J Robert Oppenheimer and his ideas

[TomEvans]

You seem not to know the rules of becoming a sovereign nation

I know it begins with statehood-- which you seem not to know.

And as far as statehood goes, you can start with expressed original intent to form such:



Here the word "states" is plural, with each state being a separate sovereign nation; not dependent member-states of a single sovereign nation.

This was discerned, from what the Law of Nations defined in Book I, Chapter I, §11: “Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another:”

But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves, they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.

Therefore since the states could “make war, contract alliances, and treat with other nations, “do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do;” the states were not under the dominion of another, and thus were 13 separate sovereign nations.

This was binding as a legal document, among sovereign nations, describing international agreements; since:

• it was signed by the duly-elected representatives of each colony; and​
• it fully expressed the intentions of the colonies, in defining the terms of their revolution, not some “bait & switch” where they started the revolution as 13 separate sovereign nations, to trick the colonists into it; and then simply changed the terms in order to replace one empire with another.​

In short, the colonists fought for thirteen separate sovereign nations; and therefore, that’s what they won.


Specifically:

1. They did not fight to establish a single sovereign nation; but on the contrary:​
2. they fought to establish their respective states as separate sovereign nations.​

So since this was a revolution; then the intentions of the victors, became the law.

And this declared intent, was retained under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union:

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.

And this was in the following context from the Law of Nations, §10. “Of states forming a federal republic:”

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

And since the states delegated these powers to the United States, each state had them to begin with-- as well as freedom, sovereignty and independence.

As such, the states simply formed an international union of (thirteen) separate sovereign nations— just like the United Nations or the European Union, after them; and each nation simply delegated powers to the United States as such a federal republic, being a “voluntary engagement among a perpetual confederacy” among separate sovereign nations, whose joint deliberations did not impair the sovereignty of each nation.

And this declared national sovereignty of each state, was officially established by the Paris Peace Treaty of September 30, 1783

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.

In addition to the express recognition of each state by name, as “free, sovereign and independent states,” as originally declared—i.e. thirteen separate sovereign nations; here the phrase “he treats with them as such,” refers to the fact that the treaty is with the states themselves, as thirteen separate sovereign nations; and not with “the United States,” as a single nation of thirteen subordinate states.

So in addition to being formally recognized by Great Britain, each with its own respective separate national territory; each state demonstrated the power, to treat with other sovereign nations-- which they had already expressly delegated to the United States as a confederation, to do so on their behalf.


This was due to the fact that, as noted above in Article II; the sovereign national power of embassy, which belonged to each free, sovereign and independent state; was simply among those powers which had been expressly delegated to the United States, in the Articles themselves, “in congress assembled.”

Therefore, the Treaty legally and officially established each state as a separate sovereign nation: thirteen in all.

If they wished for "the Union" to be a state, they would would have written that, starting with the Declaration of Independence.
But there were three separate unions there:

1. the United Colonies of Great Britain,​
2. the newly-declared United States of America, and​
3. the confederation of the United States of America.​

None of them were ever expressed as being a free, sovereign and independent state; the latter two were only international unions among 13 of such such free, sovereign and independent states.

In the 1770s, a new nation gained recognition as a sovereign state by first declaring independence and then securing formal recognition through treaties with other countries. A crucial step was winning a war for independence, which demonstrated the new nation's ability to function as a separate entity. Finally, a definitive peace treaty, like the Treaty of Paris in 1783, officially ended the war and was signed by former colonial power to formally recognize the new nation's sovereignty.

It was not a "nation" in the sovereign context of being a state, independent or otherwise; so this falls to semantics.

Steps to recognition
Declare independence: The first formal step was a public declaration of sovereignty, which severed political ties with the former colonial power. The U.S. Declaration of Independence, issued in 1776, served this purpose, formally announcing separation from Great Britain.

As thirteen free and independent states: i.e. 13 sovereign nations.
Not a single state.

Fight a successful war: To prove the declaration was more than just words, the new nation needed to win a war for independence to establish itself as a de facto sovereign power. This demonstrated the ability to defend its territory and govern its people.

As an expressly declared international alliance among 13 sovereign nations; and the revolution ended by Great Britain recognizing the allies as 13 separate sovereign nations.

Secure foreign aid: With a declared independence, the new nation could then seek foreign alliances and military support.

Which they did as an international confederation of 13 sovereign nations, each of whose states could unilaterally refuse.

Negotiate a peace treaty: The final and most crucial step was to negotiate a formal peace treaty with the former colonial power. This treaty explicitly recognized the independence and sovereignty of the new nation,

No, it expressly recognized the sovereignty, freedom and independence of the 13 states-- each separately by name; and expressly treated with them as such.

Not with the United States-- but simply through it as a proxy:

and was a legal and diplomatic confirmation of its statehood.

Again: that's opposite the express written intent, of all parties to the transaction. The United States itself is never mentioned as having statehood.

For the United States, the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1783, served this function by formally ending the war and recognizing American independence.

As an international union (i.e. a confederation) of thirteen separate sovereign nations, each expressly by name.
"America" was simply a geographic designation, not a political one.

 

[LJMYERS]

I know as much as anyone going to the Washington Family Reunions.

 

[5fish]

You seem not to get it. Declaring sovereignty does not make you a sovereign nation or give you sovereignty... You're not getting it. In post #19 OF THIS THREAD... points it out...

I sent you the items that a nation must do to be recognized as a nation among nations; no individual colony has ever completed them. The colonies, as a body under the title The United States of America, did complete the requirements for recognition as a nation among nations. You do not get it, you sound like some Protestants during the Reformation, declaring the Bible says this, but it did not... You are declaring each colony had sovereignty by declaring it and it does not work that way...

This was due to the fact that, as noted above in Article II; the sovereign national power of embassy, which belonged to each free, sovereign and independent state; was simply among those powers which had been expressly delegated to the United States, in the Articles themselves, “in congress assembled.”

The confederation was a federal system in which the states and the national government shared and divided powers and duties. The Constitution that followed did the same thing by separating powers and responsibilities among the states.

Not with the United States-- but simply through it as a proxy:

This is why they are mentioned in the treaty, it was to give them freedom to become the new nation of The United States of America... You need to quit wishful thinking of sovereignty because they never had it... You are acting like a Reformation Protestant...

Every colony was listed in the Treaty of Paris (1783) because Britain was formally recognizing the independence of all thirteen of its former colonies and establishing them as a new, sovereign nation. The explicit listing in Article I was crucial for legally and completely transferring sovereignty from the British Crown to the United States.

 

[LJMYERS]

This thread is J Robert Oppenheimer and his Ideas. What is more important is his Pittsburgh Oppenheimer family was connected to the Westinghouse Company and to Albert Einstein's mother Pauline Koch. It is this group that welded the bomb together at Westinghouse. From the records of Wilhelm Frick and General Wilhelm Keitel who was the aide to Adolph Hitler and uncle to Kitty Oppenheimer. From the records of Sgt John C Woods who seems to be related to the Woods Screw Machine Company of Pittsburgh who were related to the Westinghouse family. All this without Generals Ike Eisenhower or Lesley Groves knowing about it.

 

[TomEvans]

You seem not to get it. Declaring sovereignty does not make you a sovereign nation or give you sovereignty... You're not getting it. In post #19 OF THIS THREAD... points it out...

I sent you the items that a nation must do to be recognized as a nation among nations; no individual colony has ever completed them.

You are entitled to your own opinions about what must be done to become such; but not your own facts.

You're equivocating the word "nation" to mean something other than a free, sovereign and independent state-- particularly in spite of express declaration to the contrary.

This is why Lincoln claimed the following, in his July 4, 1861 Message to Congress:

Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas; and even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the Declaration of Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and independent States;" but even then the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another or of the Union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge and their mutual action before, at the time, and afterwards abundantly show.

However again, they had no sovereign dependence on "one another or on the Union--" but only on Great Britain, which owned them all; while their "Union" was purely domestic to Great Britain.

And so the mere fact that they did not expressly declare sovereign independence of such a union, as they did against Great Britain; is wholly void, in claiming to have retained any sort of mutual sovereign dependency, since there none ever existed.

Meanwhile Lincoln's use of the word "independence" to imply that such mutual sovereign dependence existed, is pure equivocation, and thus void; since they formed a new union, being no longer colonies-- and thus were not united as colonies.

And again, this union of states, declared no mutual sovereign dependence as a single state.

Rather, they formed an international union called "the United States of America," under the Declaration of Independence; out of the "United Colonies" as a sub-group of British colonies, which lawfully belonged to Great Britain; and they all recognized that claim, before declaring independence as free and independent states.

So each state, in being free, sovereign and independent; was a sovereign nation, which belonged solely to itself.

The colonies, as a body under the title The United States of America,

Correction: they were The United Colonies.

When they became states, they were 13 sovereign nations, of the United States:



And I explained above, how they expressly applied the Law of Nations to their status as 13 sovereign nations: i.e. each having the power to levy war, etc-- which they would not have, if they passed under the dominion of another state.

And they were not declaring a single state which had dominion over the thirteen.

did complete the requirements for recognition as a nation among nations.

Again, those are your opinions, not facts.

Each state was supremely ruled by its respective state legislature, which could overrule Congress at will in matters regarding their state.

The mere fact that several declared states operated in concert to achieve their respective independence as thirteen sovereign states; does not imply that they form a single unified sovereign state-- particularly against express declaration to the contrary.

You do not get it, you sound like some Protestants during the Reformation, declaring the Bible says this, but it did not... You are declaring each colony had sovereignty by declaring it and it does not work that way...

No, they had sovereignty by lawfully winning it via revolution against their former sovereign nation of Great Britain; as expressly recognized thereby, under the 1783 Treaty of Paris:




That is treaty between Great Britain, and the thirteen free, sovereign and independent states.

It is not a single unified sovereign state, of thirteen dependent states; each state was supremely ruled by its respective legislature, not by Congress (to which the sovereign states had simply delegated powers as a confederation).

The confederation was a federal system in which the states and the national government

A "national government," would be a federation; over federated (i.e. dependent) states-- not not free, sovereign and independent states.

Meanwhile a confederation, by definition, is INTERNATIONAL among separate sovereign nations.

As explained here:

Since the member states of a confederation retain their sovereignty, they have an implicit right of secession. The political philosopher Emmerich de Vattel said: "Several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy without each, in particular, ceasing to be a perfect state.... The deliberations in common will offer no violence to the sovereignty of each member".

And note the following:

Under a confederation, compared to a federal state, the central authority is relatively weak.

So you are confusing a confusing the two: i.e. a federal state, is also called a federation.

shared and divided powers and duties.

But each state was supremely ruled by its respective legislature, which could overrule the federal (not national) government.

The Constitution that followed did the same thing by separating powers and responsibilities among the states.

No.
The Constitution simply replaced each state's legislature, with its respective people, as the supreme power therein; and thus they delegated powers to the federal governments-- as well as their state government.
and therefore could both restrain, and overrule either or both state and federal government at will.

Again:

So under the Constitution, each state was supremely ruled by its respective people-- rather than by its respective state legislature, as it had under the Confederation.

This is why they are mentioned in the treaty, it was to give them freedom to become the new nation of The United States of America... You need to quit wishful thinking of sovereignty because they never had it... You are acting like a Reformation Protestant...

I've already explained the Law of Nations regarding American history: i.e. the states were not under the dominion of a single central state, since they were free and independent states.

And I shall do so again:

Every colony was listed in the Treaty of Paris (1783) because Britain was formally recognizing the independence of all thirteen of its former colonies and establishing them as a new, sovereign nation. The explicit listing in Article I was crucial for legally and completely transferring sovereignty from the British Crown to the United States.

No.

A sovereign nation, is a free, sovereign and independent state: i.e. it has not passed under the dominion of another state.

This was defined in the Law of Nations, Book I, Chapter I, §11: “Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another:”

But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves, they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.

And the states were not declared as such: but as free and independent states which could do all of these things.
Note carefully the language:




Therefore since the individual states had the full power to “make war, contract alliances, and treat with other nations, “do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do;” then the individual states were not under the dominion of another, and thus they were 13 separate sovereign nations.

