society."

31 | P a g e

Here one can see yet another feature of the complementarity between liberty and equality. While a
certain amount of equality is necessary for genuine liberty, liberty is necessary to guard against the
negative side-effects of equality. As Tocqueville asserts, "there is only one effective remedy against
the evils which equality may cause, and that is political liberty." Yet this dynamic between equality
and liberty could be problematic. In America, where the institutions that safeguard freedom are
already in place, there is no difficulty and the only action necessary is to ensure the security and
prominence of them. In a country like France in the nineteenth century, however, the problem is much
more serious. For while only liberty can mitigate the negative effects of equality, those negative
effects themselves act as obstacles to liberty. For such a situation, Tocqueville seems to offer little
hope. The only possible course of action may be an attempt to demonstrate the dangers of equality
and the benefits of liberty to the people and particularly the leaders of the country, persuading them to
enact reforms, as Tocqueville himself is trying to do in his writings.
Overall, Tocqueville's conception of the relationship between freedom and equality is far from simple.
On the one hand, it is clear that Tocqueville sees the growing equality of conditions as a danger to
liberty. The passion for equality, more deeply-rooted, longstanding, and ardent than the desire for
liberty, can lead people even to accept despotism. On the other hand, lack of equality, especially
unequal rights, is a detriment to freedom; freedom is dependent on equality and vice versa. Yet with
increasing equality as the prevailing andin Tocqueville's viewinevitable force in history, the
difficulty, which deserves primary focus is that of fostering and preserving liberty.
Volume II, Part III: Influence of Democracy on Mores Properly So Called
Chapter 1: How Mores Become More Gentle as Social Conditions Become More Equal
In times of equality, people are more sensitive to the sufferings of others because they can imagine
themselves in the same position.
Chapter 2: How Democracy Leads to Ease and Simplicity in the Ordinary Relations Between
Americans
Because there are no prejudices or class barriers to prevent people from socializing with one another
in a democracy, people relate to each easily in a natural, frank and open manner.
Chapter 3: Why the Americans Are So Hard to Offend in Their Own Country and So Easily
Offended in Ours
As a result of equality, Americans treat one anther with a great degree of mutual tolerance and are not
easily offended. In foreign countries, however, Americans are highly sensitive to criticism because of
the high opinion they have of themselves and their country.
Chapter 4: Consequences Deriving From the Three Preceding Chapters
Because they sympathize with the sufferings of their fellows, Americans are quick to give assistance.
Equality also makes Americans see that they are all weak and subject to similar dangers, so they tend
to lend mutual help when needed.
Chapter 5: How Democracy Modifies the Relations Between Master and Servant
The relations between servant and master are very different in a democracy than in an aristocracy
because the only difference between them is based on a temporary and freely made contract. The
bonds between master and servant are also looser in democracies than in aristocracies.
Chapter 6: How Democratic Institutions and Mores Tend to Raise Rent and Shorten the Terms
of Leases
Because everything is a democracy seems unstable, landlords feel the need to charge higher rents and
both landlords and tenants shy away from long terms of leases.
Chapter 7: Influence of Democracy on Wages
There is a constant struggle between workers and employers for the level of wages, and it seems that
in the long run the workers will prevail because their already relatively high wages lessen their
dependence on their employer.
Yet in some parts of industry an aristocracy of industrialists has grown up, and in such situations the
workers are forced to work for very low wages and have little bargaining power.
Chapter 8: Influence of Democracy on the Family
The family in the aristocratic sense does not exist in America. Young men, upon reaching the age of
adolescence, are basically given complete freedom. The father has less authority and there are almost
no formalities governing relations between fathers and children. This state of affairs increases the
natural bond of affection and trust by lowering the barriers between parents and children.

32 | P a g e

Chapter 9: Education of Girls in the United States

Because women primarily shape the mores of a society, the education of women is of great
importance. Women in America are not brought up in nave ignorance of vices of society; rather they
are taught how to deal with them and they allow them to develop good judgment.
Chapter 10: The Young Woman as Wife
America takes the institution of marriage very seriously both because of its Puritan roots and because
it is an industrial society, in which societal order increases prosperity. Paternal discipline is very lax in
America, but marriage imposes many demands on women. As a result, young women are cautious
before entering marriage and enter into it with full knowledge of the sacrifices it demands. Having
thus been prepared for married life and having entered into it freely, American women show great
strength in adversity and great resilience of courage.
Chapter 11: How Equality Helps to Maintain Good Morals in America
Equality helps to make mores stricter, because when there are no class barriers to prevent a couple
from getting married, it is difficult for a man to persuade a woman that he loves her if he is unwilling
to marry her. As a result there are fewer ephemeral and clandestine relationships. Also, because people
enter into marriage by their free choice, there is little sympathy for divorce.
Chapter 12: How the American Views the Equality of the Sexes
Some Europeans considers men and women to be not only equal but actually the same. The
Americans recognize the equality of men and women but see that they are different and are better are
different things. While European men tend to flatter women, they consider them more as seductive
objects than as equals. In America women are esteemed and deeply respected. Americans think that
men and women have different duties in life, but the role of each is equally important and dignified.
The chief cause of the extraordinary prosperity of America is the superiority of American women.
Chapter 13: How Equality Naturally Divides the Americans into a Multitude of Small Private
Circles
While Americans mix easily in the political sphere, in private life they break up into very small
groups according to different tastes.
Chapter 14: Some Reflections on American Manners
People's manners are very similar in democracies because of the general state of equality, but they are
much more casual than in aristocracies and there are many small individual variations.
Chapter 15: On the Gravity of the Americans and Why it Often Does Not Prevent Their Doing
Ill-Considered Things
Americans tend to be very serious and not take part in many coarse entertainments. The main reason
for Americans' gravity is that in free countries all have to be concerned with both with national affairs
and with the increase of their own wealth. At the same time their actions are often ill-considered
because they spend little time reflecting on things before doing them.
Chapter 16: Why American National Pride Has Become a More Restless and Quarrelsome
Character Than That of the English
When there are few differences between people, they attach great importance to the slightest
advantages in order to feed their pride.
Chapter 17: How the Aspect of Society in the United States is At Once Agitated and Monotonous
In democracies things are constantly changing, but all the changes are alike and the people's passions
are generally the same in that they mostly derive from love of wealth.
Chapter 18: Concerning Honor in the United States and Democratic Societies
The notion of honor is derived from people's dissimilarities and inequalities. As equality of conditions
grows, the idea of honor will progressively fade away.
Chapter 19: Why There Are So Many Men of Ambition in the United States But So Few of Lofty
Ambitions
When everyone has some education and opportunity for fortune, many people are ambitious. Yet
because of equality people are habituated to constrain their desire within narrow limits, and achieving
great fortune is extremely rare. Democratic societies have much more to fear from lack of high
ambitions than from over-ambitiousness.
Chapter 20: Concerning Place-Hunting in Some Democratic Societies
There is a tendency for people in democracy's to want public appointments in order to have a
comfortable and prosperous life. This tendency for place-hunting is a great social evil because it tends

