Kitabı oku: «Diary in America, Series Two», sayfa 15

Volume Two—Chapter Six

Aristocracy

If the Americans should imagine that I have any pleasure in writing the contents of this chapter they will be mistaken; I have considered well the duty of and pondered over it. I would not libel an individual, much less a whole nation; but I must speak the truth, and upon due examination, and calling to my mind all that I have collected from observation and otherwise, I consider that at this present time the standard of morality is lower in America than in any other portion of the civilised globe. I say at this present time, for it was not so even twenty years ago, and possibly may not be so twenty years hence. There is a change constantly going on in every thing below, and I believe, for many reasons, that a change for the better will soon take place in America. There are even now many thousands of virtuous, honourable, and enlightened people in the United States, but at present virtue is passive, while vice is active.

The Americans possess courage, presence of mind, perseverance, and energy, but these may be considered rather as endowments than as virtues. They are propelling powers which will advance them as a people, and, were they regulated and tempered by religious and moral feeling, would make them great and good, but without these adjuncts they can only become great and vicious.

I have observed in my preface that the virtues and vices of a nation are to be traced to the form of government, the climate, and circumstances, and it will be easy to shew that to the above may be ascribed much of the merit as well as the demerits of the people of the United States.

In the first place, I consider the example set by the government as most injurious: as I shall hereafter prove, it is insatiable in its ambition, regardless of its faith, and corrupt to the highest degree. This example I consider as the first cause of the demoralisation of the Americans. The errors incident to the voluntary system of religion are the second: the power of the clergy is destroyed, and the tyranny of the laity has produced the effect of the outward form having been substituted for the real feeling, and hypocrisy has been but too often substituted for religion.

To the evil of bad example from the government is superadded the natural tendency of a democratic form of government, to excite ambition without having the power to gratify it morally or virtuously; and the debasing influence of the pursuit of gain is everywhere apparent. It shews itself in the fact that money is in America everything, and everything else nothing; it is the only sure possession, for character can at any time be taken from you, and therefore becomes less valuable than in other countries, except so far as mercantile transactions are concerned. Mr Cooper says—not once, but many times—that in America all the local affections, indeed everything, is sacrificed to the spirit of gain. Dr Charming constantly laments it, and he very truly asserts, “A people that deems the possession of riches its highest source of distinction, admits one of the most degrading of all influences to preside over its opinions. At no time should money be ever ranked as more than a means, and he who lives as if the acquisition of property were the sole end of his existence, betrays the dominion of the most sordid, base, and grovelling motive that life offers;” and ascribing it to the institutions, he says, “In one respect our institutions have disappointed us all: they have not wrought out for us that elevation of character which is the most precious, and, in truth, the only substantial blessing of liberty.”

I have before observed, that whatever society permits, men will do and not consider to be wrong, and if the government considers a breach of trust towards it as not of any importance, and defaulters are permitted to escape, it will of course become no crime in the eyes of the majority. Mr Cooper observes, “An evident dishonesty of sentiment pervades the public itself, which is beginning to regard acts of private delinquency with a dangerous indifference; acts too that are inseparably connected with the character, security, and right administration of the state.”

Such is unfortunately the case at present; it may be said to have commenced with the Jackson dynasty, and it is but a few years since this dreadful demoralisation has become so apparent and so shamelessly avowed. In another work the American author above quoted observes,—“We see the effects of this baneful influence in the openness and audacity with which men avow improper motives and improper acts, trusting to find support in a popular feeling, for while vicious influences are perhaps more admitted in other countries than in America, in none are they so openly avowed.” Surely there is sufficient of American authority to satisfy any reader that I am not guilty of exaggeration in my remarks. Nor am I the only traveller who has observed upon what is indeed most evident and palpable. Captain Hamilton says, “I have heard conduct praised in conversation at a public table, which, in England, would be attended, if not with a voyage to Botany Bay, at least with total loss of character. It is impossible to pass an hour in the bar of the hotel, without struck with the tone of callous selfishness which pervades the conversation, and the absence of all pretension to pure and lofty principle.”

