Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
It appears you are simply posting things that are false, including descriptions of things you say you posted that do not exist.
Responding to my post about the Treaty of Paris between Britain and the United States, you said:
=====
Well since the title of the contratc treads thus " Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America. we can assume your posting is wrong.
=====
No mention of a different treaty between France and the US from you -- but now you claim that you did present it that way. This is typical of how you post here.
So you claim you said something different, because you don't want to admit you were wrong. You are wrong. I have no idea whether you are simply imagining things you think you said, or deliberately trying to confuse things with false statements. Anyone who reads back through the posts you have made here will be able to see that what you are saying now is not true, so why bother with this nonsense?
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
This is what the British SAID in the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the American Revolutionary War:
=====
Article I His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. =====
You can find the entire text at http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312...fparis1783.htm
The British King is not "granting" anything. He is simply acknowledging that the United States is an independent nation (NOT the states individually, but the "United States" that they are collectively form).
If you think otherwise, look at the text and improve your "understanding" to note that the treaty itself says the treaty is "between the two countries" -- not between Britain and thirteen individual countries.
Tim
And it says it more than once.
"It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third... and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries... "
Note: "the United States of America" and "the two countries."
".. upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both...
Note: "to both" as in two.
"... perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to
be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States..."
NOTE: a "Treaty of Peace... between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States.
I would hazard that including the names of the 13 colonies in the opening of the treaty was to define the geographic boundaries of said United States and make sure that the rascally Yankees didn't try at some later date to lay claim to Nova Scotia.
Good guess. I would, however, question why we would want Nova Scotiia?
On second thought, that might be offensive to our Canadian members. Most likely none of whom could care less aboot Nova Scotia. All puns intended and for my Canuck friends, salud!
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Point well taken, Scribe. Because, in fact, there many in the newly independent United States, who did cast covetous eyes on their neighbor to the North
Not to mention that in 1775, America did invade Canada and if Montreal and Quebec City, both, had been taken, King George's fear would have been realized and America's Northern border could easily have been the Arctic Circle.
P.S. Quebecois to the north and cajun's to the south..Egads!!
Just what is it you hate about the US of A? Or is that just your schtick?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Questioning the validity of the Civil War is hardly not liking the country. I don't think asking when the nation split away from the Constitution and began the Cult of the Presidency is out of line.
Bush of course calls Lincoln our greatest President. Last week, Obama said the same. They can't wait to leap into the pool of Special Powers. Every single President so far that admired Lincoln: Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton, Bush 1 and 2, had the same trait of getting into wars with no plan on what to do afterwards,. Just like Lincoln!
There are no "good wars", and by teaching there are we perpetuate them.
Don't forget we invaded Canada after the Civil War!
"We" did not invade Canada after the Civil War anymore than "we" robbed a bank on the evening news. Why do you constantly say crap like this?
Union troops led by a fiesty Irishman planned to invade Canada and force the Brits to let Ireland go!
Men led by a fiesty Irishman who had once been in the Union army, maybe, but not the United States of America with federal troops. Do you like to weaken every argument you make by purposefully exaggerating historical fact to the point it is an out-and-out lie?
I can't make this stuff up! His name was Meagher.
Yes, you can DJ, and this is what hurts you everytime you post such fluff. You could research the incident in question, post websites, sources, etc., but you have to create something other than what really happened in order (you think) to advance you viewpoint.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Questioning the validity of the Civil War is hardly not liking the country. I don't think asking when the nation split away from the Constitution and began the Cult of the Presidency is out of line.
And it wouldn't be if you could refrain from making your own personal opinion on the above sound like it is some sort of 'Great Truth.' The fact of the matter is this is what YOU personally believe, and most of the time it is not based upon factual history, just what you want it to be.
Bush of course calls Lincoln our greatest President. Last week, Obama said the same. They can't wait to leap into the pool of Special Powers. Every single President so far that admired Lincoln: Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton, Bush 1 and 2, had the same trait of getting into wars with no plan on what to do afterwards,. Just like Lincoln!
Again, your personal opinion. I just don't understand how Lincoln is supposed to help who admires him. And yet I seem to recall Lincoln nixing the idea of going to war with France and England. No points for that call, DJ?
There are no "good wars", and by teaching there are we perpetuate them.
But are there necessary wars? Wars that must be fought, even when we don't want to?
There are no good home fires, so we should never try to put them out, never try to save our home from them?
The Revolution, not a good war, but was it necessary, or should we still be colonies under English rule? World War II? Not a good war, or should we have permitted Pearl Harobor, England going under, etc?
As a former soldier, I KNOW there is no such thing as a "good war" and that the time and effort spent in trying to kill your fellow man could be much better spent at building homes and educating our children.
But there are times when it takes picking up a gun and placing yourself between the enemies of your home, your children, your nation, and making a determined effort to kill those who would kill yours. It ain't pretty, it ain't nice and at times there's no one else who can do it for you. You cannot reason with those bent on doing you evil, not until you get their attention or they,re not bent on doing that evil because they are all dead.
FLIP the coin, DJ, or at least come out of the tunnel and view the entire landscape.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
