The united states is still a british colony

[shikamaru]

I miss Against the Grain Press ='(

[Bear Eagle]

I miss Against the Grain Press ='(

Is this where it came from? I received both the link and body in an email. Maybe another press needs to rise again.

[shikamaru]

Is this where it came from? I received both the link and body in an email. Maybe another press needs to rise again.

It is .

ATGPress was awesome.
My two favorite authors on there were "The Informer" and James Montgomery.

James Montgomery is the original author of the US is still a British Colony.

You can probably find pieces of it on the WayBackMachine online.

"The Informer" was absolutely kung-fu .

[allodial]

There is a court case that mentions that the United States (corp.) existed prior to the revolution of 1776. There was a reference to such online....but....*shrugs*

[sportiva27]

more of the informer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shzpr63Q1mA

http://www.thinkorbeeaten.com/informer/index.html

[Bear Eagle]

more of the informer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shzpr63Q1mA

http://www.thinkorbeeaten.com/informer/index.html

Thanks!

[shikamaru]

There is a court case that mentions that the United States (corp.) existed prior to the revolution of 1776. There was a reference to such online....but....*shrugs*

Respublica v. Sweers (1779)

US government being the body corporate, "We the People" is the body politic as well as an association.

[allodial]

That's the one. I have it on one of my archival harddrives waiting for a new home.

Your council have taken several exceptions to the form and substance of these indictments, upon a motion in arrest of judgment. The first exception was, 'that, at the time of the offence charged, the United States were not a body corporate known in law.' But the Court are of a different opinion. From the moment of their association, the United States necessarily became a body corporate; for, there was no superior from whom that character could otherwise be derived. In England, the king, lords, and commons, are certainly a body corporate; and yet there never was any charter or statute, by which they were expressly so created. (Respublica v. Sweers (1779))

Can you say "de facto corporation"--the thirteenth colony perhaps? The Articles of Association of 1774 would likely be the association being referred to.

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen states expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union. [Inaugural address of Abraham Lincoln, on taking Oath of Office as President of the United Statees, March 4, 1861. per Appletons' annual cyclopaedia and register of important events, Volume 1 (1864)]

There are other perspectives:

The essence of this argument is that the colonies formed a new nation in 1774 and any statement of their independence or the subsequent constitutions they entered into simply “matured” this new nation. The facts however do not support Lincoln’s fable. The Union, as it existed in Lincoln’s time, as well as today for that matter, began with the ratification of our current Constitution—not before.

While it is true the Articles of Association brought together twelve of the thirteen colonies (Georgia did not participate) for a common purpose, it did not form a new government, national or otherwise. This Association was nothing more than an agreement among the colonies, each acting on their own, to participate in a trade boycott against the British Empire.

Lincoln’s claim that the Articles of Association formed a Union is demonstrably false, since all one needs to do is refer to the language of the Articles themselves to see that this was not the case at all. To begin with, throughout this document, the colonies remained true to their allegiance to the British Crown, where for example, the preamble proclaims, “We, his majesty’s most loyal subjects.” It is also noteworthy that the frequently stated purpose of these Articles defined them as a, “…non-importation agreement….”

Even more significantly, consider what was missing from these Articles. For one, there was no expressed intent or specific language establishing a union or compact among the colonies with powers to perform any functions of a government. Furthermore, these colonies never delegated or surrender any power or authority to any other entity, governmental or otherwise.

Therefore, as far as the Articles of Association was concerned—the very foundation of Lincoln’s argument—there was nothing whatsoever supporting the idea that the colonies established any new central authority. Despite the premise of Lincoln’s argument being at odds with the facts, there are other ingredients of Lincoln’s so-called nation creating argument deserving further examination.(Source)

[shikamaru]

It helps to do some research on the treatment of corporations in Roman Civil, English Common, and American Law in addition to researching the terms body politic and body corporate.

Blackstone's Commentaries treatment of corporations is very informative.

The Law of Associations is the root of it all followed by Companies Law and finally, Corporate Law.

[Treefarmer]

I miss Against the Grain Press ='(

Me too.
That was one of my favorite websites while it lasted.