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.

 

Tax Day April 15, 2010 the London Banker’s Celebration of the Anniversary of Lincoln’s Death

page: 9
130
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
In fact America and London Bankers, and Industrialists, probably own more of China than the Chinese do.


True!


Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
It's the prototype New World Order State, no religion, strong dictatorial central authority, communism for the people, fascism for the corporations, capitalism for the owners!


China used to be authoritarian communists but now they are authoritarian capitalists. The only aspect that remains is authoritarianism but the chineese have grown accustomed to anything authoritarian so doing away with authoritarianism would be unchinnese just like socialism to america is unamerican.


As for religion the majority follow budhaism. Communism for the people? Haha only in their dreams! Fascism for corporations? Fascism is an overly-abused term but I suppose in the context of what most people understand it, what you say is true. I prefer to call it corporatism or better yet oligarchy capitalism!


Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
No authority is higher than the state, and priveleges are awarded strictly on productivity and importance of the individual to the state.


The state is a slave to corporations, thus people are also slaves to the same coporations.


Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
What we are seeing in China is the wave of the future, if Rome and it's Patricians and Equites have their way.


What we are seeing is the illuminati bankers and corporations dumping america and western europe for eastern europe and asia. As cabaret voltaire keeps unelequently stating, its all about exploitation. Exploiters need new markets to maximise profits.




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Sorry Treaties are legally binding documents, not poems or sonnets.

The words in them have PRECISE legal definitions and terms, and it is why Treaties are worded PRECISELY. AS are all LEGAL DOCUMENTS.

So if you a get a chance to do some real due dilligent research, do let me know the sources, in the meantime, you have an unsubstantiated opinion, which is something you are entitled too.

You have though not displayed any source, or even any intimate level of knowledge with these things, but hastily formed conclusions, lacking a sound research.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




Well you tell that to the next nation we decide to bomb for violating a treaty.


Treaties are excuses to go to war.. but can only be done so by a massive power. No one can force the US to abide by a Treaty, because no one can punish us if we broke it. We can slap around smaller nations because they are defenseless, we then can tout "well they broke a treaty" as self justification. But under no pretext is the treaty considered law, as international law cannot exist.



Legal dictionaries, are modified on average every generation, do you have one from the late 1700's when the Treaty was made?


Specifically what bothers you about it? I've seen you mention "Divine Providence" which is a Catholic term for "God" or "God's will" .. but what else? You say the terms, because its a treaty, are precise?

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, Delaware, 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.


Well there ya go, we can take that literally.

Only thing weird and out of place in the treaty is this..

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.

Which I found amusing.

This one has a funny local story:

Article 9:

In case it should so happen that any place or territory belonging to Great Britain or to the United States should have been conquered by the arms of either from the other before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty and without requiring any compensation.

Fort Vancouver (Vancouver Washington) was operated by a British fur company.. the Brits forgot they owned it, and sent a ship the long way round to attack it. Captain pulls up in his boat, sees the Union Jack and is pissed off he sailed all that way to see the Brits still owned it. So he fired his cannons over the Fort, had a ceremony and claimed it (again) for his Majesty. At the end of the war, some Americans working there brought this up, and Britain was forced to hand it over to America .. along with all the tracking grounds the fort covered. The British company re-plotted their expedition at a new Fort Vancouver.. setting the current day boundaries for America/Canada, Vancouver being on the border.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Once again, the Treaty of Paris, the Source Document uses very precise language amongst other things, the clause that states all parties have REVEALED, thats a very key word, because REVEALED meens previously unknown, FULL AND RESPECTIVE POWERS, that means everythign involved that was previously unknown and is a disclaimer and a disclosure meaning that EVERYONE PRESENT, and ONLY THOSE PRESENT know the FULL AND RESPECTIVE POWERS REVEALED.





I have just gone back to the Treaty cited in your link, so I can explain exactly what the phrase "Full powers" means..

I assume you're talking about the sentence at the end of the preamble, where the plenipotentiaries say that they are going to sign the treaty "after respectively communicating their respective full powers".

This all comes down to the meaning of the word "plenipotentiary". The word means "someone having full powers".A plenipotentiary is somebody who is sent out by his government with "full power" to sign treaties, that is to say, he can sign them on the spot with having to go back and check with the people at home.

When the treaty was being signed, it was obviously necessary to be sure that all the signatories were authorised to sign. Otherwise there would be no point. Therefore, before they signed, they all showed each other the documentary evidence that they were fully authorised agents of the two governments. Franklin would have had a piece of paper saying, roughly speaking, "this man Franlkin has full power to sign treaties in the name of the US", and so on.

That is the meaning of the phrase "communicating full powers".



[edit on 15-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




Sorry Treaties are legally binding documents, not poems or sonnets.


No, sorry they are not. A Nation can draft resolution in line with a treaty, or they can pass resolutions to draft the actual treaty as a Law, however the Law and the Treaty are two separate things. If the treaty changes, a new law is ratified to amend the new one, or the law may be ratified and amended without changing the international understand of the treaty (ie, breaking it).

Nothing actually stops a country form breaking a treaty.

Case in point.. Great Britain attacked the United States in 1812, invading and capturing Washington DC ... in complete violation of the Treaty of Paris.

Thus, the Treaty of Ghent was drafted to end THAT war.




You have though not displayed any source, or even any intimate level of knowledge with these things, but hastily formed conclusions, lacking a sound research.




I have been posting external blips..

here is the source from my EX posting of the HRE www.heraldica.org...

Dunno why you have to insult me again?

Don't mean to make you all agitated, I think this is a fun debate.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
In Cameron, the testatrix concluded her will with the words the whole of my estate must be used for God only."

The lower Court took it as a valid disposition by reading it to mean "used for religious purposes".

But on appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed and held that:

"... the trust is so vague and uncertain that the bequest was void and falls into the residue".
duhaime.org...

GOD. From the Saxon god, good. The source of all good; the supreme being. 1. Every man is presumed to believe in God, and he who opposes a witness on the ground of his unbelief is bound to prove it. 3 Bouv. Inst. u. 3180.
2. Blasphemy against the Almighty, by denying his being or providence, was an offence punishable at common law by fine and imprisonment, or other infamous corporal punishment. 4 Bl. Corn. 60; 1 East, P. C. 3; 1 Russ. on Crimes, 217. This offence his been enlarged in Pennsylvania, and perhaps most of the states, by statutory provision. Vide Christianity; Blasphemy; 11 Serg. & Rawle, 394.
3. By article 1, of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, it is provided that "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the United States, therefore, every one is allowed to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...


The Holy See (Latin: Sancta Sedes) is the episcopal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in Rome, in which its Bishop is commonly known as the Pope. It is the preeminent episcopal see of the Catholic Church, forming the central government of the Church. As such, diplomatically, and in other spheres the Holy See acts and speaks for the whole Catholic Church. It is also recognized by other subjects of international law as a sovereign entity, headed by the Pope, with which diplomatic relations can be maintained.[1]

Although it is often referred to by the ambiguous term "the Vatican", the Holy See is not the same entity as the Vatican City State, which came into existence only in 1929, while the Holy See dates back to early Christian times. Ambassadors are officially accredited not to the Vatican City State but to "the Holy See", and papal representatives to states and international organizations are recognized as representing the Holy See, not the Vatican City State.

While all episcopal sees are "holy", the expression "the Holy See" (without further specification) is normally used in international relations, as a metonym, (as well as in the canon law of the Catholic Church)[2] to refer to the See of Rome viewed as the central government of the Catholic Church. The Holy See as legal person bears many similarities with the crown in the secular Christian monarchies.
en.wikipedia.org...

