Tocqueville’s Moderation and Lieber’s Idealism in Penal Reform

  • Emily Katherine Ferkaluk
Chapter
Part of the Recovering Political Philosophy book series (REPOPH)

Abstract

Upon returning to France from their famed journey to explore American prisons, Tocqueville and Beaumont asked Francis Lieber to translate their official penal report and publish it in America. Ferkaluk contends that Lieber’s penal thought, evident through his changes to On the Penitentiary System during translation, offers us an alternative to Tocqueville’s moderate pursuit of penal reform. Following Lieber’s own indications of how to use and understand his translation alterations leads us to see that his footnotes and appendices reflect a theoretical disagreement with Tocqueville and Beaumont on the purpose of penitentiary systems. Specifically, Lieber disagrees with Tocqueville and Beaumont on the merits of centralization when establishing penitentiaries, the role of institutions such as penitentiaries in the process of historical development, and the effectiveness of education to morally reform individuals within penitentiaries.

References

  1. Adcock, Robert. 2014. Liberalism and the Emergence of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Avramenko, Richard, and Robert Gingerich. 2014. Democratic Dystopia: Tocqueville and the American Penitentiary System. Polity 46: 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaumont, Gustave de, and Alexis de Tocqueville. 1833. On the Penitentiary System in the United States and Its Application in France, with an Appendix on Penal Colonies and also Statistical Notes, trans. Francis Lieber. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea & Blanchard.Google Scholar
  4. Beem, Christopher. 1999. The Necessity of Politics: Reclaiming American Public Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benson, Sara M. 2015. A Political Science of Punishment: Francis Lieber and the Discipline of American Prisons. New Political Science 37 (3): 382–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boesche, Roger. 1980. The Prison: Tocqueville’s Model for Despotism. The Western Political Quarterly 33: 550–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, Bernard Edward. 1951. American Conservatives: The Political Thought of Francis Lieber and John W. Burgess. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ceasar, James. 1985. Alexis de Tocqueville on Political Science, Political Culture, and the Role of the Intellectual. American Political Science Review 79 (3): 656–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clinton, David. 2003. Liberalism Confronts the World: Tocqueville, Lieber, and Bagehot. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Curti, Merle. 1941. Francis Lieber and Nationalism. Huntington Library Quarterly 4 (3): 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drescher, Seymour. 1968. Dilemmas of Democracy: Tocqueville and Modernization. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dzur, Albert. 2010. Democracy’s “Free School”: Tocqueville and Lieber on the Value of the Jury. Political Theory 38 (5): 603–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farr, James. 2005. From Moral Philosophy to Political Science: Lieber and the Innovations of Antebellum Political Thought. In Francis Lieber and the Culture of the Mind, ed. Charles R. Mack and Henry H. Lesesne, 113–129. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  14. Freidel, Frank. 1947. Francis Lieber: Nineteenth-Century Liberal. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gargan, Edward. 1963. Tocqueville and the Problem of Historical Progress. The American Historical Review 68 (2): 332–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillespie, Michael Allen. 2009. The Theological Origins of Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hartigan, Richard Shelly. 1983. Lieber’s Code and the Law of War. Chicago: Precedent.Google Scholar
  18. Henary, Sara. 2014. Tocqueville and the Challenge of Historicism. The Review of Politics 76 (3): 469–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawler, Peter Augustine. 1993. The Restless Mind. In Tocqueville’s Defense of Human Liberty: Current Essays, ed. Peter Augustine Lawler and Joseph Alulis, 63–85. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Lieber, Francis. 1835. Remarks on the Relation Between Education and Crime: In a Letter to the Right Rev. William White, D.D., President of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons. Philadelphia: N.B.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 1838. A Popular Essay on Subjects of Penal Law, and on Uninterrupted Solitary Confinement at Labor, as Contradistinguished to Solitary Confinement at Night and Joint Labor by Day, in a Letter to John Bacon, Esquire. Boston: E.G. Dorsey.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 1839. Legal and Political Hermeneutics, or, Principles of Interpretation and Construction in Law and Politics: With Remarks on Precedents and Authorities. Boston: C.C. Little and J. Brown.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1881a. The Miscellaneous Writings of Francis Lieber, Volume I: Reminiscences, Addresses, and Essays, ed. Daniel Coit Gilman. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippencott and Co.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 1881b. The Miscellaneous Writings of Francis Lieber, Volume II: Contributions to Political Science, ed. Daniel Coit Gilman. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippencott and Co.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 1911. Manual of Political Ethics, 2nd ed., ed. Theodore D. Woolsey. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2001. On Civil Liberty and Self-Government. Union, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange.Google Scholar
