Safety vs Freedom Part III
Treaty of Paris, British Concessions and the 1st Constitution - Nuance
The Treaty of Paris - 1783
The first civil war or American Revolutionary War was largely about land, money and power. This theme is recurring in history. The challenge with America is the distance to Britain and Europe. In the late 1700’s, it was a minimum 3 week journey by boat assuming the weather was favorable. As a result, it was costly to manage a military across the Atlantic and it was time consuming and costly to maintain control in the administration of the colonies.
Once America Declared its Independence, the ability to protect the interests of Britain and other European countries became even more challenging given the inherent constraints. Add the vast landscape of America and, to the Americans already settled, they were land owners and farmers and businessmen in their own right, and were determined to protect this freedom.
As noted in the Part I article of this topic, shots were fired by the British to kick off the war. By 1781, the Articles of Confederation were ratified. By 1782, it was becoming more favorable to treat America as a trade partner.
The treaty, signed by Franklin, Adams and Jay at the Hotel d’York in Paris, was finalized on September 3, 1783, and ratified by the Continental Congress on January 14, 1784. https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/treaty-of-paris
The concessions in the Treaty of Paris 1783 were:
Article 1 - Recognition of the United States to include “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;” and “relinquishes all claims to the government, property, and territorial rights of the same”.
Notice how there is a recognition that each state is sovereign and independent? This is not a recognition of America as The United States of America or the UNITED STATES.
Article 2 - Covered the boundaries in detail that defined the United States and now the British recognized provinces to the north in Canada and the dividing line in Florida.
Article 3 - Covered fishing rights and limitations related to adjoining and nearby waterways and bodies of water.
Article 4 - Bonafide debts would be handled without impediment in sterling with creditors.
Article 5 - The ability for the British subjects with property and estates to be able to obtain restitution for the confiscation of land and other property under the condition those British subjects did not take up and bare arms against the United States during the conflict, and a limited time period to obtain said restitution.
Article 6 - The release and no future prosecution of those held due to the war.
Article 7 - “There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other; wherefore all hostilities, both by sea and land, shall from henceforth cease; all prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Britannic majesty shall, with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any negroes, or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons and fleets, from the said United States, and from every post, place and harbour, within the same, leaving in all fortifications the American artillery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds and papers belonging to any of the said States, or their citizen's, which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers, to be forthwith restored, and delivered to the proper state and persons to whom they belong.”
Article 8 - “The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall for ever remain free and open to the subjects of Great-Britain, and the citizens of the United States.”
Article 9 - The guarantee that anything or land confiscated different than the boundaries outlined in the treaty, will be returned after the treaty is ratified as there was a possibility of disputes continuing while the treaty was being negotiated and ratified.
Article 10 - Upon ratification, distribute the signed and sealed copies to all parties involved within 6 months.
This Treaty of Paris is distinctly different from the 1763 Treaty of Paris which addressed the French and Indian War or “7 Years’ War” which had lasted 9 years.
The Treaty of Paris, 1763
The Treaty of Paris of 1763 ended the French and Indian War/Seven Years’ War between Great Britain and France, as well as their respective allies. In the terms of the treaty, France gave up all its territories in mainland North America, effectively ending any foreign military threat to the British colonies there.
During the war, British forces had scored important overseas victories against France: not only had the British conquered French Canada, they also won victories in India, and captured French island colonies in the Caribbean. In March of 1762, French King Louis XV issued a formal call for peace talks. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1750-1775/treaty-of-paris
The 1783 Treaty of Paris did not end tensions between the United States of America and Great-Britain. To address the ongoing open issues, John Jay traveled to Europe in 1795 and signed “Jay’s Treaty” to address many of the open and unresolved issues between the United States and Great-Britain. John Jay did not succeed in almost all aspects of the negotiation and the Jay Treaty was not to the benefit of America and actually gave more access to Great-Britain. This may have been largely due to Alexander Hamilton’s heavy influence in the guidance to John Jay. Alexander Hamilton was more sympathetic to the British interests and he was also a proponent of a central bank as well as one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison between 1787 and 1788 to promote a federal government, and the ratification of the Constitution.