For the novel by Walter F. Murphy, see Vicar of Christ (novel).
Vicar of Christ (from Latin Vicarius Christi) Vicar of God is used as a title equivalent[1], is a term used in different ways, with connotations theological different throughout history. A vicar is a servant who STANDS IN place of the real sovereign in some administrative matters of his kingdom, equivalent titles include "representative" or "overseer". The title is now used in Catholicism to refer to the bishops[2] and more specifically to the Bishop of Rome.[1]

A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as: (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, exchange of letters, etc. Regardless of the terminology, all of these international agreements under international law are equally treaties and the rules are the same. (Note that in United States constitutional law, the term "treaty" has a special meaning which is more restricted than its meaning in international law; see below.)

Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law. The central principle of treaty law is expressed in the maxim pacta sunt servanda—"pacts must be respected".
en.wikipedia.org...

Sounds like the Pope is legally God to me, and sounds like treaties are contracts upheld through the ages.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Once again all guesses are speculative. If you weren't there, if they weren't explained to you.

Some people have a need to inherently validate what they believe they know that frames their reality in this fashion.

By the way in case anyone cares, my source for originally researching all these titles, was from the Vatican Library and there definitions of them.

Anyone who has done serious research on laws, and treaties, will tell you the further you go back in time, the word often very often has a totally different meaning than it has today.

Some words in the treaties, are so obscure, you have to go back several hundred years to find any source for their definition.

I appreciate that some of the posters on the thread have an inherent need to validate their current belief system, and no one wants to take that away from you.

Or from anyone else.

But if you want to convince me, words don't really mean what they mean, in a persistence wears out resitence strategy, it will fail, because ultimately you will have to display through sources equivalant or superior to my own, that what I believe is incorrect, and that's going to take a lot of research.

The persistence wears out resistence strategy, will only recieve a polite reply asking you for sources, that would alter my mind.

Those who like the current paradigm, and surrendering half of their money in taxes as free range slaves, to authoritarian governments, and oligarchs are welcome to continue the practice, if in fact they enjoy it so much.

People's inherent need to be right, will not necessarily lead to them doing right.

Thanks for the reply.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by PhyberDragon
 





Sounds like the Pope is legally God to me, and sounds like treaties are contracts upheld through the ages.


Yes on both scores, the Pope is legally God and treaties are binding contracts between sovereign entities, whose sovereignty is in fact attached to recognizing the Pope legally as God.

Believe me when I say, the Pope can spare the change to have anyone eliminated.

Rome has an unspoken power, that the monarchs, and oligarchs are subject to, and it is to that power that we are speaking about.

The fact that some people would go to any length to deny these things that really are in black and white, with deflective arguments, and questionable sources, to back them up, kind of speaks of a certain desperation to have people not talk about these things, and realize there actual importance in the scheme of things.

Words mean what they mean, it's that simple, and legally, the word God means the Vicar of Christ the Pope.

Now legally I am not allowed to Jaywalk but I still do, I don't care, and I can appreciate that many people might not care if the Pope is legally considered God, but there is a reason why heads of state all of the world fall over themselves to kiss his ring, and it's not because any of them are Catholic!

It is what it is, and the truth will set a person free, which is why some people, especially those in secret societies which are all about gaurding truths, would like us to never discover these truths.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I'm not sure which of my posts you are responding to.

In my last post,I went back to the treaty cited in your own link, which is written in fairly plain English.

I am simply trying to persuade you to understand the words in the meaning intended by the writers, instead of inventing your own meanings for them



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Reading all these moany threads on ATS is doing my head in ...Time I boycotted these American we have to pay money and follow rules threads blah blah lets take up arms ........Do you know what it is you aspire to........Communism
Everyone in the world pays tax, everyone in the world follows laws.
I've had to steal food to feed myself as a teenager because I had no money in a COLD British winter, I pulled myself out of that hole, I do as I please within my means I'm not restricted I pay my tax because I know it is for the good of the many unlike the moaners that don't wish to pay tax because their goals are singular and selfish....Land of the free... its just a shame you guys think paying your way is being in prison. gah blow it last time I respond to these American threads ....Time you picked yourself up pay your way and realise you are helping the masses not just yourself.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 





Case in point.. Great Britain attacked the United States in 1812, invading and capturing Washington DC ... in complete violation of the Treaty of Paris.


