Uncle Sam Does Osama’s Dirty Work

“Washington should keep in mind that there are more Mexicans in southern California than there are Albanians in Kosovo”

The difference is that those Mexicans actually want to be Americans. Serbs killed many Kosovars, I can understand why they want their own country. And giving Russia the finger is just a bonus.

“The difference is that those Mexicans actually want to be Americans.”

Wrong: they want to be in America. They show few signs of wanting to be Americans.

Wow, now I’m going to feel guilty every time I look at my paycheck and see the portion the feds took away to fund Christ-hating Albanian mafiosi. Thanks ALOT cusack!

Congrats to you for this post.
The first time that the Western democratic (?)governements recognise a so-called nation run by a bunch of mafiosi!!!!
Free Kosovo from Albanese!!!

This reminds me of the Battle of Vienna, when the nations of the Holy League united under Jan Sobieski to fight the Ottoman Empire at the Gates of Vienna.

France, meanwhile, thought it would do a deal with the Muslim Turks in order to weaken its European rivals.

America has turned into France. What a disgrace!

Well said, Cusack.

Bravo Andrew!

“Wrong: they want to be in America. They show few signs of wanting to be Americans.”

What is America besides a political union? We have no unified or official religion, no “American” race, no set “American” culture, etc.

Russia has denounced this act, as have some European nations, China too.

What happens if Serbia demands independence for the Serb portion of Kosovo?

What if Russia backs Serbia with a Russian army on Serbian soil near Kosovo, will the west really go to war with Russia over Kosovo?

The American army cant even fight poorly trained militia in Iraq or Afghanistan, how do they expect to fight a real army of well trained and highly motivated slavs?

This is a grave mistake, one we will come to regret!

Yes, the US has acted disgracefully. President Bush has demonstrated that fundamentally he is still a businessman and not the visionary Christian leader his supporters (and more of his detractors) like to make him out to be.

On the other hand, there are two things that strike me here. Firstly it’s a mistake to imagine that what’s going on in Kosovo at the moment is really America’s business, or even really an American interest. In 1999, NATO really found itself being co-opted as the military wing of the emerging European Union, which function it still serves virtually in Bosnia, which is now officially being policed by EU troops. If it hadn’t been for the EU’s Javier Solana and Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder, and especially Tony Blair himself, it is highly unlikely President Clinton would have authorised Operation Allied Force, with or without Monicagate. The new currency in Kosovo, as it happens, is the Euro.

The other thing, obviously, is that the Vatican’s own horrific role in the Kosovo tragedy has yet to be fully revealed, but the tone of Vatican Press Office’s recent release, at one point effectively hiding behind the United Nations, is very much of a piece with the official silence of John Paul II over NATO’s war-crimes in 1999. This was of course the same JPII who noisily and stupidly denounced military action against Saddam Hussein, not just in 2003 but also in 1991. The same JPII who supported the European project with his dying breath. And the same JPII who supposedly helped to save Europe from the threat of “atheistic Communism” – as if the Islamicist version of the same threat will necessarily be any less deadly!

James: One hopes that neither Russia nor the United States will involve themselves any more directly in the situation than they already have. The past two inter-European wars were disastrous enough, and they both took place when birth-rates were high. Today, the disaster could be tenfold. Our neighbors across the Mediterranean and on the other side of the Bosporus would be more than happy to move into the prime European real estate once we all kill each other.

Serbia, of course, would be completely within its rights to march its entire army into Kosovo. But, as Chesterton said, to have the right to do something and to be right in so doing are two very different things.

Oliver:

Firstly it’s a mistake to imagine that what’s going on in Kosovo at the moment is really America’s business, or even really an American interest.

I agree completely.

In 1999, NATO really found itself being co-opted as the military wing of the emerging European Union, which function it still serves virtually in Bosnia, which is now officially being policed by EU troops.

Very true. This is why the Western European Union, originally a separate military alliance, is being divvied up, with some parts being integrated into the regular European Union as the EU’s defence polity, while other sections are being merged into NATO’s organizational framework.

Vatican diplomacy on the geopolitical level is a very strange creature, which makes little sense to me. The enthusiasm of the Vatican (and of the American Right in power) for pan-Europeanism is understandable, but the enthusiasm for this pan-Europeanism (i.e. the EU as it has turned out rather than the vision of, say, Schumann or Coudenhove-Kalergi) is both lamentable and mind-boggling.

