ing up beforehand those which they may afterwards cause to be adopted。
If； in a people which is imperfectly accustomed to the exercise of freedom； or which is exposed to violent political passions； a deliberating minority； which confines itself to the contemplation of future laws； be placed in juxtaposition to the legislative majority； I cannot but believe that public tranquillity incurs very great risks in that nation。 There is doubtless a very wide difference between proving that one law is in itself better than another and proving that the former ought to be substituted for the latter。 But the imagination of the populace is very apt to overlook this difference； which is so apparent to the minds of thinking men。 It sometimes happens that a nation is divided into two nearly equal parties； each of which affects to represent the majority。 If； in immediate contiguity to the directing power； another power be established； which exercises almost as much moral authority as the former； it is not to be believed that it will long be content to speak without acting； or that it will always be restrained by the abstract consideration of the nature of associations which are meant to direct but not to enforce opinions； to suggest but not to make the laws。
The more we consider the independence of the press in its principal consequences； the more are we convinced that it is the chief and； so to speak； the constitutive element of freedom in the modern world。 A nation which is determined to remain free is therefore right in demanding the unrestrained exercise of this independence。 But the unrestrained liberty of political association cannot be entirely assimilated to the liberty of the press。 The one is at the same time less necessary and more dangerous than the other。 A nation may confine it within certain limits without forfeiting any part of its self…control； and it may sometimes be obliged to do so in order to maintain its own authority。
In America the liberty of association for political purposes is unbounded。 An example will show in the clearest light to what an extent this privilege is tolerated。
The question of the tariff； or of free trade； produced a great manifestation of party feeling in America； the tariff was not only a subject of debate as a matter of opinion； but it exercised a favorable or a prejudicial influence upon several very powerful interests of the States。 The North attributed a great portion of its prosperity； and the South all its sufferings； to this system； insomuch that for a long time the tariff was the sole source of the political animosities which agitated the Union。
In 1831； when the dispute was raging with the utmost virulence； a private citizen of Massachusetts proposed to all the enemies of the tariff； by means of the public prints； to send delegates to Philadelphia in order to consult together upon the means which were most fitted to promote freedom of trade。 This proposal circulated in a few days from Maine to New Orleans by the power of the printing…press： the opponents of the tariff adopted it with enthusiasm； meetings were formed on all sides； and delegates were named。 The majority of these individuals were well known； and some of them had earned a considerable degree of celebrity。 South Carolina alone； which afterwards took up arms in the same cause； sent sixty…three delegates。 On October 1； 1831； this assembly； which according to the American custom had taken the name of a Convention； met at Philadelphia； it consisted of more than two hundred members。 Its debates were public； and they at once assumed a legislative character； the extent of the powers of Congress； the theories of free trade； and the different clauses of the tariff； were discussed in turn。 At the end of ten days' deliberation the Convention broke up； after having published an address to the American people； in which it declared：
I。 That Congress had not the right of making a tariff； and that the existing tariff was unconstitutional；
II。 That the prohibition of free trade was prejudicial to the interests of all nations； and to that of the American people in particular。
It must be acknowledged that the unrestrained liberty of political association has not hitherto produced； in the United States； those fatal consequences which might perhaps be expected from it elsewhere。 The right of association was imported from England； and it has always existed in America； so that the exercise of this privilege is now amalgamated with the manners and customs of the people。 At the present time the liberty of association is become a necessary guarantee against the tyranny of the majority。 In the United States； as soon as a party is become preponderant； all public authority passes under its control； its private supporters occupy all the places； and have all the force of the administration at their disposal。 As the most distinguished partisans of the other side of the question are unable to surmount the obstacles which exclude them from power； they require some means of establishing themselves upon their own basis； and of opposing the moral authority of the minority to the physical power which domineers over it。 Thus a dangerous expedient is used to obviate a still more formidable danger。
The omnipotence of the majority appears to me to present such extreme perils to the American Republics that the dangerous measure which is used to repress it seems to be more advantageous than prejudicial。 And here I am about to advance a proposition which may remind the reader of what I said before in speaking of municipal freedom： There are no countries in which associations are more needed； to prevent the despotism of faction or the arbitrary power of a prince； than those which are democratically constituted。 In aristocratic nations the body of the nobles and the more opulent part of the community are in themselves natural associations； which act as checks upon the abuses of power。 In countries in which these associations do not exist； if private individuals are unable to create an artificial and a temporary substitute for them； I can imagine no permanent protection against the most galling tyranny； and a great people may be oppressed by a small faction； or by a single individual； with impunity。
The meeting of a great political Convention （for there are Conventions of all kinds）； which may frequently become a necessary measure； is always a serious occurrence； even in America； and one which is never looked forward to； by the judicious friends of the country； without alarm。 This was very perceptible in the Convention of 1831； at which the exertions of all the most distinguished members of the Assembly tended to moderate its language； and to restrain the subjects which it treated within certain limits。 It is probable； in fact； that the Convention of 1831 exercised a very great influence upon the minds of the malcontents； and prepared them for the open revolt against the commercial laws of the Union which took place in 1832。
It cannot be denied that the unrestrained liberty of association for political purposes is the privilege which a people is longest in learning how to exercise。 If it does not throw the nation into anarchy； it perpetually augments the chances of that calamity。 On one point； however； this perilous liberty offers a security against dangers of another kind； in countries where associations are free； secret societies are unknown。 In America there are numerous factions； but no conspiracies。
Different ways in which the right of association is understood in Europeand in the United States … Different use which is made of it。
The most natural privilege of man； next to the right of acting for himself； is that of combining his exertions with those
of his fellow…creatures； and of acting in common with them。 I am therefore led to conclude that the right of association is almost as inalienable as the right of personal liberty。 No legislator can attack it without impairing the very foundations of society。 Nevertheless； if the liberty of association is a fruitful source of advantages and prosperity to some nations； it may be perverted or carried to excess by others； and the element of life may be changed into an element of destruction。 A comparison of the different methods which associations pursue in those countries in which they are managed with discretion； as well as in those where liberty degenerates into license； may perhaps be thought useful both to governments and to parties。
The greater part of Europeans look upon an association as a weapon which is to be hastily fashioned； and immediately tried in the conflict。 A society is formed for discussion； but the idea of impending action prevails in the minds of those who constitute it： it is； in fact； an army； and the time given to parley serves to reckon up the strength and to animate the courage of the host； after which they direct their march against the enemy。 Resources which lie within the bounds of the law may suggest themselves to the persons who compose it as means； but never as the only means； of success。
Such； however； is not the manner in which the right of association is understood in the United States。 In America the citizens who form the minor