It may indeed be fairly said, that nothing is disgraceful with the majority in America, which the law cannot lay hold of.²⁵ You are either in or out of the Penitentiary: if once in, you are lost for ever, but keep out and you are as good as your neighbour. Now one thing is certain, that where honesty is absolutely necessary, honesty is to be found, as for example among the New York merchants, who are, as a body, highly honourable men. When, therefore, the Americans will have moral courage sufficient to drive away vice, and not allow virtue to be in bondage, as she at present is, the morals of society will be instantly restored—and how and when will this be effected? I have said that the people of time United States, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, were perhaps the most moral people existing, and I now assert that they are the least so; to what cause can this change be ascribed? Certainly not wholly to the spirit of gain, for it exists every where, although perhaps nowhere so strongly developed as it is under a form of government which admits of no other claim to superiority. I consider that it arises from the total extinction, or if not extinction absolute bondage, of the aristocracy of the country, both politically as well as socially. There was an aristocracy at the time of the Independence—not an aristocracy of title, but a much superior one; an aristocracy of great, powerful, and leading men, who were looked up to and imitated; there was, politically speaking, an aristocracy in the senate which was elected by those who were then independent of the popular will; but although a portion of it remains, it may be said to have been almost altogether smothered, and in society it no longer exists. It is the want of this aristocracy that has so lowered the standard of morals in America, and it is the revival of it that must restore to the people of the United States the morality they have lost. The loss of the aristocracy has sunk the Republic into a democracy—the renewal of it will again restore them to their former condition. Let not the Americans start at this idea. An aristocracy is not only not incompatible, but absolutely necessary for the duration of a democratic form of government. It is the third estate, so necessary to preserve the balance of power between the executive and the people, and which has unfortunately disappeared. An aristocracy is as necessary for the morals as for the government of a nation. Society must have a head to lead it, and without that head there will be no fixed standard of morality, and things must remain in the chaotic state in which they are at present.

Some author has described the English nation as resembling their own beer-froth at the top, dregs at the bottom, and in the middle excellent. There is point in this observation, and it has been received without criticism, and quoted without contradiction: but it is in itself false; it may be said that the facts are directly the reverse, there being more morality among the lower class than in the middling, and still more in the higher than in the lower. We have been designated as a nation of shopkeepers, a term certainly more applicable to the Americans, where all are engaged in commerce and the pursuit of gain, and who have no distinctions or hereditary titles. Trade demoralises; there are so many petty arts and frauds necessary to be resorted to by every class in trade, to enable them to compete with each other; so many lies told, as a matter of business, to tempt a purchaser, that almost insensibly and by degrees the shopkeeper becomes dishonest. These demoralising practices must be resorted to, even by those who would fain avoid them, or they have no chance of competing with their rivals in business. It is not the honest tradesman who makes a rapid fortune; indeed, it is doubtful whether he could carry on his business; and yet, from assuetude and not being taxed with dishonesty, the shopkeeper scarcely ever feels that he is dishonest. Now, this is the worst state of demoralisation, where you are blind to your errors and conscience is never awakened, and in this state may be considered, with few exceptions, every class of traders, whether in England, America, or elsewhere.

Among the lower classes, the morals of the manufacturing districts, and of the frequenters of cities, will naturally be at a low ebb, for men when closely packed demoralise each other; but if we examine the agricultural classes, which are by far the most numerous, we shall find that there is much virtue and goodness in the humble cottage; we shall there find piety and resignation, honesty, industry, and content, more universal than would be imagined, and the Bible pored over, instead of the day-book or ledger.

