A selection from the early 19th century French historian, Alexis de Tocqueville's, Democracy in America.
The principles of New England … now extend their influence beyond its limits, over the whole American world. The civilization of New England has been like a beacon lit upon a hill…. … Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but corresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republican theories. …Nathaniel Morton, the historian of the first years of the settlement, thus opens his subject: “we may not hide from our children, showing to the generations to come the praises of the Lord; that especially the seed of Abraham his servant, and the children of Jacob his chosen ( Psalm cv. 5, 6 ), may remember his marvellous works in the beginning … “ … The general principles which are the groundwork of modern constitutions, principles … were all recognized and established by the laws of New England: the intervention of the people in public affairs, the free voting of taxes, the responsibility of the agents of power, personal liberty, and trial by jury were all positively established without discussion. … In the bosom of this obscure democracy…the following fine definition of liberty: " There is a twofold liberty, natural … and civil or federal. The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good. … The exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil, and in time to be worse than brute beasts: … The other kind of liberty I call civil or federal; it may also be termed moral, in reference to the covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions, among men themselves. … This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard not only of your goods, but of your lives, if need be." I have said enough to put the character of Anglo-American civilization in its true light. It is the result ( and this should be constantly kept in mind) of two distinct elements, which in other places have been in frequent disagreement, but which the Americans have succeeded in incorporating to some extent one with the other and combining admirably. I allude to the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty.
de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America, Chapter II ORIGIN OF THE ANGLO-AMERICANS, AND IMPORTANCE OF THIS ORIGIN IN RELATION TO THEIR FUTURE CONDITION
Your questions are due by Tuesday evening at 11:59pm.
De Tocqueville starts by refferencing the highly religious region of New England in the context of finding a model for the rest of the country, both in terms of religion and civil liberty. Like those who went to England, many Americans came from religious persecution or discrimination to a place where they hoped they could practice (whatever faith) without comments of any nature. There were many religious communities in the states already byt the time De Tocqueville wrote this piece. Why did he choose the extremist puritan colonies as his example? was it because of their full incorporation of reliogion into daily life? is so, what does that say about the way de Tocqueville would want the nation to be run? Also, de Tocqueville was a frenchman. was his outsiders point of view one that was held by the average american? or the governing body in america at this time? (this seems more philosophical than practical so i want to say that he was alone in this opinion)
ReplyDeleteT
In the piece, De Tocqueville looks to New England as the paragon of liberty in America. He refers to it as this "beacon lit upon a hill" which provides all its citizens with: "the intervention of the people in public affairs, the free voting of taxes, the responsibility of the agents of power, personal liberty, and trial by jury." Moreover, De Tocqueville defines liberty as both natural and civil. However, he claims "civil liberty" is synonymous with "moral liberty", citing "the covenant between God and man" in his explanation. Obviously, his equation of moral (especially from his religious perspective) and civil liberties would likely be dissimilar to a modern perspective. Especially with America's emphasis on separation of church and state, civil liberties cannot so easily be equated with "the spirit of religion" De Tocqueville alludes to. Similarly, even considering the various rights given to the people of New England, their puritanical (pun intended) Code of Religious law would be considered theocratic, not democratic or republican, from a modern perspective.
ReplyDeleteHow have definitions for words/phrases like liberty, moral/civil law, and democractic/republican changed since De Tocqueville wrote this piece. Can this variance in definitions be attributed solely to gaps in time or do cultural/geographic differences also make a difference? What causes these significant shifts in the words? Do all words change over time? Are abstract words more susceptible to change than concrete words or does that not make a significant difference?
How does Alexis de Tocqueville's "two-fold liberty" relate to The Jewish ideas of Bein-Adam-Le'makome" and "Bein Adam le'havaro"? Clearly there are some references. Why would Tocqueville use such references, did he think they would relate better with his readers, was he Jewish himself, or did he just follow the Judo-christian trend of the time?
ReplyDeleteThis passage has many comments that not only do not support each other, but are actually opposed to one another. Comments such as "civil or federal", "spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty", and "evil as well as to good". Is the author confused as to which side he is on in this argument? Or is he trying to show the "audience" or readers that we should all be on both sides, like a mix between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams? If there even are two sides, which one do you think you would be on? Would you choose the more spirit of liberty side or the spirit of religion, and once chosen, do you think you would try and influence others around you to do the same or take your choice and keep it strictly individual?
ReplyDeleteDemocracy in America is often credited as being the most important and influential early critique of American society. This excerpt gives pretty high praise in, what appear to be rose-colored glasses of the effect of Puritanism in early United States history. This praise is particularly high when you consider de Tocqueville’s Roman Catholic heritage. Was this praise too great? Did it cause the Protestant and Puritan leaders of the United States to think to highly of their religion and moral superiority. At this point in time, yes, the Puritans were very benevolent in letting people do what they want, but is de Tocqueville ignoring the darker side of Puritanism. The side highlighted in Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter? The side that let slavery and oppression of African-Americans run free and flourish in the South?
