"Departments" or "Regions" were the French terms for small areas of France after 1790 when the French provinces were terminated. Departments or regions would have been the French equivalent of the US states, although there were more than 80 Departments. There were only 18 "regions" in France - maybe "regions" are more equivalent to US states. Those would have been the terms for de Tocquiville to use in 1831 if he was referring to France when he wrote "Democracy in America." "Federated states" or "states" refer to states in the US. "Union" is a US term, not a French term.
We should remember that de Tocqueville was French and France is ruled from Paris, so he is here merely describing his own country's situation.
Guffaw! You are simply amazing, BJK. I mean it. In the first block of red letters I highlighted from his book "Democracy in America," de Tocqueville:
- speaks of the "Union" (is that how he refers to France?)
- talks about the "voluntary agreement" of "states" (does he call French departments or regions states?) (Also cue up Madison saying that states were only bound by their voluntary agreement.)
- says states "in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty" (Do French departments or regions retain their sovereignty? By the time of de Tocqueville's book, I doubt they retained sovereignty, but US states do, or did in 1860.)
- says they (the people or perhaps the people of the states) "nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people" (cue up, Madison, Marshall, and probably others saying the same thing about the people of the United States).
- says "If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so." (That is clearly like the situation in the United States - see my post 108 on this thread).
- He also said, but I didn't highlight: "and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right." (The prohibitions against coercing American states comes to mind).
Seriously, BJK, we have argued much of the rest of your post before and not come to agreement. I don't want to waste my time, and you shouldn't waste your time either. I am sorry, but I do not have the time or inclination to keep dissecting your long posts.
We do not agree on much, BJK, although I agree with you about the abilities of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest grew up in the same Tennessee county as some of my ancestors. I don't believe my ancestors lived close enough to the Forrests to know them personally.
Enjoy your day.
Sorry, I did not use the word "projection", probably should have.
What I intended to mean is that de Tocqueville actually described the situation of France but projected it onto the USA as some potential eventual outcome.
I noted that, Diogeneslamp's anti-New York jihad notwithstanding, it never happened here.
rustbucket: "- says 'If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so.' (That is clearly like the situation in the United States - see my post 108 on this thread). "
As indeed happened in 1861 -- President Buchanan made speeches opposing secession but used no force to stop it.
And that was also Lincoln's intention, when he announced secessionists could not have a war unless they themselves started it.
rustbucket: "- He also said, but I didn't highlight: 'and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right.' (The prohibitions against coercing American states comes to mind)."
That "prohibition" is found in which document?
Is that what President Jackson referred to when he said, in 1830:
I'd only note that you did take the time to make some very long posts of your own.
My time for such exercises varies from day to day, some days none, other days plenty.
And likely I enjoy it more than most?
rustbucket: "We do not agree on much, BJK, although I agree with you about the abilities of Nathan Bedford Forrest."
One of my great-grandfathers met Forrest in battle, twice, the first in late 1862 at Dyer station, Tennessee, on the Mobile & Ohio railroad, the second in July 1864 at Tupelo.
My great-grandfather survived the first because Forrest was a decent & honorable man and Forrest survived (though wounded) the second, imho, for the same reason.