But it is by the higher classes of the English nation, by the nobility and gentry of England, that the high tone of virtue and morality is upheld. Foreigners, especially Americans, are too continually pointing out, and with evident satisfaction, the scandal arising from the conduct of some few individuals in these classes as a proof of the conduct of the whole; but they mistake the exceptions for the rule. If they were to pay attention, they would perceive that these accusations are only confined to some few out of a class comprehending many many thousands in our wealthy isle, and that the very circumstance of their rank being no shield against the attacks made upon them, is a proof that they are exceptions, whose conduct is universally held up to public ridicule or indignation. A crim. con. in English high life is exulted over by the Americans; they point to it, and exclaim, “See what your aristocracy are!” forgetting that the crime is committed by one out of thousands, and that it meets with the disgrace which it deserves, and that this crime is, to a certain degree, encouraged by our laws relative to divorce. Do the Americans imagine that there is no crim. con. perpetrated in the United States? many instances of suspicion, and some of actual discovery, came to my knowledge even during my short residence there, but they were invariably, and perhaps judiciously, hushed up, for the sake of the families and the national credit. I do not wish, nor would it be possible, to draw any parallel between the two nations on this point; I shall only observe that in England we have not considered the vice to have become so prevalent as to think it necessary to form societies for the prevention of it, as they have done in the United States.

It has been acknowledged by other nations, and I believe it to be true, that the nobility and gentry of England are the most moral, most religious, and most honourable classes that can be found not only in our country, but in any other country in the world, and such they certainly ought from circumstances to be.

Possessed of competence, they have no incentives to behave dishonestly. They are well-educated, the finest race of men and women that can be produced, and the men are brought up to athletic and healthy amusements. They have to support the honour of an ancient family, and to hand down the name untarnished to their posterity. They have every inducement to noble deeds, and are, generally speaking, above the necessities which induce men to go wrong. If the Americans would assert that luxury produces vice, I can only say that luxury infers idleness and inactivity, and on this point the women of the aristocracy in this country have the advantage over the American women, who cannot, from the peculiarity of the climate, take time exercise so universally resorted to by our higher classes. I admit that some go wrong, but is error confined to the nobility alone; are there no spendthrifts, no dissolute young men, or ill brought up young women, among other classes? Are there none in America? Moreover, there are some descriptions of vice which are meaner than others and more debasing to the mind, and it is among the middling and lower classes that these vices are principally to be found.

The higher classes invariably take the lead, and give the tone to society. If the court be moral, so are the morals of the nation improved by example, as in the time of George the Third. If the court be dissolute, as in the time of Charles the Second, the nation will plunge into vice. Now, in America there is no one to take the lead; morals, like religion, are the concern of nobody, and therefore it is that the standard of morality is so low. I have heard it argued that allowing one party to have a very low standard of morality and to act up to that standard, and another to have a high standard of morality and not to act up to it, that the former is the really moral man, as he does act up to his principles such as they are. This may hold good when we examine into the virtues and vices of nations: that the American Indian who acts up to his own code and belief, both in morality and religion, may be more worthy than a Christian who neglects his duty, may be true; but the question now is upon the respective morality of two enlightened nations, both Christian and having the Bible as their guide—between those who have neither of them any pretence to lower the standard of morality, as they both know better. M. Tocqueville observes, speaking of the difference between aristocratical and democratical governments—“In aristocratic governments the individuals who are placed at the head of affairs are rich men, who are solely desirous of power. In democracies statesmen are poor, and they have their fortunes to make. The consequence is, that in aristocratic States the rulers are rarely accessible to corruption, and have very little craving for money; whilst the reverse is the case in democratic nations.”

This is true, and may be fairly applied to the American democracy: as long as you will not allow the good and enlightened to rule, you will be governed by those who will flatter and cheat you, and demoralise society. When you allow your aristocracy to take the reins, you will be better governed, and your morals will improve by example. What is the situation of America at present? the aristocracy of the country are either in retirement or have migrated, and if the power of the majority should continue as it now does its despotic rule, you will have still farther emigration. At present there are many hundreds of Americans who have retired to the Old Continent, that they may receive that return for their wealth which they cannot in their own country; and if not flattered, they are at least not insulted and degraded.

