American dealings with foreign govts. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


MrRodgers -> American dealings with foreign govts. (3/18/2015 5:50:36 PM)

A History Lesson for the Republicans Who Wrote to Iran.

A very good read and some perspective. Items:

* In 1786, Congressman James White of North Carolina told the Spanish diplomatic envoy Diego de Gardoqui that if the United States made a treaty with Spain that did not guarantee Americans access to the Mississippi River and the port of New Orleans, far western North Carolina might declare independence and swear an oath of allegiance to Spain.

*In the spring of 1788, a group from Tennessee and Kentucky, seeking an alliance with the Creek Indians, also declared themselves willing to break away from the United States and become Spanish subjects.

*In 1793, the French emissary, Edmond-Charles Genet, recruited citizens in South Carolina to raise forces to fight with the French against Britain and Spain.

*In 1797, Senator William Blount of Tennessee plotted to invade Spanish Florida with help from the British.


But these attempted negotiations taught Americans and foreigners alike that a decentralized system of foreign relations did not work.

*When Georgians moved west onto Creek Indian land in the mid-1780s and fighting broke out, the War Department could only lamely ask Georgia to let it mediate. But instead of accepting federal authority, the governor of Georgia called out the state militia. Georgia found itself in the middle of a war it could not win alone.

As long as congressmen, state officials and private individuals presumed they had the right to negotiate with foreigners, no foreign government could trust that anyone claiming to speak for the United States actually did.

*Chickasaw Indian leaders told the president of Congress, Elias Boudinot, in July 1783 that they had heard “that the Americans have 13 councils (colonies) composed of chiefs and warriors” and that he was “the head chief of a grand council which is above these 13 councils.” (president of the senate)

People claiming to represent Georgia, Virginia, Illinois smaller groups of settlers had approached the Chickasaws to negotiate. The Chickasaws asked to know who actually spoke for the United States. It became quickly clear that, as a new nation, America needed one voice in negotiations with both Indian nations and European empires in matters of war, peace and traders had approached the Chickasaws to negotiate.

In the Articles of Confederation in 1789 and despite the insistence in the Articles that “no State, without the Consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance, or treaty, with any King, prince or state,” sovereignty rested primarily in the states.

The new Constitution added a president to the nation’s government, which previously had only a Congress.

Increasingly, Americans began to see alternative negotiating as treason. President George Washington and his secretary of state, Thomas Jefferson, put a stop to the French emissary Genet’s recruiting, and Senator Blount left the Senate under threat of impeachment.

When, in 1805, Aaron Burr, right after serving as Jefferson’s vice president, conspired to seize Spanish lands and possibly establish an independent republic, Jefferson declared Burr a traitor and ordered his arrest. Burr was acquitted, but Americans generally agreed with Jefferson that, if Burr had done what he was accused of, he was a traitor.

Here




Aylee -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/18/2015 6:09:00 PM)

Is this about the democrats sending people to other countries (like Israel and Canada) to influence elections?




thishereboi -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/18/2015 6:20:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Is this about the democrats sending people to other countries (like Israel and Canada) to influence elections?


From the heading in the op it sounds like he thinks the republicans who wrote Iran need a history lesson. Now I am not sure if we are supposed to copy, paste and send it to them or if he thinks they will be along shortly to read it themselves. Maybe he will be back to tell us.




MrRodgers -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/18/2015 6:33:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Is this about the democrats sending people to other countries (like Israel and Canada) to influence elections?

I don't know, I'd have to read pretty convincingly about who they saw and spoke to and what they did and said. I think the OP is clear enough.




MrRodgers -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/18/2015 6:37:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Is this about the democrats sending people to other countries (like Israel and Canada) to influence elections?


From the heading in the op it sounds like he thinks the republicans who wrote Iran need a history lesson. Now I am not sure if we are supposed to copy, paste and send it to them or if he thinks they will be along shortly to read it themselves. Maybe he will be back to tell us.

History for today's repubs seems to a very malleable study and no I have little hope that any pol from either side will read this unless somebody lays the Times down in front of them and very convincingly tells them too.

It is a very interesting perspective...nonetheless.




bounty44 -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 4:15:50 AM)

on the surface, it seems clear the thread is an attempt to criticize republican lawmakers over current events, not a generic thread concerning legislators getting involved in foreign affairs.

the examples you used in the op are not consistent with what the senators did, which was merely to publicly educate foreign leaders as to the nature of our constitution.

to that point---i just recently came across an article (maybe i can find it again) that explained how a similar letter had been drafted to the president, by the house, with 300 and something signatures on it. so, although on a quieter more subtle scale, the democrats are aware Obama can't go it alone either.

i saw another one too where the senate has 60 something votes (so democrats there too), close to vetoing/blocking anything Obama does with iran that the senate doesn't not approve of.




KenDckey -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 5:26:08 AM)

I take it as Americans having a long history of being vocal and allowing their freedom of speech. Of course some consider that treason, but I consider it the first amendment.




joether -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 7:30:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
I take it as Americans having a long history of being vocal and allowing their freedom of speech. Of course some consider that treason, but I consider it the first amendment.


