LatinosUSA

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville was a heavy read, to put it mildly. 

Tocqueville visited the United States in 1831 to study the country. Initially, his focus was the prison system, but his study expanded to include the government structure and the socio-economic conditions of the country. Once he completed his research, he returned to France and published his findings. The first volume came out in 1835 and the second in 1840. My 2004 edition was translated by Henry Reeve, an English journalist and author (September 9, 1813 – October 21, 1895).

Tocqueville wrote that his purpose in Democracy in America was “to teach democracy to know itself, and thereby to direct itself and contain itself.” (p. xl) In other words, teaching democracy to recognize both its strengths and weaknesses in order to be better equipped to avoid overreach and build a fairer, more stable society. What a concept. Still, I think democracy in America has a long way to go.

Tocqueville goes into great detail describing the various levels of government, from the federal level down to towns and counties. He discusses governmental structure, political parties, voting, taxes, laws, salaries, and other administrative functions, often comparing them to democratic elements found in France and the rest of Europe.

He also had a lot to say about Native Americans and slavery, which I’ll comment on after highlighting some key excerpts. 

Two parts of the introduction caught my attention:

“Edward Banfield (American political scientist) writes that it is patently true that ‘after 150 years there is hardly a page [of Tocqueville’s book] that does not open the reader’s eyes to the larger implications of some familiar fact.’” (p. xxxiii)

I completely agree with Banfield’s comment. It’s almost impossible not to make comparisons to what is happening in our current environment and how we got to this point.

“After 1870, the book dropped from intellectual sight because it apparently did not celebrate America enough in an age of American boosterism. In the 1930s, its darker aspects began to be appreciated by an intellectual readership swept up, along with the rest of the country, in the gloom of the Depression… Tocqueville was useful again in the late 1940s and ’50s,… ‘Almost equally prized by American intellectuals in this same decade,’ Robert Nisbet (American conservative sociologist) writes, ‘were Tocqueville’s ruminations on the decline in intellectual and cultural values under democracy.’” (p. xxxiii)

Here are some of the highlights from the book:

“Two branches may be distinguished in the Anglo-American family, which have hitherto grown up without entirely commingling; the one in the South, the other in the North.” (p. 32)

“Slavery, as we shall afterwards show, dishonors labor; it introduces idleness into society, and with idleness, ignorance and pride, luxury and distress… The influence of slavery, united to the English character, explains the manners and the social condition of the Southern States.” (p. 33)

“Slavery was introduced about the year 1620 by a Dutch vessel which landed twenty negroes on the banks of the river James.” (p. 33, note)

“The English colonies (and this is one of the main causes of their prosperity) have always enjoyed more internal freedom and more political independence than the colonies of other nations; but this principle of liberty was nowhere more extensively applied than in the States of New England.” (p. 39)

“It was never assumed in the United States that the citizen of a free country has a right to do whatever he pleases; on the contrary, social obligations were there imposed upon him more various than anywhere else.” (pp. 78–79)

“When the war of independence was terminated, and the foundations of the new government were to be laid down, the nation was divided between two opinions—two opinions which are as old as the world… the one tending to limit, the other to extend indefinitely, the power of the people. The conflict of these two opinions never assumed that degree of violence in America which it has frequently displayed elsewhere. Both parties of the Americans were, in fact, agreed upon the most essential points; and neither of them had to destroy a traditional constitution, or to overthrow the structure of society, in order to ensure its own triumph.” (p. 202)

“When once the Americans have taken up an idea, whether it be well or ill founded, nothing is more difficult than to eradicate it from their minds.” (p. 216)

“It is not a question of easy solution whether aristocracy or democracy is most fit to govern a country. But it is certain that democracy annoys one part of the community, and that aristocracy oppresses another part. When the question is reduced to the simple expression of the struggle between poverty and wealth, the tendency of each side of the dispute becomes perfectly evident without further controversy.” (p. 218)

“The more we consider the independence of the press in its principal consequences, the more are we convinced that it is the chief and, so to speak, the constitutive element of freedom in the modern world. A nation which is determined to remain free is therefore right in demanding the unrestrained exercise of this independence.” (p. 222)

“On my arrival in the United States I was surprised to find so much distinguished talent among the subjects, and so little among the heads of the Government. It is a well-authenticated fact that at the present day the most able men in the United States are very rarely placed at the head of affairs.” (p. 230)

“Democracy does not confer the most skillful kind of government upon the people, but it produces that which the most skillful governments are frequently unable to awaken—namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it, and which may, under favorable circumstances, beget the most amazing benefits. These are the true advantages of democracy.” (p. 293)

“General Jackson, whom the Americans have twice elected to the head of their Government, is a man of a violent temper and mediocre talents; no one circumstance in the whole course of his career ever proved that he is qualified to govern a free people, and indeed the majority of the enlightened classes of the Union has always been opposed to him. But he was raised to the Presidency, and has been maintained in that lofty station solely by the recollection of a victory which he gained twenty years ago under the walls of New Orleans.” (p. 335)

“Christianity suppressed slavery, but the Christians of the sixteenth century re-established it—an exception, indeed, to their social system, and restricted to one of the races of mankind; but the wound thus inflicted upon humanity, though less extensive, was at the same time rendered far more difficult to cure.” (p. 413)

“I think that in no country in the civilized world is less attention paid to philosophy than in the United States. The Americans have no philosophical school of their own; and they care but little for all the schools into which Europe is divided.” (p. 511)

“Men are no longer bound together by ideas, but by interests; and it would seem as if human opinions were reduced to a sort of intellectual dust, scattered on every side, unable to collect, unable to cohere.” (p. 516)

“Here and there, in the midst of American society, you meet with men full of a fanatical and almost wild enthusiasm, which hardly exists in Europe. From time to time strange sects arise, which endeavor to strike out extraordinary paths to eternal happiness. Religious insanity is very common in the United States.” (p. 656)

The book is packed with insight, much of it still applicable to the current state of our country. 

