surprising efficiency." There are two motives for association, he thinks,
the consciousness of weakness, which is generally operative abroad, and
the consciousness of strength, which is our motive here. He says:

The need of association comes generally from the conscience of
one's own feebleness or indolence.... When such people join they
add together their incapacities; hence the failure of many
societies formed with great eclat. On the contrary, when men
accustomed to help themselves without depending on their neighbors
form an association, it is because they really find themselves
facing a common difficulty ... such persons add their capacities;
they form a powerful union of capables, the only one that has
force. Hence the general success of American associations.

The radical difference in the motives for association here and in the old
world was noted long ago by De Tocqueville, who says:

European societies are naturally led to introduce into their midst
military customs and formulas.... The members of such associations
respond to a word of command like soldiers in a campaign; they
profess the dogma of passive obedience, or rather, by uniting,
they sacrifice entirely, at a single stroke, their judgment and
free will.... In American associations, on the other hand,
individual independence finds its part; as in society every man
moves at the same time toward the same goal, but all are not
forced to go by the same road. No one sacrifices his will or his
reason, but applies them both toward the success of the common
enterprise.

Commenting on this, De Rousiers goes on: