Patroons of New York

[allodial]

This is nearly direct to World Citizenship but I am taking this over to Patroons of New York. What you have shown me is that Dr. Dale LIVINGSTON may not have been talking about an improper quorum for New York, but rather an improper quorum for the States of the Union?

Rhode Island is missing all right! - And it says:

Yes. I had LIVINGSTON in mind. I've long had a sense of perhaps like a foreboding about the 1788 Constitution. The lack of quorum may have been also applicable to New York but primarily appears to be with respect to ratification of the Articles of Confederation. One thing that provided an interesting perspective was a comment by Rice MCLEOD about how certain Lenape/Delawares/Indians/Moors/Natives preferred peaceful co-existence with separate systems of law for the incoming Europeans and themselves (i.e. they were OK with them keeping their laws to themselves). Perhaps there were others who had the same viewpoint? So was the Constitution of 1788 maybe perhaps about creating a new system with the Treaty With the Delawares and the Ft. Staniwix treaties in the backdrop..the result -> two parallel systems? The Treaty of Paris and the Jay's Treaty give clear open door for preservation of pre-existing British claims. Could James MADISON have been aware of this and have exploited this?

In view of the Articles of Confederation, the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the topic of postliminy, the 1788 Constitution . Perhaps Jay's Treaty provides further insight.

IX. It is agreed that British subjects who now hold lands in the territories of the United States, and American citizens who now hold lands in the dominions of His Majesty, shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and titles therein; and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives and that neither they nor their heirs or assigns shall, so far as may respect the said lands and the legal remedies incident thereto, be regarded as aliens.

X. Neither the debts due from individuals of the one nation to individuals of the other, nor shares, nor monies, which they may have in the public funds, or in the public or private banks, shall ever in any event of war or national differences be sequestered or confiscated, it being unjust and impolitic that debts and engagements contracted and made by individuals having confidence in each other and in their respective Governments, should ever be destroyed or impaired by national authority on account of national differences and discontents.

Treaty of Paris parallels....

Article 4:

It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.
....
Article 9: In case it should so happen that any place or territory belonging to Great Britain or to the United States should have been conquered by the arms of either from the other before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty and without requiring any compensation.

[David Merrill]

Yes. I had LIVINGSTON in mind. I've long had a sense of perhaps like a foreboding about the 1788 Constitution. The lack of quorum may have been also applicable to New York but primarily appears to be with respect to ratification of the Articles of Confederation. One thing that provided an interesting perspective was a comment by Rice MCLEOD about how certain Lenape/Delawares/Indians/Moors/Natives preferred peaceful co-existence with separate systems of law for the incoming Europeans and themselves (i.e. they were OK with them keeping their laws to themselves). Perhaps there were others who had the same viewpoint? So the Constitution of 1788 was perhaps about creating a new system with the Treaty With the Delawares and the Ft. Staniwix treaties in the backdrop..the result -> two parallel systems?


In view of the Articles of Confederation, the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the topic of postliminy, the 1788 Constitution . Perhaps Jay's Treaty provides further insight.

I have a little information on some of those but have never delved into them thoroughly. I am captivated by the Treaty of Fort Stanwix coming up in this context. I consider it the ceding of the entire USA to the US by praying on the ignorance of the Iroquois Federation's geography. In other words all lands west of an eastern seaboard river were given away. I have something around here (a thread) about the original scam being done by an attorney... I will link that when I find it.

I recall a child custody case I won and Dad was all hyped up that I cite the Jay Accord as we were into the Hague Convention already - Mom in Canada. I did so and he won custody and the local Supreme Court got all bent about it (notice the cure for SARS is a default judgment) but I did not pay enough attention to follow the model you are painting. A captivating model it is though!

[allodial]

...I am captivated by the Treaty of Fort Stanwix coming up in this context.....

The Treaty of Fort Stanwix appears to have a more direct link to the establishment of a territorial government for the United States of America. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 itself appears to be a kind of constitution.