33 | P a g e

to make people lose their independence and become servile to the state. Democracy's should limit the
number of public appointments.
Chapter 21: Why Great Revolutions Will Become Rare
Most revolutions are caused by a desire either to maintain or destroy inequality. In democratic
societies there are few people who are either very rich or very poor. Most are in the middle, and they
have a natural dislike for revolution but it will upset the comforts they have gained, though they may
be few. People are also so absorbed in trying to increase their fortune and comfort that they have no
interest in abstract revolutionary ideas. Though society is constantly changing, there is little danger of
revolution. The only possible cause for a revolution in America is the presence of blacks and the
inequality between the races.
In America human behavior seems extremely open to change, yet at the same time certain principles
are extraordinarily stable. General political, philosophical and moral doctrine almost never change.
When conditions are equally people are generally not likely to be persuaded by others' opinions
because they do not think anyone is intellectually superior. In addition, people in democracies are
extremely pragmatic and are simply not interested in ideas which do not have a direct bearing on
practical affairs.
Public opinion is extremely strong, to the extent that people tend to assume their wrong if their view
is not held by the majority. It is extremely difficult to change the opinion of the majority. There is a
danger in democracies that people will become so engrossed in pursuit of private comfort that they
simply allow the same institutions, ideas and mores to remain prevalent and never bother to work for
progress.
Chapter 22: Why Democratic Peoples Naturally Want Peace But Democratic Armies War
Men of property, which are in the majority, tend to want peace. But those in the military desire
promotion and consequently long for war so that they can attain a higher post. The army in a
democracy tends be composed of those who have little to lose from a war, and it tends to become
somewhat of a separate nation with its own habits and mores. It is very dangerous to have a warloving army in a peace-loving country. A war is the easiest way in which freedom can be destroyed in
a democracy, because in times of war government gains many extra powers.
Chapter 23: Which is the Most Warlike and Revolutionary Class in Democratic Armies
Democratic people rarely choose to enter the military. As a result the government will need to fall
back on conscription. Those that decide to stay after the required term will be few, and those with
military careers break all ties to civilian life. Therefore, they want war or revolution when the rest of
the nation wants peace.
Chapter 24: What Makes Democratic Armies Weaker Than Others At the Beginning of a
Campaign But More Formidable in Prolonged Warfare
Since the elite of the nation are drawn away from the military, the army is generally inferior to the
nation in general after a long period of peace. Yet in times of war people become attracted to the army
and the elite see a military career as a way of gaining honor. In a prolonged war, therefore, the army
will improve greatly over time.
Chapter 25: Of Discipline in Democratic Armies
The discipline in democratic armies is based not on habit but on will and reason.
Chapter 26: Some Considerations Concerning War in Democratic Societies
War becomes much rarer in general because societies are interdependent as a result of trade and have
few ideological differences. In addition, the majority are generally opposed to war because it is
against their material interests. Civil wars will thus become much rarer.
Analysis
I. Women in American Society
"And now that I come near the end of this book in which I have recorded so many considerable
achievements of the Americans," writes Tocqueville, "if anyone asks me what I think the chief cause
of the extraordinary prosperity and growing power of this nation, I should answer that it is due to the
superiority of their women."
Tocqueville's belief that women play a crucial role in shaping society is inseparable from his emphasis
on the need for proper values and mores to achieve and maintain social stability and prosperity,
especially in a democracy. In Tocqueville's estimation, mores are "one of the great general causes
responsible for the maintenance of a democratic republic in the United States." With the term mores,

