The US is still part of Great Britian

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Salty, Apr 19, 2007.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
    Is the United States Still A British Colony?
    RaidersNewsNetwork.com
    Bruce Collins
    April 15, 2007


    RaidersNewsNetwork.com -- I’m not one who easily embraces conspiracy theories. I try to keep an open mind though and I also do not easily dismiss beliefs. This causes me to want to dig deeper on a number of fascinating theories.

    One of these objects of conjecture is the idea that the United States is still a colony of Britain. Before you laugh, consider the past and the present.

    The Americans who arrived from England were British subjects. A subject owes permanent allegiance to the monarch (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914). The King expended his wealth to send his subjects to America.

    The Declaration of Independence was a revolt for, in large part, taxation without representation. It was not a revolt over being subject to the King.

    After the Revolutionary war was fought and Cornwallis surrendered to Washington, the Treaty of 1783 was agreed upon. You can ‘Google’ the Treaty of 1783 and find this document online. You’ll notice in the first paragraph that the King describes himself as the prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States of America. So, the Treaty was an agreement that granted more rights to the United States from the King.

    Jonathon Williams, the nephew of Benjamin Franklin, allegedly wrote in his book Legions of Satan, published in 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington," a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown…the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire."

    Furthermore, at the bottom of the Treaty, the three representatives of the United States- Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams- all signed their names as Esquires. What is an Esquire?

    "Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562

    The representative of the King, David Hartley, was, obviously, also an Esquire.

    In many of the articles of the Treaty, the King is giving up many of his rights in America. For instance, in article 3, the King gives the rights of fishing in America to Americans. How generous!

    However, in article 1, the King has a claim to continue receiving gold and silver from his colony. How would he have the right to receive America’s gold and silver if he lost the war two years before in 1871? And, how is the King granting rights to the United States if he lost the Revolutionary war- unless there is some unseen agreement that happened to end the war?

    Now, this is a very fascinating theory, which I found even more fascinating since reading Dr. Stanley Monteith’s book ‘Brotherhood of Darkness.’




    http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/full.php?news=4633


    __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (1)
     
    #1 Salty, Apr 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2007
  2. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    Well, Bruce, you sure could have fooled me on that one.

    That is, of course, until they don't. Didn't do much good for Charles I or Louis XVI, did it?

    Debatable. Most of the colonies were financed by private companies. The king (or queen) gave (or sold) land grants to the colonial enterprises. The British government eventually did pay for defense of the colonies, but that wasn't the king's money; it was appropriated by Parliament. By that time, if you'll remember, the king had precious little personal control over finances because of the settlement that put William and Mary on the throne.

    Whoever wrote this paragraph seems not to have bothered to read the Declaration of Independence, which lays every single charge directly at the feet of King George III.

    Is the person who wrote the above paragraph able to read?

    The treaty begins: "[SIZE=+1]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 ... "

    The king's titles take up the entire first part of the sentence; the reference to George ends with "etc." It is followed by the second party to the agreement, the United States of America.

    So it is George etc. AND the United States of America making the agreement. Read further to see that there are two parties to the agreement, not one.

    BTW: The title "prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire," to which George was entitled because he also was Elector of Hanover, a small Protestant state in northern Germany. Being an elector was largely a matter of status (ever important to kings) because the crown of the Holy Roman Empire had been tucked away in the hip pocket of the Austrian Habsburgs for decades.
    [/SIZE]
    I would feel more confidence in this reference if I could find this it some other place than on conspiracy (and often anti-Jewish) sites.

    And? They may have assumed the honorific as representatives of the United States of America, putting them on an equal footing with the British ambassador. None had held office under crown or obtained any form of "nobility" from it.

    Alternatively, they may have assumed the rank of gentlemen because they were property owners and professionals.

    Again, can this person read English? Or didn't he bother? The treaty gave Americans the rights to fish on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland, which was British territory, not American.

    It staggers the imagination that someone can in good conscience write such things - or that people will believe it.

    Unless this gentleman has a different version of the Treaty of Paris than the rest of the world, the first article says: "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

    The treaty has only a few provisions about money, including that creditors may collect debts without interference and that British subjects should face no legal impediments to reclaim property seized from them during the war (a provision seldom honored.)