Mr Sanderson, in his “Sketches from Paris,” says—“The American society at Paris, taken altogether, is of a good composition. It consists of several hundred persons, of families of fortune, and young men of liberal instruction. Here are lords of cotton from Carolina, and of sugar-cane from the Mississippi, millionaires from all the Canadas, and pursers from all the navies; and their social qualities, from a sense of mutual dependence or partnership in absence, or some such causes, are more active abroad than at home.

“They form a little republic apart, and when a stranger arrives he finds himself at home; he finds himself also under the censorial inspection of a public opinion, a salutary restraint not always the luck of those who travel into foreign countries. One thing only is to be blamed: it becomes every day more the fashion for the élite of our cities to settle themselves here permanently. We cannot but deplore this exportation of the precious metals, since our country is drained of what the supply is not too abundant. They who have resided here a few years, having fortune and leisure, do not choose, as I perceive, to reside anywhere else.”

This is the fact; and as the wealth of America increases every day, so will those who possess it swarm off as fast as they can to other countries, if there is not a change in the present society, and a return to something like order and rank. Who would remain in a country where there is no freedom of thought or action, and where you cannot even spend your money as you please? Mr Butler the other day built a house at Philadelphia with a porte-cochere, and the consequence was that they called him an aristocrat, and would not vote for him. In short, will enlightened and refined people live to be dictated to by a savage and ignorant majority, who will neither allow your character nor your domestic privacy to be safe!

The Americans, in their fear of their institutions giving way, and their careful guard against any encroachments upon the liberty of the people, have fallen into the error of sacrificing the most virtuous portion of the community, and driving a large portion of them out of the country. This will eventually be found to be a serious evil; absenteeism will daily increase, and will be as sorely felt as it is in Ireland at the present hour. The Americans used to tell me with exultation, that they never could have an Aristocracy in their country, from the law of entail having been abolished. They often asserted, and with some truth, that in that country property never accumulated beyond two generations, and that the grandson of a millionaire was invariably a pauper. This they ascribe to the working of their institutions, and argue that it will always be impossible for any family to be raised above the mass by a descent of property. Now the very circumstance of this having been invariably the case, induces me to look for the real cause of it, as there is none to be found in their institutions why all the grandsons of millionaires should be paupers. It is not owing to their institutions, but to moral causes, which, although they have existed until now, will not exist for ever. In the principal and wealthiest cities in the Union, it is difficult to spend more than twelve or fifteen thousand dollars per annum, as with such an expenditure you are on a par with the highest, and you can be no more. What is the consequence? a young American succeeds to fifty or sixty thousand dollars a year, the surplus is useless to him; there is no one to vie with—no one who can reciprocate—he must stand alone. He naturally feels careless about what he finds to be of no use to him. Again, all his friends and acquaintances are actively employed during the whole of the day in their several occupations; he is a man of leisure, and must either remain alone or associate with other men of leisure; and who are the majority of men of leisure in the towns of the United States? Blacklegs of genteel exterior and fashionable appearance, with whom he associates, into whose snares he falls, and to whom he eventually loses property about which he is indifferent. To be an idle man when every body else is busy, is not only a great unhappiness, but a situation of great peril. Had the sons of millionaires, who remained in the States and left their children paupers, come over to the old Continent, as many have done, they would have stood a better chance of retaining their property.

All I can say is, that if they cannot have an aristocracy, the worse for them; I am not of the opinion, that they will not have one, although they are supported by the strong authority of M. Tocqueville, who says—“I do not think a single people can be quoted, since human society began to exist, which has, by its own free-will and by its own exertions, created an aristocracy within its own bosom. All the aristocracies of the Middle Ages were founded by military conquest: the conqueror was the noble, the vanquished became the serf. Inequality was then imposed by force; and after it had been introduced into the manners of the country, it maintained its own authority, and was sanctioned by the legislation. Communities have existed which were aristocratic from their earliest origin, owing to circumstances anterior to that event, and which became more democratic in each succeeding age. Such was the destiny of the Romans, and of the barbarians after them. But a people, having taken its rise in civilisation and democracy, which should gradually establish an inequality of conditions, until it arrived at inviolable privileges and exclusive castes, would be a novelty in the world and nothing intimates that America is likely to furnish so singular an example.”