The two negotiations of the Treaty of Paris 1783 and John Jay’s Treaty of 1785 were by The United States of America as a managing business entity exercising the international and global jurisdiction duties with other countries. The ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781 solidified the business duties for international, territorial, and global responsibilities for the States of America and the Continental Congress. The Constitution for the united States of America in 1787, by the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES assembled in Congress, further enumerated the duties and responsibilities and limitations of the newly formed Congress. So, the PEOPLE (those of mankind that were unincorporated representing the People of the State who so represented the people of the state, counties, and towns) devise a contract serving the States of America by the UNITED STATES, through the PEOPLE assembled in Congress.
It may be necessary to read that paragraph a few times and slowly grasp the different stages, formation, word styles, and resultant entities as the country went from colonies, to states, to a Union, to a Confederation, to a Federal government and how these are all separate entities.
Jurisdictions
Basic Rules:
A man (with a woman) can create another man
A man can create a company or corporation
But, a company or a corporation CANNOT create a man (or woman)
[Relating to jurisdictions - please keep in the back of your mind the driving desire for the global corporations and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) obsession to redefine a non-man or non-woman status (pronouns and similar false narratives). Also, that the global elite believe they can “create” or modify a being, and that they wish to convince mankind that this modified being is a “more perfected” man or woman that is now NOT sovereign but instead a slave. The goal is to permanently blur the lines of jurisdictions and sovereignty and remove mankind from being a creation of the Creator.]
Since The United States of America (Federation) unincorporated conducted all international and global business from 1776-1781, and then created the Confederation (States of America), it logically follows that this conducted business responsibility would fall back to this same unincorporated entity (The United States of America) if one in between (Confederation) no longer exists.
So, the Federation of States could run the businesses it previously ran in the absence of the corporation that they delegated to do said duties and responsibilities in the form of the States of America, if it no longer operates.
If the Confederation (States of America) that created the corporate entities of the Federal Republic (UNITED STATES in the 1787 Constitution and stylized “the United States” after 1851) was gone, why are the incorporated entities of the Federal Republic, the sub-entities, running international and global affairs?
States created the Federation
States created the Confederation
The Confederation created, directed, and funded the Federal Republic until Lincoln’s War
If the Confederation is absent, power should revert back to The United States of America (the unincorporated Federation of States) as the jurisdictions require a clean delineation
Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition
JURISDICTION. The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of Investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. 1 Black, Judgm. { 215. And see Nenno v. Railroad Co., 103 Mo. App. 540, 80 S. W. 24 ; Ingram v. Fuson, 118 Ky. 882, 82 S. W. 606; Tod v. Crismau. 123 Iowa, 693, 99 N. W. 686; Harrigan v. Gilchrist, 121 Wis. 127, 99 N. W. 909 ; Wightman v. Karsner, 20 Ala. 451 ; Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254, 11 Sup. Ct. 773, 35 L. Ed. 464 ; Templeton v. Ferguson, 89 Tex. 47, 33 S. W. 329; Succession of Weigel, 17 La. Ann. 70.
Jurisdiction Is a power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate to take cognizance of and determine causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution. U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 091, 8 L. Ed. 547; Yates v. Lansing. 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 413, 6 Am. Dec. 290; Johnson v. Jones, 2 Neb. 135.
The authority of a court as distinguished from the other departments; judicial power considered with reference to its scope and extent as respects the questions and persons subject to it ; power given by law to hear and decide controversies. Abbott.
Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the subject-matter in controversy between parties to the suit ; to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 717, 9 L. Ed. 1233.
Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a cause; the authority by which judicial officers take cognizance of and decide causes. Brownsville v. Basse, 43 Tex. 440.
Visual depiction of jurisdictions:
Delegated and Enumerated Powers and Jurisdiction - Federal Government
The first thing to note is that the entire job of the “Federal Government”, created with the Constitution, was to exercise the “Delegated Powers”
The powers all exist in the international jurisdiction of the sea
The “interstate commerce clause” exists in that jurisdiction, because our states are also nations
Everything that the Federal Government was ever mandated to do, is thus supposed to be of an international nature and was meant to be limited to the functions assigned to them, by “WE, the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES” assembled in Congress
The aforementioned Treaty of Paris in 1783 discusses the ability of the subjects of Great-Britain to have access to inland waterways (the Mississippi river) as well as the citizens of the United States. This means “subjects” (still under rule of Great-Britain) and “citizens” (this term comes with duties and responsibilities) of the United States (company formed by the union of states) had access to this waterway. This opens up confusion related to the people of the several states and their access. Until this point and including the Constitution, the style and designation has been very consistent. The beginning of negotiations with Britain opened the door to entrapment by ambiguity and word use .
