|
Second conversation with Mr. Walker
Our Constitution was drafted at a time when the democratic
party represented by Jefferson was triumphing throughout the Union. One cannot fail to recognize the political feelings
under the power of which it was drafted. It is democratic. The government is a very great deal weaker beyond bounds
than any other. The Governor counts for absolutely nothing and is paid only 1,200 dollars. The people appoint the
Justices of the Peace and control [word unknown] the ordinary judges. The Legislature and the Senate change every
year.
In general what distinguishes our legislation and that of all
the new States of the West is boldness of innovation, mistrust of the past and of caution, the need to have a clean slate
and to shake free from legal technicalities so as to get quickly to the bottom of things. There is this same
freedom of mind everywhere. Nothing is fixed, nothing regulated with us, neither in lay society nor even in religious.
Everything is driven by individual impulse which shows a complete absence of established opinions.
Q. Does the people often make good choices?
A. No. It almost always makes indifferent or bad ones. Here
one finds a permanent and active jealousy on democracy's part, not against the upper classes for they do not exist, but
against all who rise from its ranks by their wealth, their talents and their services. We saw a striking example of this at
the last election. General Harrison, a former member of Congress, a well-known general, governor of a territory and
twice a minister abroad, put up as a candidate for our legislature. He failed. His chief opponent was a young man whom
we had seen three years before selling cakes at street corners. Since then, it is true, he has
studied to become a lawyer: he succeeded.
In Massachusetts, which I consider the most perfect model
for a republican government, there is no ostensible canvassing for votes; the people by itself almost always chooses the
most noteworthy men. In the West a candidate must go an harangue his partisans in the public places, and drinks with
them in taverns.
Q. Are you not at all afraid of this excessive development of
the principle of democracy?
A. Yes. I would never say it in public, but I admit it between
ourselves, I am afraid of the movement that carries us along. The United States seems in a state of crisis. At the moment
we are making the experiment of a democracy without limits; everything tends that way; but can we make it work? No
one can yet assert that.
Q. I appreciate the distinctive features characteristic of the
social and political condition of the Western States. Will they not, what is more, bring into the affairs of the Union
interests which are peculiar to them and of a nature calculated to upset the present equilibrium?
A. That question needs a full answer: The West has no
interests contrary to those of the rest, at least not at present, and there is no sign that it may develop them one day. The
North of the United States is almost exclusively manufacturing, and the South exclusively agricultural. The West is both
one and the other at the same time, Nothing indicates a future collision between its interests and those of other parts of
the United States. However its growth must necessarily give a different look to the Union. There are already 5,000,000
inhabitants in the Mississippi valley. I do not doubt that in twenty years time the majority of the population of the
United States will be to the West of the Ohio; the greatest wealth and the greatest power will be found in the basin of
the Mississippi and Missouri. Then it will be necessary to change the position of the capital which will have come to
be at the edge of the nation. The movement of power and wealth will of necessity bring new combinations which it is
impossible to foresee.
Q. Have you no fear that it may be impossible to hold together
this huge body?
A. Everything is going well up till now; there is even at the
bottom of our hearts a strong interest attaching us to the Union. However I am not without my fears about its duration.
There are several causes weakening the federal bond. First of all in all the States there is a fund of jealousy of the central
government. It is easy to notice that. The excessive development of the principle of democracy in the West makes the
new States even more impatient of the yoke of the Union and the restrictions it puts on their sovereignty. I cannot stop
worrying about the tariff affair. South Carolina has really taken a menacing attitude; she is supported by almost all the
Southern States.
The party leaders in that part of the Union seem determined
to gain power, cost what it will, and inflame passions which, in my view, are unreasonable. The growth of the North
and the weakening of the South have partly destroyed the equilibrium of the Union. A question which is full of menace
still in the future is that of the uncultivated lands. You know that Congress owns all the uncultivated lands. It also
possesses immense tracts of land enclosed within the new States. These States are beginning to make loud claims for
the possession of these lands. Indiana and Illinois have already pressed their claims energetically. That is one point of
collision between the States and the Union. There are several others as well.
Q. Is it true that the central government distributes all the
places to its dependents without bothering about their ability?
A. Yes. When General Jackson came to power he dismissed
1,200 officials for no other reason than that he wanted to put his partisans in their place. Since then he has continued
with the same folly. Places have served to pay for services to him personally. That is what I blame him for most; he has
introduced corruption into the central government and his example will be followed. All the journalists who worked for
him have been given places. For appointments even up to the Supreme Court he has picked among his friends.
Q. To return to Ohio; is it true that religious ideas have less
power there than in the other parts of the Union?
A. There are many unbelievers in Ohio, and, especially, they
flaunt themselves more openly than elsewhere. For, as I said before, there less than anywhere else are there accepted
standards to which everyone must submit. Everyone is more himself. But the mass of the people is at least as much, and
perhaps more, soaked in religious feeling there than in any of the other States of the Union, not excepting New England.
It is, it is true, a less enlightened religion. Living in the forests, having to fight against all the ills of life, the inhabitants
of the new States cannot receive the same education as those in the old States.
The sect of Methodists predominates in all the valley of the
Mississippi and of the Ohio. But the lack of established rules and of method makes itself felt in that as in all other
matters. Much of the population has neither church nor regular worship. Traveling clergy come to preach the Gospel
to them. Often the first comer performs that function.
One never sees in the country districts there, as in New
England, pastors of recognized competence with fixed stipends.
Q. Is it true that there is a great difference between the spirit
of Ohio and that of Kentucky?
A. Prodigious. However Kentucky was peopled twenty years
before Ohio; the soil there is as fertile; the climate more temperate; the country lovely. But Ohio has three times as many
inhabitants as Kentucky, and its enterprises are ten times as great. The population of Kentucky increases, but its
prosperity is stationary. The only reason that one can give for this difference is that slavery reigns in Kentucky, but not
in Ohio. There work is a disgrace, here it is honorable. There, there is idleness, here endless activity. Kentucky receives
no emigrants. Ohio attracts industrious people from all parts of the Union; the South, which moreover receives none,
sends its inhabitants there; the poor classes from the South come to Ohio because they can work there without disgrace.
I can see no reason why slavery should cease in Kentucky. The existing population, though recognizing the evils it
causes, is unable to learn to do without it; there is no emigration.
Q. In Ohio you have made very severe laws against the
blacks.
A. Yes. We try and discourage them in every possible way.
Not only have we made laws allowing them to be expelled at will, but we hamper them in a thousand ways. A Negro
has no political rights; he cannot be a juror; he cannot give evidence against a white. That last law sometimes leads to
revolting injustices. The other day I was consulted by a Negro who had supplied a lot of victuals to the master of a
steamboat. The white denied the debt. As the creditor was black, and as all his assistants were the same and so could
not give evidence on his behalf as they could not appear in court, there was no way of even starting a case.
Q. Are the laws changed often?
A. Incessantly. That is one of the greatest disadvantages of
our democracy. However, as a result,many parts of legislation are good.
|