adamant form of equality seen in the phenomenon of slavery vividly represents the Negro as democracy in extremis. Tocqueville further strengthens the analogy by suggesting that, due to the extremity of equality’s manifestation in the Negro, he’s also affected by some of democracy’s more pervasive, intangible effects. Thus, though an American should (and today usually would) find the comparison reprehensible, Tocqueville suggests the psyche of the enslaved Negro is the psyche of the democratic individual in a dark mirror. Precisely because this is such a hard truth to absorb, Tocqueville requires an extended metaphor to capture and express it. The Negro stands completely at the mercy of the tyranny and the omnipotence of the majority in democratic society. Existing within the system he allegorizes, the Negro not only serves as symbol for democracy but also serves to reveal certain commanding features of that system. The figure of the slave illustrates both democracy’s physical power and even more importantly, the way democracy configures the minds or psyches of the individuals that compose it. Tocqueville writes that in the democratic majority, “is vested a force that is moral as well as material, which shapes wills as much as actions and inhibits not only deeds but also the desire to do them” (293). Tocqueville describes the majority’s effectual arm—which is capable of physically restraining minority freedom in the polity—as the tyranny of the majority. He writes: “the majority of a people has the right to do absolutely anything” (288). He characterizes this majority as “an individual with opinions and, more often than not, interests contrary to those of another individual known as the minority,” and poses the following question: “if you are willing to concede that a man to whom omnipotence has been granted can abuse it to the detriment of his adversaries, why will you not concede that the same may be true of a majority?” (288-289). Through the enslavement of the Negro, we see Tocqueville’s characterization of the majority as
society is brilliant, glorious, powerful, passionate, feeling, enthusiastic, in possession of an “ardor of belief,” and “inspired by ambition or pure virtue” (10, 642). Similarly, Tocqueville describes the Indian as “rich in feeling and grandeur,” while his description of Tanner’s memoirs—and Tanner himself, who he met—reveals a sense of awe at their savage virtues In this way, aristocracy and the Indian appear similar. Of Indian virtues, Tocqueville writes, “Savage nations are governed by opinions and mores alone” and, through “undisciplined courage” and “spontaneous instincts,” they remain “free” and “proud” like the noble aristocracy (367, 369-370). Thus, the Indian and the aristocrat share the passionate peaks of a proud, class. However, in companion with the parallels in virtuous spirit, the Indian and the aristocrat also share a propensity for vice. As a result of their spiritual heights of passion, both the aristocrat and the Indian are susceptible to increased depravity and corruption. Due to the “restlessness of their desires,” the aristocracy is vulnerable to a perverse redirection of his energy following a “collapse of faith” (620). When this occurs, they turn “exclusively toward love of material gratifications;” however, “the search for well-being is not enough. They need sumptuous depravity and splendid corruption. They erect a magnificent shrine to matter and seem to view with one another to excel in the art of turning themselves into brutes” (620). Tocqueville identifies the same progression during a reflection on the Indian. After declaring that “Savage nations are governed by opinions and mores alone” (367), Tocqueville describes how European invasion occasioned a collapse of faith powerful enough to put the Indian into a degenerative state: European tyranny attenuated the North American Indian’s feeling for their native land…obscured their traditions…changed their habits, and increased their needs immeasurably, making them less disciplined and civilized than they were before. Meanwhile, the tribes’ moral and physical condition grew steadily worse, and their barbarity kept pace with their wretchedness. (368)
static figures. They have already had their bout with the European and now “Both suffer the effects of tyranny, and while their miseries are different, both can blame those miseries on the same tyrant” (366). But, Tocqueville realizes, the Indian and the Negro offer instruction through their suffering. They don’t just typify two regimes; they exhibit these forms at their terminal ends. My investigation now enables me to make good on Tocqueville’s claim to return to issues of “permanence of republican forms in the New World,” and use the Negro and the Indian to offer a vision of the future for these forms of governance: “the effects of slavery on [democracy] are scarcely more disastrous than those of independence on [aristocracy]… the servility of the [former] dooms [it] to slavery, and the pride of the [latter] condemns [it] to death” (365,