the principle of the sovereignty of the people in america.

it predominates over the whole of society in america.—application made of this principle by the americans even before their revolution.—development given to it by that revolution.—gradual and irresistible extension of the elective qualification.

whenever the political laws of the united states are to be discussed, it is with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people that we must begin.

the principle of the sovereignty of the people, which is to be found, more or less, at the bottom of almost all human institutions, generally remains concealed from view. it is obeyed without being recognised, or if for a moment it be brought to light, it is hastily cast back into the gloom of the sanctuary.

"the will of the nation" is one of those expressions which have been most profusely abused by the wily and the despotic of every age. to the eyes of some it has been represented by the venal suffrages of a few of the satellites of power; to others, by the votes of a timid minority; and some have even discovered it in the silence of a people, on the supposition that the fact of submission established the right of command.

in america, the principle of the sovereignty of the people is not either barren or concealed, as it is with some other nations; it is recognised by the customs and proclaimed by the laws; it spreads freely, and arrives without impediment at its most remote consequences. if there be a country in the world where the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people can be fairly appreciated, where it can be studied in its application to the affairs of society, and where its dangers and its advantages may be foreseen, that country is assuredly america.

i have already observed that, from their origin, the sovereignty of the people was the fundamental principle of the greater number of the british colonies in america. it was far, however, from then exercising as much influence on the government of society as it now does. two obstacles, the one external, the other internal, checked its invasive progress.

it could not ostensibly disclose itself in the laws of the colonies, which were still constrained to obey the mother country; it was therefore obliged to spread secretly, and to gain ground in the provincial assemblies, and especially in the townships.

american society was not yet prepared to adopt it with all its consequences. the intelligence of new england, and the wealth of the country to the south of the hudson (as i have shown in the preceding chapter), long exercised a sort of aristocratic influence, which tended to limit the exercise of social authority within the hands of a few. the public functionaries were not universally elected, and the citizens were not all of them electors. the electoral franchise was everywhere placed within certain limits, and made dependant on a certain qualification, which was exceedingly low in the north, and more considerable in the south.

the american revolution broke out, and the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, which had been nurtured in the townships, took possession of the state; every class was enlisted in its cause; battles were fought, and victories obtained for it; until it became the law of laws.

a scarcely less rapid change was effected in the interior of society, where the law of descent completed the abolition of local influences.

at the very time when this consequence of the laws and of the revolution became apparent to every eye, victory was irrevocably pronounced in favor of the democratic cause. all power was, in fact, in its hands, and resistance was no longer possible. the higher orders submitted without a murmur and without a struggle to an evil which was thenceforth inevitable. the ordinary fate of falling powers awaited them; each of their several members followed his own interest; and as it was impossible to wring the power from the hands of a people which they did not detest sufficiently to brave, their only aim was to secure its good-will at any price. the most democratic laws were consequently voted by the very men whose interests they impaired; and thus, although the higher classes did not excite the passions of the people against their order, they accelerated the triumph of the new state of things; so that, by a singular change, the democratic impulse was found to be most irresistible in the very states where the aristocracy had the firmest hold.

the state of maryland, which had been founded by men of rank, was the first to proclaim universal suffrage,{61} and to introduce the most democratic forms into the conduct of its government.

when a nation modifies the elective qualification, it may easily be foreseen that sooner or later that qualification will be entirely abolished. there is no more invariable rule in the history of society: the farther electoral rights are extended, the more is felt the need of extending them; for after each concession the strength of the democracy increases, and its demands increase with its strength. the ambition of those who are below the appointed rate is irritated in exact proportion to the great number of those who are above it. the exception at last becomes the rule, concession follows concession, and no stop can be made short of universal suffrage.

at the present day the principle of the sovereignty of the people has acquired, in the united states, all the practical development which the imagination can conceive. it is unencumbered by those fictions which have been thrown over it in other countries, and it appears in every possible form according to the exigency of the occasion. sometimes the laws are made by the people in a body, as at athens; and sometimes its representatives, chosen by universal suffrage, transact business in its name, and almost under its immediate control.

in some countries a power exists which, though it is in a degree foreign to the social body, directs it, and forces it to pursue a certain track. in others the ruling force is divided, being partly within and partly without the ranks of the people. but nothing of the kind is to be seen in the united states; there society governs itself for itself. all power centres in its bosom; and scarcely an individual is to be met with who would venture to conceive, or, still more, to express, the idea of seeking it elsewhere. the nation participates in the making of its laws by the choice of its legislators, and in the execution of them by the choice of the agents of the executive government; it may almost be said to govern itself, so feeble and so restricted is the share left to the administration, so little do the authorities forget their popular origin and the power from which they emanate.{62}