They were not declaring sovereign dependence on each other; as you claim.


Meanwhile the Treaty of Paris officially established them-- individually by name-- as free, sovereign and independent states:



And as we see, it also treated with them as 13 free, sovereign and independent states-- not with "the United States," which had no such power to enter into treaties on their behalf, except as a delegate.

Again, each state received its respective colonial territory from Great Britain, as its respective sovereign national territory; while only the remaining ceded lands, were accrued as territories of the United States (which the states were not, as such were dealt with separately in the Treaty).

 

[5fish]

When they became states, they were 13 sovereign nations, of the United States:

You are lost; you cannot claim sovereignty —you must show it. None of the colonies ever showed it independently, only as a collective, as the United States of America. You are misreading the historical facts... The colonies never did anything as a nation unless as one nation called the United States of America... You are wrong.... You are rewriting history... Why are you doing your best to delegitimize the United States?.. Why are you hung up on this false sovereignty question?

 

[TomEvans]

You are lost; you cannot claim sovereignty —you must show it.

It's right here:



See that? Sovereign states. Plural.

Not "a sovereign state."

None of the colonies ever showed it independently, only as a collective, as the United States of America.

Again you're equivocating with the word "independent;" to confuse sovereign dependence, with simple international association, as with states belonging to the same international union (for example, saying "The UK became independent of the EU after Brexit;" this would not mean that the EU was a national union, and that the UK was rebelling from it; since here "dependence" is simply an associative context, and not a sovereign political context).

So the states were thirteen sovereign nations, which were merely international allies in winning their mutual sovereign independence from Great Britain.

You are misreading the historical facts... The colonies never did anything as a nation unless as one nation called the United States of America...

No, an international alliance of 13 separate sovereign nations, engaged in war (armed revolution) against a common enemy.

Again, you are entitled to your opinions regarding whether "they showed sovereignty independently as a nation;" but not your own facts--

starting with the fact that a free, sovereign and independent state, is a sovereign nation: as Lincoln defined it, "a political association without a political superior--" in denying that they ever held such status:



However in reality, states expressly declared themselves to be 13 free, sovereign and independent states-- i.e. 13 separate sovereign nations-- which formed an international confederation for the purpose of winning their mutual status as such from Great Britain; and that's what they achieved in 1783, with the United States never wielding supremacy over any state during the Revolution (vs. the reverse, when states overruled Congress).

They also never expressly formed a common common state; that's just your fanciful twisting of words to support your narrative.

But the law is clear: only thirteen free, sovereign and independent states were formed by the American Revolution.

Not one unified free, sovereign and independent state; of 13 dependent states.

 

[LJMYERS]

It is true the Myers family of Silver Smith Myer Myers knew both George Washington and J Robert Oppenheimer and his wife Kitty from Pittsburgh.

 

[5fish]

But the law is clear: only thirteen free, sovereign and independent states were formed by the American Revolution.

You do not understand what sovereign or sovereignty means in international law... What do you want to achieve with this misguided assault on history? What is your point in demanding that the colonies were legal sovereign states?

You notice Lincoln is making my point....

It's right here:

Britain only gave them their independence and nothing more, but acknowledged the nation-state they formed in the United States of America...

Why this demand for sovereignty, what is the end game in your faulty logic...

 

[TomEvans]

You do not understand what sovereign or sovereignty means in international law...

As noted here:

Despite the absence of any superior authority to enforce such rules, international law is considered by states as binding upon them, and it is this fact which gives these rules the status of law.

So the Constitution was only binding on the states as international law; since the US government makes no valid legal argument of national union.

As James Madison correctly explains:




So each state was indeed, a "political association without a political superior," to use Lincoln's own definition-- to prove him wrong, in his claim that the original 13 states never had it.

And therefore the states were each supremely ruled by its respective people, regardless of what the federal government claimed; and thus when the people of South Carolina opted for their state to secede from the international union in 1860, that was just as valid as the UK seceding from the EU in Brexit.

Meanwhile your narrative that their Union became such a state, is wholly without merit.

