This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

We map!-- Pupster21 13:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

there's a map in The Peacemakers, Morris, 1965, p.351 if you could get permission Pohick2 ( talk) 03:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the treaty was actually signed in Paris. Like is there a building where they sign treaties or something? I ask because I am going to Paris for the summer and thought it would be cool to find out. -- ScottyBoy900Q 12:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)i think this will help you alot!

____________________________________________________________________________________ IPS: I'm not a history professor, but didn't this country initially try a different form of government before becoming the United States of America with the current constitution?

The United States of America was governor by several organizational structures, most notably the Articles of the Confederation, before the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1787. However, it had been called the United States of America since the Declaration of Independence in 1776. ___________________________________________________________________________________

I changed the phrase "British Colonies in North America" to "United States of America" as the British had already legally recognized the sovereignty of the United States of America in the autumn of 1782. Of course, the colonies had already recognized their own sovereignty in 1776. The text of treaty states that the treaty is with the United States of America, not former colonies.

---

Could someone explain this: "longer than that required by the treaty"

I don't understand, it was ratified within 6 months, so what's the problem? Krupo 02:04, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a little puzzling. If it stays it needs some additional explanation. See [1]. Apparently the "longer than required" refers to the date ratifications were exchanged -- which was recorded in Franklin's diary as May 12, 1784. And Britain's ratification occurred on April 9, 1784. Both of which dates are more than six months after September 3, 1783. I'm not sure if it is worth going into very much detail though, since there was no controversy what so ever about it. older≠ wiser 12:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah... well even this brief explanation on the talk page does the trick for anyone who wanders in and gets confused - thanks. :) Krupo 04:26, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the six months reference and substituted a timeline- the ratified copies did not arrive back in Europe from America until March 1784, already beyond the six month recommendation (which was NOT a strict condition) David Trochos ( talk) 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• wow, i just put websites down and everybody was jumping all over it . i wanted to help peopl find other cool info on thsi treaty . on website i put down was really cool. i thsowed a pic of the treaty and you coul dscroll over it and it woul dmove , like you were moving it

The following was poorly placed (after the External links section), unwikified, and looks somewhat like a school essay. If there's anything worth keeping, it can be re-merged. older≠ wiser 00:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

The Revolutionary War ended with Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown in 1781. John Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and Henry Laurens were sent to Paris to make the treaty. The British were anxious to stop the fighting with the colonies so they settled for most anything our representatvies wanted. --Some problems at the Peace Treaty signing was that the French were not reps. They got upset with the colonies because they thought they might get something out of it since they helped the colonies through the whole war. Benjamin Franklin was friends with the British, he talked to them and then it was all ok. --Another problem was that they werent for sure what to do with the Loyalists land. Suring the war, the Loyalists got scared and fled. They left most of their stuff, the U.S. sold it and to get money to help pay off their debt.

The Treaty of Pairs: 1. recognized the colonies as the United States of America 2. established the boundaries between the United States and British North America 3. granted fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence 4.United States Congress will "earnestly recommend" to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands "provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects." (never implemented) 5.prisoners of war on both sides are to be released

The treaty was signed On September 3, by David Hartley (a member of the British Parliament), John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay (representing the United States).

The Continental Congress ratified the treaty on January 14, 1784.

The British troops were never completely removed because we had no army left to make them.

---

could you tell me what the consequences were?????

---

I agree I'd like to know where this was signed if anybody could answer this soon I'd really appreciate it. =)♠( Jman2213 18:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Now included- better later than never. David Trochos ( talk) 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure the address is the right one, because I live in Paris and am quite sure that the British Embassy is on rue du Faubourg St-Honore (I walk past it several times a week), not rue Jacob (in fact, I don't think there is a rue Jacob in that arrondissement). I also heard from someone, although this'll need verifying, that the treaty was signed in the building which is now the ministry of the Marine on Place de la Concorde. 91.125.208.104 ( talk) 22:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Prestige" buildings such as embassies have moved to take advantage of changes in the design of Paris. I have seen claims that the 1783 Treaty was signed by France at the Hotel de Crillon (then already a hotel, though under a different name, and a favoured haunt of royalty) but these seem only to be rumours. Obviously, if you can find reliable evidence to back a similar claim, you should change the article. David Trochos ( talk) 08:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rephrase part of 'British recognition of American independence' ??

... Formerly, they had not acknowledged that he [replace 'he' with 'the ambasador'] represented Americans. The American ambassador rejected his [replace 'his' with 'the British diplomat's '] credentials because they did not authorize him to negotiate with representatives of "the United States of America". ...

After my first read through I thought there was an error (American ambassador switched with British diplomat), as 'he' was used for the diplomat and for the ambassador. I had to read through it two more time to be certain of what it was trying to convey. Changing the 'he' to the persons actual name/title/etc improves clarity at the cost of 3 additional words, seems worth it.

72.137.47.223 09:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC) newb

The preface is longer than 9 of the 10 Articles, and it needs to be mentioned in the article, especially for its opening sentence, which is significant to the raging argument over America's Christian heritage:

"In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity."

We have a huge amount of material in the far less important Treaty of Tripoli article about the provision in (the Barlow translation of) that treaty which is said to relate to that argument.

I've added a brief summary of the preface to the outline. NCdave ( talk) 06:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to put in the summary, though it's perhaps worth pointing out here that as the 1783 Treaty predates the current Constitution, it does not have to be seen as relevant to the de jure separation of state and religion. David Trochos ( talk) 08:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was speaking of America's heritage, not its Constitution. With respect to de jure separation, the fact that some States allowed only Christians to hold public office for more than 100 years after the nation's founding would seem to be dispositive of that question.

Yeah, because a preface in a treaty from over 200 years ago is a bona fide good reason to ban pornography, marijuana, and put "One Nation Under God" on everyone's freaking license plates. Incidentally, ask Europe how much they care about their "Christian heritage" in making up policies when they have a bigger claim to it than a measly 235-year-old country. Go on, fundies, I'll wait. 72.145.229.249 ( talk) 20:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity."

Would this relate to the Protestant Church of England? This is a section that is taken at Protestant (not anglican) services. Further to my question, is America protected by a particular church, this would most certainly not relate to the Roman Catholic services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.71 ( talk) 07:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh? As far as I can tell, "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity" can be used by any Trinitarian sect, either Catholic or Protestant. As noted above, it predates America's current Constitution, so it should simply be seen as a standard form of words accepted by all the parties at the peace negotiations (this is not the only historical document in which it occurs!). David Trochos ( talk) 08:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, nice work on the Peace of Paris (1783) article. NCdave ( talk) 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We should not mislead people into thinking that the United States of America was a consolidated state like it is today. The United States of America were 13 sovereign states when they won independence. The USA was the name of a confederation of states, and didn't become a consolidated until much later. PhilLiberty ( talk) 14:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither should we mislead people into thinking they were treated as fully independent sovereign countries. Independence was declared jointly as a confederation. older ≠ wiser 18:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The Treaty lists each of the 13 sovereign entities - they were in fact treated as independent entities. Independence was declared jointly since the 13 had fought as an alliance. PhilLiberty ( talk) 21:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not the complete picture. The Treaty was negotiated by representatives of the union not by each of the states. the treaty was in effect with a single confederation of states, which was how they were generally treated internationally. older ≠ wiser 12:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The topic of the nature of the United States under the Articles of Confederation is best discussed in the article on the Articles of Confedration. In fact, the opinion being advanced on this Treaty of Paris article is the same one that Phil failed to get any agreement with on the AofC article. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 20:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

signed Nov 30, 1782 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/britain/prel1782.htm i would like to see some discussion of Jay's work leading to the treaty, and laurens named commissioner to get him out of the British jail. Pohick2 ( talk) 03:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Because this was a war with four major participant nations, in rather complex relationships, most of the background is found at the more general article Peace of Paris (1783). David Trochos ( talk) 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

excellent, thanks for link, maybe a link there would be good. Pohick2 ( talk) 23:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the reference, but can we find out why only one article is still in force? -- Duncan ( talk) 22:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Treaty is surely most famous for formally ending the American Revolutionary War, formally recognizing the sovereignty of the United States, and bringing to a close the First British Empire; the exact territorial provisions are an important but secondary matter. I've revised the lede to note the territorial provisions, but not say that the territorial provisions are the most "famous" part of the Treaty. MayerG ( talk) 19:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe this article should be merged with Peace of Paris (1783) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.65.85 ( talk) 20:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

They are probably worth keeping separate articles on. This one specifically deals with the end of the Anglo-American conflict, while the Peace of Paris article covers the peace between all the belligerents. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 19:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is very clear that a Brit wrote unsourced information about who "defied" certain articles. Come on! This should be without opinion. Defied is a very strong word. Show me where a law says it is defying anything. It is with great restraint that I do not just delete the entire paragraph! MagnoliaSouth ^{( talk)} 19:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the introduction summary could be more descriptive and possibly written. It seems to be confusing in the choice of words. Also, the article would look more appealing if more images were inserted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bee042211 ( talk • contribs) 15:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The intro is quite confusing. Cole128 ( talk) 01:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The key points section makes everything clear, but the intro section's job is to what the treaty did as well, or at least summarize it. Cole128 ( talk) 01:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The United States was a confederation of sovereign, independent countries when the treaty of Paris was signed and the treaty acknowledged the independence of each one individually, not as a single entity. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 06:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree -- major nations like France had already recognized the USA as an independent country with one national government and one (not 13) ambassador. Abe Lincoln's most quoted statement: "Four score and seven years ago (1776) our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation" The British after 1776 did not act as if they were in control--they did pass laws or taxes on the new nation or the 13 states. Rjensen ( talk) 07:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A the time, the term "United States" referred to the 13 sovereign states, not to one single state. It was four years before The Federalist was published and it was uncertain whether a federation could be formed. When other countries recognized the sovereignty of "The United States" they were referring to the status of the 13 states in that association, not to a single country. The treaty itself specifically makes this distinction:

"Article 1st:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.

Article 2d:
And that all Disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the Boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their Boundaries, viz.; from the Northwest Angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that Angle which is formed by a Line drawn due North from..."

It refers to the states as "them" and "they" not as "it". Not until the Constitution was ratified in 1789 did it become clear that The United States would be a single country. (And even 75 years later, some states continued to claim otherwise, as you alluded to above.)

I think the article should at the very least explain this distinction rather than making misleading statements like, "The treaty set the boundaries between the British Empire and the new country..." Sparkie82 ( t• c) 01:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

who sent 13 ambassadors to US? No one did. Britain's King George was the sore loser. France, Spain, Netherlands etc --every other country differed. There was ONE US delegation not 13. Better read Abe Lincoln "Four score and seven years ago" = 1776. In any case Britain sent ONE ambassador to the new country, not 13. Rjensen ( talk) 02:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Although the Gettysburg Address is one of the greatest speeches ever delivered and helped to rally the nation at it's most difficult time, it had nothing to do with the Treaty of Paris. It can't be used as an authoritative source on the status of signatories to the treaty. Also, Lincoln's own prior writings on the subject of the nation's birth date contradict that date referenced in the G.A. (1776). ^[1] (And besides, "Three score and fourteen years ago..." just doesn't have the same ring.)

The British didn't send an ambassador to the US until 1789, when the US became a sovereign nation. (Before that time, they sent an envoy, not an ambassador.) Also, an ambassadorial relationship itself doesn't establish an entity as a sovereign nation, e.g., nations send ambassadors to the UN, which is not a separate sovereign nation.

If the US was a separate, sovereign nation in 1783, then who was the head of state? Washington didn't assume office until 1789. The colonists (non-loyalists) and those who signed the treaty understood at that time that the states were separate (although many hoped for the formation of a federal government in the near future), and that the Articles of Confederation was a treaty constituted among the several states. That treaty organization was formed to help prosecute the war and authorized to negotiate treaties on behalf of the states, which retained their full, separate sovereign status until the Constitution came into effect in 1789. The Constitution established the US as a sovereign, federal government with a head of state, a supreme law (the Constitution), and a legislature; sharing it's power with the states, who retained a portion of their sovereignty.

Also, France did not recognize the US as a single nation, but as separate sovereign states. The Treaty of Amity and Commerce Between The United States and France, which was in effect at the time (ratified February 6, 1778) states:

"The most Christian King, and the thirteen United States of North America, to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay Rhode island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania Delaware, Maryland, Virginia North-Carolina, South Carolina & Georgia, willing to fix in an equitable and permanent manner the Rules which ought to be followed relative to..."

Another treaty (with Sweden 1782) also acknowledges that the states were separate at the time:

"WHEREAS in pursuance of a plenipotentiary commission, given on the 28th day of September, 1782, to the honorable Benjamin Franklin, a treaty of amity and commerce between his majesty the king of Sweden and the United States of America, was on the 3d day of April, 1783, concluded by the said Benjamin Franklin, with a minister plenipotentiary, named for that purpose, by the said king: and whereas the said treaty hath been duly approved and ratified by the United States in Congress assembled, and a translation thereof made in the words following, to wit:

A TREATY of amity and commerce concluded between his majesty the king of Sweden and the United States of North America.

The king of Sweden, of the Goths and Vandals, &c.&c.&c. and the thirteen United States of North America, to wit, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New-York, new Jersey, Pennsylvania, the counties of New Castle, Kent and Suffex on Delaware, maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, desiring to establish in a stable and permanent manner the rules which ought to be observed..."