Of course, there is always the potential of the EU having a Milvian Bridge moment, but one nonetheless suspects that the Apostles did not urge on the Roman Empire in the years before Constantine.

Yes, thank you Uncle Sam. For introducing the principle of self-determination to a world devastated by savagery. The Serbs were a terrorist state that financed terror and acts of assassination back when it helped become the catalyst for the Great War (any ideas how it got rid of its last King and Queen?), and little has changed. Do you suggest the 2 million Muslims who outnumber the 100,000 Serbs in Kosovo remain enslaved by a state that tried to wipe them out? Such was the logic that turned a deaf ear and blind eye to the Jews being massacred while every port was closed to them. And why should such injustice be allowed to continue? Because Serbs believe the same 2000 year old superstition as George Bush! Although Russia has acted with the same consistency shown when it stood up for Serbs exactly 100 years earlier with the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, there is no reason why we should not remain true to our values of liberty and the four freedoms of FDR and the Atlantic Charter signed up to by Churchill. Or did not enough Allies die to make that point clear enough for you, Sir?

Dear Andrew,

You are gracious to let the ignorant, ill-mannered religious vilifier (I will not call him a gentleman) styling himself “Keir” to post on your blog.

Particularly silly is the rhetoric which forbids any criticism of the US and its allies because Allied servicemen died in WWII.

So – no criticism allowed of the Allied bombing war crime that slaughtered thousands of old men, women and children. Nor of the planned Allied repatriation to the Soviet Union for certain slaughter of the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims of the Yalta betrayal endorsed by FDR.

So much for his “Four freedoms” and the “values of liberty”.

These innocents were “liberated” by FDR through slaughter. Thankee, Frankie!

No doubt his Communist sympathiser wife, Eleanor, helped him to understand it all.

It is, however, true that Serbian authorities have acted appallingly – in the past and in the present.

But that did not mean that Madeleine Albright had the right to say to them “Do it our way or we will take over your country” as she did at the Rambouillet bully-fest.

Keir will also need to produce more evidence than mere assertion that the Kosovars have been “enslaved” by the Serbs.

It is true that there were terrible reprisals (on both sides) during the war but is this still happening?

The Jewish analogy is particularly inapt coming from a citizen of a country that allowed less than 20,000 Jews to immigrate during WWII. Yankee hypocrisy!

It didn’t suit US policy so they were not allowed in. This is not so much the moral low ground as the bottom of the moral barrel.

US Foreign policy has been largely suspect and self-oriented since that parcel of Secular Fundamentalists known as the Founding Fathers took over in 1776 and later instigated the infamous Monroe doctrine. That was essentially a doctrine saying “We are bigger and tougher and will do as we please – so get out of our way!”

There are a few superstitions today causing trouble in the world and one of them is the supersitition that the Yankee way is the only way.

Keir may call this being “true to our values of liberty and the four freedoms of FDR and the Atlantic Charter” but there are at least as many people dead as a result of these “values” as there were US servicemen in WWII.

Comparative atrocity stories do not substitute for reasoned debate, Mr Keir….sir.

James

Wow, Keir, I bet those young girls being forced into prostitution are really enjoying that self-determination right now.

Keir, the claim that Serbia committed genocide in Kosovo was so tenuous that even the Hague Tribunal (known for its pretty low standards of proof) couldn’t bring itself to indict that clown Milosevic on any such charge. (All his indictments were related to Bosnia-Herzegovina.)

Lord, have mercy.

Thank you for this post, Andrew. I have linked to it on The New Crusade.

It seems as if I’ve taken on the temporary job of headline critic here. However I can’t help but draw attention to the inflammatory and inacurate

“Uncle Sam Does Osama’s Dirty Work

U.S.-backed Terrorists Complete Their Takeover of Serbian Province”

Kosovo is hardly “Serbian” except in a dream. Only 4% of the Kosovo population is Serbian. Since the vast majority of the population of Kosovo is enthic Albanian and Moslem, I find it difficult to understand opposition to a declaration of sovereignty which is only a half-step beyond what they had anyway with a long history of quasi-national self-government.

But striving for any understanding of Balkan politics is not always a fruitful task or a rational one. The labels “terrorist” and “terrorism” can be stuck on the autrocious activities we have seen on all sides in these wars.

It is typical in English to use the adjectival form of a country to describe something which is within that country. Kosovo is in Serbia therefore it is Serbian. A Serbian province with an Albanian majority, yes, but part of Serbia nonetheless.