Britain only gave them their independence and nothing more, but acknowledged the nation-state they formed in the United States of America...

Britain gave the 13 states their sovereignty, freedom and independent statehood, and treated with them as such.
So they were 13 sovereign nations in every respect.

Their union was not, any more than the UN or the EU over its respective states.

Britain NEVER acknowledged the United States as a state unto itself, in 1783; contrary to your narrative.

 

[5fish]

Their union was not, any more than the UN or the EU over its respective states.

The United States is a sovereign state, which we fought a Civil War to preserve... and other wars to expand and defend it.

Britain NEVER acknowledged the United States as a state unto itself, in 1783; contrary to your narrative.

Yes the Brits, in the Treaty of Paris 1783... You can ignore history all you want, but it does not change...

The treaty recognized the United States as a "free, sovereign and independent" nation.

US government makes no valid legal argument of national union.

You seem to forget treaties for other nations...

WE need to move on; we are in circles, and I have asked you a few questions about why you are pressing forward on this topic. What is your endgame?

I put forward the popular sovereignty, a social theory, and the legal steps to sovereign nations... You repeat quotes with no backup...

Could you move this conversation forward?

 

[TomEvans]

The United States is a sovereign state,

You present no legal source or argument on this.

Yes the Brits, in the Treaty of Paris 1783... You can ignore history all you want, but it does not change...

The treaty recognized the United States as a "free, sovereign and independent" nation.

It doesn't say that.

WE need to move on; we are in circles,

No, you are engaged in circular reasoning: where your arguments simply re-state your conclusion.

Did you even study law?

I put forward the popular sovereignty, a social theory, and the legal steps to sovereign nations... You repeat quotes with no backup...

Again, those are just your opinions, not facts regarding law or evidence.
My quotes are laws, as well as facts and evidence.

 

[5fish]

Again, those are just your opinions, not facts regarding law or evidence.
My quotes are laws, as well as facts and evidence.

We still have to move on, but I have shown links and more... the word sovereignty or sovereign used in many of these statements does not refer to them as nation-states... only as independent entities. Answer my earlier questions so we can move on.

 

[TomEvans]

We still have to move on, but I have shown links and more... the word sovereignty or sovereign used in many of these statements does not refer to them as nation-states... only as independent entities. Answer my earlier questions so we can move on.

Well I studied law in the real world. That makes one of us.

 

[5fish]

Well I studied law in the real world. That makes one of us.

What is the big picture? What is the agenda with your interruption of history? It seem you want to dissolve the United States for what purpose?

 

[TomEvans]

What is the big picture? What is the agenda with your interruption of history? It seem you want to dissolve the United States for what purpose?

We're done here.
If you have to ask why factual accuracy is important to history, you'll never know.

 

[5fish]

We're done here.
If you have to ask why factual accuracy is important to history, you'll never know

No, I disagree with you that history is wrong.. I know your take on history is incorrect. We are at an impasse, so let's proceed to the next step in your logic. You're going to argue the Confederacy had the legal right to secede... States do not have to obey federal laws... States can make their own treaties with other nations... and so on. You must have a direction in which your line of thinking is going. What is the alternative you are presenting...

 

[5fish]

I studied law in the real world.

A.I. summaries...

In the Treaty of Paris (1783), "sovereign" means that the United States was a free, independent, and self-governing nation, with the British Crown officially relinquishing all claims to its government, property, and territorial rights. This recognition officially ended the American Revolutionary War and established the U.S. as a separate, independent state.

In the Articles of Confederation, sovereignty meant that each state retained its own supreme power, freedom, and independence, with all powers and rights not expressly given to the national Congress belonging to the individual states. This system created a weak central government with limited authority, as the states were the ultimate source of power and were not subject to a strong federal government.

Here's your logic, but then you forget that the British recognized them as a collective—the United States of America — in the same treaty...

When Great Britain granted sovereignty to the individual colonies in the Treaty of Paris (1783), it meant Britain formally recognized the former colonies as independent and sovereign states, rather than a single unified nation. This recognition ended the War of American Independence and established the United States as a separate nation, allowing its citizens to govern themselves without British interference.