34 | P a g e

Tocqueville is referring to "the different notions possessed by men, the various opinions current
among them, and the sum of ideas that shape mental habits." Mores are especially crucial and
influential in democratic societies because of the freedom that the people enjoy, the strong role of
public opinion and the general weakness of authority. Women have a particularly important
responsibility in democratic society precisely because of their ability to shape its mores. As
Tocqueville remarks, "there have never been free societies without mores, and . . . it is women who
shape these mores. Therefore everything which has a bearing on the status of women, their habits and
their thoughts is, in my view, of great political importance."
The principle way in which women shape mores is through their role as wives and mothers.
Tocqueville argues that the respect given to the institution of marriage in a society has a powerful
impact on the order and well-being of that society as a whole. From his observations, Tocqueville
found that the United States was the country where marriage was most respected, and he attributed the
stability of American societyas opposed to the general disorder of many European societies,
particularly Franceto the strength of this institution. "In Europe," asserts Tocqueville, "almost all the
disorders of society are born around the domestic hearth and not far from the nuptial bed. It is there
that men come to feel scorn for natural ties and legitimate pleasures and develop a taste for disorder,
restlessness of spirit, and insatiability of desires." By contrast, "when the American returns from the
turmoil of politics to the bosom of the family, he immediately finds a perfect picture of order and
peace. There all his pleasures are simple and natural and his joys innocent and quiet, and as the
regularity of life brings him happiness, he easily forms the habit of regulating his opinions as well as
his tastes." The result for society at large is that "whereas the European tries to escape his sorrows at
home by troubling society, the American derives from his home the love of order which he carries
over into affairs of the state." Tocqueville sees the effort of a wife to create an orderly, loving and
pleasant home environment therefore as not only a matter affecting the well-being of individual
families, but also as a great service to society, with immense social and even political repercussions.
What was it in particular about American society in the nineteenth century that had fostered such a
strong respect for marriage and such exemplary strength of character in American women?
Tocqueville attributes the situation partially to the style of a girl's upbringing and education, combined
with the strong influence of religious values and the discipline provided by industrial habits. In
America, Tocqueville notes that rather than being sheltered and shielded from reality, a young woman
is allowed to become familiar with "the vices and dangers of society" so that, "seeing them clearly,
she judges them without illusion and faces them without fear." He adds that "her morals are pure
rather than her mind chaste." Such an approach leads to the formation of women who are not nave
but who have the prudence and fortitude necessary to carry out their duties and live upright lives.
Tocqueville also provides some possible explanations for the respect given to the institution of
marriage in American society. Through his studies, Tocqueville found that "religious peoples and
industrial nations take a particularly serious view of marriage. The former consider the regularity of a
woman's life the best guarantee and the surest sign of the purity of her morals. The latter see in it the
surest safeguard of the order and prosperity of the house." America in Tocqueville's day combined
both of these attributes. Puritanism still had a very strong influence, and society, at least in the north,
was becoming highly industrialized. These forces shaped cultural expectations of women and created
a strong public opinion in favor of respecting the permanence of marriage and particularly the
specifically domestic role of women. The women themselves, aware of this situation and aware of the
sacrifices that marriage demands, entered into marriage with full knowledge of what is expected of
them and were cautious before entering into a marriage commitment.
Another attribute of American society that contributes to the strength of marriage and the strong,
salutary role of women is the American view of equality between the sexes. In an aristocratic society
the relations between men and women tend to be more problematic, because people often have little
choice of whom they are going to marry and even if they can choose, their choice is limited by class
barriers. Of course, passions and affections cannot be bound by those barriers, and consequently there
are "a great number of ephemeral and clandestine connections." In a democratic society, however,
where "equality of conditions has swept down all the real or imaginary barriers separating man and
woman," women are empowered to test the true level of a man's love and commitment to her. As
Tocqueville points out, "however credulous passion may make us, there is hardly a way of persuading
a girl that you love her when you are perfectly free to marry her but will not do so." Another effect of

35 | P a g e

equality in nineteenth-century America is that, precisely because there was freedom in the choice of
one's spouse, public opinion very harshly condemned infidelity and divorce, thereby strengthening the
institution of marriage.
The Americans' particular view of equality between the sexes also strengthened the position of women
in society. Tocqueville disagrees with the notion, gaining popularity among the European philosophers
of his time, that men and women "are not equal only, but actually similar." Tocqueville believes that
the view of equality which treats men and women as the same "degrades them both, and that so coarse
a jumble of nature's works could produce nothing but feeble men and unseemly women." In America,
on the other hand, Tocqueville was pleased to find the prevailing view that "nature, which created
such great differences between men and women, clearly intended to give their diverse faculties a
diverse employment." Women, he believes, are best suited to work in the domestic sphere, while men
are better equipped for business, political affairs, and managing the external relations of the family.
Likewise, Tocqueville places importance on the need for strong paternal authority in the family, and
he praises the Americans for respecting that authority in spite of their democratic mentality,
recognizing that "every association, to be effective, must have a head, and the natural head of the
conjugal association is the husband."
While Tocqueville's opinions about a woman's role are clearly marked by the conventions of his era,
he shows a much greater respect for women than the prevailing European views at the time. "In
Europe," remarks Tocqueville, "one has often noted that a certain contempt lurks in the flattery men
lavish on women; although a European may often make himself a woman's slave, one feels that he
never sincerely thinks her his equal." By contrast, in America Tocqueville found that while men did
not often flatter or compliment women, they treated them with respect and esteem, displaying
complete confidence in their spouse's judgment and deep respect for their freedom." While in Europe
men regarded women as "seductive but incomplete beings," in America men "[had] such respect for
their moral freedom that in their presence every man [was] careful to keep a watch on his tongue for
fear that they should be forced to listen to language which offends them." Clearly the Americans,
while holding to the idea that men and women are destined to pursue different occupations in life, had
a deep sense of the dignity of women, regarding them "as beings of equal worth" and considering
their work to be as important as men's.
II. Democracy and War
Tocqueville in general follows the classical liberal characterization of democracies as un-warlike, both
because of their ideology and also because of economic self-interest. There are a few anomalies, such
as the soldiers who tend to have an interest in war, but in general this problem does not seem to have
great potential to cause any real danger. Tocqueville argues that great revolutions will become rare
because "any revolution is more or less a threat to property," and "most inhabitants of a democracy
have property." There is a more philosophic and even, for other reasons, quite disturbing element of
democratic societies that disincline them to revolution: their individualism. "When social conditions
are equal," asserts Tocqueville, "every man tends to live apart, centered in himself and forgetful of the
public." This tendency will indeed make revolution more unlikely, but Tocqueville warns that it ought
not to be fostered because the apathy and self-interest of the majority could be taken advantage of by
a minority with an interest in revolution. The tendencies toward the omnipotence of the majority and
overwhelming acceptance of public opinion also work against revolution. General ideas about life and
government are fixed by the opinion of the majority and almost never change. As a result, there are
few widespread ideas contrary to public opinion that would spur a revolution. Of course, this
unchangeability of general ideas is also a great danger for democracies. Even aside from the problem
of tyranny of the majority, Tocqueville fears that democratic societies "will end up by being too
unalterably fixed with the same institutions, prejudices, and mores, so that mankind will stop
progressing and will dig itself in."
III. Middling effect
A more general influence of democracy on mores is, as Tocqueville often describes it, to make them
much "gentler." This means that people in general do not have terrible vices, but also that they lack
extraordinary virtue. Tocqueville, an aristocrat himself, laments this loss of great heroism, honor,
intelligence, and virtue. Yet he seems to think that the growth of equality is fated, and that since great
personalities simply do not tend to form in democratic societies, there is nothing to be done except
make the best of the situation and be glad that there are no terrible vices.