Kosovo is the historic and religious heartland of Serbia. It is akin to Jerusalem for the Jews.

Well, if one requires photographic evidence one could check out http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-Photographs.htm
But let’s just look at the images today. Serbia, just as the Chinese do everytime it has a grievance with the US or Japan, stoked up passions among its people and allowed them to riot, loot, and set fire to the United States Embassy compound in as well as several other embassies. This is the type of government we’re supporting? Its main defender being Russia? And I wish to use the collective “we” because I am very sympathetic to the views of this site and its readers; why else would I bother coming here? But I simply cannot understand why it’s OK for the US to seek independence because of taxation issues, or Ireland to have Home Rule and eventual independence, or the Quebecois and Scots allowed to have referenda offering independence, but poor little Kosovo can’t. because Serbia once controlled the region aeons ago? Europe is not based on that principle, for otherwise Germany would immediately make plans to regain Posen, Danzig and former Prussia. I’m as cynical as they come. I don’t care for instability and the creation of yet more failed states, especially in an area of the world that cost Europe so much. But the arguments against are the same the Chinese regime here uses to continue its oppression in Tibet (which the British have an historical obligation to speak out against) as well as its blackmail over Taiwan, which I should hope everyone here would agree is a democratic ally worth defending. It just struck me that the only reason articulated here was the fascist one that because of a people’s religious background that they happen to be born into, they forfeit all rights we assume for ourselves.

Regarding the supposed Racak massacre, I refer you to the trial of Slobodan Milosevic, in which Racak was discussed on numerous occasions. Even evidence that the prosecution provided suggested that there were no civilian casualties, and it seems more than likely that the dead were UÇK combatants killed in the firefight with police or else killed in the crossfire.

A photograph of dead bodies is not proof of genocide. It is proof of dead bodies.

Your claim that Serbia “stoked up passions among its people” is pretty ballsy. They just had their historic heartland systematically stolen from them by the United States. If Russia did this with regard to New England, I don’t think I’d blame the US if American citizens attacked the Russian embassy.

But I simply cannot understand why it’s OK for the US to seek independence because of taxation issues, or Ireland to have Home Rule and eventual independence, or the Quebecois and Scots allowed to have referenda offering independence, but poor little Kosovo can’t.

The US’s independence was granted by its legitimate monarch in 1783, an entirely legal procedure. Ireland was granted home rule rule, again through completely legitimate grants of parliament. In both circumstances violence was regrettably involved but in both circumstances it led to agreements by the opposing parties which in turn led to completely legal measures to solve the situation. Quebecois and Scots nationalism had (in general) been more peaceful, but again we find similar circumstances: acting within the law. No one supports the idea of Quebec or Scotland simply declaring independence without legal backing.

With regard to Kosovo, everyone came to an agreement: that Kosovo would be granted an exceptionally wide degree of autonomy, that it would, in effect, run itself (albeit under the guise of a UN administration), but that it would remain a part of Serbia as it always has been. This agreement still stands, and still has the backing of law; i.e. those who break the agreement are outlaws. They are acting outwith the limits of legitimacy.

Kosovo has had an internal independence for almost a decade by now and as Cusack pointed out the result has been that it has become a center for the trafficking of innocent young girls sold into sexual slavery. It has also been used as an al-Qaeda base of operations. Doesn’t this sound like the kind of government we should be opposing rather than encouraging and supporting? Where is the sense in the U.S. creating a little safe haven for criminals, terrorists, mafiosi, and sex traffickers? Eh?

And rest assured this is completely a U.S. project. There is no way the regional government of Kosovo would’ve declared independence without already knowing that the U.S. would recognize them.

because Serbia once controlled the region aeons ago?

Aeons ago? Time does fly but 1999 isnt THAT far away.

It just struck me that the only reason articulated here was the fascist one that because of a people’s religious background that they happen to be born into, they forfeit all rights we assume for ourselves.

You must not have read Cusack’s words, nor those of many who have responded. Here are the arguments:

1) The declaration of independence is illegal under the laws of the state in which it has taken place.

2) The declaration of independence and any recognition thereof is in direct contravention of the legally-binding agreement that Kosovo should enjoy extensive autonomy within Serbia under UN administration.