ReplyDeleteOf course, we Jews are not completely exonerated of blame, we too have both been praised for our sense of justice (roughly 98% of Jews are lawyers). Though we have also been slighted for slighting others, as Samuel Heilman pointed out regarding Chabad’s strict interpretation of who is Jewish. How much of this Puritan society, both the good and the bad, was the making of Jewish culture? Not the Old Testament, but the way Jews acted before and after Christianity, or specifically Puritanism, began.
The French exported version of liberty to all of Europe, which consequently resulted in terror. The French Liberty promotes a different type of liberty than America did. Does Tocqueville have a different definition of liberty, regarding Europe and America?
ReplyDeleteAlexis de Tocqueville believed that democracy was a combination of liberty and equality and that the focus should be on both the individual and the community. Tocqueville supports this belief consistently throughout the passage with "By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good," and "in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions, among men themselves. … This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard not only of your goods, but of your lives, if need be." Both of these quotes show that man should have the ability to choose whether or not to do good and that you represent your belongings as well as yourself.
ReplyDeleteBut Tocqueville says "The exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil, and in time to be worse than brute beasts." He is almost saying "however, my idea may result in horrible people." Why does Tocqueville include this? Why would any reader of this want to agree with him if they see that with this freedom of choice some may choose the bad, evil option? I understand that he is being realistic about the possible results but it seems random and contradictory with everything else that he has said.
This is a great piece of propaganda. Doesn’t it appear that Tocqueville was trying to spread the ideas of the “biblical religion” (Judeo- Christianity) that he believes America was founded on? He says that the religiosity of the puritans and how the puritans incorporated religion into daily life (an extremely religious community, as Tani points out) was a “beacon lit upon a hill”; He says the moral or civil law can be described as a “covenant between God and man” and he concludes that it is moral. Both of these examples show that the things that god imposes on us ( we can see the imposition based on the word moral as opposed to saying ethical) make our society better. The one thing that makes man “worse than brute beasts” is mans free will, his ability to “to do what he lists”. Why are Tocqueville’s idea of what our society is founded on so different then Jefferson’s (who believes America is a country founded on mans use of his free choice)? In the words of Jefferson any man that doesn’t use his freedom of original thought because of societies imposition “is deprivi[ed] injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right”.
ReplyDeleteAlex De Tocqueville starts by criticizing the government and says that we cant show are future generation this government and it needs to be changed. He also says how "obscure the democracy is". what additional points made him hate this democracy so much? why did he use such harsh language in this quote such as "beasts" isn't that offensive?
ReplyDeletede tockevilles idea of natural freedom is very simmaler to the idea of bechira point, not in the sense that his natural freedom is the point where the most (damn it the clock just hit 11:59) important decisions take place but the other ones that can be regulated by different circumstances and that natural freedom should be restricted
ReplyDeletethis is a very jewish idea (at least in a rabbi grosberg way) why is it that this is incorporated in book on christian america
I'm sorry it's really late and I don't have a good lead up. When Alex De Tocqueville says "In the bosom of this obscure democracy" what is it that makes our democracy obscure? Was it the newness at the time, it's moarals or somthing else?
ReplyDeleteAt first it seems as if Alexis de Tocqueville is mentioning New England’s influence over the entire American world as a negative thing. Then Alexis de Tocqueville seems to make various conflicting statements which make it seem good that New England has a large influence over America. Was his statement “the principles of New England … now extend their influence beyond its limits, over the whole American world” positive or negative?
ReplyDeletethis most recent one was david reiz, the first one was david klein. sorry for mix up.
ReplyDeleteWas this the first time in history that the first freedom of taxes? it mention that beasts are like people. Is that a descriotion of the creation of the world?
ReplyDeleteThe article uses a source from Nathaniel Morton, who is a radical sepratist. Sepratists believe in segregation based on beliefs, which seems to be the typical case in New England. Later in the article, it mentions how civil or federal law is determined by "moral law", which is the commandments that god gave to the people. Now on of the laws is "bein adam lachavero", which is love between man and man. Wouldn't is seem that there shouldn't be any segragation? Why does Alexis de Tocqueville bring these two controversial proofs?
ReplyDeleteTocqueville is clearly partial to the way the ideas of the constitution were executed when he was writing this piece. However as he says, unrestrained liberty can only cause immorality, therefore how could he accept the actual ideas written in the constitution (as he seems to be doing). The ideas in question do not put clear enough limits on freedoms, which is exactly what he warns against as a negative form of liberty. So why would he not argue against the sweeping statements put forth of 'free speech' or 'free press' etc., when he is aware they could possibly cause corruption and potentially the destruction of all that he loves about America?
ReplyDeleteWhy does he say that liberty turns men into beasts? could it be because they are given more freedom to do what they want and not think of the moral consequences of their actions and thats why he says they turn into beasts?
ReplyDelete