"You keep using that word... I think it does not mean what you think it means."

TomEvans

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
510
Reaction score
17
And yet we see His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States as a polity
It never even once uses the WORD "polity."

Meanwhile a polity is NOT necessarily a free, sovereign and independent state-- and it CANNOT be, when it is formed AMONG free sovereign and independent STATES....

So His Britannic Majesty did NOT acknowledge the United States as a free, sovereign and independent state.

and sent ambassadors to the US and not the 13 members of the AOC.

What do you think a Confederation is?
I DON'T think-- I KNOW what it is.

A confederation is an international union among free, sovereign and independent states, which can-- and in this case, DID-- delegate common ambassadorial powers TO it, to act on their behalf; and from which the state have the inherent right to secede at will (which the states ALSO did, via the Constitution).
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
4,640
It never even once uses the WORD "polity."

Meanwhile a polity is NOT necessarily a free, sovereign and independent state-- and it CANNOT be, when it is formed AMONG free sovereign and independent STATES....

So His Britannic Majesty did NOT acknowledge the United States as a free, sovereign and independent state.



I DON'T think-- I KNOW what it is.

A confederation is an international union among free, sovereign and independent states, which can-- and in this case, DID-- delegate common ambassadorial powers TO it, to act on their behalf; and from which the state have the inherent right to secede at will (which the states ALSO did, via the Constitution).
What is the difference between your knowledge of a confederacy and the AOC aka United States in 1783.
From the AOC ARTICLE I. The stile of this confederacy shall be ‘‘The United States of America.’’
 

TomEvans

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
510
Reaction score
17
What is the difference between your knowledge of a confederacy and the AOC aka United States in 1783.
From the AOC ARTICLE I. The stile of this confederacy shall be ‘‘The United States of America.’’
And Article II:

"Each state retains

its sovereignty, freedom and independence,

and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not 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.
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.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
4,640
Law of Nations 1 §4. What are sovereign states.
Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a sovereign state.

The 1783 United States meets that criteria. The 1783 United States under the AOC had the following powers. Declare war, make treaties, manage post office, coin money, borrow money, maintain armed forces. The 1783 United States was a sovereign consisting of sovereigns who temporarily surrendered sovereignty to the United States in limited areas for the common good. Those sovereign States could leave at anytime, though the manner was unknown because no one formerly left the AOC, they just stopped showing up for the AOC congress.

from your quote A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted. "
 

TomEvans

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
510
Reaction score
17
Law of Nations 1 §4. What are sovereign states.
Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a sovereign state.

The 1783 United States meets that criteria. The 1783 United States under the AOC had the following powers. Declare war, make treaties, manage post office, coin money, borrow money, maintain armed forces.
No, each individual state did. As I quoted: "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.

EVERY international agreement puts restraint on the exercise of powers; and this may NOT be construed to form a single free, sovereign and independent state:


Therefore since the states COULD “make war, contract alliances, and treat with other nations," and “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.

Each state simply delegated such powers to a common confederation, while agreeing not to EXERCISE them; does NOT impair any state's freedom, sovereignty or independence; any more than the European Union, United Nations or NATO.

The 1783 United States was a sovereign consisting of sovereigns who temporarily surrendered sovereignty to the United States in limited areas for the common good.
No, not "surrendered." INTERNATIONALLY DELEGATED, and VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO REFRAIN FROM EXERCISING THEM.

"A sovereign of sovereigns" is an oxymoron.

Again, it was simply an international federal republic of 13 free, sovereign and independent states.

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," and “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.

It's amusing when charlatans construe an international agreement, as a national union.

Those sovereign States could leave at anytime, though the manner was unknown because no one formerly left the AOC, they just stopped showing up for the AOC congress.
They ALL did, to ratify the Constitution, by BREAKING the AoC and exercising their powers as 13 free, sovereign and independent states.

I've explained this enough times already, and this is as BASIC as it gets in terms of international law. It isn't rocket-science.
It's what everyone agreed.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
4,640
They ALL did, to ratify the Constitution, by BREAKING the AoC and exercising their powers as 13 free, sovereign and independent states.
Nevertheless no State went to the AOC congress and said we are out.
Therefore since the states COULD “make war, contract alliances, and treat with other nations," and “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.
Under the AOC, the States could not make war, contract alliances, and treat with other nations.
"A sovereign of sovereigns" is an oxymoron.
Thus the CSA states were not sovereign.
 