I grant that no single people has by its own free-will created an aristocracy, but circumstances will make one in spite of the people; and if there is no aristocracy who have power to check, a despotism may be the evil arising from the want of it. At present America is thinly peopled, but let them look forward to the time when the population shall become denser; what will then be the effect? why a division between the rich and the poor will naturally take place; and what is that but the foundation if not the formation of an aristocracy. An American cannot entail his estate, but he can leave the whole of it to his eldest son if he pleases; and in a few years, the lands which have been purchased for a trifle, will become the foundation of noble fortunes²⁶ but even now their law of non-entail does not work as they would wish.

M. Tocqueville says—“The laws of the United States are extremely favourable to the division of property; but a cause which is more powerful than the laws prevents property from being divided to excess.²⁷ This is very perceptible in the States which are beginning to be thickly peopled; Massachusetts is the most populous part of the Union, but it contains only eighty inhabitants to the square mile, which is much less than in France, where a hundred and sixty-two are reckoned to the same extent of country. But in Massachusetts estates are very rarely divided; the eldest son takes the land, and the others go to seek their fortune in the desert. The law has abolished the rights of primogeniture, but circumstances have concurred to re-establish it under a form of which none can complain, and by which no just rights are impaired.”

And Chancellor Kent, in his “Treatise upon American Law,” observes—“It cannot be doubted that the division of landed estates must produce great evils when it is carried to such excess as that each parcel of land is insufficient to support a family but these disadvantages have never been felt in the United States, and many generations must elapse before they can be felt. The extent of our inhabited territory, the abundance of adjacent land, and the continual stream of emigration flowing from the shores of the Atlantic towards the interior of the country, suffice as yet, and will long suffice, to prevent the parcelling out of estates.”

There is, therefore, no want of preparation for an aristocracy in America, and, although at present the rich are so much in the minority that they cannot coalesce, such will not be the case, perhaps, in twenty or thirty years; they have but to rally and make a stand when they become more numerous and powerful, and they have every chance of success. The fact is that an aristocracy is absolutely necessary for America, both politically and morally, if the Americans wish their institutions to hold together, for if some stop is not put to the rapidly advancing power of the people, anarchy must be the result. I do not mean an aristocracy of title; I mean such an aristocracy of talent and power which wealth will give—an aristocracy which shall lead society and purify it. How is this to be obtained in a democracy?—simply by purchase. In a country where the suffrage is confined to certain classes, as in England, such purchase is not to be obtained, as the people who have the right of suffrage are not poor enough to be bought; but in a country like America, where the suffrage is universal, the people will eventually sell their birth-right; and if by such means an aristocratical government is elected, it will be able to amend the constitution, and pass what laws it pleases. This may appear visionary, but it has been proved already that it can be done, and if it can be done now, how much more easily will it be accomplished when the population has quadrupled, and the division commences between the rich and the poor. I say it has been done already, for it was done at the last New York election. The democratic party made sure of success: but a large sum of money was brought into play, and the whole of the committees of the democratic party were bought over, and the Whigs carried the day.

The greatest security for the duration of the present institutions of the United States is the establishment of an aristocracy. It is the third power which was intended to act, but which has been destroyed and is now wanting. Let the senate be aristocratical—let the congress be partially so, and then what would be the American government of president, senate, and congress, but mutato nomine, king, lords, and commons?

I cannot perhaps find a better opportunity than here of pointing out what ought to be made known to the English, as it has done more harm to the American aristocracy than may be imagined. I refer to the carelessness and facility with which letters of introduction to this country are given, and particularly by the American authorities. I have drawn the character of Bennett, the editor of the Morning Herald of New York, and there is not a respectable American but will acknowledge that my sketch of him is correct; will it not surprise the English readers when I inform them that this man obtained admittance to Westminster Hall at the Coronation, and was seated among the proudest and purest of our nobility!! Such was the fact. But it will be as well to revert back a little to what has passed.

