Speaking of International Law; it is noteworthy that the Treaty of Paris, which formally ended the First American Revolution, clearly states that the former American colonies "are, and ought to be, free and independent States". This treaty is signed by the then-king of England as well as representatives of the colonies that fought against British rule. This, and not the ratification of the Federal Constitution, is the freedom that they won.
It would be interesting to see if our British Allies today could see the wisdom of upholding this treaty and recognizing that our States are, and have always been, Free and Independent States. After all, their king did give his word....
3 comments:
Matt:
Unfortunately, the problem with referring to the Treaty of Paris in support of secession, is that a unionist would argue that this language was superseded by the Constitution. In their view (following Abraham Lincoln's logic), the Constitution was a contract between the people and the Federal Government, not between the states and the Federal Government.
However, there is plenty of evidence to support our view that the Constitution was a voluntary contract between the States and the Federal Government. I'll try to put together in the near future a concise post that will summarize those arguments.
BTW, congratulations on submitting The Ohio Republic's 100th post!
But the Treaty of Paris was a contract between the States and the government of ENGLAND. And while Lincoln may have changed the interpretation of that agreement domesticly speaking, it would be interesting (if not actually helpful) to get an official, legal interpretation of that from the Queen. Aren't they considered honor-bound to respect the precedents of their predecessors?
Yes, except when the national interest demands otherwise.
The Supreme Court is honor-bound to respect its precedents, too; but if that were true, we would not have so many complaints about judicial legislation...
Post a Comment