3) In the years in which Kosovo has enjoyed that extensive autonomy the government of Kosovo has turned the province into a center for the trafficking of innocent young girls for sexual slavery, has allowed the Albanian mafia almost free reign, and of course Kosovo has been used as a base of operations for al-Qaeda activity. Furthermore they have proven that they are incapable of protecting minorities in the province and so we have witnessed an unopposed series of violent attacks on ancient churches and monasteries in addition to which the private property of innocent law-abiding civilians has been destroyed.

4) Recognition of the illegal declaration of independence in Kosovo would give new hope and encouragement to terrorist groups throughout the world to engage in violent revolutionary and terroristic activity in hopes of achieving their aims.

5) The continued U.S. support for the UÇK and the provincial regime in Kosovo exposes the naked hypocrisy of the United States in purporting to be waging a “Global War on Terror” while simultaneously aiding and abetting terrorist groups and supporting a rogue state.

6) The other efforts of the United States government at fighting international crime are hindered by Washington’s establishing a safe zone for international crime in Kosovo.

7) Recognition of the illegal declaration of independence greatly threatens the stability of the region and encourages Albanian irredentism elsewhere.

8) Kosovo is the historic heartland of Serbia and despite the extreme provocations mentioned in reason 3, Serbia has not attempted to curb Kosovo’s autonomy because it wants Kosovo to remain part of Serbia. This extreme tolerance of the current state of autonomy shows that there is really no need for independence beyond the ambitious dreams of the criminals who run Kosovo.

So it seems that those opposed to independence for Kosovo are (according to you) “fascists” while those who are in favor of independence for Kosovo are supporters of sex-trafficking, organized crime, and terrorism.

Hmmm… I know which side I’d rather be on.

Kosovo is very rich in coal and, apparently, oil. Uncle Sam, in the person of one Richard Bruce Cheney, is hellbent on continuing America’s Wilsonian policy of bringing democracy to the rest of the world, in particular those parts blessed with oil.

According to this post Christianity can do no wrong. It also forgets the ethic cleansing perpetrated by Milosevic, the leader of orthodox Serbia.

Well done Cusack !!

According to this post Christianity can do no wrong.

Uh-huh, right… Sorry I just re-read the entire post along with the comments… Can you point out to me exactly where it says that? I must’ve missed it.

It also forgets the ethic cleansing perpetrated by Milosevic, the leader of orthodox Serbia.

Actually, we’ve already dealt with this subject: see above. Have you actually been reading this post or did you just feel like commenting without doing so?

I read above:

“The US’s independence was granted by its legitimate monarch in 1783, an entirely legal procedure.”

The commentor, speaking of legalities, fails to mention the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, which we all hold to be the foundation anniversary of the nation. A bloody and protracted war following that defeated the largest British military and naval forces ever assembled. With the cosequent fall of the government of Lord Frederick North, George III was more properly forced to stand aside in his diehard opposition to American independence.

We might have chosen one of several dates connected to the negotiation of The Treaty of Paris and the notion of a “grant of independence” by George III. For instance there is the British defeat at Yorktown, or a day in September 1782, when the authorization papers of David Hartley, Britain’s negotiator, were reworded to acknowledge that he was negotiating not with “colonies” but with “13 United States”. There is the treaty signing date of September 3, 1783 or one of ratification dates.

But no: The independence of the United States is recognized as having nothing to do with any grant of the English king. It is more properly seen as beginning with the proclaimed intention of his subjects to throw of the yoke of his tyranny. It is a matter of record that George III fought against American independence at every turn until the bitter end.

The commentor, speaking of legalities, fails to mention the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, which we all hold to be the foundation anniversary of the nation.

Well, clearly not all. I am sure the proprietor of andrewcusack.com does not hold so, nor do I, and nor do a number of this blog’s readers.

The Declaration of Independence had no force of law because it was adopted by the Continental Congress, which itself had no force of law nor legal backing. The Continental Congress made their declaration, but legally speaking the United States did not become independent until our independence was granted. That the Continental Congress had any legitimate legal authority is a simple fiction we like to entertain because they happened to win.

George III fought, yes, but then he gave in and consented to American independence. If he hadn’t, the Treaty would have been null and void, and you and I would still be speaking, er, English… well, you know what I mean!

Yes, I doubt anyone can take the Continental Congress’s pretensions to authority seriously in terms of law. Legitimate authority already existed and continued to exist, and the Congress was directly challenging that legitimate authority (some of the members theoreof in violation of their oaths of loyalty to the Crown).

