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.

 

Treaty of Paris (1783)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Maybe the South was right?

"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."(emphasis added)

Doesn't this make the case for the south during the civil war? States ought to be considered sovereign and independent? Interesting, in my opinion ...




posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
This was before these free and independant states ratified the U.S. Constitution that made no longer so free nor independent (yet they are somewhat sovereign, as the U.S. is a federal system).



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
This was before these free and independant states ratified the U.S. Constitution that made no longer so free nor independent (yet they are somewhat sovereign, as the U.S. is a federal system).


Where does it say that in the constitution? On the contrary, section 10 only prohibits a few actions by the states, and moreover, it doesn't prohibit leaving the union.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

as posted by radardog
Doesn't this make the case for the south during the civil war? States ought to be considered sovereign and independent? Interesting, in my opinion ...


No and no, radardog.
With the enactment of the Articles of Confederation, states were in a sense sovereign, and the national government weak. This caused major problems: proliferation of paper money within the states, the national government having no power or lacked the effectiveness to address crisis situations, such as exemplified by Shay's Rebellion, where Congress/the national government lacked the power to deal with it. There were other problems, as well, but Shay's Rebellion was the motivation behind US Constitution and the basic scrapping of the Articles of the Confederation, which had a number of inherent deficiencies/problems.

James Madison [a nationalist], at the Federal Convention of 1787, sought and won a measure, the Virginia Plan, that would basically make the states subject to the national government, stripping them of some powers and giving that enabling power to the national government, in general, a stronger more centralized national government was sought after and obtained, thus weakening the states and their inherent power.

As such, Federalism [where the national government becomes an instrument of the states] was overcome for nationalism [where the national government arises from the people, not the states, thus creating a strong and empowered centralized national government].

More related reading:
A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution





seekerof

[edit on 21-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Besides, what would the recognition of the british have to do with any US laws?


Does anyone know of any legal arguements that were actually put to the test in court vis a vis leaving the Federal Government? I'd think that there must be, since even the new england states contemplated it.

What was the mechanism by which the Articles were made void, if anyone knows a site or work that explains it properly?



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I think it come down to more of:

During the period covered by the Articles of Confederation- the states made up a loose nit "club", if your were, were they were generally headed in the same direction but the "club" president or Central Government had no real power to demand dues (taxes) or mediate disagreements between the states- why? Well, nothing more binding had been agreed on by the States.

Now post Constitution: The states became much more like a credit union. And just like a credit union the Central body has ZERO power without its members- the members are free to leave at anytime (find me ANYTHING ANYWHERE prohibiting leaving the UNION) but while they remain members the central body has the power to demand dues or fines (taxes again) to belong to the organization. The central body also limited and defined powers (first TEN Amendments) to tell the Members (States) how things are going to be - as long as the member belongs to the organization and they are approved by the majority of the States.

The Federal government does not exist of its own accord. It exists sole at the combined discretion of the States that make up the Union and in no aspect has the power to dictate to the States anything without the majority of the States behind said dictation.

Actually, constitutionally, most of the laws congress passes are bogus because the tenth amendment (still on the books and has not been repealed BY THE STATES) specifically says the Feds can not pass any law it sees fit. Of, course this whole amendment has largely been ignored since the 30's.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join