Now I turn to my commentary on Tocqueville’s observations about Native Americans and African Americans. I always try to keep an open mind when discussing racial issues, but some of his comments were problematic. A friend on another platform mentioned that she wanted to hear my thoughts on this subject, so the following is part of what I plan to share with her in response. 

I finished the book back in May, but I’ve been reflecting on what Tocqueville wrote. Even though I’m still working through my thoughts, I’m starting to understand the concept of racial bias more clearly. By that, I mean the three forms: implicit, explicit, and systemic. Some of Tocqueville’s comments lean toward implicit bias, but others show explicit bias.

Here are a few excerpts on this topic:

“Even the moderns have found, in some parts of South America, vast regions inhabited by a people of inferior civilization, but which occupied and cultivated the soil… But North America was only inhabited by wandering tribes, who took no thought of the natural riches of the soil, and that vast country was still, properly speaking, an empty continent, a desert land awaiting its inhabitants.” (p. 338)

“Amongst these widely differing families of men, the first which attracts attention, the superior in intelligence, in power and in enjoyment, is the white or European, the man preeminent; and in subordinate grades, the Negro, and the Indian.” (p. 385)

“The Negro has no family; woman is merely the temporary companion of his pleasures, and his children are upon an equality with himself from the moment of their birth.” (p. 386)

Referring to Native Americans:

“The savage is his own master as soon as he is able to act; parental authority is scarcely known to him; he has never bent his will to that of any of his kind, nor learned the difference between voluntary obedience and a shameful subjection; and the very name of law is unknown to him.” (p. 387)

“The great error of these legislators of the Indians was their not understanding that, in order to succeed in civilizing a people, it is first necessary to fix it; which cannot be done without inducing it to cultivate the soil… Men who have once abandoned themselves to the restless and adventurous life of the hunter feel an insurmountable disgust for the constant and regular labor which tillage requires.” (p. 398)

There are even stronger, and perhaps more offensive, comments in the book, but these are sufficient to illustrate the point about racial bias. Of course, this is nothing new; it has existed for centuries and has affected all races around the world.

Tocqueville offers detailed observations on the conditions and perceived characteristics of Native Americans and African Americans in the United States. His views reflect both the intellectual attitudes of his time and the limitations of his understanding, shaped by European cultural frameworks.

Although Tocqueville is regarded as an intellectual, his biases are evident. They reflect both implicit and explicit prejudice and reveal a lack of understanding regarding the family structures and social conditions of Native American and African peoples—structures that, in many cases, predate European civilization.

He criticized efforts to assimilate Indigenous peoples through education and religious conversion, arguing that such initiatives failed because they did not address what he saw as the root issue: the absence of a fixed, agricultural lifestyle. However, his analysis often overlooked the diversity and complexity of Indigenous cultures, reducing them to simplistic generalizations.

Tocqueville’s commentary on African Americans and slavery is more extensive, and at times contradictory. He strongly condemned slavery as morally and socially corrosive, asserting that it degraded labor, discouraged progress, and undermined democratic values in the American South.

At the same time, he echoed harmful racial stereotypes, claiming that African Americans lacked family structures and the cultural traits necessary for full participation in civic life. He questioned whether Black Americans could ever be fully integrated into American society, even if emancipated, due to deep-rooted prejudice. Though critical of both slavery and the treatment of free Black Americans, Tocqueville failed to recognize the resilience and cultural richness of African American communities.

African peoples, African Americans, and Native Americans all had well-established family structures and social hierarchies. To suggest otherwise is to ignore historical fact.

It is fascinating to read history and analyze the opinions and observations of key figures. This is one of the reasons I oppose banning books: diversity in education matters. Understanding all sides of an issue is essential to seeing the full picture. Exposure to a wide range of perspectives, even those we may find uncomfortable, is crucial for intellectual growth. The broader our understanding, the greater our capacity for critical thinking and empathy.

To reduce a person to their origins, appearance, or traditions is to deny their full humanity. True understanding requires openness, respect, and a recognition of the richness found in human difference. Each of us is a unique blend of virtues and flaws.

In the end, Tocqueville’s analysis reveals both the brilliance and the blind spots of 19th-century European intellectuals. While he identified democracy’s strengths and weaknesses with remarkable foresight, his treatment of race often reflected the prejudices of his era.

Although I initially approached this book seeking insight into the origins of our democratic system, and I certainly gained that, what I did not anticipate was how much it would teach me about the nature of humanity across time and place.