I have not seen any primary source documents bearing witness to the Heavens opening and the Holy Spirit descending from on high in Philadelphia 1776, and barring so I think we can rest assured that the existing legitimacy was not abrogated and that the Continental Congress’s pretensions remain just that: pretensions. Why, otherwise any old gang of fools could associate together and claim legitimacy.

Andrew writes:

“ANOTHER STRIKE AGAINST Christendom’s fragile frontiers: the assembly of the UN-administered Serbian province of Kosovo has unilaterally and illegally declared independence. “

—What are you basing all of this on, your opinions?

You wrote, “The United States government, which is bound by its own law to deny recognition to the putative country…”

—What US law says the country cannot recognize Kosovo? Under the laws of the United States, the President as head of state and chief executive says he can recognize any state. Case in point, Jimmy Carter’s withdrawl of US recognition of Taiwan, a free and independent state, in favor of Communist China which has no freedom—secular or religious—and continues to persecute the Roman Catholic Church.

“The U.S., which claims to currently be fighting a “Global War on Terror”, has backed the Albanian Muslim UÇK terror group that has run Kosovo for nearly a decade now, and continually encouraged it because Washington views any defeat for the Serbs as by extension a defeat for [the] Russians…”

—What have the Serbs done to show themselves worthy of any support? Their behavior over the last decade has bees less than endearing. Everyone has an excuse for bad behavior.

“[I]n Washington’s point-of-view, no matter how irrelevant it is to the actual safety and well-being of we Americans, any defeat for the Russians is a victory for Washington—or “the United States”, as the clique of insipid upper-middle-class bureaucrats supported by the taxes of hard-working Americans likes to style its rule. (Naturally, a complete inversion of this attitude—in which any defeat for America is regarded as a victory for Russia—now reigns in Moscow. After a decade of Washington kicking Mother Russia while she was down, the Ruskies finally took the hint and so we once more have nuclear missiles aimed at our shores.)”

—There is a reason The Blessed Mother at Fatima called for the conversion of Russia. Shedding communism was not Her point.

“But to Washington, all this is irrelevant. When the news cameras come out, the leaders of Kosovo wear smart Western suits and speak all the typical non-language of Western bureaucrats, and have pledged to make their Kosovo a modern secular state, despite the sex trafficking, rampant unemployment, Serb-baiting, church-burning, and whatnot. They know on which side their bread is buttered, and they are extremely grateful to America, without which they’d still be ordinary people forced to work for a living.”

–So now what? Just like any other country. What are they supposed to wear, their robes and funny hats? Kosovo’s alleged “sex trafficking, rampant unemployment…” as opposed to any other country we deal with, say Mexico? How about our own country? Your point is…?

If Kosovo has been such a problem for Serbia, they should be happily rid of them. What’s the point of all this? I don’t see you getting all worked up about the loss of Catholic property in Russia, China and elsewhere the Roman Faith is persecuted? Selective whining I suppose.

That pic of a burning home is a Christian’s home? What proof do you have?

You sound like another Louis Farakahn.

What US law says the country cannot recognize Kosovo?

Article VI, Clause II of the United States Constitution establishes treaties as part of the supreme law of the land. The UN Charter was duly ratified by the Senate and proclaimed by the President in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Chapter VII of the UN Charter establishes the ability of the Security Council to pass binding resolutions. Resolution 1244 was the agreement between the various powers which brought to an end the undeclared war between NATO and Serbia. 1244 reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia.

What have the Serbs done to show themselves worthy of any support?

The point of this post is that the Albanian government of Kosovo is unworthy of the support we have given them. There was no suggestion that the support we have given them be withdrawn only to be offered to the Serbs. Rather, the point was that we never should have given the Kosovo Albanians the support in the first place and we should have refrained from interfering in this region.

There is a reason The Blessed Mother at Fatima called for the conversion of Russia.

Are you honestly claiming that America’s repeated breaking of its agreements with Russia is excused by Our Lady of Fatima? This seems dubious, to say the least.

So now what? Just like any other country. What are they supposed to wear, their robes and funny hats? Kosovo’s alleged “sex trafficking, rampant unemployment…” as opposed to any other country we deal with, say Mexico? How about our own country? Your point is…?

The point is that this had not been the situation before but through our government’s funding, encouragement, and support, it has become the situation, and so our government shares a great deal of the blame. (I have no idea what you are trying to say when you mention robes and funny hats).

Again I ask: why is it a good thing for the U.S. government to aid and abet in the creation of a safe-haven for sex-traffickers, organized crime, and Islamic terrorists?

You sound like another Louis Farakahn.

Really? In what way? Please point out the similarity, because I, and no doubt others, fail to see it.

Off topic:

Andrew: random visitor from Edinburgh here (well not so random, because I think we have a few mutual acquaintances). Anyway, heard through the grapevine that you might be visiting…? Do hope so!

Rob Harrington and Andrew Cusack:

“The Declaration of Independence had no force of law because it was adopted by the Continental Congress, which itself had no force of law nor legal backing.”

“His Britanic Majesty” in the Treaty of Paris, by his own ministers recognized the force of law of the Declaration (reinforced, admittedly, by American victory.) Therein, he did not “grant” or “permit”, but rather, he “acknowledged” (1) the power of the Confederation to negotiate the treaty, and (2)that the United States were “free sovereign and independent states . . .”. Now, George couldn’t negotiate with himself, could he? No! He must have recognized the U.S.’s legal right to create a congress and appoint ministers, rights which stemmed from both the Declaration of Independence and the fight that ensued therefrom.

To make an analogy, George III executed a quit-claim deed in recognition of another claimant’s superior title.

To make an even plainer, layman’s analogy, the United States was liberated by the same legal force by which it was colonized-the stated intent and execution of conquest.

Great Britain did not liberate the U.S., nor did it create its government, as it did in the case of the other colonies. And, yes, the Continental Congress and its successors were constructs of Positive Law, but no more so, nor any less legitimate as a result, than the British Crown in 1776 (what can be more positivist than a sovereign empowered and legitimized by the Act of Succession?)

WAC

In French by Maurice G Dantec, a catholic author

[link]

Mr. Cubbedge,
As another has already noted, the legality of the Declaration of Independence is a legal fiction we maintain because the colonists happened to win by, as you say, the execution of conquest. Otherwise, your position, it seems, is a model for anarchy. Implicit in your argument is that the the oaths of loyalty already made to a legitimate sovereign (Act of Succession notwithstanding) by members of the Continental Congress could be discarded when it suited their political needs.

Dear Christine,

“the legality of the Declaration of Independence is a legal fiction ”

I think you misunderstand what a “legal fiction” is, at least what it is as a term of art. My copy of Black’s (7th Ed.) defines it thusly:

“An assumption that something is true even though it may be untrue, made esp. in judicial reasoning to alter how a legal rule operates.” For instance, a “Constructive Breaking” is a legal fiction whereby the judge decides that a burglar has made a “breaking” even if he was initially invited into the domicile based on a threat or false pretenses amounting to fraud. Another is the idea in most U.S. states that land is held by owners in feudal tenancy, for instance, deeds often speak of “tenancy by the entirety” and “fee simple absolute,” where we all know that land is held outright (there being not lieges involved,) and that these fictions are maintained mainly to accurately describe rights conveyed in the sale of land. Yet another, is the construction that the corporation, while enjoying limited liability, can be sued corporately, thus making it a “person” under the law (a status since the industrial revolution enabled by statue.)

The layman’s term “legal fiction” barely applies here, either, as I have demonstrated that a condition of the Peace of Paris was the acknowledgment that Great Britain was then, and had been, dealing with a legitimate, sovereign power.

“Implicit in your argument is that the the oaths of loyalty already made to a legitimate sovereign (Act of Succession notwithstanding) by members of the Continental Congress could be discarded when it suited their political needs.”

Forgive me if I lead you to this conclusion regarding my argument, as I had no such intention. Neither I, nor the Continentals, make any such argument, as is clear from the following passage:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The King’s majesty and former legitimacy is recognized throughout the Declaration. The legal point, of course, is that the acts of the Crown, in particular the abrogation of the Bill of Rights of 1689 (one of several key legal constructs under which William, Mary, and their successors legally and legitimately ruled) made the British dominion in the United States illegal and tyrannical. Indeed our argument is quite the contrary of your implication: A state of anarchy existed in the United States because the Crown had ceased to rule legitimately, and therefore did not rule at all. The Continental Congress (which had sat as a legislative body for over two years prior to 1776) and the Declaration of Independence simply recognized this, and set to amend the situation.

