Did you ever look at a map of the original 13 colonies? Tell me, how did the boundaries change when they became states instead of colonies? Other than the state of Georgia, they remained identical. The boundaries of the colonies had long been established and there were no significant changes when the war was over and the business of building the nation began.
And I said that the fed did own enclaves which included federal forts, arsenals, magazines, etc.
And yes, national parks are owned by the fed, but the poor state in which they sit, and the restrictions of commerce within their boundaries speaks nearly precisely to the complain that Jefferson had to Madison in the letter you reference...how many jobs has the fed killed over the years...how many people have been put out of work by the fed refusing to allow any commerce on those lands?
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html
"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
So which part of that do you want to claim was enacted into law by the constitution? He was talking about property being held by royalty and petit royalty....we have no such arrangement here....the bulk of property is held in private hands which is precisely what he was saying should happen...it is no reflection on the state of property ownership in this country today....if anything, the laws which restrict commerce on federal lands are a call back to the state of affairs that Jefferson was describing in europe. How many jobs would the simple cleanup of national forests provide and how many acres of timber would be saved from fire every year if national forest land were not choked with underbrush?
None of that statement above was directed towards taxation...or the redistribution of the earnings of one individual to another individual who earned less...The conversation was restricted to the state of ownership of near entire nations by the sovereign, his family, and those he saw fit to benefit with title and land. It certainly didn't speak to a free people...and the freedom to succeed or fail without the benefit of largess from the government.....or the very real neglect that could be charged by relinquishing one's responsibility to one's children to government.
