--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus" <
mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Much matter deleted below and some comments inserted:
>
> > > > I don't know when the provisional GBUS treaty of 1783 was ratified and
> > > > effective
> >
> > the provisional gbus was 30 nov 1782
> >
> > & the 1783 gbus of 3 sept was not provisional but definite
>
> Of course. My "1783" above was a typo. I meant "1782."
>
> > however you do raise an interesting quandary
> >
> > my de jure claim assumes further ratification of this definitized 1783
> > treaty to be unnecessary not only because it is confirmatory of the
> > earlier 1782 version but also because the territory of the cession
> > itself is the original territory & original jurisdiction of one of the
> > 2 parties to the treaty itself
> >
> > for it seems to me that without this original territory this party
> > the usa
> > doesnt legally exist to sign anything
>
> I agree.
>
> > now it may be that the treaty was subsequently ratified by the
> > continental congress &or the british crown
>
> The Articles of Confederation being in effect since March 1, 1781, ratification
> was done by its Congress, not the Continental Congress. Each state had one
> vote, and it took nine votes to "enter into any treaties" (or to do virtually
> anything else substantive). The Congress ratified the provisional treaty of
> 1782 on April 15, 1783, at Philadelphia. The Congress ratified the definitive
> treaty of 1783, on January 14, 1784, at Annapolis. The definitive treaty was
> signed by George III on April 9, 1784, at the Court of St. James.
>
> > so should we therefore postdate the legal creation of the territory of
> > the usa from this 3sept1783 date to such a slightly later date as
> > necessary to reflect both of these subsequent ratifications
> > if indeed there were any
> >
> > i dont think so
>
> I don't either.
good
i appreciate that
as well as these beautiful ratification confirmations
so we might eat our cake & have it too
also it is amusing to think that some other stickler for detail than us
might now come along & insist on learning the final esgb1783
ratification date
so as to compare it to this final gbus1783 ratification date also
in order to determine if there really was or really wasnt ever a
completely & utterly legal 1784esgbus1784 tripoint
whether by this now slightly modified designation or by whatever other
new name it might get from such further research
but i am more than content with this
even if still a little curious about that
>
> > or we could simply take the treaty dates at face value
> > since they may have been effective retroactively anyway
> > i dont know
>
> Since de facto peace had long since broken out, I'm perfectly willing to take
> the treaty dates at face value--subject only to any subsequent failure of
> ratification, which did not happen in these cases.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA