It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does England still control the U.S. 230 years later?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I remember reading somewhere that England was supposed to sign a document and never did therefore meaning that the US was still a colony of England. I also remember reading something that said Ben Franklin would sign documents as Squire(could be wrong title) Ben Franklin, meaning he was still under English rule. These documents he signed were after the Declaration of Independence was signed. Supposively this was all secretly done and U.S. was controlled by the bloody English - oh no! If anyone has any links to this one it would be great. Please discuss the possibilty of the US still being an English colony.

Here is the document I read www.apfn.org...


[edit on 8-1-2005 by Growling Lion]

[edit on 9-1-2005 by Growling Lion]




posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   
No. There's no possibility at all. The UK has made lots of treaties with the United States, and treaties are something that one country does with another, not that a country would make with its colony!

While a "Squire" in medieval times was an English sub-knight or knight-in-the-making, the term "Esquire" in the United States is just a courtesy term that lawyers have adopted for themselves, and doesn't mean anything more than "Mister" or "Doctor" does.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Ben Franklin, on behset of the US signed the Treaty of Paris (forgot the year but well after the ratification of the US constitution) which to my understanding, kept the US a subordinate of the British Monarchy. I wish I could remember more about it, but has been a while since I read it. There's plenty of info out there on it though growling lion. There was definately something to that treaty that I thought seemed pretty odd. Ben Franklin was also suspected on and off through history of espionage.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Here is a link--- www.apfn.org...



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
The Treaty of Paris was signed in September 3rd 1783, four years and fourteen days before the Constitution of the United States was ratified.

Here are some excerpts:

"Article 1:

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 read the entire Treaty of Paris at

www.ku.edu...

Why do I have to do your research for you?

So much for "denying ignorance"!




[edit on 8-1-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I dpn't think so but I’m not really up on early American history but I did come across the article, it might be of some interest to some readers here. It also say George Washington was not the first President.


The Federalists were allied with the monarchists in their drive for a strong federal government to rule over states. Some wanted an American king.

They were opposed by noted anti-Federalists such as Thomas McKean, Thomas Jefferson, Arthur St. Claire, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, George Clinton, Robert Yates, Melanchton Smith, John Winthrop, Elbridge Gerry, Robert Whitehill, William Findley and John Smilie.

On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress from the various American Colonies operating under the Articles of Association approved the historic Declaration of Independence, which was penned by Thomas Jefferson. This drastic action had become necessary due to the tyrannical British Empire rule over the Colonies, which reached new levels of abuse when on April 1, 1774; King George III began responding with harsh measures against Boston.

The Sons of Liberty (Colonial activists) had dumped British tea into Boston Bay in late 1773, known today as the “Boston Tea Party” in protest over high tariffs, as any good Daughter of the American Revolution (DAR) historian could tell you. Sporadic fighting had been perpetrated by British troops in Boston and other areas in 1775-1776.

The Continental Congress of the Articles of Association, operating under its president, John Hancock, elected George Washington to serve as commander of the Continental Army on June 15, 1775 to defend the Colonies.

Just eight days after the passage of the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, Congress appointed a committee to draw up a constitution on Friday, July 12, 1776. Thomas McKean was prominent on that committee since he was chief justice of Pennsylvania.

Of course, the Declaration of Independence brought a military response from King George III, who stated: “The lines have been drawn. Blows must decide.” War had started, and the British were determined to put down our rebellion cruelly with the military force of the worldwide British Empire.
The Barnes Review



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
There's no question that George Washington could've been king had he wanted; he had more majesty and nobility in his little finger than poor old George Hanover had in his entire body.

But that was not Washington's style; he exemplified the true Cincinnati (and I'm not talking about the city in Ohio). It was he who, when asked if he wanted to be called "Your Majesty" said he thought his form of address should be "Mister President."

He was a giant.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
i dont know if this is well known i was told this by my history teacher during the American election during 2000 anyway, the deal during when America was given independance was that if they couldnt elect a president successfully during the alloted time, technically the British could claim America back
, this is all meant to be legit.
i really dont know much else due to being told this in the space of 5 mins



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
The Treaty of Paris was signed in September 3rd 1783, four years and fourteen days before the Constitution of the United States was ratified.

Here are some excerpts:

"Article 1:

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 read the entire Treaty of Paris at

www.ku.edu...

Why do I have to do your research for you?

So much for "denying ignorance"!




[edit on 8-1-2005 by Off_The_Street]


Yes, but it sounds like the King and his subjects get everything back that was theirs in Article 5:

Article 5:

It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty's arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that persons of any other decription shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties since the confiscation.

And it is agreed that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.

So much for "denying ignorance"!



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
So what's the point, growl? About a third of the people in the Colonies were "loyal subjects of the crown", called Tories. After the revolution, a lot of their land was sequestered, especially of those who went to Canada.

The English government thought (and I believe rightfully) that these citizens whould not have been stripped of their land because they were loyalists, so that they agreed that Congress would recommend that the legislatures give those individuals their property back.

And, if I recall correctly, Congress have actually made some noise to the various state legislatures to get their lands restored.

Here is what I read from

odur.let.rug.nl...

"The Paris Peace Treaty required Congress to restore property confiscated from Loyalists. The heirs of William Penn in Pennsylvania, for example, and those of George Calvert in Maryland received generous settlements. In the Carolinas, where enmity between rebels and Loyalists was especially strong, few of the latter regained their property. In New York and the Carolinas, the confiscations from Loyalists resulted in something of a social revolution as large estates were parceled out to yeoman farmers.