That would be the Treaty of Paris that if you read the whole thing, mentions clearly secret agreements, agreed to by secret committees of congress that have been sealed and part of the accord without being disclosed in the main body of the Treaty of Paris, Treaty of Paris?

So if you haven't seen those referred to secret accords, that are included only in reference in the Main Body of the Treaty, how do you know who violated the Treaty, if you don't know what all is in it?

If those dealt with the Financial Agreements to repay the Europeans for the land and property and outstanding loans, and were attached to the First United States Bank as the mechanism of payment, then it would have been us who broke the Treaty!

And here is where you ran so far afield you accidently came right back to the real topic of the Post you want to get everyone away from!

Now both the Treaty of Paris, and the Treaty of Ghent fully disclose there are parts to the agreements not in the main bodies that were agreed upon and sealed by secret committees of congress that are mentioned in official foot notes.

So how exactly if you have never ever read the entire treaties which you can't because details of them are in fact secret and sealed, and the treaties clearly state that could you profess to know what's truly in them and more importantly what's not in them?

Pick a sentence any sentence, as I know you will to avoid answering that very common sense question, which you have no source to provide a logical or factual answer for.

Once again both the Treaty of Ghent and Paris, openly refer to accords, that are secret, not in the main body, agreed to and sealed by select secret committees of Congress.

It's all in black and white, and once again the persistence strategy of wearing out resistence can't work, because a critical mind requires answers that you don't have.

See how simple that is.

Now to take it one step further, when ever anything is legislated in secret, agreed upon in secret, and not publicly disclosed it is officially part of a conspiracy to keep the truth from the public.

Now maybe that doesn't bother you, and I won't even ask why, but I don't like people who would like to keep secrets from me, that can or could effect me.

Very simple.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Oh I understand English, in fact I spent a lot of time, finding the books that had the English of the day in their definitions in to make sure I understood them.

I have a curious mind, do you?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PhyberDragon
 




... the trust is so vague and uncertain that the bequest was void and falls into the residue


Aye, that is a very vague statement.. how could you disagree.

however, you are wrong, very wrong that God is Germanic.. or that is derives from "Good"?

from Websters: \God\ (g[o^]d), n. [AS. god; akin to OS. & D. god, OHG. got, G. gott, Icel. gu[eth], go[eth], Sw. & Dan. gud, Goth. gup, prob. orig. a p. p. from a root appearing in Skr. h[=u], p. p. h[=u]ta, to call upon, invoke, implore. [root]30. Cf. [Goodbye], [Gospel], [Gossip].]

God's Etymology root-word is Sanskrit, Hu.

Your second source dictates laws against blasphemy are unconstitutional, an infringement of free-speech.

The Pope is the ruler of the Vatican, which is a Sovereign State. He has no legal jurisdiction over anyone anywhere else.. he is a spiritual leader, figuratively. The Holy See refers only to the Vatican Government.

Why does the Holy See sound kinda like Christian Monarchies of Europe? Because the Vatican IS an Absolute Monarchy.. the Pope being King.




Sounds like the Pope is legally God to me, and sounds like treaties are contracts upheld through the ages.





posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Do you have a source for your laughing emoticon, can we stick some court jester ears on him?

How many times will you use it for an answer when you have no answer?

Any reason you don't care when Congress enters into Treaties that include secret agreements, using secret committees of Congress to negotiate and agree to them?

Elements of a conspiracy exist, and no laughing bauble head will give anyone who is looking for real answers any answer other than you have no answer.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Oh I understand English, in fact I spent a lot of time, finding the books that had the English of the day in their definitions in to make sure I understood them.

I have a curious mind, do you?



Why don't we go over the interpretation of the disputed sentences, step by step,so that we can discuss which of our two interpretations is better?

I've already given my reading of the sentences. Can you spell out exactly where my interpretation is at fault?