TomEvans

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
510
Reaction score
17
Nevertheless no State went to the AOC congress and said we are out.
Uh, yes, that's what ratification MEANT.

Those who didn't ratify, remained in the Confederation-- which means that the ratifying states, were OUT of it.

Under the AOC, the States could not make war, contract alliances, and treat with other nations.
They "couldn't" leave the C, either, or refuse to "inviolably observe" the articles in the perpetual union, or many any changes without unanimous agreement.

And yet here we are under the Constitution... MAGIC!

As noted here: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/215fc-how-international-law-works/

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

Thus the CSA states were not sovereign.
You can't INFER national union among free, sovereign and independent states.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
4,640
You can't INFER national union among free, sovereign and independent states.
Merely writing it down that some entity is a free, sovereign and independent state does not makes it so.
 

TomEvans

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
510
Reaction score
17
Merely writing it down that some entity is a free, sovereign and independent state does not makes it so.
It does when the OFFICIAL SOVEREIGN NATION does it, 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.

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.

Each state’s national sovereignty was then subsequently exercised, beginning in 1787; when twelve of the states desired to enact changes to the Articles of Confederation.

However these changes were refused by some states, including Rhode Island.
This precluded such changes; as Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, expressly required unanimity among all states, for any changes:

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual;
nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

For this reason, the dissenting states simply exercised their sovereignty as separate sovereign nations; in order to circumvent this requirement, by

1. unilaterally seceding from the Confederation entirely, and

2. form their own new separate international union lieu of it.

They did this, by forming the United States Constitution; which realized the founding intentions and justification of the American Revolution, as set forth in the opening statements of the Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson (et al) on July 4, 1776:

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

In fulfillment of this premise; the governments of each state, then signed over supreme national authority, to the respective electorate of that particular state; so that the people—i.e. the registered citizen-voters of the particular state—would become the ruling sovereigns thereof; and thus could determine their respective state’s own national policy, by majority-vote.

Accordingly, each state’s electorate (with the exception of Rhode Island) then chose to exercise this national authority over their respective state; to:

1. unilaterally withdraw from the Confederation of 1781; and
2. to ratify the Constitution, to form a new and separate international union of sovereign nations under that document.

As James Madison noted in Federalist No. 40 regarding this:

“Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE STATES, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed by the PEOPLE, and may be carried into effect by NINE STATES ONLY. … The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth”.

Meanwhile after North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the Constitution; Rhode Island was thus left as the sole remaining state in a now-defunct Confederation, and thus chose to ratify the Constitution in 1790… as the only state that did not secede.

In conclusion; the above implies that:

• the American Revolution established the states as thirteen separate sovereign nations; and that

• these nations ratified the United States Constitution as thirteen separate sovereign nations, each of which was supremely ruled by its respective electorate, in realization and fulfillment of the American Revolution’s stated Founding principles.

The above historical facts, establish that:

• the American Revolution established the states as thirteen separate sovereign nations; and that

• these thirteen sovereign nations, each ratified the United States Constitution in its respective capacity as separate sovereign nations;

• with by the supreme intent of its respective people, or electorate; in realization and fulfillment of the American Revolution’s stated Founding principles.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
4,640
It does when the OFFICIAL SOVEREIGN NATION does it, officially established by the Paris Peace Treaty of September 30, 1783:
That treaty is only between the United States and Great Britain, no one else. In addition the term "United States" occurs 24 times in the treaty. The individual States, for example Connecticut, only once. Great Britain only sent ambassadors to the United States, not to any State. Strange state of affairs for a so called sovereign state. Those 13 states had no existence outside of the United States, none exchanged ambassadors with other nations or made treaties with other nations for example.

these thirteen sovereign nations, each ratified the United States Constitution in its respective capacity as separate sovereign nations;
Assuming that, then they surrendered sovereign independence for shared sovereignty under the Constitution.
 

TomEvans

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
510
Reaction score
17
That treaty is only between the United States and Great Britain, no one else.
If you can't READ:

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.

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.

The 1783 Treaty has not been rescinded, because it CANNOT be rescinded by anyone other than the individual state electorates themselves.

