[justshutupandtakeit]

1) It is not clear WHAT Jefferson meant with that particular bit of gibberish.

2) It is not clear WHAT Jefferson was referring to since his statement was so imprecise and obscure as to not really mean anything.

3) Union does not equal "union." Nor does "union" equal "The Union." I don't know what he meant. One would have thought he would have said The Union if he meant Our Union. But it is just another obscure flight of rhetoric on Jefferson's part probably not even meant to see the light of day.

And, yes, I will debate the meanings of words to your eternal consternation since your entire argument depends upon their meanings being obscured or distorted.

Of course, you also ignore the FACT that J. even in the most sympathetic view NEVER called for a unilateral declaration of secession as being acceptable even IF he were speaking of states being formed from these territories, entering the Union then leaving. Even if I accept your view for debate purposes, HOW do these states do what you THINK J is hypothesizing about?

[GOPcapitalist]

Check out this little charade from justshutupandkFAKEit. We are debating a quote by Thomas Jefferson that contradicts his earlier claim that Jefferson "abhored" any split of the union. The quote, from 1803, is as follows:

"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."

To date FAKEit has claimed that (1) Jefferson did not really mean it when he said this, (2) Jefferson was not really referring to states when he used the word states, (3) Jefferson was not really referring to the union when he used the word union, and (4) that I am somehow "distorting" the meaning of these words in Jefferson's quote for simply saying that they mean what they say in a direct, clear as day face value reading of them. It gets better though - now he is claiming that "[i]t is not clear WHAT Jefferson was referring to since his statement was so imprecise and obscure as to not really mean anything."

Go back and read his earlier exchanges to see it all in his own words. The absurdity of it all is hilarious! I think we have a challenger to Wlat for the most willfully obtuse display of idiocy around here.