What's your take on the new found history of America?

Question

So maybe you have/haven't heard. But new histroy has discovered that the U.S.A is stil heir to the british crown. That the 'corporate venture' by King James is still on-going and proving profitable. The fact we have evidece of Tax payments to the royal family from the U.S since then also. Check out civil-liberties.com if you need to read up. Extremely interesting stuff - America, Inc.

Answer 1

No, no, no. The US is not "still heir to the british crown," which, by the way, makes no sense. I assume you mean "subject to." To be someone's heir means that one stands to inherit the wealth, titles, etc., of that person. I don't think you were intending to imply that.

As for the "facts" and "arguments" on the civil-liberties.com site (hereafter CL), they are nothing more than a mish-mash of pieces of various documents taken out of context and tacked together, combined with misrepresentations and outright falsehoods in some kind of Rube Goldberg contraption, all contrived to get to the destination at which the author wants to arrive.

If one reads the actual documents cited on CL, in their entirety, instead of just the cobbled together versions presented on the site, one sees that what the documents actually say is generally different than, and in some cases completely opposite to, what CL says they say.

A case in point: the author of CL asserts that "the 1783 Paris peace Treaty DID NOT give America title to the land, it recognized our use of it, it DID NOT grant individuals any freedom, it only recognized the States as independent powers, with the inhabitants being subject to the States in which they lived. I ask the simple question . . . 'if we won the war, how is the king granting us anything.'" This is a complete, and I think intentional, misrepresentation of what the Treaty says

I will now quote from the actual 1783 Treaty of Paris, and not rely on CL's interpretation of what it says:

Article I says that "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States . . . 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, property, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Here it can be clearly seen that the king is not "granting" anything. He is recognizing what is for him the awful reality of Britain's loss in the Revolutionary War. CL would have us believe that the language of the Treaty grants the king continued sovereignty over the United States, recognizing only their "independence" in what I presume CL takes to be some kind of Commonwealth relationship. But the Treaty explicitly acknowleges the king's recognition of his loss of sovereignty.

This represents only one small example of the complete wrongheadedness of CL. Please don't take madangel's word, or mine either, for what's on CL and what the documents actually say. Read them for yourselves.

And another thing: whenever you hear somebody like CL making some extraordinary claim, before you go off half-******, screaming in outrage, stop and think for a minute. Does this person present evidence and logical argument, or does he just make assertions? Does his evidence comport with what is known, or does he present as fact what is mere conjecture? Do his arguments make sense, or are they mere sensationalism masqurading as logic. Does he have an agenda, perhaps, or is he truly trying to get at the truth?

I am an historian by nature, so I am always willing to take another look at the past and maybe come to a different opinion about some event than I had held before. That is the nature of history: nothing is absolutely fixed. But it is important not to confuse rational analysis of the facts, which may, and often does, lead different people to come to different conclusions, with mere flights of fancy, in which one picks the facts that support one's thesis, or simply manufactures them out of whole cloth.

Answer 2

We studied American history as sophomores in extreme college an entire one hundred eighty hours - and nonetheless basically scratched the exterior i think of you may study the Bible in 0.5 that element consistent with risk interior the Encyclopedia Britannica under u . s .

Answer 3

What! I know that we were once a British colony but we won the war they need to get over it! Bull! We don't need a Queen

Answer 4

I'm at a loss for words. My tax dollars going to the British Queen? Say it isn't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 5

well I have noticed more Brits doing commercials on T.V., maybe there is a connection.

Answer 6

if this means we get Queen Elizabeth instead of Queen Hillary I'm all for it!

Answer 7

............and all the time you thought you had a special relationship with us, we were really taking you for a ride.

SUCKERS !!