During the time that England was at war with nearly the whole of Europe, the Americans were to a great degree isolated and unknown, except as carriers of merchandise under the neutral flag; but they were rapidly advancing in importance and wealth. At the conclusion of the last American war, during which, by their resolute and occasionally successful struggles, they had drawn the eyes of Europe towards them, and had advanced many degrees in the general estimation of their importance as a nation, the Americans occasionally made their appearance as travellers, both on the Continent and in England; but they found that they were not so well received as their own ideas of their importance induced them to imagine they were entitled to be; especially on the Continent.

The first great personage who shewed liberality in this respect, was George the Fourth. Hearing that some American ladies of good family had complained that, having no titles, no standing in society, they did not meet with that civility to which, from descent and education, they were entitled, he received them at Court most graciously, and those very ladies are now classed among the peeresses of Great Britain. Still the difficulty remained, as it was almost impossible for the aristocracy, abroad or at home, to ascertain the justness of the claims which were made by those of a nation who professed the equality of all classes, and of whom many of the pretenders to be well received did not by their appearance warrant the supposition that their claims were valid. It being impossible to give any other rank but that of office, the American Government hit upon a plan which was attended with very evil consequences. They granted supernumerary attaché-ships to those Americans who wished to travel; and as, on the Old Continent, the very circumstance of being an attaché to a foreign minister warranted the respectability of the party, those who obtained this distinction were well received, and, unfortunately, sometimes did no credit to their appointments. The fact was that these favours were granted without discrimination, and all who received them being put down as specimens of American gentlemen, the character of the Americans lost ground by the very efforts made to establish it. The true American gentlemen who travelled (and there is no lack of them) were supposed to be English, while the spurious were put down as samples of the gentility of the United States.

That the principles of equality were one great cause of the indiscriminate distribution of those marks of distinction by the highest quarters in the Union, and of the facility of obtaining letters of recommendation from them there is no doubt; but the principal and still existing causes, are the extended and domineering power of the press, and the high state of excitement of the political parties. Those in power are positively afraid to refuse literary men, or those who have assisted them in their political career; they have not the moral courage to do so, however undeserving the parties may really be. But, as is generally the case, they really do not know the parties; it is sufficient that the favour, considered trifling, is demanded, and it is instantly granted. Now, as at the accession of General Jackson, and the subsequent raising of Mr Van Buren to the presidency, the democratical, or Loco Foco party came into power, it is to their friends and supporters, the least respectable portion of the American community, to whom these favours have been granted; which of course has not assisted the claims of the Americans to respectability. An instance of this sort occurred to me after I had been a few months in America. One of the most gentleman-like and well-informed men in New York, requested that I would give a letter of introduction to a friend of his who was going to England. Taking it for granted that such a request would not be made without the party deserving the recommendation, I immediately assented. The party who obtained my letters (an editor of a paper, as I afterwards discovered), on his arrival in England, considering that he was not treated with that attention to which, in his own vain-gloriousness, he thought himself entitled, actually sent a hostile letter to one of the gentlemen to whom he had been introduced, and otherwise proved himself by his conduct to be a most improper person. I was informed of this by letters from England; and immediately went to the gentleman who had requested the introduction from me, and stated the conduct of the party. “I really am very sorry,” said he, “but I knew nothing of him.” “Knew nothing of him?” replied I. “No, indeed; but my friend Mr C, of Philadelphia, introduced him by letter, and requested me to ask for introductions for him.” “Then you will oblige me by writing to your friend Mr C, and ask him why he did so, as I find myself very much compromised by this affair.” He wrote to Mr C, of Philadelphia, who replied that he was very sorry, but that really he knew nothing of him. He had been introduced to him by letter, by Mr O, and that he was a staunch supporter of their party. Now, how many grades this person had climbed up by letters of introduction it is impossible to say, but this is sufficient to prove that letters of introduction which are, you may say, demanded, and not refused from the fear of offending a political agent or penny-a-liner, must ever be received with due caution; and it is equally certain, that those from the President himself are the most easy to be obtained.