Joseph Voelbel

This is the opening of the Treaty of Paris (1783):

"It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc… and of the United States of America, to forget all past Misunderstandings and Differences that have unhappily interrupted the good Correspondence and Friendship which they mutually wish to restore,"

I did a close read of the above treaty, and especially the above paragraph cited. A friend on Facebook mentioned he was curious about the language "King of" in the above paragraph, and then later on, "and of the United States." The misattribution is understandable. "And of", at first glance, appearing to be a continuation of the places George is listed as "King of". It reads "King of... etc... and the United States" However, if you pay close attention to the opening line of the treaty, and follow the grammar, you will discover that "and of the United States of America", is clearly a reference to the second heart, that it pleases Divine Providence to dispose of.

Let's take a look at the opening line again. Brackets, numbers and caps are mine.

"It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of [plural, multiple hearts, which are about to be listed 1)] the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, King of [a lot of places, and duke of other spots too, and Arch treasurer of stuff, etc…2)], "And of the United States of America," [what follows confirms the objective of both parties,] "To forget all past Misunderstandings and Differences that have unhappily interrupted the good Correspondence and Friendship which THEY mutually wish to restore;"

The Key Language here are "Hearts" and "They", both indicating the plural. The former indicates that it pleases Divine Providence to dispose of two "hearts" (One is the king, the other is the US), the latter "they" indicates two antecedents, namely, Prince George and the US.

Truncated for clarity this might read… "It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose of the Hearts of Prince George, and of the United States, to forget all past Misunderstandings that have interrupted the good Friendship which they wish to restore," As you can see in the truncation of this sentence, "And of the United States" is a reference to the second heart being disposed of by Divine Providence. If it were not so, the plural of "hearts" would be unattributed, and also the subsequent "they" would be grammatically incorrect, indicating a plural where it would instead be singular. Therefore, the treaty would be logically and conceptually flawed.

Additionally, in Article Seven the independence of the United States is further confirmed as a result of an acknowledgement of its having Citizens not Subjects. An excerpt from Article 7 states, "There shall be a firm and perpetual Peace between his Britanic Majesty and the said States, and between the Subjects of the one and the Citizens of the other…" If in fact, King George had claimed Kingship of the United States prior in the treaty, "the said States" could not be citied as Citizens but would in fact be listed as Subjects. Citizens are of state, subjects are of a crown.

Lastly, props to Adams, Franklin, Hartley and Jay, because these guys walked up to the King of all of the UK and said, "We're representatives of sovereign states, and plenipotentiaries of the United States." And added, "We've also drawn a map to indicate the territory of our sovereignty." What followed is a treaty with a brilliant structure for the easing and releasing of the claws of warfare in a logistical and timely manner with great preservation placed on the side of our sovereignty. Thanks, I enjoyed this process of historical research!

Joseph Voelbel is an AI Learning Experience Designer, Author, and Philosopher. Titles include, Pay Attention to Bitcoin (2024) a punchy digital primer on sound money, and Nineteen Stories (2017), a literary collection exploring the unknown.