The United States should give the Statue of Liberty back...

I was going to quote that myself

but thanks reic. You better watch this Mustang1 :oops:

This _747 provided some links to look through, it appears this Mustang1, is a few bricks shy of a full load :wink:

I am sure his eyes are brown if you know what I mean.

A few bricks shy of a load? Whaaaa. His eyes are brown? Whaaaaaaaa! You know what else is a funny? A man turning a sommersault on a banana-peel! Or getting seltzered in the face. What about the ol' cream pie to the schnozz? Whaaaaaaaa.

_cart_ are you _747? Because _747 was without doubt the worst poster EVER in the history of the world. His ideas were totally without merit, his grammar and prose was terrible and the worst part? I think his eyes were brown....whaaaaaaaaaaa..

Go home little boy, the adults are having a discussion.

[quote by=mustang1]Wow, that’s it?!?!? This is your “A” game? Please. Damn, this will be too easy (and you have a little cheerleader, isn’t that precious?) All you’ve done is post over simplistic pigswill and so far, absolutely nothing of substance. Why not comment on your little buddy’s moronic assertion then? Come on, you aren’t all talk, are you? Go ahead, I like feeding the monkeys, let’s see you dance. :twisted:

[/quote]

It is peculiar how after _747 responded to your post he was thrown of this site by this RH fellow. Is this because mustang1 curled up in the fetal position and :cry:

to the RH because _747 was to much for mustang1 :roll:

. _cart_ his eyes are definately brown because he calls _747's assertions moronic in retrospect to Mustang1s - no assertions. _cart_ I believe we have a moron here. Mustang1 have you considered changing your Avator to a chicken

baaawk cluck-cluck CLUCK cluck bawk

Reic,

Damn son, have you considered some basic English skills? Also, since apparently you're a Johnny-Come-Lately and well-read on the thread, you can highlight some of _747's powerful statements that made others cower, can't you?

In the meantime: Avatar as a chicken? Whaaaaaaaaaa, why not also a picture of a screw and a ball? Screwball? Whaaaaa....that was a joke son! I keep pitchin' 'em but you keep missin' 'em. And you're doin' a lot of choppin' but no chips are flyin'. You look like two miles of bad road son, or even a dead horse, you got no get up and go. Pay attention son, I'm a cuttin', but you're not bleedin'. Is any of this filtering through that little blue bonnet of yours? Whaaaaaaa.

Isn’t it peculiar how reic seems rather preoccupied with some strange obsession with “_747_” and his moronic attempts at pushing an agenda with his inept misrepresentation of history? As I said before, something stinks in Denmark and “reic”, you reek of it.

Stop cowering behind a new posting name (or names) and deal with the fact that I (and others) was absolutely schooling your ass on all things historical. You had absolutely no idea what you were posting – you were furthering an agenda and you picked the wrong medium and discipline in which to hide it. You evidently have no life or relevancy, so you are back again in a desperate attempt to matter.

Go back over your banal, amateurish posts and deal with the fact that I countered, trumped and dismantled your “history.” Your last post was banned because you went over the edge. You veered from being simply unaware fluff into some weird, bizarre religious, Hitler-apologist rant that was bound to get you turfed. Sorry, you didn’t beat me. You can’t beat me. Go back to carrying on your schizophrenic post masturbatory chatter with your “friend” cart (the fact that you are talking to yourself online should be a warning sign) and stop projecting your shortcomings onto others.

Bye Bye.
:twisted:

Source: The Life & Death of Louis XVI (Saul Kussiel Padover)

Manuscript of

Expose des motifs de la conduite du roi, relativement a l'Angleterre(Paris, Imprimerie Royale,1779)

Before it went to print

Vergennes' Draft Read:

Yesssss!!!!! Way to go 747. Show that ass!

747,

A rather timely return, wouldn’t you say – in light of the fact that two new posters championed your cause so emotionally (and wrongly as I was warned by the administrator about “name calling” and yet I never cried about it), but if you can remain civil and not push any political agendas, I’ll respond to this last post. The minute this becomes weird, I’m removing myself from the dialogue, so consider this my forewarning. I thought you were “banned” – interesting that you came back now (rather suspicious, I’d say) but let’s look at what you’ve brought to the table.

Firstly, I’m not sure why you saw it fit to quote these particular passages (especially the Padover ones) as no one denied the French involvement in the American Revolutionary War (I’m even at a bigger loss to answer the Seven Years Quote). In fact, the debate centred around whether it was a binding contract between the two powers that would see New France formally returned to the its former imperial master upon the creation and recognition of the sovereign nation of the United States of America. Where is the primary evidence that suggests this in your quotes (I’d also like to see Padover’s margin comment in context)? Your final quote suggests some individual’s (rather anecdotally) DESIRE to have the former territory returned (that, doesn’t suggest a formal consensus), but where is the contract? Also, where is the American evidence that suggests such a deal?

Lastly, Perkins wrote, “The terms of the Treaty of Paris were galling to French pride, and it was certain that French statesmen would seek revenge whenever there was reason to suppose that France had her old enemy at a disadvantage. There was no strong desire to win back the lost possessions in North America, especially in Canada. The Canadian colony had often been a thorn in the flesh, and the possible value of the great possessions held by France in America was not generally realized.

But if there was no desire to recover Canada, there was a strong wish to humiliate England, and it was thought that the loss of her American colonies would be a ruinous blow to her prosperity.”

While some individuals within the upper echelons of the French government saw opportunity (perhaps even imperial gains) it seems that there was no formal arrangement for said opportunities nor was there an overwhelming desire to regain New France anyway.

Some more info for you (I actually found this on the web – it’s Encarta) so you can quickly and easily verify its authenticity:

“In February 1778 the Continental Congress entered into a formal alliance with France. The French agreed to give up their claim to Canada and regions east of the Mississippi River and promised to fight until American independence had been achieved. In return, the United States opened up their trade to French merchants and agreed to support French territorial gains in the West Indies. Because of this treaty, war soon broke out between France and Britain. For the first time during the war of independence, American success seemed possible.”

Hmm…this tends to further contradict your supposition.

Or, there’s also this piece of primary evidence that might need addressing,

ART. 6. Treaty of Alliance Between The United States and France; February 6, 1778

“The Most Christian King renounces for ever the possession of the Islands of Bermudas as well as of any part of the continent of North America which before the treaty of Paris in 1763. or in virtue of that Treaty, were acknowledged to belong to the Crown of Great Britain, or to the united States heretofore called British Colonies, or which are at this Time or have lately been under the Power of The King and Crown of Great Britain. “

Source :
Yale Law School

It’s Yale Law School’s online primary document archives (it’s also accessible)

And I’m done.