    A theory usually is based on at least some facts. This one is not.
     
    #2 rsr, Apr 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2007
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Oh no? Are you sure?

     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Although not the Constitution - this from the Declaration of Independence firmly settles the question.

     
    #4 NaasPreacher (C4K), Apr 22, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2007
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
    I think the real question is: Would Great Britian WANT us back?:laugh: :tonofbricks:
     
  6. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    If we give them back Massachussettes and New Jersey, maybe they will be satisfied. [​IMG]
     
  7. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
    What do you suppose we could trade Florida for?
     
  8. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dont know, but they can have it, and throw in Rhode Island while you are at it.
     
  9. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
    And if Mexico doesnt want Texas, we'll just nullify their statehood, and let them be a repulic again

    Salty

    PS I still have my Dads Texas passport, wonder if I can use it:laugh:
     
  10. Joseph M. Smith

    Joseph M. Smith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if you grant that in the minds of the Brits, the Treaty did not give up their claims on the US, there has obviously been no political ownership since then. It's rather like what you read in the preface to the KJV, about James being king of Great Britain, FRANCE, and Ireland. He claimed it, but it wasn't real and was certainly not recognized by the French.

    In more recent years, some Brits have felt that the ownership was the other way 'round .. that Blair was Bush's "poodle" where Iraq policy is concerned.
     
  11. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ohhhh, the Plot thickens:1_grouphug:
     
  12. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,134
    Likes Received:
    221
    There must be some truth to this. Why else would our Queen come over for a week visit but to check on her colonies
     
  13. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Salty, you've been pushing your hack for too many hours straight (Been there; done that!), if you believe this rot.

    Get some sleep, then get real!

    Ed
     
    #13 EdSutton, May 11, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2007
  14. Ralph III

    Ralph III
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0

    HA, HA, HA, HE, HE, HO! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

    What a great post, however this should have been posted in the "good humor" forum as you would get more response, oh well.
    America still a part of Great Britain and the Queen coming over to check on her colonies, man that is good stuff. You jesters!

    take care:wavey:
     
    #14 Ralph III, May 11, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2007
  15. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Mexico can't have us. We fought that fight a long time ago.

    A Republic? Sounds great to me. Then we can finally hike up the price of oil and natural gas to the rest of the country without being taken to court.:thumbs:

    We can use the proceeds to build a 50 foot concrete wall, with razor wire, surrounded by a shark-infested moat, all the way around the state - double fortified on the Mexico border.

    After that, we could attack the U.S.A. and set up a puppet government.

    Hmmmmm, maybe we already did.:laugh:
     
  16. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    We're all happy members of the international community now. For the most part America is ruled by unelected or self elected bureaucracies in foreign lands rather than our own congress (government of by and for the people) so what's the difference?
     
  17. Petra-O IX

    Petra-O IX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    :laugh: :thumbsup: Hey it sounds like a crazy idea but it may be crazy enough that it might work, I would want the right to exile the Bush's to Mexico though.
     
  18. Joseph M. Smith

    Joseph M. Smith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    0
    Folks in Washington went ga-ga over the recent visit of Mr. and Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor, so it would seem maybe we are still part of Great Britain. Hmm, Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God queen of Great Britain, France (well, her ancestor was so addressed in the preface to "his" Bible), and Ireland, and of her other realms and territories, head of the commonwealth, defender of the faith, supreme governor of the Church of England, AND apple-of-the-eye of the United States of America.

    So what DOES she carry in that purse? A response to the Declaration of Independence?

    Ah, it's Saturday night. Back to work on preparing for tomorrow <grin>
     
  19. Ralph III

    Ralph III
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    0

    Yes! They've put away their pride and decided to "ask" us to become loyal subjects again. It is a long time coming but I for one say, no! Unless Hillary wins!:tonofbricks:


    By the way, word has it that Congress rebuked the Queens offer, as they are holding out for more money.
    :BangHead:


    :laugh: :laugh:
     
    #19 Ralph III, May 12, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2007
  20. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    I guess noone knows the real reason that John Hancock scribed his name in so large letters on that D of I????!!!!

    "THERE!!!!!!! MAYBE KING GEORGE CAN SEE THIS FROM THERE!!!!!!!":laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
     

Share This Page

Loading...