[GOPcapitalist]

In 1803 these were not States no matter what Jefferson called them.

The quote, by its very nature, is a reference to a future event that had not yet happened. He anticipated at the time of that future event, if it was to happen, that its participants would be states. Live with it.

Having them become states and leave the Union was never Jefferson's wish.

Apparently it was.

"The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

He also apparently saw any split to be an exit from the union and explicitly used that term as well.

They were not in the UNION in 1803 thus, it was not a reference to splitting the UNION.

Your inductions are continually slothful. Jefferson EXPLICITLY stated that at the future anticipated time in which the split may occur, those territories would be both STATES and in the UNION. That is why he said "keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." It takes a person of either apalling dishonesty or utter stupidity to claim that a quote saying "keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better" is "not a reference to splitting the UNION." You are evidently such a person.

They could have become separate countries had Congress allowed that but not by unilateral declarations without the consent of Congress. Jefferson did not maintain otherwise

Jefferson maintained that it was their call to make: "[I]f they see their interest in separation"

[justshutupandtakeit]

Jefferson's language was totally imprecise, and hypothetical. He does not speak of Union but "union" which idicates to me that he was not referring to the United States of America but a less precise relation to the U.S.

He was calling territories "states" which were not states, thus, only those desperately floundering about attempting to excuse treasonous actions would place any weight upon these statements.

Why would he say "in THEIR union" and not "in OUR Union" if he was speaking about being states within the United States. It is not even clear that he is not speaking of them being states within a different nation all together. From the quote it is not clear that he is not speaking of keeping the territory together maybe even as a seperate country and a future state becoming separated from THAT union. This is a much more ambiguous statement than you will admit.

But when you have nothing else, go for it.