Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: justshutupandtakeit
The difference is that he was speaking of new formations from the territory purchased which might never even be admitted as states in the first place.

You're being slothful again, fakeit. Jefferson specifically talks of their departure from the UNION, mentioning the word union by name. He gives absolutely no reason whatsoever to support your bizarre claim that he was talking about anything other than future states.

2,080 posted on 12/02/2004 9:44:52 AM PST by GOPcapitalist ("Marxism finds it easy to ally with Islamic zealotism" - Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2045 | View Replies ]


To: GOPcapitalist

Apparently you are unaware of the meaning of slothful since you useage is inappropriate.

Territory of the United States was just that and at the disposal of the United States Congress. Thus, it would be entirely constitutional to form another nation from it but not to allow states to leave once entering the Union.

Certainly Jefferson's nonsense encouraged the enemies of the Union but he never suggested that states could leave constitutionally contrary to his implications.


2,086 posted on 12/02/2004 9:53:01 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2080 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson