“People always feel the effects of their origins” Tocqueville argues (pg. 28) as he lays the case for the origins democracy as it existed in early nineteenth century America. Looking to that origin Tocqueville saw the birth of the American Republic as early as 1650. “Monarchy is the law of the state, but a republic is already very much alive in the township” Tocqueville says of the seventeenth century townships in New England (pg. 40). If it is true the people feel the effects of their origin, and if it is also true that the American Republic was born in the townships of New England in the seventeenth century, then the residual effects of those townships explain much of American democracy today.

The origins of democracy in the New England can be traced to the circumstances and objectives of the first Puritan settlers. The early Puritan settlers of New England were left alone to govern themselves, unlike many of the colonies to the south. New England was left to herself in many ways as the result of English dogma. In England, the middle and lower classes were left out of the discourse of public policy. English aristocrats saw no need to coordinate activities with the masses across the Atlantic. The neglect of England left a vacuum of power to be filled (pg. 40).

The Puritan settlers of New England lacked social structure and aristocracy. This naturally bread equality. The Puritans were a homogenous middle-class society (pg. 32). Property was available to all, however, the political and economic elements of property in New England varied from that of property in the motherland. New England property precluded the advent of aristocracy for two reasons. First, property was available to all as a result of the economic equity that existed amongst the homogenous Puritans. The second reason that property prevented aristocracy was the economic infeasibility of property to support both a master and servant(s) (pg. 30). Thus, the Puritans were left to create a new social and political order.

Today property still plays an important role in equality in the United States. One of the requisites of arriving in the dominant middle class is property ownership. Like the seventeenth century, property has not become so scarce today as to exclude the middle class. The middle class today is less homogenous than in Puritan New England. However, the middle class retains significant political and economic power. This power comes in large part from the ability of the middle class to own and preside as stewards over all types of property.

The goals of the Puritans also lent themselves to the evolution of the New England Township that precipitated the American Republic. Tocqueville notes that the Puritans saw themselves engaged in a cause which smelled of “biblical perfume” (pg. 33) similar to that of the Children of Israel in arriving in the land of Canaan out of the wilderness. The early settlers did not come to the New World for material wealth or gain. Rather, they came in pursuit of an idea. Along the way, Tocqueville notes, sacrifices of personal wealth, social standing and associations were made. These sacrifices were made for the goal of having “Heaven in the other world and well-being and freedom in this one” (pg. 43).

These dual goals still exist in America today. The stated objectives of politicians today is to promote “well-being and freedom” for all American citizens. To what extent each politician is sincere as well as efficacious varies. In the aggregate, the polity is still working toward creating a better life for as many people as possible.

It was these circumstances and goals which the Puritans brought with them that created the environment wherein the township, and subsequently the Republic, could be born and thrive. Within the township itself there are several characteristics which lend to the growth of the institution and development democracy.

“One obeys it without recognizing it,” Tocqueville said of the dogmatic principle of the sovereignty of the people (pg. 53). This dogmatic principle spread undetected by the throne, in large part due to negligence, at the grassroots level of the people in New England. The spread and eventual proliferation of the dogma of sovereignty of the people was thwarted by two circumstances. First was the rule of monarchy. The dogma could not expand upward, for it would have been detected and subdued by the throne. The dogma could not spread outward to other regions of colonies because aristocracy existed there (pg. 54). While power was diffused directly to all citizens in New England, it was concentrated in the hands of a few in regions to the South.

The spread of the dogma of sovereignty of the people did not end with the ratification of the Constitution. Today we see signs of the political process moving farther away from Republican government and toward the dogma of sovereignty of the people.

California, for example, often acts as a giant township of thirty five million residents. The referendum process in California has a high political profile for several reasons. First, California is the nation’s largest state and serves as a trend setter in policy. The principle of township exerts itself from California to the rest of the nation when referendums in the Golden State influence policies of legislatures and referendum initiatives in other states. Next, California lends itself to the referendum process perhaps more frequently than any other state. Finally, the policies that come of referendum in California are often revolutionary.

This township style climate of referendum in California explains why the recent recall of Gray Davis was successful. The citizens of California felt that the sovereignty of the people had been violated by misleading statements and mismanagement. Therefore, the dogma naturally justified ousting Davis.

It is hard to know whether Tocqueville would have approved of the referendum and recall mechanisms that California and other states have adopted. Certainly the issues that arise at this level are much more involved and complex than the issues discussed in communities of 2,000-3,000 (pg. 58). Tocqueville saw weaknesses in the township system that he may also see in the referendum and recall mechanisms. Republics place a degree of separation between the dynamic and inconsistent passions of the masses. This separation provides stability in government. Tocqueville rightly notes that a majority is capable of initiating and consenting to tyranny (pg. 39). He then provides anecdotal evidence of tyrannical laws (pg. 38) that existed in New England townships- laws that the governed consented to.

It is possible then, that Tocqueville would have frowned on the recall process. In it he may have seen the possibility of the masses, in a state of desperation perhaps, consenting to live in tyranny as an answer to the issues of the day.

While Tocqueville may have loathed the recall process, it is likely that he would have approved of the referendum process. Tocqueville argued that power and independence drew men to participate in the policy making that occurred in New England townships. It is likely that he would have seen similar motivations for participation in the referendum process today. These motivations lead many people to participate in the polity. Participation, then and now, was not limited to casting a vote for or against and initiative. Rather it also involved Athenian discourse (pg. 40).

Even in the absence of referendum policy is often discussed and indirectly influenced by discussion in “the public square and within the general assembly of citizens, as in Athens.” (pg. 40) This is an element of democracy that has survived and expanded since the birth of the American Republic in New England townships.

When campaigning for the Presidency in the 1990’s Bill Clinton struck into the primal democratic nerve of Americans to gather and discuss policy. He followed the pattern of New England township meetings and held nationally televised “town hall meetings”. These meetings featured Clinton sitting on a stool or a chair – the same that the citizens sat on – discussing policy with citizens organized in some sort of circular fashion. The physical organization of these meeting tapped into the primal nature of American democracy in a brilliant manner. Clinton was sitting at the same level and in the same type of seat as the citizens, suggesting equality. He sat in a circle, and was not behind a desk. This suggested that Clinton was “one of them”. Clinton patiently listened to the citizens concerns. This gave the appearance as if the citizens of the town hall meeting were issuing a mandate to Clinton.

The American Republic was born in the townships of New England. Many of the circumstances that gave birth to the New England Township exist today, specifically concern for the general welfare, property ownership and a lack of aristocracy. Many of the procedures of the New England Township have expanded both across America and particularly to the upper reaches of government. Referendums and recalls are justified by the sovereignty of the people, a dogma which finds its roots in the New England Township. The behaviors of American Democracy today can often be explained by the origins of democracy in America.