36 | P a g e

Democracy in America Summary and Analysis of Vol. II, Part 4, Chapters 1-8
Chapter 1: Equality Naturally Gives Men the Taste for Free Institutions
Equality makes people love independence, but it can also lead them to servitude.
Chapter 2: Why the Ideas of Democratic Peoples About Government Naturally Favor the
Concentration of Political Power
When all are equal the individual loses importance in relation to the whole society. Since the power of
the state comes from the people, democratic peoples see no need to limit it. Democratic peoples are
also attracted by simple, general ideas and the uniformity of central power.
Chapter 3: How Both the Feelings and the Thoughts of Democratic Nations Are in Accord in
Concentrating Political Power
Individualism makes democratic peoples inclined to allow the state to look after common needs. In
addition, materialism makes them afraid of economic disturbances. Love of equality breeds itself,
because the more equal conditions become, the more shocking the slightest dissimilarity is. Central
government is perfect for making things equal and uniform. Democracies are therefore tending in that
direction.
Chapter 4: Concerning Peculiar and Accidental Causes Which Either Lead a Democratic People
to Complete the Centralization of Government or Divert Them From It
If people have lived freedom for a long time before becoming equal, the instincts of freedom combat
the inclinations of liberty. This is the case in America, whereas in Europe it is the opposite. Education
also helps men to maintain their independence, because systems which maintain liberty are more
complex than those with a uniform central power. The greatest accidental cause that would lead to
centralization of power in a democracy is the emergence of a ruler whom the people believe truly
represents their interests and instincts. As long as the ruler makes the people believe he loves equality,
he will be able to succeed in centralizing power.
Chapter 5: How the Sovereign Power is Increasing Among the European Nations of Our Time,
Although the Sovereigns are Less Stable
All the revolutions and movements in Europe over the past fifty years have been alike in that they
have decreased or abolished secondary powers and increased the centralization of government. Even
religion is in danger of falling under government control. The state has also increased its economic
power through government-controlled central banks. The independence and power of the judiciary are
also being undermined. As nations become industrialized the power of the government also increases
because it needs to provide a suitable infrastructure. Many stable dynasties have been overthrown and
their power seems to be weakening, yet at the same time the central administration is growing ever
more powerful.
In democratic revolutions, the people desired freedom in order to make themselves equal. Once that
equality was established it made freedom more difficult to attain and maintain.
Chapter 6: What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear
Democracies are in danger of a milder despotism in times past, in which leaders are not tyrants but
more like schoolmasters. This type of despotism would "degrade men rather than torment them." The
scenario would look something like this: There are a multitude of equal citizens, completely absorbed
in looking after their own comforts and material well-being, completely apathetic to the rest of
society. Above them, there is a huge, protective power giving them securing and ensuring their
happiness. Free choice becomes narrower and narrower. They allow this to happen because the people
are sovereign so they think the government's policies represent their own choices. This sort of
subjection is mostly concentrated in petty affairs and details of daily life. It seems less severe, but
greatly erodes the ability of people to exercise their free will and even their ability to think for
themselves.
Chapter 7: Continuation of the Preceding Chapters
Times of equality are most conducive to despotism. There is no possibility of reconstructing
aristocracy. The only possible remedy is "to make freedom spring from that democratic society in
which God has placed us." The most effective ways of doing this seem to be to give secondary bodies
of private citizens some of the administrative power. Safeguarding freedom of the press is also
extremely important because the individual's only means of appeal is to the nation as a whole. "The
press is, par excellence, the democratic weapon of freedom." Maintaining a powerful and independent
judiciary is absolutely essential for the protection of private rights. Democratic peoples tend to give