You dont have a first amendment right when visiting another country and being the 'voice' of the United States of America without authorization. More importantly with nations that are adversaries to the nation! Likewise, you do not have a 1st amendment right when making deals with foreign governments on behalf of the US Government itself (unless your authorized).




slvemike4u -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 8:55:26 AM)

Anyone notice what Mitch McConnell's up to where Obama's supposed war on coal is concerned ?
How does that not undercut any chance the Executive branch has for convincing foreign nations that we can,in good faith,sign a global climate change treaty.
Seems the goal of the Republican led Congress is to make this particular President ineffectual in dealing with foreign policy.
How that isn't a hijacking of executive privilege is beyond me .




KenDckey -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 9:05:28 AM)

Mike they have to have the votes to go that far. And then it is constitutional because that is where they gained the authority.




slvemike4u -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 9:15:13 AM)

That's debatable Ken.....McConnell's position is that the rules being put in place,under the authority of the Clean Air Act are unconstitutional.
But he's not fighting it on that basis.....he is reaching out to the Governors and encouraging them to not comply with Federal standards.
He is encouraging a path wherein the Executive branch appears powerless over the individual states on this matter....so again I will ask how does this administration negotiate climate change treaties with foreign gov.'s if this works.
McConnell swore job #1 was making sure this President was a one term affair,the American people went the other way,so making the remaining time in office irrelevant is the next step ?
If the Executive can not negotiate agreements with foreign gov.'s in good faith ,where does that power fall ?




KenDckey -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 10:29:59 AM)

It was my understanding that from reading the letter that they were making sure information about the lifetime of the agreement can change according to which administration is in power. That isn't a negotiation it is informational.

Look at the reversal on Isreal. I cite that as my evidence.




slvemike4u -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 10:51:49 AM)

So agreements made with foreign powers aren't worth the paper they are written on ?
What the Republican leadership and the signer's of that letter are telling the world is that the partisan divide that has long paralyzed domestic issues has now extended to outside our own borders.
The whole idea of "politics" stopping at the Nations shores just went out the window ?
Makes it awful tough to do business with the rest of the world,makes us look like a banana republic that can not adhere to negotiated settlements [8|]




KenDckey -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 11:00:37 AM)

That I won't argue. But I wouldn't blame it solely on the Republicans. I would blame it on the totality of partisanship within our government.




bounty44 -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 11:09:58 AM)

mike maybe you missed my posting this:

i just recently came across an article (maybe i can find it again) that explained how a similar letter had been drafted to the president, by the house, with 300 and something signatures on it. so, although on a quieter more subtle scale, the democrats are aware Obama can't go it alone either.

i saw another one too where the senate has 60 something votes (so democrats there too), close to vetoing/blocking anything Obama does with iran that the senate doesn't not approve of.


so...its democrats too




MrRodgers -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 11:42:35 AM)

So I am going to ask for honest hindsight.

It would have been ok for the hawks say every dem hawk in the senate to publish an open letter to the Soviets and Europeans making sure they knew that any START neg. between RR and Gorby could be reversed in the next admin. and formally so before a senate vote or voted down soon as presented to the senate ?

Any reply referring to the idea that START treaties had to be and were voted on after the fact...doesn't hold water. I am talking about just as now, such a letter...during negotiations.

Any and every repub would have been all over such an act with every bit if vitriol imaginable.





DaddySatyr -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 12:05:03 PM)


I don't know if I'd have been "okay" with that but I kind of had to be "okay" with John Kerry, meeting with members of a government with which we were at war, in Paris, while he was an active reserve officer in the U.S. Navy.

I had to be okay with the horse-faced Pelosi, talking to Assad while our troops were dying because he was allowing jihadists to use his country as a thoroughfare. Pelosi was specifically asked by the then president to NOT meet with Assad, but she felt it was her patriotic duty.

Beam ... your eye ... ya know?



Michael




slvemike4u -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 12:35:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

mike maybe you missed my posting this:

i just recently came across an article (maybe i can find it again) that explained how a similar letter had been drafted to the president, by the house, with 300 and something signatures on it. so, although on a quieter more subtle scale, the democrats are aware Obama can't go it alone either.

i saw another one too where the senate has 60 something votes (so democrats there too), close to vetoing/blocking anything Obama does with iran that the senate doesn't not approve of.


so...its democrats too

Bounty you just can't compare a letter written to the President to one written to foreign governments .
One's an exercise in responsibility of office the other is an usurpation of the Executive's powers...and undercuts the ability of said executive to exercise those powers.




bounty44 -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 1:53:05 PM)

there is no "usurpation" occurring...the letter was educational.

as to "undercutting"---I would prefer to look at it as keeping Obama in check, or perhaps, in his place if you will.

here's the appropriate mention from the constitution:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

my understanding of the situation is, as ive mentioned, Obama's trying to go it alone, which doesn't fly.




BamaD -> RE: American dealings with foreign govts. (3/20/2015 1:59:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
I take it as Americans having a long history of being vocal and allowing their freedom of speech. Of course some consider that treason, but I consider it the first amendment.


You dont have a first amendment right when visiting another country and being the 'voice' of the United States of America without authorization. More importantly with nations that are adversaries to the nation! Likewise, you do not have a 1st amendment right when making deals with foreign governments on behalf of the US Government itself (unless your authorized).

So Obama sending people to try to influence the Israeli election was totally out of bounds?
PS the letter was not delivered by the senators so they weren't in a foreign country.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875