So this article should refer to the United States in the plural, and as separate, sovereign states at the time of the ratification of the Treaty of Paris. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 15:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sparkie82 fails to cite any reliable secondary sources. Instead he is offering hos own interpretation of primary documents. Here's a RS: International Security and the United States: An Encyclopedia https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0275992551 by Karl R. DeRouen, ‎Paul Bellamy - 2008 - "A capitalist democracy, the United States is among the most highly developed industrialized countries. It was founded in 1776 when 13 British colonies on the Atlantic coast declared independence" p 890. Rjensen ( talk) 16:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a tertiary source, the use of which is discouraged, especially when they contradict the primary source documents. I'm not saying that the United States didn't exist in 1783, I'm saying that it was a collection of independent states, not a sovereign state of it's own at that time. You can find lots of causal sources that will say that the US became a country in 1776 because we all celebrate that date as the nation's independence and confuse it with the date that the states became a country (1789), but the primary documents say otherwise. I'd like to cite some scholarly secondary sources as to the status of the US when the treaty was signed and review their analysis. Also, the word "country" is not a very precise word and it has different meanings. (I should not have used it in the title of this thread.) Also, a literal reading of the source you cited says that the US "is among the most...counties." (present tense); then it says it "was founded..." (past tense) without specifying it's status in 1776. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 17:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"It was founded in 1776" is ambiguous?? wiki depends on reliable secondary sources, not on private interpretations of primary sources. start with #1) The nation was founded in 1776, not 1787." Moorhead Kennedy; et al. (2000). The Moral Authority of Government. Transaction. p. 91. {{ cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= ( help); also try 2) " The United States of America was founded in 1776" in Freedom in the World 2005: The Annual Survey of Political Rights 3) https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0836872924 Richard Worth - 2006 - ‎"Wars have shaped the history of the United States of America since the nation was founded in 1776." Rjensen ( talk) 02:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

In order to resolve a question like this, we need to look at sources focussed on this specific question, i.e. detailed works of diplomatic and political history which discuss whether the American signatories and foreign governments in 1783 thought the Thirteen Colonies "a new country" or a loose confederation of petty states. The answer may well, in fact, be "somewhere in between", as the modern concept of a "sovereign state" was one which evolved over time. Indeed, foreign governments may very well have expected the American colonies to remain as a loose confederation like the Holy Roman Empire, which would become a source of diplomatic antics for years to come as Britain tried to bring some or all of them back under her umbrella and other powers tried to stop her.

All books contain inaccuracies, especially encyclopaedias like some of those cited above which are summarising information at the most basic level, so they are not necessarily authoritative sources for this specific question (Abraham Lincoln's celebrated speech is clearly of even less relevance - politicians make all kinds of claims in speeches which are tendentious or even untrue).

It gets a bit more problematic when one is looking at a book like "The Moral Authority of Government", because a book of that kind is inevitably going to focus more on how events later came to be interpreted and the precedents which lawyers later chose to stress. To take a well-known example, Magna Carta was rediscovered in the seventeenth century, having been largely forgotten in Tudor times, and certain clauses were claimed to have been guarantees of the rights held by freeborn Englishmen since time immemorial. Fine, there is a time and a place for discussing how Magna Carta was later interpreted, but that is not an authoritative source for what King John and the barons thought they were agreeing at the time. To take an even sillier example, you would not write that Jefferson et al drew up the US Constitution guaranteeing US citizens' "right to privacy" and specifically, a woman's right to abortion and claim that this is backed up by "reliable sources" such as Roe v Wade and subsequent judgements and law textbooks. The idea that the US Constitution guarantees a right to abortion is, whatever the rights and wrongs of that issue, a legal fiction from two centuries later, and it seems safe to say that the signatories had no such actual subjective intent at the time.

So, in summary, Sparkie82 may very well be right that talking of the USA as "a new country" in 1783 is tipping into inaccuracy, but it needs to be sourced to authoritative books. Then a paragraph can be added and the introduction tweaked accordingly. Paulturtle ( talk) 14:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I made a change to the lede which I believe resolves the issue for purposes of this article without resolving the underlying definitional issue of whether the US was a country while it was a confederation. I now believe that an explanation on that issue is not required in this article and should probably be addressed in the articles Confederation or Articles of Confederation. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 17:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

sub me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.59.65 ( talk) 21:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Paris (1783). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719104045/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/60.1/br_11.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historycooperative.org%2Fjournals%2Fwm%2F60.1%2Fbr_11.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Is that the correct U.S. flag shown in the panel on the right? 86.133.134.23 ( talk) 13:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Scratch that. Looks like it probably is. 86.133.134.23 ( talk) 13:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Should this link be added to the External links section?

"THE Definitive Treaty, Between Great-Britain and the United States of America, signed at Paris the 3d day of September, 1783." — Library of Congress

137.82.118.53 ( talk) 20:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)