SECTION I. SECTION I. 
This word, at least its meaning, is no more likely to becomeobsolete in a republic than among the Hindoos themselves. Thedistinctive characteristics may vary; but there will be rank, andtenacity of rank, wherever there is society. As this is natural,inevitable, it is of course right. The question must be what isto entitle to rank.
As the feudal qualifications for rank are absolutelynon-existent in America, (except in the slave States, where thereare two classes, without any minor distinctions,) it seems absurdthat the feudal remains of rank in Europe should be imitated inAmerica. Wherever the appearance of a conventional aristocracyexists in America, it must arise from wealth, as it cannot frombirth. An aristocracy of mere wealth is vulgar everywhere. In arepublic, it is vulgar in the extreme.
This is the only kind of vulgarity I saw in the United States.I imagine that the English who have complained the most copiouslyof the vulgarity of American manners, have done so from twocauses: from using their own conventional notions as a standardof manners, (which is a vulgarism in themselves;) and also fromtheir intercourses with the Americans having been confined tothose who consider themselves the aristocracy of the UnitedStates; the wealthy and showy citizens of the Atlantic ports.Foreign travellers are most hospitably received by this class ofsociety; introduced to "the first people inBoston,"--"in New York," --"inPhiladelphia;" and taught to view the country with the eyesof their hosts. No harm is intended here: it is very natural: butit is not the way for strangers to obtain an understanding of thecountry and the people. The traveller who chooses industriouslyto see for himself, not with European or aristocratic merely, butwith human eyes, will find the real aristocracy of the country,not only in ball-rooms and bank-parlours, but also infishing-boats, in stores, in college chambers, and behind theplough. Till he has seen all this, and studied the naturalmanners of the natural aristocracy, he is no more justified inapplying the word "vulgar" to more than a class, thanan American would be who should call all the English vulgar, whenhe had seen only the London alderman class.
I had the opportunity of perceiving what errors mightarise from this cause. I was told a great deal about "thefirst people in Boston:" which is perhaps as aristocratic,vain, and vulgar a city, as described by its own "firstpeople," as any in the world. Happily, however, Boston hasmerits which these people know not of. I am far from thinking it,as they do, the most religious, the most enlightened, and themost virtuous city in the world. There are other cities in theUnited States which, on the whole, I think more virtuous and moreenlightened: but I certainly am not aware of so large a number ofpeculiarly interesting and valuable persons living in nearneighbourhood, anywhere else but in London. But it happens thatthese persons belong chiefly to the natural, very few to theconventional, aristocracy. They have little perceptibleinfluence. Society does not seem to be mucll the better for them.They save their own souls; but, as regards society, the saltappears to have lost its savour. It is so sprinkled as not toseason the body. With men and women enough on the spot to redeemsociety from false morals, and empty religious profession, Bostonis the head-quarters of Cant. Notwithstanding its superiorintelligence, its large provision of benevolent institutions, andits liberal hospitality, there is an extraordinary and mostpernicious union, in more than a few scattered instances, ofprofligacy and the worst kind of infidelity, with a strictreligious profession, and an outward demeanour of remarkablepropriety. The profligacy and infidelity might, I fear, be foundin all other cities, on both sides the water; but nowhere,probably, in absolute co-existence with ostensible piety. This isnot the connexion in which to speak of the religious aspect ofthe matter; but, as regards the cant, I believe that it proceedschiefly from the spirit of caste which flourishes in a societywhich on Sundays and holidays professes to have abjured it. It istrue that the people of New England have put away duelling; butthe feelings which used to vent themselves by the practice ofduelling are cherished by the members of the conventionalaristocracy. This is revealed, not only by the presence of cant,but by the confessions of some who are bold enough not to pretendto be either republicans or christians. There are some few whoopenly desire a monarchy; and a few more who constantly insinuatethe advantages of a monarchy, and the distastefulness of arepublic. It is observable that such always argue on thesupposition that if there were a monarchy, they should be thearistocracy: a point in which I imagine they would findthemselves mistaken, if so impossible an event could happen atall. This class, or coterie, is a very small one, and notinfluential; though a gentleman of the kind once ventured to giveutterance to his aspirations after monarchy in a fourth of Julyoration; and afterwards to print them. There is somethingvenerable in his intrepidity, at least. The reproach of cant doesnot attach to him.
