American lower classes aspired to improvements and luxury enjoyment through hard work while European lower classes had no hope of gaining more than minimal wealth
European lower class people had no belief that they could gain wealth, whereas Americans believed they could if they worked hard
They could make money via hard work versus in europe no one cared about making money
American lower class found wealth and fine possessions morally good while European lower class deemed it immoral
American lower class was more prone to share wealth and possessions than European lower class
No one cared about making money in america, in europe they all worked hard for their money
How were the American lower class's views of wealth and fine possessions different from those of the European lower class?
Because landed elites were less likely to pass on fortunes to a single child through primogeniture
Because American children were overall poorer than European children
American government abolished primogeniture which made it harder for elites to pass down land and wealth
Because affection and generosity were stronger in American children than in European children
Because they were all poor
Because in America Legislatures abolished primogeniture and entails, resulting in more widely distributed land holdings
Why were the children of American elites more equal to non-elite children than were the children of European elites?
Americans left their wealth to the eldest, europeans split it up
Americans devoted to "middling values" of wanting to make fortune through hard work while Europeans did not care about making money with static classes
Europeans had no interest in it, while Americans desired it
Europeans left their wealth to the eldest, americans split it up
Europeans though wealth was unnecessary while Americans were greedier
Europeans preferred money while Americans preferred estate
How did Europeans' and Americans' attitudes toward amassing wealth differ?
Tocqueville asserted that the values that had triumphed in the North and were present in the South had begun to suffocate old-world ethics and social arrangements. Legislatures abolished primogeniture and entails, resulting in more widely distributed land holdings. This was a contrast to the general aristocratic pattern in which only the eldest child, usually a man, inherited the estate, which had the effect of keeping large estates intact from generation to generation. In America, in contrast, landed elites were less likely to pass on fortunes to a single child by the action of primogeniture, which meant that as time went by, large estates became broken up within a few generations which, in turn, made the children more equal overall. It was not always a negative development, according to Joshua Kaplan's interpretation of Tocqueville, since bonds of affection and shared experience between children often replaced the more formal relation between the eldest child and the siblings, characteristic of the previous aristocratic pattern. Overall, in the new democracies, hereditary fortunes became exceedingly difficult to secure and more people were forced to struggle for their own living. This rapidly democratizing society, as Tocqueville understood it, had a population devoted to "middling" values which wanted to amass, through hard work, vast fortunes. In Tocqueville's mind, this explained why America was so different from Europe. In Europe, he claimed, nobody cared about making money. The lower classes had no hope of gaining more than minimal wealth, while the upper classes found it crass, vulgar, and unbecoming of their sort to care about something as unseemly as money; many were virtually guaranteed wealth and took it for granted. At the same time in America, workers would see people fashioned in exquisite attire and merely proclaim that through hard work they too would soon possess the fortune necessary to enjoy such luxuries. Despite maintaining with Aristotle, Montesquieu, and others that the balance of property determined the balance of power, Tocqueville argued that, as America showed, equitable property holdings did not ensure the rule of the best men. In fact, it did quite the opposite. The widespread, relatively equitable property ownership which distinguished America and determined its mores and values also explained why the American masses held elites in such contempt. 