This line of thinking is not itself revolutionary; rather than an Enlightenment era appeal to moral authority or the power of the masses alone, the Continentals’ argument has older, and better grounded, antecedents, for instance:

“A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, . . .. Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant’s rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant’s government. Indeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude.” -Summa II-II, Q54, Art. II

Of course, this brings us to the real question regarding the legitimacy of the Declaration: “Were the claims made in the Declaration correct? Was Great Britain under George III exercising tyranny in the colonies?”

I really enjoy reading this blog, and I know that I am a republican treading in a den of monarchists. I don’t think I can provide any kind of argument that will be seriously considered by any of my antagonists here,(the reverse would be equally true, I’m sure,) so you will excuse me if I will decline to make one.

However, I again submit that the acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the Government of the United States by Great Britain in a bilateral treaty DID NOT constitute a “grant of independence”, but rather constituted a de jure acknowledgment of the legality and legitimacy of the Government of the United States (already acknowledged by its allies) as a sovereign state, operating under the authority declared and asserted by the Continental Congress and its successors, thus giving credence to the legal authority of the Declaration.

Yours Truly,
Will Cubbedge

Dear Christine,

I am sorry, I just looked at your blog and found out that you are a fellow jurist.

Please excuse my use of the phrase “layman’s term”, etc., in my above response. It was not meant to give offense to my learned colleague.

Yours Truly,
Will Cubbedge

As you know, William and Mary illegally usurped the crown from the legitimate monarch, James II. The Bill of Rights added no legitimacy to their governance.

The American Revolution is a complicated issue, but I think the main reason for the colonists’ anger stemmed from their virtual independence from 1621-1756, and Britain’s later intrusion in order to raise money. After the Seven Years’ War, when colonists showed themselves less than cooperative toward the British—whose men were dying to defend them against the French—Britain decided to become more involved. I don’t see any clear violation of the Bill of Rights, though, except in allowing a standing army in the colonies. Other than that, the Sugar and Stamp Acts—admittedly onerous—were passed no differently from how similar taxes would be implemented in England: through virtual representation. The colonists were not being treated any differently from British subjects in England in this regard, particularly since there had been a Stamp Act in England since 1694. Still, it’s true the colonies were being bled dry by such taxes. Was the Crown wrong to ignore their protests? I would say yes. Did the failure amount to tyranny? That is the question indeed.

In any case, your entire argument for the legitimacy of the U.S. hinges on one word in the Paris Treaty: “acknowledges.” I think you read far more into that term than the King himself, whose loss of the colonies was one of the bitterest pills he had to swallow—but swallow it he did, not because he recognized the legitimacy of the United States in 1776 (otherwise, he wouldn’t have continued to wage war in opposition), but simply because he had lost; he had by then little choice. In the same section, the king “relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights” of the colonies; one could equally read this as a “grant” of independence.

Dear Christine,

I. While William and Mary may have been usurpers, (1) they did have to assent to the Bill of Rights as a condition of their usuptation, making it a condition of their reign, as well as the reigns of their successors, and (2) in any case, the subjects of the Crown, by all rights, had an expectation that the Crown would, as a condition of its sovereignty, uphold the Bill of Rights. Also, does it not do your side a disfavor to admit that the Hanovers ruled as the heirs of usurpers?

II. We will have disagreements regarding the historical record. But, as regards the violation of the Bill of Rights, beside keeping a standing army and quartering, I would throw in the dissolution of legally established legislatures, the establishment of kangaroo courts, unlawful extraditions, and the disarming of Protestant subjects. I’m sure I’m forgetting a few.

III. My case is hinged on the acknowledgment, it is true. But, that fact that there is an acknowledgment I think is sufficient to prove my original point, that there was no grant of liberty. A grant is a unilateral act, ex., the Indian Independence Act of 1947. The Treaty of Paris was an bilateral act of two nations. Regardless of the language, this alone must be some proof of a pre-existing, or at least retroactive, acknowledgments of the independence of the United States on the part of Great Britain. I’m not saying that George recognized the independence of the United States in 1776, but rather, he recognized it from 1776. Likewise, it matters little to my initial argument why George recognized it as an established fact before the Treaty was signed, only that he did.

Yours Truly,
Will Cubbedge

I agree: we will have disagreements over the historical records. The ideological roots of the Revolution trouble me most, as linked as they are to that godless and evil rebellion in France responsible for the martyrdom of so many faithful priests and religious. When Thomas Jefferson cried, “The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants,” he was referring to King Louis XVI, a saintly monarch, who died insisting his innocence, with his faithful confessor by his side. To support the American Revolution is, in a sense, to throw your lot in with his executioners.

[D]oes it not do your side a disfavor to admit that the Hanovers ruled as the heirs of usurpers?

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “your side”. As to the Hanoverians, one could argue they gained legitimacy over time by several factors: (1) King George III’s rule was recognized by the Pope; (2) he was recognized by the Cardinal Duke of York (the true king); (3) the longevity and stability of the Hanoverian reign would have ruled out a revolutionary overthrow to restore the Jacobites; (4) thus, any serious attempt at restoration was given up.

Bravo Herr Cusack – glad to see there are still many issues on which we are in firm agreement!

I can see how the right of conquest argument would carry some weight with others, but not for a New Yorker. Except for a brief re-capture by the Dutch and an even more brief capture by the rebels, New York remained British from 1664 until the last royal troops left on November 25, 1783.

So you will no doubt understand that from a New Yorker’s perspective, it is much easier to perceive independence as a grant than as an acknowledgment, for what in loyal New York was there to acknowledge?

Dear Mr. Cusack,

Well, to assert the rights of Great Britain over New Amsterdam, one would have to acknowledge a general Right to Property by Conquest, at least at some point.

I would say that the simple answer to your question is, to paraphrase one of your fellow statesmen, the only thing acknowledged in New York by the Treaty of Paris was . . . New York itself.

Yours Truly,
Will Cubbedge

Dear Christine,

By “your side” I mean American monarchists, or, more specifically, folks who think that the United States acted ultra vires in its creation of the modern American state. I consider myself a monarchist, but only insofar as it concerns other people’s monarchies.

Yours Truly,
Will Cubbedge

I’m sorry but I’m afraid none of you are actually giving any reference whatsoever to what actually created this debacle.
I’m referring to Rambouillet and the preceding devious machinations of Milosevich ; who ran rings round NATO ; whenever external hostilities were threatened he recapitulated and withdrew giving NATO no justification for aggression.
In order to prevent a recurrence of this in the Kosovo conflict NATO deliberately created a war [you need only consult US government and UK parliamentary reports on this] The terms of Rambouillet were completely unacceptable to Serbia [it was virtually a proposition to dismantle the entire serbian state and turn it into a NATO-run military state] Serbia said it would agree to reasonable terms ; [they even offered kosovan semi-autonomy] ; but they simply could not give away their country into the hands of the West. The subsequent press statements were misleading to say the least – the implication was that Serbia refused to make any moves towards reconciliation. Thus commenced the blanket bombing.
Remember too that France had proposed at the UN security council a peacekeeping force to keep the Serbian forces and the KLA apart [this was backed by Russia] – this proposal was vetoed by the US – in other words the US [via NATO] wanted the KLA to resume terrorist activities, and the Serbs to overreact with murderous draconian counter-measures – thus justifying NATO intervention !
In other words a war was deliberately inaugurated in order to get to Milosevich and wreak revenge upon him for NATO’s previous embarassment after his retreat from Croatia and Bosnia; and retreat and submission regarding kosovo every time external intervention was hinted at !
Whether one agrees with the intent or aim, the actual process was both reprehensible and inexcusable ; but these events seem to have disappeared into governmental files while a pseudo-counterfactual seems to pervade both the popular history and media accounts of what occurred in former Yugoslavia….
If Kosovo is in the state it is – at least some of the blame should be afforded to the deliberately hostile and over-politicised policies of the west.

Dear All,

I have really enjoyed this conversation. But enough of all this- I’ve just had a daughter!

Look at her pictures
here!

Yours Truly,
Will “Daddy” Cubbedge

Sickening.

However–if the US will consistently apply the Kosovo principle, let us agree that the Confederate States of America have a better claim to independence that the Kosovars.

I cannot cite a source just now but I recall from somewhere that Albanian Muslims become the majority in Kosovo by immigrating illegally?

I’ve often been puzzled by the varying attitudes of the US governments in its dealings with Muslims. On the one hand, we see them supporting, in the Kosovo case, the dregs of Mohammedism, with the ultimate losers being, apparently, the Christians. On the other hand, we find them abandoning the Muslims (and Arab Christians) of Palestine to the depradations of the Israelis, whose crimes there are as sickening as some I’ve seen discussed here.

Can someone explain to me why this is? The only common denominator I can see in both scenarios is the ultimate loss of Christian culture.