The children are such faithful reflectors of this spirit as toleave no doubt of its existence, even amidst the nicestoperations of cant. Gentlemen may disguise their aristocraticaspirations under sighs for the depressed state of literature andscience; supposing that wealth and leisure are the constituentsof literature; and station the proximate cause of science; andcommitting the slight mistake of assuming that the naturalaristocracy of England, her philosophers and poets, have beenidentical with, or originated by, her conventional aristocracy.The ladies may conceal their selfish pride of caste, even fromthemselves, under pretensions to superior delicacy andrefinement. But the children use no such disguises. Out they comewith what they learn at home. A school-girl told me what adelightful "set" she belonged to at her school:how comfortable they all were once, without any sets, tillseveral grocers' daughters began to come in, as their fathersgrew rich; and it became necessary for the higher girls toconsider what they should do, and to form themselves into sets.She told me how the daughter of a lottery office-keeper came tothe school; and no set would receive her; how unkindly she wastreated, and how difficult it was for any individual to help her,because she had not spirit or temper enough to help hersel£ Myinformant went on to mention how anxious she and her set, ofabout sixty young people, were to visit exclusively amongthemselves, how "delightful" it would be to have nogrocers daughters among them; but that it was found to beimpossible.
Here is an education to be going on in the middle of arepublic! Much solace, however, lies in the last clause of theinformation above quoted. The Exclusives do find their aims'impossible.' They will neither have a monarchy, nor be able tocomplete and close their 'sets:' least of all will any republicanfunctions be discharged by those who are brought up to have anyrespect of occupations, --to regard a grocer as beneath a banker.The chief effect of the aristocratic spirit in a democracy is tomake those who are possessed by it exclusives in a double sense;in being excluded yet more than in excluding. The republicsuffers no further than by having within it a small class actingupon anti-republican morals, and becoming thereby its perversechildren, instead of its wise and useful friends and servants.
In Philatlelphia, I was much in society. Some of my hospitableacquaintances lived in Chesnut Street, some in Arch Street, andmany in other places. When I had been a few weeks in the city, Ifound to my surprise that some of the ladies who were myadmiration had not only never seen or heard of other beautifulyoung ladies whom I admired quite as much, but never would see orhear of them. I inquired again and again for a solution of thismystery. One person told me that a stranger could not see intothe usages of their society. This was just what I was feeling tobe true; but it gave me no satisfaction. Another said that themutual ignorance was from the fathers of the Arch Street ladieshaving made their fortunes, while the Chesnut Street ladies owedtheirs to their grandfathers. Another, who was amused with a newfashion of curtseying, just introduced, declared it was from theArch Street ladies rising twice on their toes before curtseying,while the Chesnut Street ladies rose thrice. I was sure of onlyone thing in the matter; that it was a pity that the partiesshould lose the pleasure of admiring each other, for no betterreasons than these: and none better were apparent.
It is not to be supposed that the mere circumstance of livingin a republic will ever eradicate that kind of self-love whichtakes the form of family pride. It is a stage in the transit fromselfishness to benevolence; and therefore natural and useful inits proper time and place. As every child thinks his father thewisest man in tbe world, the loving member of a family thinks hisrelations the greatest, best and happiest of people, till he getsan intimate knowledge of some others. This species ofexclusiveness exists wherever there are families. An eminentpublic man, travelling in a somewhat retired part of his State,told us how he had been amused with an odd instance of familypride which had just come under his notice. Some plain farmers,brothers, had claimed to be his cousins; and he found they wereso. They introduced each other to him; and one brought hisson,--a hideous little Flibbertigibbet, with a shock of carrotyhair. His father complacently stroked his hair, and declared hewas exactly like his uncle Richard: his uncle Richard over again;'twas wonderful how like his uncle Richard he was in allrespects: the hair was the very same; and his uncle Richard wasdumb till very late, and then stammered: "and this littlefellow," said the father, with a complacentsmile,--"this little fellow is six years old, and he can'tspeak a word."
No one will find fault with the pride of connexion in thisstage. Supposing it to remain in its present state, it isharmless from its extreme smallness. In a city, under thestimulus of society, the same pride may be either perverted intothe spirit of caste, or exalted into the affection of purerepublican brotherhood. The alternative is significant as to thestate of the republic, and all-important to the individual.
The extent and influence of the conventional aristocracy inthe United States are significant of the state of the republic sofar as that they afford an accurate measure of theanti-republican spirit which exists. Such an aristocracy mustremain otherwise too insignificant to be dangerous. It cannotchoose its own members, restrict its own numbers, or keep itsgentility from contamination; for it must be perpetuated, not byhereditary transmission, but by accessions from below. Grocersgrow rich, and mechanics become governors of States; and happilythere is no law, nor reason, nor desire that it should heotherwise. This little cloud will always overhang the republic,like the perpetual vapour which hovers above Niagara, thrown upby the force and regularity of the movement below. Some observersmay be sorry that the heaven is never to be quite clear: but nonewill dread the little cloud. It would be about as reasonable tofear that the white vapour should drown the cataract from whenceit issues as that the conventional aristocracy of America shouldswamp the republic.
From Harriet Martineau, Society in America, VolumeIII, Part III, Chapter I, Section I - " Caste." London:Saunders and Otley, 1837, pp. 28-37.
Forward to Society in America, VolumeIII, Part III, Chapter I, Section II - "Property."
Back to Society in America, Volume III,Part III, Chapter I - "Idea of Honour."
Back to Society in America - Table ofContents
Back to the Dead Sociologists'Society Index