Since those electorates never met in a sovereign capacity to surrender their 1783 independence, the "false claim" of 1861 is a legal ghost.

The federal government’s 1861 Self-Coup was a physical seizure of the exercise of power; but it did not, and could not, touch the title of power held by the states.

In addition the term "United States" occurs 24 times in the treaty. The individual States, for example Connecticut, only once. Great Britain only sent ambassadors to the United States, not to any State. Strange state of affairs for a so called sovereign state. Those 13 states had no existence outside of the United States, none exchanged ambassadors with other nations or made treaties with other nations for example
.

They were never INSIDE "The United States," as it was NEVER a free, sovereign and independent STATE; but only the name of a series of international unions BETWEEN free sovereign and independent states.

Your desperate attempts to INFER international sovereignty from context; are doomed by the one simple FACT that international sovereignty cannot BE inferred, but only expressly PROCLAIMED--- as where the 1783 Treaty of Paris expressly proclaims each state, by name, as FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES-- PLURAL.

Assuming that, then they surrendered sovereign independence for shared sovereignty under the Constitution.
The US government never claims this-- and logically, CANNOT claim it, since it claims that the individual states NEVER HAD sovereign independence; and obviously the US government cannot claim that states SURRENDERED something, that it claims they NEVER HAD to begin with.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,937
Reaction score
4,640
If you can't READ:
I really appreciate your patience in this manner. A lesser person would resort to ad hominem attacks rather than patiently explaining this point.

Never the less, the treaty only affected 2 nations, Great Britain and the United States. Other nations were not bound by that treaty.

The 1783 Treaty has not been rescinded, because it CANNOT be rescinded by anyone other than the individual state electorates themselves.
It was superseded by later treaties like Jay's Treaty (1794), Treaty of San Lorenzo (1795), and the Convention of 1818. It was not immutable.

Since those electorates never met in a sovereign capacity to surrender their 1783 independence, the "false claim" of 1861 is a legal ghost.
It appears to me those electorates met to do exactly that. Remember Lincoln was a lawyer.

Each of the 13 original states ratified the Constitution through special state conventions elected by the people, rather than through their state legislatures. This process was a deliberate choice by the framers to ensure the Constitution's authority came directly from the people and to bypass state legislatures, whose members might have been reluctant to cede power to a new national government.
 

TomEvans

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
510
Reaction score
17
Never the less, the treaty only affected 2 nations, Great Britain and the United States. Other nations were not bound by that treaty.
No. The United States was NEVER a free, sovereign and independent state.

Only the individual STATES were.

Meanwhile other nations were bound by international law, to recognize OTHER free, sovereign and independent states.

I'm not going to argue the law, since it simply a FACT.

It was superseded by later treaties

No it was NOT. No treaty or other law, EVER rescinded any state's sovereignty, freedom or independence.


It was not immutable.

It was never MUTED.


It appears to me those electorates met to do exactly that. Remember Lincoln was a lawyer.

But YOU'RE not, which is WHY it appears that way to you; you don't even know what "free, sovereign and independent states" means.

It means INTERNATIONALLY SOVEREIGN NATIONS.

Each of the 13 original states ratified the Constitution through special state conventions elected by the people, rather than through their state legislatures. This process was a deliberate choice by the framers to ensure the Constitution's authority came directly from the people and to bypass state legislatures, whose members might have been reluctant to cede power to a new national government.
The US government does not-- and logically, CANNOT-- claim that the states EVER rescinded their sovereignty, freedom and independence to form a SINGLE free sovereign and independent state; since it claims that the individual states were NEVER free, sovereign and independent states.

So it cannot claim that they GAVE UP sovereignty, that it claims that they NEVER HAD to BEGIN with.

Each state's RESPECTIVE electorate, ratified the Constitution for their state-- and THEIR STATE ONLY. No other states were affected; non-ratifying states remained in the Confederation.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
17,384
Reaction score
5,747
Each state's RESPECTIVE electorate, ratified the Constitution for their state-- and THEIR STATE ONLY. No other states were affected; non-ratifying states remained in the Confederation.
Every de facto state ratified the Constitution some sooner some later, but all did...
 