Incidentally, I'm going to bed any minute now, so I won't insist on an immediate response.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 





That would be the Treaty of Paris that if you read the whole thing, mentions clearly secret agreements, agreed to by secret committees of congress that have been sealed and part of the accord without being disclosed in the main body of the Treaty of Paris, Treaty of Paris?


....ya.. you will have to post the actual scipt on the site to ATS and highlight those secret parts im apparently missing...




Now both the Treaty of Paris, and the Treaty of Ghent fully disclose there are parts to the agreements not in the main bodies that were agreed upon and sealed by secret committees of congress that are mentioned in official foot notes.


Show me the footnotes.




So how exactly if you have never ever read the entire treaties which you can't because details of them are in fact secret and sealed, and the treaties clearly state that could you profess to know what's truly in them and more importantly what's not in them?


OHHHHH I get it now... you can't show me.. and you can't offer proof... because the secret is a secret, and no one can see........

Cause it's secret......




Pick a sentence any sentence, as I know you will to avoid answering that very common sense question, which you have no source to provide a logical or factual answer for.


I can post the entire text of the Treaty of Paris and Ghent if you want. But it won't show the secret part that no one can see cause it's a secret, unless you secretly know the secret perhaps you will find a way to show it to us.




Now maybe that doesn't bother you, and I won't even ask why, but I don't like people who would like to keep secrets from me, that can or could effect me.


Makes no sense.

So no I guess it doesnt bother me.
Again.. unless you show me the secret footnotes.

Simple indeed.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




Any reason you don't care when Congress enters into Treaties that include secret agreements, using secret committees of Congress to negotiate and agree to them?


Well if they entered into them secretly to pass secret laws that go with secret accords mentioned on secret footnotes.. I can't very well be for or against it.. because it's so secretive I have no idea what it is. Just that.... it's a secret. And apparently has something to do with Rome running the world with the Pop-God-King as a front for the secret Rome (because rome isn't rome it's the secret rome under rome that runs rome) that is really the Holy Roman Empire *to which no one has said who the current emperor is....* ..

So I guess I will just have to take your (uncited) word for it.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Thank You OP for a very well written and thought out thread. Puts a lot of things into context and sorts nuggets from gravel. Makes sense as to where our tax dollars are going as they are obviously not being spent here



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Wow a history major who doesn't have access too, and never read the source documents?

If you follow the link on the OP it takes you to the best source for both the Treaty of Ghent, you can find those references somewhere starting around the 600th page.

The Treaty of Paris isn't quite as long, read how it's dictated to us by the King of England who lost the war!



Because we are just so darn magnanimous in victory.

By the way thanks for continueing to bump the thread now that its time expired for the home page.

Rest assured I will be happy to entertain your denial all night long to keep it on top of the recent posts board.

As I said before as soon as you do some credible research, you could have a credible discussion!

Wouldn't that be something?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

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 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, 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, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and 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, 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; 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.

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, Delaware, 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.

Article 2:

And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz.; from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that nagle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix River to the highlands; along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River; thence down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; from thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy; thence along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario; through the middle of said lake until it strikes the communication by water between that lake and Lake Erie; thence along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the water communication between that lake and Lake Huron; thence along the middle of said water communication into Lake Huron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication between that lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royal and Phelipeaux to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake and the water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; thence through the said lake to the most northwesternmost point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi; thence by a line to be drawn along the middle of the said river Mississippi until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude, South, by a line to be drawn due east from the determination of the line last mentioned in the latitude of thirty-one degrees of the equator, to the middle of the river Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River, thence straight to the head of Saint Mary's River; and thence down along the middle of Saint Mary's River to the Atlantic Ocean; east, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river Saint Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid highlands which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river Saint Lawrence; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part and East Florida on the other shall, respectively, touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.

Article 3:

It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that island) and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.

Article 4:

It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.

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.

Article 6:

That there shall be no future confiscations made nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons for, or by reason of, the part which he or they may have taken in the present war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property; and that those who may be in confinement on such charges at the time of the ratification of the treaty in America shall be immediately set at liberty, and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued.

Article 7:

There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the



new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join