One can be a citizen of their state, but that comes with duties and responsibilities. In other words, if you are a citizen, you have decided to serve in some form and are for the people of the state and you become part of the People. If you are strictly a Pennsylvanian, you are of the people. If the treaty simply stated “people of the states” that are collectively claiming their home state, as well as the “union between states to form the United States” as having the ability to forever access the Mississippi river, and it would be consistent in convention and styling. As we dig in further, we will see how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are actually clarified with consistent wording and style until the new 13th amendment was added after Lincoln’s War (civil war). The significant deviation starts to creep in with the use of the word “person” as we have defined in previous articles.
If a man or woman was born in a state like Pennsylvania, they would by birth be a native Pennsylvanian and claim the land and soil jurisdiction. Based on what has been shared so far in the formation of the United States, and the entities doing business for us, it is logical for anyone to understand that when an individual nation-state like Pennsylvania is comprised of people with a permanent domicile in said state, they would naturally be of the same state. They should be able to lawfully claim or invoke that jurisdiction of the land and soil. The people of a state would claim common and statutory law. Just as important, is the natural or normal law as guided by the Torah with guidance provided in Deuteronomy 6:3-9 and the Gospel with Matthew 12:29-31, as this revealed law guides the same commandment in both books; they state the same singular highest commandment - love.
If you go back to one of the previous posts, you will see where these sets of jurisdiction designations came into action with Pope Boniface the VIII in 1302.
With the understanding that the creation of jurisdictions came from a heavy influence of Roman law and refined by the Roman Catholic Church, it becomes hard to understand the recent generations attempts to separate the church and the STATE. Regardless if one believes the Roman Catholic Church is right or wrong in this invoking of jurisdictions, the fact that THE UNITED STATES and individual States have chosen to make the separation begs the question of what is the current jurisdiction and what is the guidance in law?
Ratification
We are now back to the first Constitution by “WE the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES assembled in Congress” in 1787. The requirements as laid out by the Articles of Confederation and the Article VII of the new Constitution required a minimum of 9 States to ratify a contractual document or document change. This constitution document creation occurred in 1787 in Providence, Rhode Island. The actual Constitution states:
Article VII - The ratification of the Conventions of Nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution, between the States so ratifying the same.
George Washington was President of the Continental Congress in Convention when this was presented on September 17, 1787.
On September 18, 1787, this entry was included with the submission of the Constitution:
SIR,
WE have now the honour to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most adviseable. The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities, should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union; but the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident.—Hence results the necessity of a different organization.
It is obviously impracticable, in the federal government of these States, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved, and on the present occasion this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits and particular interests.
In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which are involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible.
That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State is not perhaps to be expected, but each will doubtless consider, that had her interests been alone consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.
With great respect, we have the honour to be, Sir, your Excellency's most obedient and humble Servants, GEORGE WASHINGTON, President.
By unanimous Order of the Convention.
His Excellency the President of Congress.
UNITED STATES in Congress Assembled.
The convention of States as the Continental Congress as a Confederation is a different organization. It clearly reads at the end of the first paragraph:
“The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities, should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union; but the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident.—Hence results the necessity of a different organization.”
This paragraph clearly demonstrates the Union of States represented by People that formed a Continental Congress with a convention of the States, decided to create a Federal government comprised of PEOPLE and was to be a different organization as the UNITED STATES. George Washington was the President of that initial Confederation Congress, but not the PRESIDENT of the Federal government - yet.
The obvious need was to separate “the power of making war, peace and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities” from the Union and place it in a new body for this purpose alone. It is also important to note that the reference is to “State” and not “state”. And the reference of “entering into society” by individuals to “to preserve the rest”. This is where some interesting observations can be made relative to being a citizen entering into society in a role, or staying one of the people without a role. The basic premise of the clarifying address by George Washington is the need to deal with the aforementioned topics of war, peace and treaties, levying money and regulating commerce,and the corresponding executive and judicial authority.
In summary, the newly formed Federal government was to handle these topics alone and would take on that responsibility in place of the States. The state would still be sovereign for the people. Almost all writings are consistent to this styling and wording. No interpretation necessary. When we compare this to jurisdictions as shown previously, it is obvious these enumerated duties are outside the “land and soil” jurisdiction and belong squarely in the “sea” jurisdiction. Or, as better clarified; those enumerated duties and responsibilities are outside the direct sovereignty of the people and should not impact those respective laws involving trade, national interests, property, and rights of those people. The first ten Bill of Rights further put a point on this distinction and separation.
The recorded letter ends with George Washington noting “we have the honour to be, Sir, your Excellency’s most obedient and humble Servants, GEORGE WASHINGTON, President.” The initial part of the Constitution indicates George Washington the man as GEORGE WASHINGTON the President of the Convention and not italicized (recording secretary is William Jackson). This later entry when addressing the Convention, shows his name italicized and President of Congress (recording secretary is Charles Thompson). So it indicates he is writing to himself in different capacities with different duties and responsibilities. One as President of the Convention and another as President of the United States in Congress assembled. And as the President of Congress, he notes being an obedient and humble servant to the Convention of the Continental Congress (States). The end of the Constitution also styles his name as GEORGE WASHINGTON italicized in caps for the Constitution. There is also the distinction of the The States being present In Convention on the 17th of September, and then United States in Congress assembled on the 28th of September. Clearly defining the separation of entities.
The ratification of this Constitution took place on June 21, 1788 with New Hampshire being the 9th state to ratify and making the Constitution official. The first nine states were:
December 7 • Ratification Seal of Delaware
December 12 • Ratification Seal of Pennsylvania
December 18 • Ratification Seal of New Jersey
1788
January 2 • Ratification Seal of Georgia
January 9 • Ratification Seal of Connecticut
February 6 • Ratification Seal of Massachusetts
April 28 • Ratification Seal of Maryland
May 23 • Ratification Seal of South Carolina
June 21 • Ratification Seal of New Hampshire
Part IV will start to cover the changes that created the next Constitution and the further clarifications that became the Bill of Rights in the form of the first 10 amendments.
I highly suggest reading the following article that describes what has been laid out in these Shire Herald articles in a nice summary. It is entitled “A More Perfect Union” written by Anna Von Reitz. Take the understanding of capitus diminutio, naming conventions and styling, word definitions, the different form of law under each jurisdiction, and the clear language in the Continental Congress entry when presenting the Constitution which clearly states the need for a different organization (their words, not my words), and it starts to become clear that you have not been taught the actual separation, motivations, and need behind the organic (original) Federal government. You have also not been taught how the Federal government is NOT in the jurisdiction of the Land and Soil. Not even close!
Hello Curt. Thank you for the feedback. As a note, i had been skeptical as well from the onset of this journey. That is in large part of how/why this in depth research journey began. What i have discerned to date is the issue within any given assembly lies with a lack of knowledge and understanding by most good intentioned individuals of mankind who do not have most of the pieces together (but think they do). Or, in some cases, agent saboteurs as it were...
This sharing is a result of "trust but verify" and what has been uncovered (and i provide proof and references for all to verify for this reason) is more than what Anna has been able to clearly communicate. Great articles, but lacking references for self education. The facts are correct. Upon digging, the lack of what we are taught is astounding. Call it "silo" learning. In school, we are given tails of a man or woman or a specific event. Yet, very little or skewed context to put the pieces together. Institutionalized learning facilitates this diversional process and diminishes independent thought.
Not sure when you were last involved, but all states are "assembled" now. Many are less sound than others. In my case, this is more than a 3 year journey digging deep into the legal system, history, definitions of words, and tons of reading of historical documents and comparing them to Law and legal definitions and books of copious notes. And i am finding lawyers are not even aware of much of this deception. What has been found is that Anna is almost spot on every item once the time is afforded to do the digging on a particular supporting topic. Bottom line, upon self education, the verification and support for the enslavement is irrefutable. My frustration has always been with the lack of supporting references from Anna to go research. Perspective, and benefit-of-the-doubt is where i start and then try to prove things right or wrong. So, hence, this Substack. So, i pick a word or a topic and start digging.
Naturale est quidlibet dissolvi eo modo quo ligatur - It is natural for a thing to be unbound in the same way in which it was bound.
And the world needs to stop voluntarily giving up accountability and responsibility and be a man or woman and not an entity. More on that in detail to come as the history is unfolded.
Thank you so much for all of your research and taking the time to put this together. I'm somewhat familiar with some of this. I've been listening to a doctor who goes by the handle "KL" on crrow777 radio and elsewhere, so some of this is familiar to me and he also mentions trust agreements. Anyway, this is a ton of information- it's going to take a lot of time to wrap my head around all of this. Thank you again for all of your thorough research.