About 100,000 Loyalists left the country, including William Franklin, the son of Benjamin, and John Singleton Copley, the greatest American painter of the period. Most settled in Canada. Some eventually returned, although several state governments excluded the Loyalists from holding public office. In the decades after the Revolution, Americans preferred to forget about the Loyalists. Apart from Copley, the Loyalists became nonpersons in American history."


I hardly think that resrtoring property to individuals was "getting back everything that was theirs" and I certainly don't think it lends any credence to the business about us still being a British colony LOL!


According to Google, thre are about 277,000 entries for the search term "american tories". Search engines are not that hard to use.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
There were several Presidents of Congress and the under the Articles of Confederation. Also, there was the "one day" President, Thomas Atchison that through technicalities became President for the day in 1849. Atchison spent his day as President hungover from the "inauguration" partying.

None of this is known because it's relatively unimportant. Washington was the first President of the United States elected by the people. The other examples are more or less formalities and were essentially figure.s. While McKean was important in Pennsylvania, near where I live is a town and a county named McKean, as well as several other things, he wasn't that important. library.thinkquest.org...

The US is still a British Colony? Even if some absolute legal documentation was discovered to say that we were - all that would come of it would be Congress writing another "Declaration of Independence". There would be no war this time.

All article 5 is stating is that British Loyalists that remained loyal to Britan shall not be robbed of their property and rights for a period of 12 months to gain restitution before they went back to England. Not everyone in the "Colonies" wanted to separate from Britan and a huge number of people moved back after independence was gained. All that's happening there is that Britan is protecting the in most cases very wealthy that have stayed loyal to the Crown.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Also, I agree with everything that Off the Street has said.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   
England controls the U.S. but George W. Bush controls Tony Blair (remember he is George's poodle). Funny how these NWO conspiracies work.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
England controls the U.S. but George W. Bush controls Tony Blair (remember he is George's poodle). Funny how these NWO conspiracies work.


You can go round and round in circles trying to figure out the NWO, huh?



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 05:25 AM
link   
but the lemmings still come back home to pay homage to the real masters:

"The power of Rothschild family was evidenced on 24 September 2002 when a helicopter touched down on the lawn of Waddedson Manor, their ancestral home in Buckinghamshire, England. Out of the helicopter strode Warren Buffet, - touted as the second richest man in the world but really a lower ranking player- and Arnold Schwarzenegger, candidate for the Governorship of California. Also in attendance at this two day meeting of the world's most powerful businessmen and financiers hosted by Jacob Rothschild were James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank and Nicky Oppenheimer, chairman of De Beers. Arnold went on to secure the governorship of one of the biggest economies on the planet a year later"

goldismoney.info...

the website he got it off, policestateplanning, has an amazing ebook for download for free



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Esquire is a title ranking between gentleman and knight.

In terms of lawyers, I see no way it can mean they are above a gentleman as liars are not even to the level of gentlemen.

Oops, did I think publicly again? Shame on me!



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
yeah i know im picking on the rothschilds, but heres another link:

www.chemtrailcentral.com...

check secion 1.2 "The world gold price is still fixed daily in the Rothschild offices in London."

also, theres a whole bit about the european banking families who planned the formation of the fed. I doubt they did that just out the goodness of their hearts and must influence/control/own it to some degree.

"The Jekyll Island Plan for the Federal Reserve Act was drawn up by the five biggest banking houses in Europe and America: Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg and Kuhn Loeb.(5)"

check out the sources at the bottom to see if its genuine. I remember reading about the jekyll island plan n the banking families in several other sites n ebooks over the last yr so didnt bother, unless they are all lying or got it from one unreliable source.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
oh i found the source for the arnie, buffet, rothschild meeting in 2002:

www.infowars.com...

which came from:
ARNOLD & BUFFETT's LOADED ELEPHANT GUN?
Buffett's Back, with the Terminator!
Reported By: Reuters
Tuesday, September 24, 2002

as one website put it about this meeting:

"That he should be initiated into the ruling class in the Rothschilds' English country manor suggests that the centre of gravity of the three hundred trillion dollar cartel is in the U.K. and Europe not the U.S. (20) "




www.chemtrailcentral.com...

the cartel in question is a secret banking cartel of several families who never seem to appear in forbes magasine or in our uk's sunday times' rich list.


all the treaties etc aside, if USA naitonal debt is $26 trillion and last time i saw USA economy figure was in an economist 2003 edition which was that the economy is an $11trillion one plus since global national debt of all countries exceed $100 trillion, its easy to see how private european based familes could control other countries including the USA.

Incidently, i think since the British are the ones who promised "Lord" Rotheschild a country for the jews (Israel) back at the treaty of Verseilles, its fair to say the american econmy which is raped of $9 billion + per year in "aid" to Israel are basically been embezzelled. So maybe Israel controls USA?? Since Rotheschild clearly has links to Israel.

check out
www.nogw.com...

see links between Israel and America in terms of business and politics there.

[edit on 9/1/05 by el_illumbrato]



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Edited to remove seemingly self-contradictory work of accidental comedy by the author and stands corrected with ignorance denied.

Apologies sent to "off the street" in u2u.

[edit on 9-1-2005 by MERC]



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
i dont see it merc. I see it saying that the UK doesnt control the USA since he "reliquishes" control. and off the street did say:

"No. There's no possibility at all",

in reply to the question:

"Does England still control the U.S. 230 years later?"

am i missing something here?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join