37 | P a g e

little importance to individual rights; it is therefore extremely important to guard against this
tendency. The doctrine of judging things based on social utility is especially dangerous. There must be
clear and fixed limits of social power.
Chapter 8: General Survey of the Subject
The general influence of growing equality on mankind is remarkable. Never in the past have
conditions been more equal. There are fewer grand and heroic virtues or individuals, but life in
general is more comfortable and mores are more humane and gentle. Everything tends toward the
middle. The growth of equality is inevitable, but people do have the power to shape the effects of that
equality for better or worse.
Analysis
In this last section of the book, Tocqueville brings the focus once again on his main theme of the
challenges to maintaining liberty in the midst of a growing equality of conditions. Democratic
despotism is a great danger, precisely because it is not so obvious as despotism by a single ruler and
because it is perfectly compatible with rule by the majority. Democratic despotism is not a
contradiction in terms, because democracy is a term indicating who rules, and despotism is a term
indicating how much power the ruler has. Therefore when the people rule and the majority has
absolute power, there is a democratic despotism. This sort of despotism is very different in character
from traditional types of despotism. Tocqueville conjectures that "it would be more widespread and
milder; it would degrade men rather than torment them."
Precisely because of its mildness, it is much easier to fall into democratic despotism than authoritarian
despotism. Furthermore, the materialism and individualism of democratic peoples tend to prepare the
way for despotic government. Tocqueville, imagining a society ripe for despotism, states, "I see an
innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and
banal pleasures with which they glut their souls. Each one of them, withdrawn into himself, is almost
unaware of the fate of the rest. . . . Over this kind of men stands an immense, protective power which
is alone responsible for securing their enjoyment and watching over their fate." Such a government is
far from cruel, yet it gently usurps the sphere of free action and continually narrows the realm in
which human beings can exercise their free will. It is favorable to equality and to material comfort.
For these reasons, Tocqueville remarks that "equality has prepared men for all this, predisposing them
to endure it and often even regard it as beneficial."
The reason that people would allow themselves to live in such conditions is that though they value
freedom, they also want uniformity, equality and guidance. In order to achieve these things,
"centralization is combined with the sovereignty of the people. That gives them a chance to relax.
They console themselves for being under schoolmasters by thinking that they have chosen them
themselves. Each individual lets them put the collar on, for he sees that it is not a person, or a class of
persons, but society itself which holds the end of the chain."
The ways to combat this tendency are all of those which Tocqueville has recommended throughout
the book: a free press, freedom of association, religion, proper mores, local self-government and a
strong independent judiciary. Because American society contains these elements which help to
preserve liberty, and because the American people have a natural and deep-rooted taste for liberty, it is
possible to prevent the degeneration of American democracy into despotism. Still, it is necessary
always to guard freedom and to ensure the maintenance of those institutions and mores which help to
preserve it, "looking forward to the future with that salutary fear which makes them keep watch and
ward for freedom."

38 | P a g e