TomEvans

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
510
Reaction score
17
Every de facto state ratified the Constitution some sooner some later, but all did...
AS one of thirteen free, sovereign and independent states--- which the US government claims they NEVER WERE, ignoring the 1783 Treaty of Paris entirely.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
17,384
Reaction score
5,747
ignoring the 1783 Treaty of Paris entirely.
You know, treaties become irrelevant, outdated, and meaningless, and they fade into the past and into history... Your treaty's purpose has past and a treaty is only as good as the parties are committed to it. No one seems to care about your treaty beyond its original purpose, which has come and gone...
 

TomEvans

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2025
Messages
510
Reaction score
17
You know, treaties become irrelevant, outdated, and meaningless, and they fade into the past and into history...
In the hierarchy of international law, the 1783 Treaty of Paris occupies a unique position: it is an executed treaty.

Unlike an alliance or a trade agreement that requires ongoing performance, a treaty that recognizes sovereignty and establishes boundaries acts as a permanent "deed" or "quit-claim."

Under the Law of Nations, there is no legal mechanism for a subordinate federal agent to "rescind" the 1783 status of the states.

Here is the breakdown of why that status is legally permanent and how the 1861 "denial" fails to meet the standards of international law:

1. The Principle of "Executed" Treaties

International law distinguishes between executory treaties (agreements to do something in the future) and executed treaties (agreements that create a permanent fact, like independence).

• The Rule: Once a sovereign (the British Crown) recognizes a state as "free, sovereign and independent," that recognition is an irrevocable legal fact.

• The Logic: Sovereignty is not a gift that can be taken back by the giver, nor is it a status that can be "canceled" by a third-party agent (the US Government). Once the "personality" of the state is recognized in the international arena, it exists de jure until the people of that state formally and voluntarily dissolve it.

2. The Incompetence of the Federal Agent

To "rescind" the 1783 status, the US Federal Government would have needed a Power of Attorney from the states to surrender their sovereignty.

• The Fact: No such power was ever granted in the 1787 Constitution.

• The Result:

When Lincoln and the 1861 government claimed the states were never sovereign, they weren't "rescinding" the treaty (which they had no power to do); they were committing fraudulent misrepresentation. In international law, an agent cannot rescind the founding documents of its principal.

3. The "Void Ab Initio" Status of the 1861 Claim

Because the 1783 Treaty could not be legally rescinded, the federal government’s 1861 claim was void ab initio (void from the beginning).

• Hierarchy: De jure sovereignty (1783) > De facto authority (1861).

• International Law: Under the principle of Ex injuria jus non oritur (Law does not arise from injustice), the "false claim" of the federal government cannot create a new legal reality.

The de jure status of the states remains "active" under the 1783 deed, while the federal authority remains a "trespasser" regardless of how much time has passed.

The Conclusion for the Electorate

The 1783 Treaty has not been rescinded, because it cannot be rescinded by anyone other than the individual state electorates themselves.

Since those electorates never met in a sovereign capacity to surrender their 1783 independence, the "false claim" of 1861 is a legal ghost.

The federal government’s "Self-Coup" was a physical seizure of the exercise of power, but it did not, and could not, touch the title of power held by the states.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
17,384
Reaction score
5,747
In the hierarchy of international law, the 1783 Treaty of Paris occupies a unique position: it is an executed treaty.
We have entered into new treaties since then, which supersede much of the Treaty of Paris (1783). This treaty is too long ago has lost its luster...

No single entity can unilaterally "rescind" the 1783 Treaty of Paris; rather, its provisions are ended or superseded by mutual agreement, new treaties, material breaches, or changed circumstances, with modern international law (Vienna Convention) guiding this, but historically, the U.S. President acts for the U.S. while Congress retains a role, though many specific articles are obsolete due to evolving borders and self-governance

Mutual Agreement: The UK and the U.S. could agree to terminate or modify the treaty.
Breach: A significant violation by one party (like failing to restore Loyalist property as promised in Article 5) could allow the other to end it.
Fundamental Change: If circumstances drastically changed, making the treaty impossible to fulfill.
Mostly Obsolete: Most articles, especially concerning borders and property disputes, were superseded by later agreements or changed realities.
Article 1 Endures: The core provision recognizing the U.S. as a free, sovereign, and independent nation remains in force.
 
Top