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.

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 ... 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... but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America ... have constituted and appointed... yada yada etc etc

Article 8: The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.

Originally posted by junglejake
Quite simply, I would look beyond the treaty to the actual politics. We very obviously today aren't a British colony. Even in 1812, during the only war the US has ever lost, the causes for the British invasion weren't related to this treaty. Both sides seem to have seen it as a declaration of American soverignty.

Originally posted by Hajduk
I would be really curious to know how many American Presidents, and in general, powerful/influencial people, can trace there family histories back to British nobility.

Originally posted by twitchy
Interesting post OpenSecret. that was the level of discussion I was looking for here.

hajduk
can trace there family histories back to British nobility.

Originally posted by junglejake
Quite simply, I would look beyond the treaty to the actual politics. We very obviously today aren't a British colony. Even in 1812, during the only war the US has ever lost, the causes for the British invasion weren't related to this treaty. Both sides seem to have seen it as a declaration of American soverignty.

At the time the treaty was signed, the Brits had control over much of the world. You could be a soverign nation, but you still had to answer to the king of England and his edicts because, like the US is now, if you didn't play by their rules, they'd take the ball and go home. Then, the world's economy pretty much revolved around the British empire and the East India Company, which was controlled by the Brits. Today, the world's economy revolves around the US. We make mandates to soverign nations and they obey them or they have sanctions placed on them.

Originally posted by longbow
Just one remark - the 1812-1814 war was not lost, it was a stalemate.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest



couldn't you argure the romans still own britain, so the US is a roman state ?

Originally posted by deltaboy
so case closed thanks to EastCoastKid who solved the mystery, the US of A aint a Brit colony and hasnt been since 1781. anibody who still dreams of America being a Brit colony talk to me.