It seems the continental congress thought there was a country called the United States of America. From the journal of the continental congress;
"Congress took into consideration the articled agreed upon by and between Richard Oswald, esq. the commissioners of his Britannic Majesty, for treated of peace with the commissioners of the United States of America,..."
Looks to me like the representative of one Nation negotiating with the representatives of another nation.
And from the treaty of Paris itself;
"It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc..
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 upon the ground of reciprocal Advantages and mutual Convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual Peace and Harmony; and having for this desirable End already laid the Foundation of Peace & Reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the Commissioners empowered on each Part, w
hich 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, but which Treaty was not to be concluded until Terms of Peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain & France, and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such Treaty accordingly: and the treaty between Great Britain & France having since been concluded,
his Britannic Majesty & the United States of America, in Order to carry into full Effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the Tenor thereof, have constituted & appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his Part, David Hartley, Esqr., Member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said
United States on their Part, - stop point - John Adams, Esqr., late a
Commissioner of the United States of America at the Court of Versailles, late Delegate in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, and Chief Justice of the said State, and Minister Plenipotentiary of the said United States to their High Mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; - stop point - Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late Delegate in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, President of the Convention of the said State, and
Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the Court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late President of Congress and Chief Justice of the state of New York, and Minister Plenipotentiary from the said United States at the Court of Madrid; to be Plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the Present Definitive Treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full Powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following Articles." Treaty of Paris
Noticed all the representatives are identified as being from the United States of America. Not from Virginia, New York, etc.
The idea that America is not a country is so ludacrious that it shouldn't even need to be debated, but here we are.
The Treaty of Paris was in 1783, when the USA was under the
1781 Articles of Confederation.
I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Clearly, sending ambassadors to the Treaty of Paris, was
one of those delegated powers.
And so it's interesting that you should omit Article I, from the Treaty of Paris:
"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."
So Great Britain
acknowledges each state's sovereignty, freedom and independence.
Which the U.S. Constitution does not expressly
revoke.
Independent states, obviously, do not
lose their sovereign independence to conjoin as
larger independent states, simply by failing to
expressly retain it in international compacts.
On the contrary, they must expressly manifest an intention to
relinquish their independence to another state— whether joining to become part of an existing nation-state, or uniting to form a
new independent nation- state; as noted in Blackstone’s influential
Commentaries, that in the case of a nonconfederate, “incorporate union” such as the 1707 union of England and Scotland, no rescission option existed:
“The two contracting states are totally annihilated [qua sovereign states], without any power of revival; and a third arises from their conjunction, in which all the rights of sovereignty … must necessarily reside.”
However the precise
wording in that 1707 document that united England and Scotland into the single nation of Great Britain,
expressly manifested this intention. To wit:
"That
the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall, upon the first Day of May next ensuing the Date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom by the Name of Great-Britain, and that the Ensigns Armorial of the said united Kingdom, be such as her Majesty shall appoint; and the Crosses of St. Andrew and St. George be conjoined in such a manner as her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards, and Ensigns, both at Sea and Land."
This is because such national union can
only be expressly manifested by the nations themselves.
It can
never be inferred by outside interpretation; for the obvious reason that sovereign nations are their own final authority, and hence any outside inference would be inherently void.
And this new “one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain,” was the very kingdom from which the Founders
seceded; and therefore they would naturally be the
first to know the difference between national vs. international compacts.
In contrast, neither the Constitution, or any other American founding document, ever
likewise expressly manifests uniting the individual independent sovereign states together, to create a single
new independent nation-state, to which they would become
dependent states.
Rather, the Constitution is an international compact, just as with the UN or the EU, or indeed the Articles of Confederation.
The main difference, is that it is established by the respective
people of each independent state, who were thus established as the supreme final authority therein; and they simply
delegate various powers to state and federal governments, as detailed in the
body of the Constitution.