  27. Lively, Jack. 1962. The Social and Political Thought of Alexis de Tocqueville. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mancini, Matthew. 2005. Alexis de Tocqueville and American Intellectuals: From His Time to Ours. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  29. Mansfield, Harvey. 2010. Tocqueville: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitchell, Joshua. 1995. The Fragility of Freedom: Tocqueville on Religion, Democracy, and the American Future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2008. Tocqueville for a Terrible Era: Honor, Religion, and the Persistence of Atavisms in the Modern Age. Critical Review 19 (4): 543–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ossewaarde, M.R.R. 2004. Tocqueville’s Political and Moral Thought: New Liberalism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Perry, Thomas Sergeant. 1882. The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber. Boston: James R. Good and Company.Google Scholar
  34. Pierson, George. 1938. Tocqueville in America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Prison Discipline Society. 1833. Eighth Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the Prison Discipline Society. Boston: Prison Discipline Society.Google Scholar
  36. Rahe, Paul. 2012. Tocqueville on Christianity and the Natural Equality of Man. The Catholic Social Science Review 17: 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robson, C.B. 1942. Francis Lieber’s Theories of Society, Government, and Liberty. The Journal of Politics 4 (2): 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ———. 1946. Francis Lieber’s Nationalism. The Journal of Politics 8 (1): 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salomon, Albert. 1935. Tocqueville, Moralist and Sociologist. Social Research: An International Quarterly of Political and Social Science 2 (4): 405–427.Google Scholar
  40. Samson, Steven Alan. 1996. Lieber on the Sources of Civil Liberty. Humanitas IX (2): 40–62.Google Scholar
  41. Schwartz, Joel. 1985. The Penitentiary and Perfectibility in Tocqueville. The Western Political Quarterly 38: 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Strauss, Leo. 1988. Political Philosophy and History. In What Is Political Philosophy? And Other Studies, 56–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Thayer, M.R. 1881. Biographical Discourse. In The Miscellaneous Writings of Francis Lieber, ed. Daniel Coit Gilman, vol. 1, 13–45. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
  44. Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1984. Œuvres Complètes: Écrits sur le système pénitentiaire en France et à l’étranger, Tome IV, Vol. 1, ed. Michelle Perrot. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2000. Democracy in America, trans. and ed. Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. ———. 2001. Writings on Empire and Slavery, ed. and trans. Jennifer Pitts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  47. ———. 2009. Tocqueville on America After 1840: Letters and Other Writings, ed. and trans. Aurelian Craiutu and Jeremy Jennings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Tyler, Samuel. 1858. De Tocqueville and De Lieber as Writers of Political Science. The Princeton Review 30 (4): 621–645.Google Scholar
  49. Villa, Dana. 2005. Hegel, Tocqueville, and ‘Individualism’. The Review of Politics 67 (4): 659–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. West, Thomas. 1991. Misunderstanding the American Founding. In Interpreting Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, ed. Ken Masugi, 155–177. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  51. Wolin, Sheldon. 2001. Tocqueville Between Two Worlds: The Making of a Political and Theoretical Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Yenor, Scott. 2004. Natural Religion and Human Perfectibility: Tocqueville’s Account of Religion in Modern Democracy. Perspectives on Political Science 33 (1): 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zetterbaum, Marvin. 1964. Tocqueville: Neutrality and the Use of History. The American Political Science Review 58 (3): 611–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily Katherine Ferkaluk
    • 1
  1. 1.Cedarville UniversityCedarvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations